The Problem With Obama's Net Neutrality
Here's a layman's explanation for Obama's Net Neutrality: internet providers can't charge differently for specific websites and online content. Also, providers can't deliberately slow down or intentionally block access either. Providers were not allowed to discriminate against internet users. Sounds like regulations designed to keep wayward providers in line. So, without the Federal Communications Commission regulations over them, what can we expect now?
Within minutes of the announcement of the FCC's repeal of Obama's Net Neutrality, social media exploded with dire consequences. We'll be facing censorship. We'll be forced to pay higher prices. Only the wealthiest will have access—and could dictate to the masses their propaganda.
But hold on, I've been an active user of the internet since the 1990's—way before Net Neutrality regulations. Since then, internet service has only improved in terms of access. There were no burdensome government regulations forcing internet providers to provide—business competition handled all of that. Those who offered the best, fastest product got the business. The Obama led Net Neutrality wasn't needed. Free market competition, privacy and freedom were best. It still is.
Net Neutrality was designed to prevent a problem before there was one. Now, with its repeal, the Federal Trade Commission will be policing violations rather than creating an ever-burdensome regulatory environment.
One thing is certain, the "free" internet is providing the best place for the Net Neutrality supporters to rally their troops. Therefore, the battle for internet control continues.
