Now /his/ clearly doesn't favor the "Great Person"

>>3081485
>Net neutrality
>Good
Let content providers keep telling you have important it is so they save money.

>>3081864
If content providers don't have to increase spending, there is less impulse to raise their prices. Prices staying constant for the provider means the consumer doesn't have to shoulder increased prices. This is Econ 101. The only reason to be against it is if you have vested interest in telecom companies profit margins. Since you're a redpilled neet making poorly thought out claims in a mongollian sheep milking bazaar, I doubt this is the case.

>>3081485
>single

Wrong image. There is only one person who appoints this.

That indian is merely a pawn.

>>3082090
Or I am somebody who understands network infrastructure upkeep especially on large scales. Network wants to keep using 80% of network bandwidth but pay nothing for it

We charge multi-axle trucks at tolls more, this is no different.

>>3082217
*Netflix fucking phone posting

>>3082217
This is just plain false. While netflix is a large part of the streaming market, and surely they take up a lot of bandwidth, they're hardly the only stream provider. Your analogy about the trucks doesn't stand up because the multiple axel trucks do more physical damage to the infrastructure. They have to offset the harm they do to the road, justifying the tax. High traffic web services don't hurt the infrastructure by using it in the same way, and often times they will invest in better infrastructure with projects like google fiber to ensure they can meet the needs of their customer base (though this is potentially problematic as it can be seen as a type of horizontal monopolization, but that's a whole different argument).

Going beyond that, net neutrality ensures that virtual monopolies are harder to create and promotes a robust free market. If telecoms can favor or only provide access to certain websites, then we're unlikely to see anything but the big names in tech with lots of money to throw around because the bar to entry is raised. With that in mind you can say good bye web startups, good bye small online retailers, good bye small web communities like 4chan. The death of net neutrality allows powerful market forces to consolidate web traffic to their services to the detriment of the consumer and the virtual economy on the whole. Even if everything else I've said doesn't matter to you, the prevention of monopolies and the protection of the free market should be enough to demonstrate why net neutrality is worth saving.

>>3082303
Video streaming disrupts networks more than data traffic. It gets higher priority because it is more latency sensitivity. Look up 802.1Q tagging.

What removing net neutrality allows is for ISP's to charge the other side of the communication.

People thinking this will lead to censorship, etc are just reading the hysteria from content providers who don't want to pay for their share of the bandwidth they contribute to.

Ive helped build rural wireless ISP's. Video streaming fucked up networks a shit ton.

Also, enforcing net neutrality is literally the opposite of free market, it gets governments more involved. I'm against corporatism, which is why I've tried helping local ISP's provide more service in their areas.