Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages PL
You said the above examples were violations of net neutrality. Is net neutrality already written into law?
If not then my follow up question is this: Isn't it true that you only get what you pay for? For example, I don't get all telephone services from my telephone company. I only get what I sign up for and pay for. And if the service is not satisfactory, I have the option of switching, and that will cause companies to compete, thereby bring them into reasonable alignment with acceptable service standards.
|
Net neutrality is not written into law, in what I have read and researched.
You are absolutely correct that you get what you pay for (and agreed to); if you are not satisfied with what you receive then you can change to another competitor. Competition creates better services as time goes on.
In the above four examples, Comcast and AOL changed their services which resulted in restricting consumers from accessing information and technology that was previously agreed to. Another result of their action was to reduce their competition by not allowing users to see or use the competitor services.
There are two (or more) sides to the both the benefits and the disadvantages of net neutrality. Everybody has a right to their own stance and their reasons why.
In this thread, I have been attempting to explain what net neutrality is and is not based on my experience. I am by far not an expert but I do know a little bit in this area.