Don't be fooled by these idiots who only see "government regulation". We regulate monopolies. It's necessary. Get over it.
That's not very Libertarian; monopolies only exist because of government...regulating "monopolies" usually only benefits the companies in the long run.
Net neutrality....there's several arguments for and against it....I'm a bit neutral, but lean towards enforcing it, just not through legislation.
against:
-it's the telcom's networks; why should the government be able to tell them what to do with it?
-it could lead to more regulation in the future, only it would be negative.
For:
-free speech/interaction/websites could be hindered...just not by the government, but the corporations themselves.
Realistically, it's not getting at the very heart of the problem....and that's the FCC. The FCC helps create the monopolies by granting telcom and cablecom's exclusive rights to an area....often when a competing telephone company comes in, they're blocked from doing so because "there's already an established company".
This, in itself sets up the telcoms and cablecoms as media monopolies...if the FCC didn't exist (or do what they do), then we'd have a lot more cable and telephone companies all competing against each other....and the companies that would block certain traffic would fall off the edge of the world very quickly.
I really cannot truly describe how much I detest the FCC; even before I had Libertarian ideals, I wished they would be abolished, simply because of the amount of problems they've created and enforced.
So, net neutrality, for? Against?
I generally lean towards "against" and abolishing the FCC in the process.
as for if I wanted it to be enforced, then it should be handled by the court-system, and not through legislation.
), but I was confused by the term Internet neutrality. I read the description of it and decided to vote 'no' to internet neutrality.
