Community Chat

[Tadaki]

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@Tadaki wrote:

I think it gives service providers the freedom to vary speeds depending on the web site.  So if you're a corporation, you will get the best speed and if you're a small business, good luck.  This is just a scenario and I'm not aware that anyone has done it.  

Also, I think net neutrality treated the internet as a public utility, which allowed greater access for rural communities.  

These things are just from what I remember, so can't point to an article.  

---

@Tadaki

Oh, yes, I did read that also!  Sounds like favoritism to me.

---

@Noel7 I'm guessing the business will be paying for it, and of course the bigger companies will have the money to do it.  

[SahmIam]

Net Neutrality provides the provider not to blatantly disallow you to go to places but slows down and or charge you to pay more to access sites they prefer (for whatever reason).

Example: Verizon and ATT are two providers. Bob has a site and John has a site. Verizon really likes Bob's site because Bob gives Verizon a great deal on advertising but John doesn't. So, Verizon makes sure that getting to Bobs' site is easy and fast but Johns' site is slow and a nightmare to get to. But YOU want to get to Johns' site because you like it better (for whatever reason). Since Verizon is your carrier, you have 4 options- 

1) Don't visit Johns' site and go to Bobs' instead

2) Go to Johns's site but deal with slowness, issues, etc accessing it.

3) PAY the extra fees that Verizon will charge so you can access Johns' site with no issue

4) Dump Verizon and sign up with ATT.

But wait! What if ATT isn't an option where you live for whatever reason; maybe you need cable just to watch TV and use the internet and Verizon has the contract in your area...now what? Well, then you choose options 1-3. THAT is the problem.

This helps ONE group: Business. It hurts those who can't afford the extra fees, can't choose other providers. 

This change is NOT a good thing, folks.

[Noel7]

Thanks for the clarity and explanation @SahmIam

The change sounds just awful

[tansy]

---

@Noel7 wrote:

Thanks for the clarity and explanation @SahmIam

The change sounds just awful

---

While everyone was focused on the circus, the end of net neutrality was slipped through.  

[Noel7]

I think it's important we all know what the changes will mean.  As I admitted, I would like to know a lot more about it.

[Marp]

---

@OfCourse wrote:

Net neutrality has only been in effect for a couple of years, so I'm not sure its repeal will have the effect some expect.  I don't think this will affect the consumers in terms of them having to pay for access.  It has something to do with the speed with which various players on the Internet operate.  I can't say which system is best, but I do know none of this was happening before net neutrality went into effect.  This is an extremely complex situation, and I have yet to read a news report that explains it clearly.

---

The net neutrality rules were instituted as a preventative measure to assure that providers would keep access to the entire Internet neutral and available to everyone at the same level.

Prior to net neutrality providers were voluntarily keeping everyone and every place on an even footing but at any time could have started showing preference to certain places, slow or deny access to others, partner with businesses to direct traffic to their sites, etc.--all the things that net neutrality rules prevented providers from doing.

[Noel7]

Thank you @Marp

[OfCourse]

@Marp  You've explained one of my central questions, that being why this was never a problem before and why we have seen nothing different with and without net neutrality.  Thanks for that.  I don't have an opinion on this issue because I do not understand it in depth.  At least now I understand why I've seen no difference before NN, during NN, and when NN was repealed.

[Marienkaefer2]

---

@tansy wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

Thanks for the clarity and explanation @SahmIam

The change sounds just awful

---

While everyone was focused on the circus, the end of net neutrality was slipped through.  

---

@tansy

Doesn't Congress still have to vote on it?  It has been overridden a couple of times in the past. 

Also, there are several lawsuits in the works, including one from our state.

I don't think it's going to take effect, if it does at all, for awhile.

[OfCourse]

@Marienkaefer2  Net neutrality was instituted by the FCC a few years ago.  I believe it was similarly repealed by the FCC recently.  It never involved Congress, to my knowledge.