[–] green_man 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

The main idea behind net neutrality is internet service providers (ISPs) should simply provide access to the internet. Current networking technology allows for something called quality of service, QOS for short, which essentially allows for prioritization of network traffic. Currently ISPs are not allowed to implement any sort of QOS due to rules implemented under Obama's FCC.

In theory ISPs could prioritize traffic to certain web sites and limit, throttle, or block traffic to others. For example your ISP might throttle your connection to Voat making it load slowly while allowing traffic to reddit to flow freely. The other component to this is monetary. Without net neutrality, since your ISP has the ability to apply these traffic shaping measures, they can also go to you and say "If you want Voat to load quickly pay an extra $5," or they could even say "If you want access to Voat you need to pay us $5 a month." This works both ways. Your local ISP can go to Voat and say "Pay us money otherwise we're going to throttle or block all traffic to your site." This type of behavior is why net neutrality advocates want to block.

The other side of the argument is the infrastructure belongs to the ISPs, therefore they should be allowed to dictate what happens on their infrastructure. Why should the government be allowed to dictate how ISPs use their infrastructure? Cable and satellite companies restrict content based on how much consumers pay, why can't ISPs?

This dichotomy is where the problem arises. Should ISPs be allowed to dictate what happens on their networks, or should government come in and start controlling things?

But wait, there's more! Major ISPs took a bunch of government funds to build out their networks and mostly failed to deliver. In most markets there is a government mandated monopoly on ISPs as well. Many people like to say ISPs are a "Natural monopoly" but that's simply not the case. Without all of the governmental red tape local ISPs would be more prevalent, and with the advent of wireless technologies the barrier to entry into the ISP market has been significantly lowered. ISPs lobby governments at all levels to keep competition out. Just search "dark fiber" and be amazed at what has happened in the local ISP space.

Full disclosure, I support the idea of net neutrality. I believe it can and should be attained through increased market competition, not through top down government mandate. What net neutrality advocates typically want is for the government to step in and force it. The problem with this is the laws proposed typically allow for government intervention in terms of what traffic flows, for example the government could block Voat if they wanted to. The government has a terrible track record of doing anything fairly or correctly, which is why people are wary of net neutrality imposed by the government.


[–] Caveman_in_a_suit 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago 

From one perspective, your source of Internet connection should allow unrestricted flow of data from any source - the other position being that the connector can heavily favor certain data sources (such as Facebook/Twitter/CNN for example) and restrict or slow down other sources (such as Voat or gab.ai for example). In some situations, the connector may elect to completely block other data sources (say RT, or again perhaps Voat).

Essential to this is a co-concern about privacy. Right now, NN covers provisions where your Internet connection can only monitor your traffic if you agree to let them. Removal of NN, without other offsets, removes that restriction. Pro-NN firms really, really wants this, so they can generate money selling your data to advertisers and even restricting access or ads from competiting firms. For some, the privacy issue is paramount - a small group, but real concern here, if NN removal is really emplaced can we please take a step back an ensure privacy concerns are well-covered first? What happens for folks who have only one Internet connection service in their area, and they are told they can't use a VPN? Or that they have to use FB, Reddit, or MSN, and all competing services are only available at say 28k speeds? This does happen in some areas of the world. Not saying it would happen here - it might now - but given the behaviors of Verizon, Comcast, etc, it seems to me that many anti-NN proponents are pooh-poohing concernst that those firms will act in their customers' best interests when it comes to privacy. Is that wise, to just blow off these concerns? It tells me more about those folks' mentality than anything else...


[–] PM_ME_YOUR_BOOBS2 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Well said.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)



[–] Caveman_in_a_suit 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

From personal experience, go to Mindanao - get a GoSmart or PLDT SIM with 3 days of service - compare your speeds with their preferred ("data-shaped") services versus everything else, like WhatsApp. Try it in Hong Kong. Try it even in Taiwan. Those are a few of the places where I've experienced this personally. But dayum, FB is no problem!

Anecdotal? Sure... but also go to these places, or contact the people who live and work there. I have/did/do. It's just accepted as "what is" and what's offered. They don't have a choice. I come back home, and for now - thanks to NN, no problems on my end.

We seem hellbent for leather to get rid of what makes a big difference. Oh well --- all I can say, having seen the other side of things, is "you'll see!"

Costs me twice as much for "elevated" levels of service. I can pay it. I know most folks here in the US will balk when they see their favorite places & services slow way down, and their carrier or provider maintain decent speeds for privacy-compromised services. They'll migrate. Reddit will become popular again. Voat will become a desert. Welcome to no Net Neutrality.


[–] birds_sing 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The internet is a superhighway that connects your computer to all the other computers on the internet. When you click on a website a truck leaves your computer, drives to that website's computer, loads up on data, then drives back to your computer, and gives all that data to your computer to show you.

Right now we have Net Neutrality. That means that all the trucks on the internet travel at the same speed. So if your truck is travelling to and from Youtube, and my truck is travelling to and from Netflix, they travel at the same speed.

If Net Neutrality was taken away, then the internet companies can force your truck to travel way slower when it's getting data from certain websites. They may even stop your truck from going to whichever websites they choose.

Also, if Net Neutrality was taken away, then your internet company can block any news website that says Hillary Clinton is bad. Or they can make the website so slow that it's too frustrating to use, so then you only visit news websites that say how great she is.

Or your internet company may have their own version of Netfix. So they don't want you to use Netfix, they instead want you to pay for and use their version of it. Without Net Neutrality, they can make Netflix so slow it won't work for you. Then you will either have to switch and pay for their version, or pay extra for Netflix to work at your house.


[–] allogonist 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Imagine if the postal service decided that they didn't want to deliver absentee ballots to republican voters.

Now imagine if Comcast decided that they didn't want to deliver data packets to twitter from republican customers.

Both are currently illegal. Net neutrality is the name of the law which applies to the second scenario.


[–] Tallest_Skil 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Imagine if the government wasn’t owned by a foreign entity. Imagine if they actually enforced the laws on the books before the ✡net neutrality✡ law. Imagine if shills like you actually knew what the problem was.