Net neutrality

I am more or less a technological illiterate. Can someone redpill me on this issue? Good or bad?

Other urls found in this thread:

theopeninter.net
youtube.com/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso
arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-million-us-homes-have-only-one-25mbps-internet-provider-or-none-at-all/
huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/atts-fiber-optic-construc_b_8801558.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
broadbandnow.com/New-York/New-York
broadbandnow.com/Georgia/Atlanta?zip=30303
broadbandnow.com/Florida/Miami?zip=33132
broadbandnow.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Imagine it's 1939 and you're Poland. Big Tech is the Germans coming from the West. But even if you stop them Net Neutrality are the Soviets to your East. You lose either way but it's so much more fun to spite the Soviets.

As someone who doesn't own a cable company, you're in favor of net neutrality.

Big tech is Net Neutrality though.

The 2015 legislation called "net neutrality" had nothing to do with net neutrality, it was a power grab by the Obama administration which amounted to hundreds of millions in subsidies for companies like Google and Netflix.

It reclassified internet providers as Title II common carriers, moving them from the Federal Trade Commission's jurisdiction to that of the Federal Communications Commission, which made those companies immune to anti-Trust efforts on the part of the FTC.

Net neutrality itself is a good thing, but Obama's 2015, Soros-sponsored, Google-sponsored, Netflix-sponsored, Reddit-sponsored rules were not about Net Neutrality; that's just the name they slapped on it so you idiots would support it.

It is a very good thing that they are gone--you'll see why in a couple days.

>which made those companies immune to anti-Trust efforts on the part of the FTC
What has FTC done at all to combat ISP monopolies that you currently do have?

In addition to all of that, Title II is not net neutrality because it does not address the net, but merely part of the net. Edge providers like Google do not have any such rules to follow. And we can see how little Google actually cares about net neutrality with how they conduct themselves with YouTube. Amazon won't make deals with Google on selling their hardware, so Google blocks traffic from Amazon devices to the YouTube website. These huge tech companies do all sorts of things like that to further their political backers' and shareholders' agendas.

Free and open internet my ass.

>"We've been trying to reach agreement with Amazon to give consumers access to each other's products and services," a Google spokesperson said in a statement. "But Amazon doesn't carry Google products like Chromecast and Google Home, doesn't make Prime Video available for Google Cast users, and last month stopped selling some of Nest's latest products. Given this lack of reciprocity, we are no longer supporting YouTube on Echo Show and FireTV. We hope we can reach an agreement to resolve these issues soon."
Amazon is just as much art fault here, of not more.

And most importantly, you're confusing things here. Google is not doing this as an ISP - Google is doing this as an owner of the site Youtube, and net neutrality, even if implemented as a proper law, can not prevent Google from doing this.

>'no longer supporting' != forcefully banning all amazon device users from accessing our site
No, one company is refusing to carry Google's products in their store, and the other is punishing said company's customers in a petty, childish temper tantrum. They are literally using their size to attempt to 'force' another company to do something it otherwise wouldn't do. This is in no way different from if an ISP were to try to 'block' Netflix in order to get them to make a deal with them.

And if you had an IQ above 56, you would understand that it /is/ net neutrality. It's just not Google's Net Neutrality(TM) political scheme. But it is an issue for all of the same reasons. Competition is being stifled because consumers do not have the freedom to express their consumer preferences.

Net Neutrality is a set of rules for ISPs. This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. If you would like to argue otherwise, please define to me what Net Neutrality is in your eyes and how that definition applies to actions of Google.

And Google has no responsibility to allow everyone to access Youtube equally. You seem to think that once someone made a site and opened it to public, there is something that prevents him from taking access to it away for certain people or groups of people, but you're mistaken, there's no such thing.

The US doesn't have a monopoly with ISPs. Only in very rural areas do major ISPs have almost all of the customers and even then, if there are litterally no options, there is still little stopping another company from creating competition other than lack of ROI, which is only going to be the case if the current ISP is offering a low enough price for the service that creating competition would not be cost effective.

In largers areas there is actually a large market of ISPs. My brother in the San Francisco area just recently got an offer from a Northern California only company, offering 1,000mbit down and upstream fiber to the home, for $40 per month.

Stop listening to the propaganda

It's a fight between internet giants and phone companies. Now the internet giants may be assholes, but the phone companies have ALWAYS been assholes.

shut internet down completely it's cancer!

