If there is one thing people have been constantly clamoring about lately is that their net is not neutral enough.
Well, government control urged on by liberals to the rescue!
For a while, liberals have been complaining, “This net! It keeps taking sides!” Oddly enough, someone listened to them, and now the FCC is going to make the net neutral or something using the magic of government control. Which is good because everyone is always like, “Too much stuff is happening on the internet! We need government to slow it down. And make it neutral or something.” Lucky day!
So what’s going to happen? I don’t really know. What’s my opinion on it? I’m not really sure I’m supposed to have one with the new regulations on neutrality. Still, what could go wrong with more government interference on the internet? We all like long lines at the DMV because it gives us time to think, so even better to have long lines at Google or something. So let’s look forward to our more regulated, slower, and neutral future. Everything should be sunshine and gravy from here on!
Libs strike again. Instead of encouraging private providers to offer faster internet service by competition in the free market, libs are convinced that this law will ensure everyone’s internet will be slow, even rich people…and so they are happy.
Incidentally, why did an ad for Keith Olbermann’s book just appear on my screen in the top right corner? Did someone use the word douche in a post?
Slow, stupid, and liberal is no way to go through life, internet, son.
Should be called “Net Neuterality”
Net Neutrality is just some slime that rose to the top of the liberal cesspool. That is to say there are 1.8 minus 3 federal workers (3 is the number of conservatives in federal government) who are at work 24/7/364 thwarting the US Constitution.
Another way to put it is that Net Neutrality isn’t the tip of the iceberg. It is the tip of the Arctic Ice Shelf in terms of what liberals in the federal government are now doing. In fact, Net Neutrality serves a useful role as liberal misdirection (see Houdini). We see Net Neutrality while 1.8 million minus 3 federal employees are working tiny pickaxes at the Constitution.
Oh, and 500,000 more federal workers (see Obama) means 500,000 more tiny pickaxes.
its amazing how the thought of someone having faster internet than someone else makes these folks upset. I pay for a service based on the connection and reliability of the line, if faster speeds come with that, hooray. I know what my minimum speed should be and am happy with that. Some folks pay less for a connection that is a fraction of what I get, apparently they are happy with that.
Why is it that these folks need to come in and make sure it is all equal. ie. everyone gets low to crappy connections?
Sounds a lot like income redistribution, instead of some folks having a lot, some having some, and others not having as much; we all get to have little to none so we are all the same. How does this help anyone?
I offer proof of his misdirection skills. Do an “obama federal workers -pay” search, and you find wonderful gems, such as this one about Obama ordering new breastfeeding policies for federal workers.
Obama freezes wages after years of massive increases. Boo hoo. Then, he goes to work (when not golfing) expanding their benefits.
Burma,
I often wonder if it’s sheer luck that we have the greatest military in the world, perhaps in the history of the world.
We really shouldn’t be surprised to see the other branches of the federal government attacking the military. Competent people in essentially the same organization make the incompetent people feel bad about themselves!
Also, while I’m thinking of the military, are “regular” federal workers required to swear an oath in defense of the U.S. Constitution?
Interwebs are da debil.
\Regular federal workers swear an oath of alliegance to Obama.
Net neutrality can pry my IMAO from my cold dead keyboard.
All you need to know about net neutrality: democRats are for it, hence it must be bad.
It is designed to force the broadband providers to subsidize NetFlix and things like that. A lot of download applications require huge amounts of bandwidth. The pipe owners want to be able to charge people based on usage. The businesses (google, netflix) that rely on being able to supply lots of data for free don’t want their business models destroyed by something as nasty as actually having people pay the costs of the services. NetFlix is concerned that if you have to pay them and Verizon to live stream a movie, you won’t pay them. Verizon is saying if everyone watches NetFlix at the same time, we would have to spend billions more to make sure it would work. Happy to do it, if people pay for it.
The net neutrality thing comes up because they don’t want Verizon favoring their FiOS service over NetFlix.
Mostly, its BS and a way for libs to start censoring all sorts of fun things, or slowing down access to them, which will ultimately have the same effect. Google was for net neutrality until they struck a deal with Verizon to pay for some of the costs to deliver their broadband services to customers.
If libs are for it and google is for it, then it is bad.
Net Neutering? What does that mean? If you use the net you get your nads removed?
We don’t need no liberal education. We don’t need no net control. HEY! LIBERALS! Leave the net alone!