A Quote by Marvin Ammori

Net neutrality sounds wonky and technical but is actually quite simple. It would keep the Internet as it has always been - cable and phone companies would remain mere gateways to all sites, rather than gatekeepers determining where users can go and what innovators can offer them.
'Network neutrality' is sometimes called 'Internet freedom' or 'Internet openness' and is a legal principle that would forbid cable and phone companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast from blocking some websites or providing special priority to others.
If we didn't have Net neutrality, carriers could do things like penalize companies that use a lot of bandwidth or create high-speed lanes and charge Internet companies extra fees to send their stuff over them. That would give an advantage to big companies and make life harder for startups.
Any 'network neutrality' rule should be designed to forbid phone or cable companies from controlling the Internet.
You will never ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any time. That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.
Evidence and economic theory suggests that control of the Internet by the phone and cable companies would lead to blocking of competing technologies.
Net neutrality is the idea that Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all traffic that goes through their networks the same, not offering preferential treatment to some websites over others or charging some companies arbitrary fees to reach users.
Net neutrality is the principle forbidding huge telecommunications companies from treating users, websites, or apps differently - say, by letting some work better than others over their pipes.
Without network neutrality, cable and phone companies could stifle innovation.
While repealing net neutrality rules grabs headlines... net neutrality started as a consumer issue but soon became a stepping stone to impose vastly more common carrier regulation on broadband companies.
I moved recently and I moved my cable and Internet and phone service which was all provided by Time Warner Cable. And you know, I made a plan with them where they'd come sometime between summer solstice and winter solstice and I would wait.
Without net neutrality protections, the Internet would no longer be a free and open ecosystem for innovation.
Everything is relative. Is the Internet fast? Not for most people. Is it always on? Yes, for cable modem and DSL users but that represents a tiny percentage of users.
It's only natural that the heavy users help contribute to the investment to keep the Web healthy. That is the most important concept of net neutrality.
Ultimately, the current argument is "not having net neutrality will hurt innovation," and you can make that argument, but I would rather make the public good argument, which is not just about innovation or nurturing new companies that will add to the nation's GDP, it's actually about creating a democratic public sphere.
The net neutrality game is to make everybody the same so that there's no difference and the prices are the same and if these Millennials got their way nothing would cost anything. But it's classic. This is a great illustration. Net neutrality is being stood upside down which is good because it's pro-competition, it offers customers options.
After President Obama announced his support for net neutrality yesterday, Texas Senator Ted Cruz tweeted that 'Net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet.' While Ted Cruz continues to be the Taylor Swift of not getting over Obamacare.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!