I've seen plenty of people claiming otherwise, and major ISPs setting download limits are a strong indication that this is the case.

People claiming something != that thing is true. The Net Neutrality debate has been one of the strongest examples of successful political propaganda in a while and so many people just take it at face value.

If you want to know, just pick major US cities and search for internet plans online and get an idea of what the prices are like.

Also, capped downloads are not great but they happen all over the place. It doesn't mean there's no competition.

Any definition of net neutrality seeks to create a free and open internet must include more than ISPs. If you go to the net neutrality website and see their main points about what a free and open internet is, you'll see how easy it is for non-ISP tech companies to violate those points in the same manner ISPs can. I screen capped and annotated in pic related.

>capped downloads are not great but they happen all over the place. It doesn't mean there's no competition.
Respectfully disagree.

>If you want to know, just pick major US cities and search for internet plans online and get an idea of what the prices are like.
I can pick the place where I live in Moscow, Russia and there will be tens of offers in online databases for ISPs. The reality is only one ISP is offering a dedicated wire, and another is offering a connection through telephone lines, and all other are not allowed to operate in my area, despite being listed. The same situation, according to reports of anons, is happening in USA. ISPs are listed as offering services, but when you try to sign up, they say they can't.

>People claiming something != that thing is true.
But if it's an aussie saying something about USA ISPs, then I gotta believe it, right?

Do you have any definition of what net neutrtality is from a reputable source to post? I am not interested in how you interpret some concepts listed on some site.

The internet is one of the greatest of human inventions, rivalled only by the steam engine and agriculture.
It has barely begun to have it's effects on society.
If you think that past ten years have been strange in terms of culture, day to day life, and politics, you will be easily confounded by the changes that are to come.
The internet will change society to be nearly unrecognisable in the next 20 years, hell, in the past 20 it already has.
There is no telling where we will end up at the end, but for some reason I can't help but feel optimistic about the whole process.
There are countless ways that the world can go from this point but when it finally settles, looking back with the new rules the world will then run by it all will have seemed so obvious it could have only gone the one way.
I don't get the people that say our time is boring, that there isn't any big advancements happening, when the world is changing right under their noses to something incomprehensible today.
We may not be cowboys, we may not be astronauts, but that doesn't mean we don't have a frontier to explore.

Mobile data does not fall under Title II classification/net neutrality rules, but you don't hear companies like Google and Netflix complaining about that. Probably because mobile carriers give preferential treatment to data going to services like Netflix and YouTube. Data used for watching things like Netflix doesn't count towards your cap on most mobile plans, which encourages you to use Netflix instead of a possible new competitor, so Netflix is okay with that. And if ISPs were trying to give Netflix and YouTube users faster access, they'd probably want Title II repealed too.

It's two big industries trying to out-jew each other. Don't be naive enough to think they want 'neutrality' applied fairly and evenly.

Literally the 4 points in my previous pic as sourced from here: theopeninter.net
Ignore their 'Call your Congressman' definition of net neutrality and skip to the 'Why is this important?'. Any form of net neutrality that serves to protect the ideas in those 4 points MUST include domain registrars, certificate signers, and edge providers as well, or it isn't actually protecting those 4 points.

Big tech companies want ISPs to have to play by those constraints, but don't want to have to follow them themselves.

>ignore the definition
No. I will not ignore it. The site you linked to literally says:
>Net neutrality, sometimes called Internet Freedom, is the idea that your internet service provider (ISP) should treat all websites the same.
And your screenshot is in the "why is this important" category.

The definition of NN that includes something more than ISPs is something you made up. You are lying to people when you use your definition in context where they expect to see the properly defined NN as a set to rules for ISPs.

>It's two big industries trying to out-jew each other. Don't be naive enough to think they want 'neutrality' applied fairly and evenly.
Fuck off, user, I never said jewing is not happening, all I did was ask you to not misuse well defined terms.

>it was a power grab by the Obama administration

Title 2 under Tom Wheeler gave up all positive power as it relates to enforcement for ISPs. It only punished ISPs that were screwing over their customers. There has been no single case of such abuse of power

>which amounted to hundreds of millions in subsidies for companies like Google and Netflix.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Net Neutrality has literally nothing to do with how google.com and youtube.com serves their content. You are free to use alternatives, and despite what T_D has lied to you about: Small Sites love Title 2 NN as it stops the big tech companies (FB, google) from completely locking them out in closed door meetings with the ISPs.

