(02-06-2017 09:53 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 09:05 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 08:58 AM)Niner National Wrote:  A big win for telecoms. A big loss for consumers. The internet is going to get a lot more expensive for everyone.

So allowing the telecoms to give away free stuff is bad for consumers. Got it.

No it allows them to prioritize data, which can favor their own services over competing services. Someday, they could tell georgia_tech_swagger that he has to pay an additional fee or they'll slow his website speed down. Website speed is an increasingly important component to how websites are ranked in search engine results because it is the most important factor in user experience. Google has studied this extensively and slow websites have considerably worse user metrics because people are impatient.

Comcast already did this with Netflix and other content providers. If the cost of delivering content goes up, the price to the consumer goes up.

Your ISP sells you an internet speed, but net neutrality essentially allows them to not give you the promised internet speed if the content provider also isn't paying to guarantee that speed. They're double dipping.

Since in many markets, ISPs hold a monopoly, or if you're lucky, a duopoly, there isn't competition. They are a utility and should be regulated as such to protect consumers and businesses from price gouging.

Youtube is own by Google, and Comcast wants to slow down or block Youtube and similar sites from their customers because it competes with their online streaming service. The Net Neutrality was put in place so that we can have equal access to those sites. Altice took over 70% in Suddenlink, and they wanted to bid on Time Warner (Parent Company of CNN, HBO, TNT, TBS and so forth.) Youtube would have been a competitor to Time Warner online streaming sites.