How are we supposed to back something like a net neutrality bill when Congress has already ruled that the internet cannot belong to anyone? It is an impartial party, the only thing that laws for net neutrality would do is force everyone to move at the same pace instead of allowed those with the resources to branch out and move forward at an accelerated pace. It's hardly ever just a lone person that comes up with the next new "something" that usually comes out of some big companies R&D division, now there is a reason for that; they are able to afford the research and man hours to come up with it. Now all that these laws restricting the internet would accomplish would be to limit those companies' research to the same speed and effectiveness as someone who doesn't have a clue about anything sitting at home in their garage hoping to stumble upon the next great idea. Now tell me, when has life ever been entirely equal across the boards? There has always been someone with the upper hand; now you may call me crazy, but in a footrace, it seems to me that the guy with the advantage will usually produce the greatest results. Since new technologies never start out in the mainstream, why would we expect that to happen with the internet? There is always the elite few that grab hold of an idea, which then causes it to spead to the public. If we don't allow those few the opportunity to run with the idea, then it will never go mainstream, and in turn will hold back everyone from progressing forward.
A free market is supposed to help ensure that all persons involved, regardless of size or affluence, are able to have a fair and equal opportunity to involve themselves and present an alternative to the current supplier. Now suppose that state localities only permitted those companies that would benefit those with their hands in the cookie jar. How is that free market and fair competition? While some people, who have chosen to remain nameless, say that none of this is for the public good, I say to that, how is it not? How are having more choices for such widely used products such as high-speed internet and cable television not in the public interest? Who do you think uses these products? Sounds like someone is afraid of having their yearly bonus cut into because they would have to offer prices comparable to the competition. Corperations aren't always the bad guys, but the little guy's aren't always good, so don't give me that crap about lack of substance. The point here is, that competition breeds more opportunities for the consumer; which usually translates into lower pricing. Now tell me how that isn't in public interest. Reaching a franchising agreement would not only allow the "big guys" room to branch out, but it would also make it affordable for the little guys to have a fighting chance. Nobody expects the little companies to compete on the same level as comcast or verizon, but while those companies have the millions to pay for the outrageous fees to put out their product smaller companies would have no choice but to just fold in their hand and give up. The only people that wouldn't benefit are the one's who are in control right now.
There have been such vast and varied issues with "net neutrality" that amidst all of the hype and publicity, people have hastily joined sides and fought vehemently for something that they might not necessariliy stand for. People are so quick to assume the corperate giants are "the bad guys", sometimes we forget that the truth isn't always presented in an honest light. While sometimes we may make mistakes in our quick judgements, at least there are some times when we are afforded the opportunity to make our wrongs right. One such individual who hastily assumed these "net neturality" laws were a good thing was a collumnist for USATODAY, Andrew Kantor; who has just recently posted his acknowledgement that his hasty comments may have been made in error, this article is posted online at USATODAY.com. This just goes to show that just because you think something sounds like a good idea, it would be in your best interest to, in the words of Davey Crockett, "Be always sure you are right, then go ahead". This not only implies being sure of what you know, but also to not be afraid of actually taking the steps to accomplish what you know to be right.