>The US doesn't have a monopoly with ISPs


This is hilarious coming from an AUS cunt, as the ISPs tried out their tactics there before importing them State-Side

youtube.com/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso

>From their site: Without an open internet, big corporations would have tight control over how we access information.
Do you agree that this is the stated goal of net neutrality? Yes or no?

If yes, then you have no choice than to admit that net neutrality /fundementally/ must apply to non-ISPs as well.

If no, then what is net neutrality's goal? It is to prevent the 'wrong' big corporations from having tight control over how we access information. Companies like Google are allowed to have tight control over how we access information, but ISPs aren't because that would jeopardize their control. In other words, its something we don't want.

Net neutrality must actually provide neutrality or it's a stupid name. If you want to talk about U.S. specific legislation on restricting ISPs that's currently being debated and possibly repealed, stop calling it net neutrality and start calling it what it is. Title II classification of ISPs.

Just listen to JRE again, user.

>If yes, then you have no choice than to admit that net neutrality /fundementally/ must apply to non-ISPs as well.


Wrong, the principle applies to NETWORK neutrality. The principle has been in place even before the internet and you are now intentionally obfuscating what it is about.

NETWORK neutrality is the natural way that a network works when connected. No NETWORK RESOURCE discriminates against the data flow from any other resource. Which resource you access is completely irrelevant. Whether its donkey-porn via duckduckgo or cuck porn via google.

You're talking to me about interpreting goals, but I clearly said to you before that I am not interested in that. I don't want to hear your reasoning, not until you agree to stop misusing a well defined term. It is very simple - talk about things you want to talk about, but do not use wrong terms. Choice of words matters. There is a certain percentage of people ready to follow the NN definition as it exists. There is also a certain, different, percentage of people ready to follow the NN definition that you are offering. When you use the word NN and attach your meaning to it, you're misleading the reader, getting him to believe that you're talking about the idea that the fist listed percentage of people follow, which is a lie.

Listen, you fucking retard. If that's what you believe net neutrality is, then the 'if yes' predicate is false, therefore the part following the word 'then' does not apply.

Learn to fucking read you colossally retarded meme-flagging nigger.

>If that's what you believe net neutrality is


There is no matter of belief. That is what NN is, that is what it has been before the internet existed and what it will be. Go try to gas-light someone without a network engineering degree and position.

There is a good reason why every board has long supported NN until nu-pol decided it was poison (right around the time that the fake replies started popping up on the FCC's site, what a coincidence).

I'm from America and have lived in both countries.

Your argument is a childish temper tantrum sattire that has no substation information. Can you please provide me some evidence that the US doesn't have a large range of ISPs to choose from in major cities at reasonable prices? In case you didn't realise, monopoly means everything controlled by one entity. Not, there are very large competitors within a given market.

arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-million-us-homes-have-only-one-25mbps-internet-provider-or-none-at-all/

Oh and your argument precludes arrangements where ISPs draw up monopolistic contracts with entities such as apartment buildings where tenants cannot use any of the competing ISPs in the area, not to even speak of the Oligopolies across the nation (which don't count because you say so, even though they completely stomp out any choice or competition in any real sense)

Al tried and tested in the Outback first before coming here.

No necessarily, monopoly can exist with multiple entities if they agree to not compete with each other.

>Respectfully disagree.
That's nice.

>I can pick the place where I live in Moscow... The same situation, according to reports of anons
Again, you haven't provided any real information. You've provided an anecdote about your own country and then provided a second-hand reference to another series of anecdotes.

>But if it's an aussie saying...
I'm American. I didn't have the problems you describe when I was living there. You can confirm what services are available in your area and you will be able to sign up, the only thing barring that being if your particular building isn't wired for the service you are trying to buy, which is a process that costs a lot of money.

That is an Oligopoly, which was the subject of the video I posted. The AUS cunt knows this so he is hiding behind the technical definition of a monopoly.

>Again, you haven't provided any real information. You've provided an anecdote about your own country and then provided a second-hand reference to another series of anecdotes.
It is hilarious that you honestly think that this is a good response to my post, because an anecdote is everything that you have provided so far just as well.

Ah, you're right.

Title II for isp's basically makes it harder to compete / expand unless you are already a giant isp. Also gives govt control through licensing. Though open unthrottled internet is good that's not what nn is really about. Sure the isp's were against it because they don't want more regulation or stifled profits but title II actually ends up increasing monopolies in the long run. Think of other utilities, how many options can you choose from for your water heat or power chances are only 1.

