It would protect net neutrality and preserve the way you've been using the internet.My question is, what will treating them as utilities do as far as unforeseen consequences and why is that the best possible solution?
You need to educate yourself on what net neutrality even is.
It's a rough analogy. I guess we'll have to also assume identical size of the box, and identical shipping routes? (i.e FedEx would certainly charge you more to ship from Minnesota to France than Minnesota to Iowa) There's also not a very good analogy for data transfer rates. "I paid for 2-day air mail, so they can't slow down the Android phone to 5-day shipping just because Google didn't pay them enough"
One of you will end up here next!
Early voting in Georgia. On the 20th of October this old Goldwater conservative voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton by casting my vote for Gary Johnson. Neither Trump or Clinton belong within a million miles of the Oval Office.
It's like you're not even sure why you joined the discussion. I argued that Ted Cruz's position of net neutrality being Obamacare for the internet is false. Why? Because net neutrality has nothing to do with overregulation. If anything, it has to do with lack of regulation by both the monopolies in existence AND the government. Now, what the government wants to do in regards to guaranteeing net neutrality has nothing to do with what net neutrality means and why opposition to it is wrong. Do you get that? Good.Wont treating them as utilities make them subject to the same type of regulations as other utilities? And again, why is this the best solution to the problem you seem to think exists?
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK