12 thoughts on “New Dusty Johnson for Congress Video – Net Neutrality & House Committee Assignments”

  3. So in other words, he wants net neutrality without regulation. Hey, I got a better idea. How about running a zoo on the honor system…..

  4. What net neutrality advocates won’t tell you is that the only companies actually guilty of blocking, slowing down, or charging more for certain content are big net neutrality advocates like Netflix (NFLX) — which charges more if you want streaming HD — and Google (GOOGL) — which charges $10 a month for the better YouTube Red — and social media companies — which have been repeatedly shown to hamstring conservative content.

    Google, Twitter, and Facebook were not subject to the rules of ‘net neutrality’. They were not, nor would they have been, classified as common carriers.

    Google, Twitter, and Facebook were in favor of ‘net neutrality’ because it allowed them to push some of their costs onto the ISP’s. There was nothing in ‘net neutrality’ that would have prevented them from censoring their content.

    So yes, the internet won’t be the same after Obama’s net neutrality rules disappear. It will be far better.

    1. William, that is the most ignorant assessment I have ever heard of net neutrality. Netflix, Google, Twitter, and Facebook are content providers. Google is a service provider in a few areas but they are the exception. You can choose to utilize them as you wish. Paying for premium subscriptions to their services is to avoid ads or other revenue generating portions of their services. They have every right to block their content because you don’t need to use their services. Internet is no longer something people can do without and it is a requirement to function in modern society.

      Net Neutrality is about internet service providers charging more for content that they don’t even provide. When I pay for the internet, what I do with that bandwidth is none of their business.

      “There was nothing in ‘net neutrality’ that would have prevented them from censoring their content.”

      Keywords, “their content”. ISP’s are considering blocking content that isn’t even theirs on the basis that they provide the transmission. There are no costs being pushed off onto isp’s by content providers. In fact, citizens have given billions to isp’s with nothing to show for it. We subsidize their infrastructure all the time. We built the internet with our tax dollars.

      Once net neutrality is gone, isps are going to provide packages for access to sites that they don’t even control, much like cable does today. This is going to make entry into the business much harder and will allow the big players to simply co-opt ideas that begin to make traction. They will force out any competition before it ever gets a hold on the market. It is going to kill innovation online all because ISPs don’t want people to make money off the service they provide. This would be no different than current utilities charging more to consumers who are making more money off of how they use their utility.

      Throw in the fact that most of the market is almost entirely monopolized, there won’t be a way to shop around for internet. We are going to end up paying more for less.

    2. Netflix and Facbook aren’t ISPs. Mediacom, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, et. al. are the ones who provide access to those services. We’re already seeing the damage – AT&T is allowing ‘Sponsored Data’ that allows companies to pay AT&T to deliver content without counting against your cap. Let’s say Amazon forks over the cash to AT&T for free video data and Netflix can’t afford it. Whose content is going to be seen on AT&T? AT&T and Comcast are already being paid by Netflix to not have their content throttled – that’s one reason they can charge more for HD (also you failed to mention that higher tier Netflix services allow more simultaneous streams – 1 for Basic, 2 for HD, 4 for 4K). Ajit Pai is human garbage. Time for Title II common carrier classification.

  5. Net neutrality as a concept sounds good, it’s about “fairness.” Net neutrality as a practice is problematic. It’s more political than it is technical. Public opinion is very strongly aligned with the principle of Net Neutrality, and by slowing down websites, ISPs could lose users. That is a very real deterrent.

    First and foremost, networks do need to manage their network; QoS (Quality of Service) practices and technology has existed for a long time, basically since inception of computer networking. Bandwidth is finite — it’s not unlimited. It’s not scarce either, it’s fairly plentiful, but there is a supply and demand market that should be recognized.

    Asking any government entity to take responsibility for infrastructure is a recipe for disaster.

    More government = more regulation, less competition, less innovation and, ultimately, higher costs for everyone. Capital investment by ISPs may slow down if Net Neutrality access rules are implemented and make ToS – Type of Service / Class of Service and QoS (Quality of Service) packet routing illegal or equal weighted (zero). In turn, congestion will be the result in some saturated internet user markets with more demand than there is supply of access to national internet gateways.

    Even if you believe that under the current environment there is nothing bad about net neutrality, it is only good, do you stop and worry about the government taking internet regulations too far?

    “Net neutrality” type of regulation might only be beneficial when ISPs enjoy state-backed monopoly privileges by means of government regulatory barriers to new entrants. Otherwise, net neutrality would arise naturally from the free market without government regulation as long as bandwidth is not scarce.

    1. LOL. The only problem with your argument (funny – it’s the same one Mr. Human Garbage put forth), is that the free market would require competition. For those of us out here on the prairie, the cost of entry and the sparse population don’t make enough financial sense for there to be more than one or two broadband providers. No competition = lousy service and higher prices.

      And since you feel the government is disasterous at managing infrastructure, I assume you only take private roads to work and the store, right?

  6. I have no idea who you’re referring to as “Mr. Human Garbage,” but don’t believe it helps your argument.

    FWIW, I have only one ISP available in my area and my local roads aren’t paved, but if I wasn’t satisfied with that, I wouldn’t live where I do. Life is full of trade-offs.

    1. Ajit Pai is human garbage. I don’t say that to “help” any argument – I say it because he is human garbage. Besides, what help do I need when you shoot yourself in the foot with only one ISP available to you? As far as trade-offs go, I sincerely hope we can trade off Human Garbage and his enabling Orange Buffoon at the voting booth.

      1. I should have said “local” ISP, as everyone has access to satellite providers, such a Dish, Hughes, etc. The point is, the market has always provided a solution, if not as many options as I might have if I made different choices. The choices are there.

        Again, if you have to use terms like “Human Garbage” to make your point, your point’s not worth considering.

        1. I don’t need it to make a point. I could just say FCC Chairman, or Mr. Pai, or whatever. I say ‘Human Garbage’ because there’s really no other term for an industry plant constructed explicitly and to-order for Verizon to maximize their profits at the expense of the American people he is sworn to serve.

Comments are closed.