Net neutrality is Orwellian newspeak.
When you talk about ''net neutrality'' you're actually talking about a bill Obama passed secretly without letting the public look at it right before he left the office in 2015.
The bill did not exist before 2015, yet people are pushing the idea that repealing it will cause all sorts of boogeymen to materialize.
All the big companies are pushing for the bill all the while telling you that big companies want net neutrality repealed.

Whenever you read anything about net neutrality, it's all filled with leftists autistically screeching about it and claiming it's the end of the internet.
It doesn't take a tech expert to see what's going on.

I have difficulty believing that large ISPs were against a law that was making them stronger in the long run.

>Title II for isp's basically makes it harder to compete / expand unless you are already a giant isp


Literally nothing in Title 2 as enforced under Tom Wheeler does this and there is no data that proves it.

Point of Order: Despite the T_D talking points being squawked here, Wheeler specifically stripped out the parts of Title 2 that were onerous to ISPs and all of the notable ISPs have spent more on infrastructure spending since 2015.

>Net neutrality is Orwellian newspeak.

Nope, its a networking principle that predates the internet.


Its also amusing that you use that term as the other side (i.e. the shills) are trying to push historical revisionism that NN wasn't one of the few issues that all of Sup Forums agreed upon was a good thing.

As the site has had a regular banner supporting NN enforcement and no group outside of fringe AnCaps has made any sort of rebuttal: It comes off distinctly as: "We are at war with East-Asia, we have ALWAYS BEEN at war with East-Asia"

I believe it is possible to distinguish between a general concept of net neutrality and Obama's law in a discussion.

You're making an assertion, the burden of proof is upon you. You're trying to say that people on an anonymous by nature board, whom you've referred to as 'anons' have reported that there isn't choice of internet in the US. As another 'user' I can provide an alternative anecdote of equal weight, or you can demonstrate that my experience is abnormal.

Obviously not
Case in point These people are completely braindead.
You could call a piece of shit net neutrality and these people will eat it up.
The concept of net neutrality isn't even relevant to this topic. That's just a newspeak Orwellian name.

I already addressed your bullshit claim for him, ball is in your court there cunt.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm stating my beliefs. I hard a lot of claims contradicting each other, including those like yours, and I formed an opinion out of that.

Learn how to use colons.

So I am brain-dead for correctly citing what NN as a principle is and stating facts about how the Title 2 enforcement worked to support it?

If you say so.

Hey, do me a favor: Why don't you cite the gross abuses of the Wheeler FCC as it relates to swinging Title 2 as a hammer to stop innovation

I have a strange feeling we are going to be here a long time waiting...

Go learn some less shitty talking points.

Companies are generally more shortsided then we give them credit for. They will go against anything that affects profits and stock prices in the next quarter let alone for the next several years. A CEO isn't generally going to be in charge for an extremely long period and wants to raise stock prices and get rich while he's in charge. If stock prices go down too much as well he probably is out of the job.

How much fiber has been layed since 2015? Title II regulations stifle up and comers with regulation about what % of people have to be covered in an area for you to offer service there and in several other ways.

>''Goodbye internet, goodbye Sup Forums''
>4 years ago
>internet is still here
>Sup Forums is still here
when will they ever learn

>Go learn some less shitty talking points.
I don't know what you mean by that. Go fuck yourself.

These people are psychics
Look how true their predictions are woah

>he believes government intervention in the free market works

WHY DIDN'T WE LISTEN
NOW I CAN'T ACCESS Sup Forums
WTF MAN

i can see at least two full stops and one exclamation mark missing from these poorly presented paragraphs.

>How much fiber has been layed since 2015?Title II regulations stifle up and comers with regulation

huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/atts-fiber-optic-construc_b_8801558.html

Oh, and AT&T was one of the loudest claiming their infrastructure spending would grind to a halt in 2014 if Title 2 went through.

He has literally ran out of talking points and has gone full personal attacks. Typical.

US ISPs haven't been a free-market since at least 1996 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

The rule change has not yet gone into effect. You would know that if you knew shit about US Politics.

Why did we not stand up?

Hey Schlomo, that was my first post!

Its irrelevant. It doesn't matter if there is or isn't. It doesnt mean anything

You're right. If only the mods had stickied this, damn.

Ah, so you have gone full-retard and are just dumping your talking-points folder without paying attention to its contents.

