Net Neutality

The only time network neutrality was truly at risk was when Obama gave the FCC vague, broad reaching regulatory authority over the internet.

Fortunately that's being undone.

>>133063830
Okay, then can someone explain:

- What is being changed,

- How it benefits me,

- How it benefits the telecom companies,

- How it protects Net Neutality

>>133063723
> shitty ISP
I might be able to find another
> government control
tough luck faggit.

>>133063963
I've lived in the Philippines where there is no NN and the ISP there 1) was the only fiber optic option, 2) throttled any connections to YouTube, Google, Gmail, etc because Facebook pays them to.

>>133063962
tl;dr version

Network neutrality is how the internet is and has always been run - all traffic, content, and services are handled equally. That's how things have been done the last 30 years, without any laws or regulation necessary to enforce it, just a de facto standard enforced by free market forces. In 2015 Obama passed a 'Net Neutrality' law which, in actuality, gave the FCC extremely nondescript and broad authority to regulate the practices of ISPs and which could have easily allowed them to start creating and enforcing regulation of not just services and practices, but content as well. The new powers never went into effect before Obama left office and the Republicans are in the process of passing new legislation to prevent them from every going into effect.

>What is being changed?
Nothing, the internet will continue operating exactly as it has been.

>How it benefits me?
>How it protects Net Neutality?
>How it benefits the telecom companies?
See above

>>133064178
"Unlimited" providers still throttle here sometimes.
Mostly it's just cellphones now, but our infrastructure is shit, so it's only a matter of time before land lines follow.
That's why places like Verizon stopped offering unlimited, now they just specify that their unlimited plan throttles, because they were forced to say that.

The main thing people were worried about is your ISP basically making packages like "you have youtube for cheaper/faster!" and stuff like that.
Could be shit, considering how cable went. Cable TV was originally "you only pay for the channels you want". Now you pay for shit you never watch, and you pay out the ass.

I'm kind of torn on it because of stuff like that. It could mean better service for what I use, but it could just be a giant shit show all over again.
People get all booty blasted over microtransactions, but there's a good chance that's going to be the future.

>>133063723
ok its time to clean and load my luger

>>133065521
>throttling
But how do you go about dismantling the racket?
How much is too much in terms of maintainance/profit/etc total costs for internet without just waiting for it to (d)evolve in the free market into a monopoly super racket over decades? M

>>133064663
So what's the deal with all the talk of undoing net neutrality and that one new Indian (dot not wawa) guy who worked for Verizon before getting his new job at the FCC?

>>133066330
Attack the problem (lack of competition and anti-trust enforcement) not the symptoms (anti-consumer practices by virtual monopolies). Funnel federal funds into companies that want to expand ISP service with new options. The increased economic activity will pay off the investment through existing taxes.

>>133067058
Mostly liberals losing their shit over Trump and the Republicans planning to prevent the FCC from gaining powers they don't have yet, because they all seem to be under the assumption that the internet only operates the way it does now by the grace and glory of federal regulation.

Bottom line - nothing is changing.

>>133063723
>block certain content
So (((censorship)))?