Please explain why the repeal of internet neutrality...

I want to address each of your responses' points, so my BBCode quoting may be off, but hopefully it's readable.



Sure, those costs of doing business will most likely be passed along to the consumer, however, those content providers have literally been rolling in the dough (slang for money) since NN was enacted. In fact, the amount of money invested into infrastructure and technologies to facilitate the delivery of those products has stagnated since it's enactment. The companies knew they didn't have to put R&D resources into something, since the .gov was controlling the pipeline. This has been discussed, and is a cause for concern among those in the tech industry (more on that later). As for increasing the charges at the end user for specific services, no one will pay $10 extra a month for Twitter, it's simply not worth it. Now, will someone pay $5-10 more a month for Netflix, which provides a service? Maybe, maybe not. But, the low income family is not entitled to a video streaming service, period. There seems to be an awful lot of conflation on what people are entitled to and what they earn or procure. If NN raises costs so I can't afford Netflix, so be it. I'm not upper middle class anymore, since our household is single income now (wife isn't working her old full time job since the kids were born), so money is tight. Netflix isn't the only game in town either, I don't even have to subscribe to a streaming service, I could get cable TV or satellite (DirecTV) or no TV at all. I mean, what is the purpose of the internet for generally all users? Information sharing? Are you making the assertion that ISPs (at client and provider level) will throttle activity at the textual level (informational sites) across the board? I'm curious, how you arrive at this conclusion, considering that prior to NN being enacted, all these products and services (and demands) existed, yet none of these fears were even remotely realized before.



I'm going to address the educational/experiential accusation first, since it's the most glaring issue, and it's the one that really irks me. I wasn't using the question as a petard with which to roast your viewpoint, I was simply asking how you arrived at the conclusions you did and educational/experiential background helps give me a frame of reference as to the how you arrive at that conclusion. Example/analogy, someone without any experience in vehicle maintenance or lifecycle sustainment attempts to relate subjects to me about a subject matter that I'm intimately familiar with, but lacks contextual relationships with which to intelligently converse on the topic at the detailed or expert level. Which is why I specifically asked "I'm not sure how much you really know about", as a means of giving you the open ground to explain YOUR point of view with background, so we could find common ground to have a conversation on the topic. I then proceeded to give my bonafides, so YOU could then frame YOUR responses with the knowledge of MY background. This is how informed discussion goes on topics at a detail level, otherwise, one or both parties have to rely on layman terms and converse at a 10,000 foot level. That is the ONLY reason that question/statement about "I'm not sure how much you really know about" came about. Regardless, while we may both have experience and education at the same level, you are not a continual user of the network backbone here in the US, and that is a key delineator in our conversation. At a theoretical level, we can talk detail, but in application level, you don't have that experience. The analogy would be, we can both talk about driving, as they are common to both our environments/countries, but I would not presume to tell you that traffic circles (which are more common across the pond) as if I were an authority on the subject, simply because I drove in Ireland once upon a time or because I drive here in the US all the time. Does that make sense?

With that said, there is no guarantee at ISPs of latency, throughput, yes. I go through the process of shopping a new ISP every 6 months, or as things require. "Things" required that I do so this past week, because of some personal issues/challenges that required me shopping for a new ISP. ISPs will offer the packages as follows (or something similar): 10mb d/l, 50mb d/l, 300mb d/l. None of them claim a latency, nor do they ever really achieve those maxes, but the capability exists. Here's another funny thing for you, before NN was removed, all those plans except the "big dog" had a footnote in the services part that specifically spell out that "in times of great traffic, we reserve the right to balance the network through traffic throttling and priority". Oh, and that's not just limited to the cable or DSL or satellite ISP that's providing me home internet, but also on the cellular side. I shopped for various products and plans in November (that's before NN was dropped) and that's exactly what Verizon told me, and they have it on their website. There's 2 packages, "Freedom" and "Freedom Plus", want to guess what the difference is? In case you need help, one gets network priority on ALL traffic and the other still receives the traffic, but it's not prioritized. Want to know what happens if I paid for just the "Freedom" plan but got none of my traffic? I'd find another provider, or go without. Having a cell phone (or an internet line in my home) is NOT a fundamental right.

Make no bones about it, it's the providers that build the highways that the information travels on, and they can and do treat it like a toll road. You can ride on the free lanes, but there's going to be congestion and maybe the speed limit is lower (55 mph). You can use your EZ-Pass (or FastPass) and ride on the HOV side that has less traffic and roll at 70 mph, but it will cost you. Oh, and that's also an allegory to actual highways/interstates here in the US, specifically here in VA. Oh, I should also mention that my tax dollars went to build that HOV express lanes, but also some funding from private entities/investors, and those rates they charge? They change based on the traffic on those express lanes. More traffic? That 10 mile stretch might be $35.00 dollars. No/low traffic? It's $2.65. Now imagine it was ONLY private companies that built that road/express lane? They can, and should be able to, charge whatever they want. It's their product, that you're using. If it's not worth buying, people won't pay for it, the market will adjust accordingly.



You conflated my examples, not sure if on purpose or accidentally. Gas stations charge different rates for different qualities of gas. Here in the US, I have between 2 and 6 choices at the pump when I fill up my car/truck. I can get the ethanol free gas (old school stuff), 87 octane, 89 octane, 91 octane (some places offer 92 or 93 octane), etc. The gas station IS effectively charging me more for a better product of gas that I put in my vehicle. However, the highways are paid for from my taxes, and the internet backbone is NOT. Restaurants charge more, based on the quality of their food. You are missing the example, in that the analogy would be with Restaurant Neutrality, every restaurant charges the same, whether you're getting a 26oz Ribeye or a McDouble.