If you actually read what you are posting you would note the 2013 in the corner. Title 2 enforcement of NN was very specifically put in place because of the fuckery of ISPs circa 2010-2014.

You, literally, just disproved your own argument. Kudos

If you're not trying to discuss anything, then why would you write about it in a discussion on a discussion forum? Perhaps you should have preceeded your information with a disclaimer: "these are my personal beliefs and I have no interest in discussing or debating them."

Settle down donkey. That article is not specific enough to really address what I said, which is that if you look for coverage in major US cities, you will have a variety of choices and prices will be reasonable.

The US is enormous and has over half the population of Europe. It also has an extremely large rural popluation, estimates atm are about 64 million people living in a non-urban area. According to your article, ~58% of the US population, or 186,000,000 meet the baseline of having at least 2 providers that offer 25mbps internet. That's 3.1 Megabytes per second. An Mp3 song in one or two seconds, or a decent rip of an HD movie in 26 minutes. Not exactly atrocious standards. It also doesn't address the issue of cost either. Never in my time in the US was I pay particularly high rates for internet, certainly lower than in Australia and with better reliability.

>NETWORK neutrality is the natural way that a network works when connected. No NETWORK RESOURCE discriminates against the data flow from any other resource. Which resource you access is completely irrelevant. Whether its donkey-porn via duckduckgo or cuck porn via google.

>It's another episode of retarded technically illiterate Dumbocrat that never heard of things like QoS and wants to look savvy in support of a government regulated lefty oligarchy.

Good thing we have the archives. Just look how wrong the people who oppose net neutrality are. LOL!
They must feel pretty silly now!

You would almost have a point if the 1996 Telecom Act didn't mandate that said ISPs would properly cover the expanse of the US and gave them what has been clocked as 400bn + to do so in direct regulation fees.

Oh and you still dodged my point about ISP exclusivity contracts in Metro areas.

>Some AnCap moron trying to rebut me with 'LUL QoS' when I literally have one of my routers running QoS a foot away

QoS has to be applied on-top of the natural way a network behaves. Its the entire reason that QoS exists. When you QoS someone else's data in a giant multi-node network you are breaking NN you moron.

>huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/atts-fiber-optic-construc_b_8801558.html


>
8) AT&T’s Broadband U-Verse Service Is a Copper-to-the-Home Service.

>U-Verse is not based on fiber optics; the only fiber being installed doesn’t go to customers’ homes or offices but to a box within the neighborhood.

Huffgas as usual spinning propaganda.

"This wasn't a fiber outlay it was COPPER"

Sure a CEV vault and DSLAMS are all running on copper underground. Most moronic shit ever.

Sure who needs a core fiber outlay to support all that, I bet its a copper core! lol

I hate leftists so much, especially when the rank and file Bernout bloggers try to talk tech.

Just stick to calling everything racist. You're much more qualified for that job.

I have interest in discussing and debating them; I have no interest in convincing anyone else to believe them. We had a discussion, didn't we?

>the natural way a network behaves.


What is this? Network Astrology It's an artificial construct. It's not water running down rocks in a stream. Are you functionally retarded?

>THE NATURAL WAY A NETWORK BEHAVES

Just stop there Annoystradamus. NN shills aren't great at seeing the future, only imagining the sky is falling.

You'd almost have a point AnCap faggot if the ISPs themselves weren't claiming that Fiber to the SLAM is the same as copper to the home when it comes to their obligations under the 1996 Telecom Act


TFW an AnCap thinks he's got you but inadvertently cites another case of the major ISPs being lying cunts

Why are so many patriots against the Patriot Act?
Are they retarded?

>What is this? Network Astrology It's an artificial construct.

Please inform the class about how if you attach a switch in-line with your router how it naturally throttles Netflix traffic. Dis gone b gud.

I absolutely agree that that money has been wasted and is more or less just another funnel for politcal money laundering. That said, the article doesn't address any claim that ISPs do not cover the expanse of the US.

According to information that is in the article, only less than 9% of households have no wired access to broadband (25mbp/s + dl speed). More to the point, the article specifically states that they have ignored satellite internet coverage, with a note about "satellite services, which are available nearly everywhere in the US." They do say that they "typically suffer from high latency and low data caps" but they don't expand on the claim in any useable detail.

