Well according to what i looked up , net neutrality is supposed to be the concept that "individuals should be free to access all content and applications equally, regardless of the source, without Internet Service Providers discriminating against specific online services or websites(like slowing it down or banning it). In other words, it is the principle that the company that connects you to the internet does not get to control what you do on the internet". (Please correct me if this is the wrong definition of net neutrality. )
Wouldn't this be more preferable for us if we wanted smaller sites to survive and not be treated unfairly?
Possibly. Of course, the smaller the site the less you can extort and the quicker diminishing returns catch up with your administrative costs.
Not saying the ISPs are clean - hell, a lot of us live in monopoly or duopoly territory - I'm just annoyed that so many people have swallowed Google's angle without even questioning it.
They're seriously whining about 'net neutrality'?
ISPs are much less of a threat than these tech robber barons.
oh no they're gonna make amazon slower so you can't buy from the multibillion dollar megacorp without amazon paying them a cut
oh no they're gonna make netflix slower so your cuties experience is negatively impacted
but couldn't they technically also make small websites they dont like slower as well? in fact wouldnt that be a more likely scenario?
Problem is net neutrality does nothing to stop that.
Well according to what i looked up , net neutrality is supposed to be the concept that "individuals should be free to access all content and applications equally, regardless of the source, without Internet Service Providers discriminating against specific online services or websites(like slowing it down or banning it). In other words, it is the principle that the company that connects you to the internet does not get to control what you do on the internet". (Please correct me if this is the wrong definition of net neutrality. )
Wouldn't this be more preferable for us if we wanted smaller sites to survive and not be treated unfairly?
Yeah, everyone knows that it's not your ISP's job to destroy small websites - it's Google's.
Possibly. Of course, the smaller the site the less you can extort and the quicker diminishing returns catch up with your administrative costs.
Not saying the ISPs are clean - hell, a lot of us live in monopoly or duopoly territory - I'm just annoyed that so many people have swallowed Google's angle without even questioning it.