End of Net Neutrality

[BrometheusBob.]

It doesnt work like that which is why net neutrality is so important. Net neutrality was what ensured a free and open Internet.

The providers will control all content and what is seen and isn't seen. A provider can completely block boxingscene if it wants to and force you to use their own sites.

And providers are not going to share content with one another. Depending on what provider you have will depend on what sites and services you'll be able to use.

Portugal already has this system it's a fcking nightmare. The only thing gutting net neutrality does is give the largest companies complete control over the Internet.

In Portugal if you want to use social networks, you hAve to buy a separate package for that and pay monthly. no, there is nothing good about this.

This case example is extremely important.

Some republicans will rush to defend this decision (god knows why), but in practice it leads to discomforting outcomes.

Even if it does not cause ISPs to crush out competition by forcing on users it's own services (or making access to it's own services faster or cheaper), it will still lead to things like this

This is an actual page (google translated) from a wireless carrier in Portugal. You have to pay extra depending on the kinds of services you'd like to use (separate from subscription costs from those companies).

And like you and others have mentioned, all those companies would have to do is leave out certain services all together or charge more for them to stifle competition in a particular space. It's hypothetical, but it's an uncomfortable power to leave in the hands of relatively few internet service providers.

Arguably the scarier thing is that a company could decide it doesn't like certain sites (ie types of content on that site, political views expressed by those on that site etc) and shut off or slow down access to it. Not that that's an inevitability, but it's now in their hands to be able to make decisions like this.

[BoxingTech718]

Have there been any shut down specifically because of Net Neutrality?

Net neutrality wasn’t to shut down companies.
It was to prevent misuse and abuse from providers slowing down certain Sevices and sites.
It was in reaction to certain providers doing just that.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Net neutrality wasn’t to shut down companies.
It was to prevent misuse and abuse from providers slowing down certain Sevices and sites.
It was in reaction to certain providers doing just that.

In getting rid of it, the companies will still have to publicly state when they speed up or slow down the services for certain users. This will also open the market up which is badly needed.

[BoxingTech718]

In getting rid of it, the companies will still have to publicly state when they speed up or slow down the services for certain users. This will also open the market up which is badly needed.

No they won’t when they get rid of Net neutrality there will be no oversight.
Who will they be staying it too?
The government will no longer be enforcing content equality
Lol you’re incredibly naive if you think ISPs will release this information to the Consumer on there own volition

[JimRaynor]

Jim provide and article that points out that this is the likely outcome since it is so obvious.

What do you need an article telling you the same exact stuff I'm telling you for?

Because he bigger websites and App developers will pay to get the most traffic via search, features, etc.

And they can also pay to get rid of the smaller guys.

This isn't rocket science. Why don't you actually read some articles before running your mouth for once.

This battle is between internet providers and large companies who consume a ****load of bandwidth without paying anymore than a tiny company would.

Google, Amazon, Netflix, Facebook, etc... are all strongly for net neutrality because that means no matter how much bandwidth they consume they won't have to pay for it anymore than say the JC Penny's website which doesn't generate 1 percent of the same traffic.

Comcast, ATT, Verizon, are strongly against net neutrality because by law they have to charge everyone equally no matter how much bandwidth they consume.

If net neutrality is abolished then big corporations are going to have to cut deals with the internet providers on what sort bandwidth price they're going to get.


If that were to happen then there is no way of knowing exactly how it would affect the general population. People could end up paying less for internet if they don't consume a ****load of data, or they could pick their poison on what apps or services they prefer. It could look like sling of internet or remain unchanged.

I also could see corporations like Google or Amazon eventually becoming their own internet providers, and if you ask me the more competition the better.

[Motorcity Cobra]

Less regulation will mean more internet providers and more choices and as always with competition in place, lower prices.

There's a bigger picture.

Try looking at it.

The people in this thread are such morons, if what you say comes to fruition where Verizon only makes you use Yahoo, or another provider only allows google, then guess what, a third and fourth provider will appear and provide you with everything once again! It's called capitalism. Remember when phone companies used to charge you for going over data, minutes, and text messages? Well, one of them decided to offer all of that an unlimited rate, for a cheaper price, and then every single one of them fell in line.

Where are these other ISP's coming from? You ever wonder why you only have one choice for cable in your city? (Two choices in some cities but that's rare) These cable companies sign franchise agreements with these cities and no other company can come in and build infrastructure. And unlike the Ma Bells, no other company can lease cable infrastructure. Where are these other providers gonna come from?

[Motorcity Cobra]

Before NN, the majority of Americans had 4-6 choices on ISPs, stupid ass.

When was this? Are you talking dial up? You certainly aren't talking broadband.

[BoxingTech718]

Where are these other ISP's coming from? You ever wonder why you only have one choice for cable in your city? (Two choices in some cities but that's rare) These cable companies sign franchise agreements with these cities and no other company can come in and build infrastructure. And unlike the Ma Bells, no other company can lease cable infrastructure. Where are these other providers gonna come from?

I want to know what start up has the money to put up millions of dollars of lines and poles?

[JimRaynor]

Where are these other ISP's coming from? You ever wonder why you only have one choice for cable in your city? (Two choices in some cities but that's rare) These cable companies sign franchise agreements with these cities and no other company can come in and build infrastructure. And unlike the Ma Bells, no other company can lease cable infrastructure. Where are these other providers gonna come from?

Google, Amazon, Facebook are all strongly against net neutrality. You don't see them in the future pumping a lot of money to become cable providers themselves if it means cheaper bandwidth?

[JimRaynor]

This case example is extremely important.

Some republicans will rush to defend this decision (god knows why), but in practice it leads to discomforting outcomes.

Even if it does not cause ISPs to crush out competition by forcing on users it's own services (or making access to it's own services faster or cheaper), it will still lead to things like this

This is an actual page (google translated) from a wireless carrier in Portugal. You have to pay extra depending on the kinds of services you'd like to use (separate from subscription costs from those companies).

And like you and others have mentioned, all those companies would have to do is leave out certain services all together or charge more for them to stifle competition in a particular space. It's hypothetical, but it's an uncomfortable power to leave in the hands of relatively few internet service providers.

Arguably the scarier thing is that a company could decide it doesn't like certain sites (ie types of content on that site, political views expressed by those on that site etc) and shut off or slow down access to it. Not that that's an inevitability, but it's now in their hands to be able to make decisions like this.

Meo, portugals internet provider charges you a base 30€
And then


Add all that up and it's a total of 55€.

Pretty much what I pay for my internet now.

So if you wants to remove $15 worth of **** because you don't use it then it would save you money.

People are over reacting to this, I don't think nothing significant is going to change.

You'll be offered packages a la carte and then offered a grand daddy package of everything included. Which eventually will probably lead to everything being included once other companies decide they want to go into the internet business.