Timeline for Net Neutrality and Stack Overflow / Stack Exchange
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 13, 2017 at 14:52 | comment | added | Matt | @zero298 that's an anti-trust issue, not a net neutrality one. | |
| S Jul 12, 2017 at 14:43 | history | suggested | zero298 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Should really be section headings instead of lists
|
| Jul 12, 2017 at 14:37 | comment | added | zero298 | "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. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 14:34 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 12, 2017 at 14:43 | |||||
| Jul 2, 2017 at 18:11 | comment | added | Peter David Carter | Great deleted answer. | |
| Jul 1, 2017 at 2:45 | comment | added | Peter Turner | 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? | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 17:03 | comment | added | Heretic Monkey | 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. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 16:06 | comment | added | Servy | 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. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 16:04 | comment | added | Servy | 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. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 16:01 | comment | added | Servy |
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.
|
|
| Jun 30, 2017 at 15:56 | comment | added | Servy |
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.
|
|
| Jun 30, 2017 at 15:45 | comment | added | kuhl | +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. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 15:05 | history | answered | Matt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |