"""Net Neutrality""" in Europe

There's less of a worry in eurostan because there's no major ISP monopolies. The ISP that throttles websites that its customers use can, and will, lose customers.

>>59716074
That's not what that means, you retard. It means that ISPs and service providers are allowed to differentiate type of traffic. In other words, they are allowed to provide different QoS schemes for time-dependent traffic and for greedy flows as well as being allowed to do basic traffic engineering.

>Denne trafikstyring må dog kun ske på baggrund af tekniske hensyn til tjenestekvalitet

It literally says that they are only allowed to discriminate traffic based on technical considerations.

>>59716091

>Problem: Our normie customers are demanding a more stable experience on Netflix and YouTube.

>Solution: Let's throttle 4chan and other websites only used by autists.

>>59716091
>they are allowed to provide different QoS schemes for time-dependent traffic and for greedy flows as well as being allowed to do basic traffic engineering


You're the retard if you can't see why this goes against net neutrality.

>>59716250
Net neutrality in its most autistic definition, yes. But even proponents of net neutrality, such as Tim Berners Lee, argue that this is reasonable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#By_issue

>>59716234
Throttling HTTP traffic would not improve MPEG-DASH significantly. It's more likely that ISPs would actually favour short-lived HTTP flows (aka regular websites) over bandwidth-intensive flows, in order to improve quality of both; people get quick loading and responsive websites, while video streaming is able to adapt to the actual available bandwidth quicker.

>>59716074
itt: murican retards arguing with glorious euro masterrace about how superior euro internet is bad while their own is much shittier