Battle for the Net! Protect Net Neutrality!

[Taciturn]

I appreciate the patience here (sarcasm).  I had misunderstood some things about Net Neutrality.  

I thought the complaint was that companies could pay a little bit (sarcasm, I mean a lot) extra to have their site be faster.  For instance, Tumblr and Citigroup both have websites.  
Citigroup pays so that while you're visiting their website on your home computer it runs quickly.  More quickly, in fact, than Tumblr, which cannot afford to pay for this speed boost.  So your speed during the visit to each site is different.  

The way you're making it sound is that if they notice you've been to Google Fiber's website, they cut your speed permanently as penance?

You should try actually reading my post
Then if you had a decent amount of intelligence you'd understand this is the exact opposite

Jeez Headcrab, could you calm down?  I don't have a stick up my ass because other people are allowed to think differently.

[Ad Bot]

[Headcrab Zombie]

I thought the complaint was that companies could pay a little bit (sarcasm, I mean a lot) extra to have their site be faster.  For instance, Tumblr and Citigroup both have websites.  
Citigroup pays so that while you're visiting their website on your home computer it runs quickly.  More quickly, in fact, than Tumblr, which cannot afford to pay for this speed boost.  So your speed during the visit to each site is different.  

It's not "Website: Hey ISP here's some money, make us faster"
It's "ISP: Hey website, give us money or we'll make you slower"
And it's already happened

The way you're making it sound is that if they notice you've been to Google Fiber's website, they cut your speed permanently as penance?

This hasn't happened yet, as I know of. But there is legally nothing to stop this.  And you can't 'do capitalism to it' because ISPs are a monopoly in many areas and you have no other choice.
Also, they don't need to. They have other ways of getting what they want

Jeez Headcrab, could you calm down?  I don't have a stick up my ass because other people are allowed to think differently.

Sorry I just hate when people say the same thing after you've refuted it

[Ipquarx]

It's not a permanent penalty for the customers internet speed, just a penalty for the internet speed to that specific website. They're picking and choosing which websites get to go at the speeds their customers actually pay for, and if a company (Netflix is a great example which has already had this happened, purportedly a 40% decrease in network speed to netflix) refuses to pay what is essentially a ransom fine then that website has throttled speeds permanently. This also means they have the right to refuse access to certain websites altogether, IE censorship, which is another terrible thing that internet companies should not be able to do.

This also allows them to completely snuff out any competition by either denying access to or severely throttling access to the website/service. So really, when it's said that it's regulation and equality, that's really all it is.

[Taciturn]

Thanks for educating me on the subject a little more.

I have other misgivings about it but they aren't Net Neutrality-oriented so much as government-oriented, but that's an argument for another time.

[Biostorm]

Oh look, it's the mandatory net neutrality thread that comes up every month.

/support

[otto-san]

Web locations being given extra priority is just as bad as them being de-prioritised.

[otto-san]

bumping to post this

FCC votes to protect the internet with Title II regulation

[Nal]

Good

[Rigel]

Does this mean we win?

[The Killer Cop #311]

its not over yet, comcast is still pretty loving mad and we gotta defend our territory apparently

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

[otto-san]

yeah and as the article said it's possible that it could be challenged in court so

it's a nice step but we're dealing with pretty powerful opposition

[Deve]

i remember adding this to my site a while ago and now it works out of the year iv'e had it
ok