Net Neutrality

Here is a good opinion article from Tom's Hardware, I don't think it's a political inspired piece, that goes thru net neutrality from a "hey it's not the best thing since ice cream point of view"

Net Neutrality Won't Save the Internet. Competition Will (https://www.tomsguide.com/us/why-us-internet-is-slow-and-expensive,news-26251.html)

(emphasis mine) The rest of the article is really good.

The problem I have with the whole "they haven't done this before so what means they will now" debate is that companies every day try new concepts to increase profit margins. Americans are going to eat up regardless of whether or not they like it, because the internet is as much a part of people's lives as eating lunch now.

The problem I have with the whole "they haven't done this before so what means they will now" debate is that companies every day try new concepts to increase profit margins. Americans are going to eat up regardless of whether or not they like it, because the internet is as much a part of people's lives as eating lunch now.

We didn't have net neutrality regulations until 2014, yet the internet grew pretty healthily all the while:

from the same article:
But in 2002, the FCC decided that broadband was a luxury, not a necessity, and classified it as an optional "information service" rather than as a "communication service" and a public utility. As a result, except in special cases, broadband providers were not obligated to open up their lines to competitors. The providers were only obligated to play by vague net-neutrality-ish rules.

The FCC did belatedly reclassify broadband as a communication service in 2015, but only because Verizon persuaded a judge to nullify the existing weak net-neutrality rules. (That reclassification is what the FCC now plans to reverse.) But the FCC still didn't force broadband providers to open up their lines; it mandated only that they not block any internet content.

Surprisingly, with a few exceptions, net-neutrality advocates have said little about the advantages of opening up broadband to free-market competition. It's the simplest and easiest way to make broadband cheaper and faster for consumers. The ISPs are probably happy that few U.S. customers have considered this issue and instead are worried about net neutrality.

Ok i'm lost as fuck, what in the world does all this mean??

Whatever it was, it's dead now.

Net Neutrality means that companies can't differentiate between different types of internet data for purposes of delivering them.

Consider a package sent from your house to your sister.
You can use UPS, Fedex, the Post Office.
Net Neutrality says they can't take that package look at it's size/weight/content to discriminate how it ships.
For physical packages that would be ridiculous because size weight content factor into shipping costs

But in the internet all data is just bits and bytes so the argument is that they all should be treated equal, or Neutral.

or another way to say it is:

If you are for Net Neutrality you say that it is irrelevant if the data is more packed ie video, or less packed, text, and irrelevant who sent it (netflix or the mom and pop website), and no data should have more or less cost and no data should have more or less priority.

If you are against it, you say that type and sender has relevance to how the data can be treated, and the ISP's can charge more/less or prioritize some data over others.

Whatever it was, it's dead now.

RIP Net Neutrality 2014-2017

Net Neutrality means that companies can't differentiate between different types of internet data for purposes of delivering them.

Consider a package sent from your house to your sister.
You can use UPS, Fedex, the Post Office.
Net Neutrality says they can't take that package look at it's size/weight/content to discriminate how it ships.
For physical packages that would be ridiculous because size weight content factor into shipping costs

But in the internet all data is just bits and bytes so the argument is that they all should be treated equal, or Neutral.

or another way to say it is:

If you are for Net Neutrality you say that it is irrelevant if the data is more packed ie video, or less packed, text, and irrelevant who sent it (netflix or the mom and pop website), and no data should have more or less cost and no data should have more or less priority.

If you are against it, you say that type and sender has relevance to how the data can be treated, and the ISP's can charge more/less or prioritize some data over others.

Which is why almost everyone is for net neutrality.

Right. I looked into this after reading this thread and I'm 100% against reversing this.

Which is why almost everyone is for net neutrality.

So, would you be ok if we had a monolithic phone system where there was no available options for better service?

Or if the US Postal system had the rights to all air mail packages, hence eliminating UPS, FedEx, DHS and other options.

The ability to charge different rates is a basic premise of what makes capitalism work, the net should not be exempt, and if it's not, then we will see better products.

So, would you be ok if we had a monolithic phone system where there was no available options for better service?

Or if the US Postal system had the rights to all air mail packages, hence eliminating UPS, FedEx, DHS and other options.

The ability to charge different rates is a basic premise of what makes capitalism work, the net should not be exempt, and if it's not, then we will see better products.

Or we won't, because it's already monopolized to where 3-4 companies control 95% of the infrastructure, and they won't intrude on other markets because they have handshake agreements with the other companies. And our gov't couldn't care less about monopolies, as long as they get theirs.

Meanwhile we get the shaft, much like we do with everything else. But we'll be alright, because we've grown used to living with the shaft.