Good for FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. Despite all the threats, protests, lamentations and lies he went forward with a vote on Net Neutrality. It has now been repealed. Let freedom ring.
I expect snowflakes will be kicking and screaming in mom and dad’s basement. They either don’t understand the concept of freedom or are more stupid than their masters degrees in Ancient Gallic Harp History studies shows.
This comparison by Jack Hellner at the American Thinker blog gives the best explanation and rebuttal I’ve seen. It may come in handy when you run into a frothing millennial.
Now that Net Neutrality has been repealed, the companies that build and maintain the infrastructure will be able to charge more to companies that demand more. What a horrible concept, basing prices on supply and demand!
It was inspiring that the net neutrality supporters were trying so hard to protect streaming companies like Netflix and Google from paying more for their increasing use and increasing demand that generates the need for more infrastructure and maintenance. Netflix only has a market value of $81 Billion and Google $730 Billion, so thank goodness consumer advocates are working so hard to protect them from paying more for their increasing share of the bandwidth.
The government takes tax dollars and builds lots of infrastructure, including toll roads. They charge vehicles based on their number of axles because bigger and heavier vehicles cause more damage. Semis, buses and campers are charged more than cars. Is that fair? Using the net neutrality concept, why should vehicles that demand more infrastructure maintenance be charged more? Why should poor or middle-class people with campers be charged more than rich people with Mercedes? Where are the consumer advocates demanding toll road neutrality?
Wealthy content providers like Facebook and Google charge less per hit for large advertisers than they do for companies that get fewer hits. Why should demand and supply or volume determine the price? Why should smaller, poorer companies be charged more per hit? We need a pay-per-click neutrality law.
Why do advertisers get charged more for advertising on Ellen, the View or the Today Show than on other lower rated shows? Consumers have to pay more for products because advertising costs so much. We need to have an advertising neutrality law on all media outlets to protect the consumers.
Why do ESPN and HBO charge more than C-SPAN for cable and satellite companies? Where are the people protesting to block this outrageous practice?
Why does Harvard charge more than other colleges when the books and subjects are the same? We need government to step in with college tuition neutrality.
Finally, we need to have the federal government establish a tax and fee neutrality law. Since government at all levels seems to raise taxes and fees on everything at will, we need to have the federal government step in to say that no city, state, or government body can have taxes higher than any other, no matter what their needs or demands are. That should work.
The sole reason for Obama and the Democrat FCC to dictatorially implement net neutrality rules was to get government control. That is the Democrats’ solution to everything. The internet has grown and provided excellent choices and competition for decades without net neutrality, so why did we need the new rule?
The U.S economy has grown to the greatest and most innovative economy in the World in 240 short years because of capitalism and free markets, not because of government control. The consumers have been well served, so why was there such a rush during Obama’s eight long years (it seemed like 100) to stack regulation on top of regulation as fast as his minions could?
The marketplace and competition will take care of the internet. Unless you get monopolies or collusion, the pricing and competition on the internet will take care of itself. If a company charges too much, other companies will step in. If not, the antitrust laws have not been repealed. I am more worried about Google, Facebook and Amazon, who seem to want to buy and control everything in sight.