Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This all started years ago when Comcast and some other ISP's started throttling or even interrupting P2P traffic. Granted most of that traffic was going to be illegal file sharing but it's besides the point.
no, it isn't.
less than 5% of people were driving over half the traffic.
The cost IS the point. You keep trying to duck the facts that p2p traffic is of no value to the ISP. It's a bandwidth hog, and slowing it down will NOT cost you, even if the heavy users go somewhere else.
Does the electric company, water company or phone company get to decide how I use their product that I have already paid for?
I just thought, not having water neutrality would be like the company charging separate rates for water coming out of the kitchen faucet, the shower faucet, and toilet on a per gallon basis. A gallon of water in the kitchen costing differently than a gallon of water from the bathroom. And if you don't get the 'extras', water flows from your shower and kitchen much slower after the first week of the month or after 100 gallons, whichever comes first.
So should it be with the Internet. You can buy a premium rate and have fast speeds. You can buy a discounted rate and have slower speeds. Choice is yours.
I have no issue at all with this and as I have suggested numerous times in this and the other threads it's the only viable way net neutrality can survive. That premium service or discounted service I'm paying for has to provide equal access to any site or service I choose.
This isn't the issue at hand with net neutrality. Let's say that you have a 50 mbps connection to the internet and your service provider is Verizon. Without net neutrality, Verizon could choose to artificially slow down your speed to 25 mbps on Netflix, but keep the 50 mbps connection speed if you use a video streaming service endorsed by Verizon.
It would not matter one iota.
You don't need anywhere NEAR 25mbit to stream from Netflix.
Quote:
Verizon could also block access to certain websites or make you pay extra to access them.
I remember when the NFL did not allow my customers to access one of their websites because << I >> did not subscribe (pay).
Guess what? The NFL's experiment went south and the effort failed fast.
By keeping it neutral, all websites have an equal chance at being viewed, sent to the viewer's home at an equal amount of time as any other website.
By not keeping it neutral, some websites could pay for faster service to a viewer and therefore throttle (slow down) the speed of other websites.
An analogy would be:
Independent gas stations are allowed to set up a gas station anywhere and when they do finally make their gas stations, the large corporate gas stations are allowed to build their gas stations bigger and better and right in front of the independent gas stations thus getting all the independent gas station's customers (they wouldn't see the indie gas stations.)
Yes, anyone who supports a free market should support internet neutrality. The ISPs should not be the gatekeepers for where you shop online.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