>Oh and you still dodged my point about ISP exclusivity contracts in Metro areas.
I don't have anything to say about that because I don't know anything about it

Its great and all for alot of things, but I also believe humans shouldnt have access to everything the world has to offer in their pockets. People dont appericate music like they used to, movies getting shittier, art is a meme etc
Humans overdo internet and theres nothing "real" left in the world.

>According to information that is in the article, only less than 9% of households have no wired access to broadband (25mbp/s + dl speed). More to the point, the article specifically states that they have ignored satellite internet coverage, with a note about "satellite services, which are available nearly everywhere in the US."


Its almost as though the 1996 Telecom Act and further Rural Internet Acts have mandated that number to be much lower than it is and specifically note Fiber internet to those Rural Homes and the ISPs have been paid handsomely for it.

>I don't have anything to say about that because I don't know anything about it

Yes, you quite specifically lack a good amount of information that would make your contribution to this discussion worth note.

Its an end-run around having to have a full-on monopoly and I have seen it in numerous major cities such as NYC, Miami and Atlanta.

There was never any "real" in the first place.

>Its almost as though the 1996 Telecom Act and further Rural Internet Acts...
Like I said, corrupt government, wasting money. The real issue is not that those homes don't have fiber internet, but that anyone was paid under the guise of making that happen. It's a retardedly expensive process and there is literally no logical reason why a government or a company should invest millions of dollars in infrastructure to bring absolute state of the art internet to five homes four miles off the interstate in Montana.
You're clearly shifting goalposts to make this an argument about the government and it's hand in corruptly blowing money.

>Yes, you quite specifically lack...
Funny how when I was a hardline liberal, I never had this issue of empty rheteric, soaked with disdain and condescension coming from intelligent conservatives. Yet almost every single serious discussion I have with someone who is liberal nowadays follows this exact same style manual.

>I have seen it in numerous major cities such as NYC, Miami and Atlanta
broadbandnow.com/New-York/New-York 13 Residential ISPs, 54 business ISPs

broadbandnow.com/Georgia/Atlanta?zip=30303 - 6 residential, 20 business

broadbandnow.com/Florida/Miami?zip=33132 - 8 residential, 16 business

But now you're going to tell me that all of these ISPs are all actually the same ISP and again avoid the point about there actually being competition and the prices being more or less reasonable.

Believe it or not, no one would reasonably expect a competitive market of ISPs to be flooding with dozens, or hundreds of options. Setting up an ISP requires billions of dollars of capital and so what a surprise it is that ISPs tend to be large, powerful companies.

It's late here in Melbourne now. I bid you goodwill and that you sleep well my friends and hope we've all taken something good from this discussion. I know I've definitely learned some things I didn't know before so I'm glad.

Do you think the government going 'you aren't allowed to throttle data depending on where it's coming from and what it consists of' to ISPs is a good idea? If so you support it, if not you don't.

broadbandnow.com/

I invite any fellow burger to put their address in here and see just how much ~free market competition~ there is. The majority of us have at most two viable high speed options that aren't slow as shit, expensive as shit, or both.

>legislation

This is why your government gets away with all it does, and why your country is such a confused morass. You people do not even understand how your government works.

>all I did was ask you to not misuse well defined terms
the well defined terms on that website VS the well defined laws that were on the books WERE extremely different. NN is dead now and no longer a law tho. These businesses are free to mutate their definition of the term all that they like until they can get it to become a law again but in the end NN was a government grab into private business and Obama sold the old "net" off.

I welcome you to post a link to a definition by any at least somewhat reputable source that defines the concept of Net Neutrality as something more than a set of rules for ISPs.

It's technological climate change. It's a bullshit phrase on par with "assault weapons". It's used by politicians to instill fear in the populace so that they can enact regulations or legislation that cracks down on our rights even more.

please read the actual law, not what the admin/mods at /r/ spew on their /darling/ subreddit stickies.
what you should understand is that, yes, what you are saying makes a lot of sense and is very well said -- but what you are saying also has absolutely nothing to do with the actual purpose of NN -- you were lied to by the government.
The left almost had complete control of all information distributed in the USA, except, Hillary was not elected and the machine was shut down. this has a lot to do with why all these media groups are chimping out on Trump -- his election literally crashed their party.

Net Neutraility repelled:

>Less people (poor people)/kids/idiots with access
>Less traffic on forum boards etc, therefore smaller discussions/ a less overall impact when spreading info online

Mixed thoughts. The 'optimal stance' depends on how you use the internet I suppose

Has not happened, will not happen. There is no evidence to support this claims.

Night mate.