Net neutrality is pretty complicated. Most people don't understand it at all- and I don't pretend to have the firmest gasp on the issue.
When people say "net neutrality", as Wiki says, they're usually talking about the "
principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication".
In 2015 net neutrality
laws were passed. These laws have negative effects on smaller ISPs.
"Bowles, who also chairs the legislative committee for the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association and has testified before Congress on its behalf, believes Rucker and the other small ISPs that aren’t concerned with net neutrality are missing something. “There is a lack of education among a lot of the small [wireless internet service providers], and they believe that if they meet the bright-line rules, then they’ve met the requirements,” Bowles says, referring to the no blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization rules. “And they haven’t.”
Bowles points to a series of reporting requirements that force internet providers to disclose network performance, data caps, and other network statistics to the FCC. While doing that might seem as simple as clicking a few buttons on a computer, Bowles says that wireless ISPs estimated a cost of $40,000 per year to deal with these reports. Those costs would come from engineers, writers, and outside counsel, as well as software costs, according to congressional testimony she gave last year.
The FCC says net neutrality destroys small ISPs. So has it?
This is easy to grasp, and easy to fix. Smaller ISP's have been redefined to include companies with 250k customers, and have been absolved from these monitoring and reporting regulations, but only temporarily. This needs to be permanent.
I think the larger battle over the net neutrality principle is primarily a battle between ISPs (who everyone hates) and content providers like netflix and YouTube (who everyone loves). Also, I don't have a problem with ISP's favoring their own content, by "zero rating"- even though that's a violation of net neutrality. I don't have a problem with fast lanes either, assuming my internet speed doesn't drop below whatever I pay for.
Ultimately, I think most issues surrounding net neutrality can be addressed with more competition and government involvement is not necessary. However, increasing competition is usually ignored in all of this.
Read this:
Don’t Blame Big Cable. It’s Local Governments That Choke Broadband Competition
It would take A LOT for me to get behind strong government involvement in the internet. I'm not there.
So what's your view on this whole situation? You riding with your squad even if it means fukkin up your internet?
That said, this is the problem... when i was mod post like that by twism, cacmamba, or any other non echo chamber poster would of had 8 reports minimum and might of even ended in a bushing.
