Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

10
  • 6
    +1 While I don't agree with you on this topic, the question did ask for reasons against Net Neutrality and this is a well thought out answer. I'd encourage you to expand on it, I think it could help others see view points that differ from their own.
    – kuhl
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 15:45
  • 8
    The problem that Net Neutrality is trying to solve is ISP charging (or slowing/restricting) access to a given content provider. It is not about censorship Net neutrality is about both. It's not just about throttling of a particular entities content, but also about it being blocked entirely.
    – Servy
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 15:56
  • 10
    Saying that AT&T or Comcast should not charge for faster speeds or more data is like saying fast food and fine dining should cost the same. Your analogy doesn't hold, and it seems to stem from a lack of understanding of what's going on. What's happening is that you, as a person, pay $X for, say, 10 MBs of internet, but then your internet provider, on your end of the connection, only lets, say, 1 MBs of content come through from some company contrary to what you've paid for, and even if that companies servers are using an entirely different ISP.
    – Servy
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 16:01
  • 11
    The problem here is not that the ISP Netflix is paying to connect to the network is asking to charge them for the bandwidth they use; that has always been the case, still is the case, and isn't what people have a problem with. What happened was other ISPs, ISPs connecting the internet backbone to consumers of Netflix, would throttle the traffic if they detected it came from Netflix.
    – Servy
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 16:04
  • 9
    Also note that the regulations aren't capping profits, and they aren't mandating certain download speeds everywhere. What they are mandating is that traffic going through network needs to all be treated equally. You can't intentionally slow down certain traffic and not others when it's on the network. That doesn't inherently prevent ISPs from making a profit. Making it legal for them to discriminate against certain people or organizations is not essential for their ability to make money.
    – Servy
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 16:06
  • 6
    I assure you, Netflix and other content providers are paying for their bandwidth, even with the net neutrality rule currently in place. They have invested heavily in new compression algorithms &c to minimize their bandwidth usage. Thus, some company is already making money from Netflix's bandwidth usage. The pending rule change is saying that not only does Netflix have to pay for the bandwidth to the internet, and users' have to pay for connection to the internet, both of them might have to pay again to get Netflix. Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 17:03
  • 3
    How about breaking up the big ISP's? We know that a big ISP is no better at servimg up the Internet than a small one, so why do we even let them get so big? Commented Jul 1, 2017 at 2:45
  • Great deleted answer. Commented Jul 2, 2017 at 18:11
  • 3
    "You may not like the price but you don't mind paying for the service" I absolutely do mind. However, I have to use the internet. I have no other options for ISPs in my area so they get to gouge me.
    – zero298
    Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 14:37
  • 2
    @zero298 that's an anti-trust issue, not a net neutrality one.
    – Matt
    Commented Jul 13, 2017 at 14:52