Was driving just behind a young deer sprinting beside my truck hoping she would not jump out... Passed me gracefully doing 35 mph. Awesome.
I know the subject of Thursday's FCC hearing in South Minneapolis, which I was unable to attend, was actually "Net Neutrality" but, like most terms thrown about by politicians and bureaucrats these days, it seems intended more to smoke over a smoldering scheme than to firelight the truth. If it is like my paycheck, where gross pay is what I have earned and net pay is what the government lets me keep of it, no thanks. As for "neutrality" when it comes to the Internet, government is the aggressor here, attacking a chaotic but completely peaceable (and essentially defenseless) Internet, so "neutrality" is not something government can, should or ought force, except on THEMSELVES.
Had it been a fair hearing, which I understand it definitely was not, it would have come down to a debate between those who distrust Big Business and those who distrust Big Government. I would therefore have liked an answer to one and only one question: Who is more likely to insure the best and widest access to the Internet: unelected, politically-swayed bureaucrats who get paid the same regardless of what happens to the businesses and industry they regulate, or the businesses that survive and thrive only by providing an Internet service that more and more customers will freely choose to buy?
