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?
That's the overarching concept, the actual bill language doesn't do that. Its like the Patriot Act stopping terrorism and the affordable care act making health insurance cheaper. None of those things happened, in fact the opposite happened.
Also note the massive campaigns in favor of net neutrality when it was being proposed: Google, Comcast, Facebook, etc. Now ask yourself: Are these corporations known to look out for consumer rights?
Id be all for a bill that protects freedom of information and access to it but somehow I doubt any effort to pass that would be supported by the supporters of net neutrality.
i do understand it seems weird those who support net neutrality and usually i would not trust it, , but i just can't see how something that is supposed to stop internet providers from discriminating against sites as they choose and slowing down or banning them, can possibly be a bad thing . If there is a catch somewhere that im not seeing id like to know.
yeah. i'm gonna have to take a bit of time to figure this out. Net neutrality stuff is hard for me to understand.
Whilst i was on the site you linked me to however i found an article that said one district in washington lumped asians with whites and are no longer considering them POC, most likely because if they are POC, it would mean whites end up lagging behind the "catch all minorities" section and we can't have whites looking like they are the ones that need help now can we? Never mind that asians are about as genetically different from whites as you can be, being from the opposite side of the world. Whether you are POC or not is dependent on how successful or not successful you are. But whatever the situation whites cannot be seen to need a helping hand. LOL what a joke this is. It's just communism based on race instead of class. https://reason.com/2020/11/16/equity-report-north-thurston-asian-students-of-color/
It is a bit more complicated than that when it comes to implementation as with all things that don't assume spherical cows. In many case, it is not the ISP deliberately slowing down traffic, but the use of CDNs (Content Delivery Networks) that appear to make certain sites faster and others slower.
Watching Netflix for example, the video would be from a location that is physically closest to the audience to reduce network load across the internet backbone. That CDN may not actually be peered with the ISP and may load the ISP's links, which in turn causes other sites to feel sluggish. You could deprioritize Netflix traffic to make other websites appear to be unaffected, but at this point you're already playing favorites.
Net Neutrality is often confused the way communists see equality. Unfortunately not all websites/application take the same amount of bandwidth, nor do they have the same network load patterns, nothing can change that except upgrading networks and building more CDN peers (which smaller websites can ill afford).
You can explore and look up how your ISP is peered with other networks at https://bgp.he.net/. ISPs are charged by the traffic load coming through their peers, CDNs subvert this by having a local server under the ISP's own network. Series of tubes guy was more right than what was let on.
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?
That's the overarching concept, the actual bill language doesn't do that. Its like the Patriot Act stopping terrorism and the affordable care act making health insurance cheaper. None of those things happened, in fact the opposite happened.
Also note the massive campaigns in favor of net neutrality when it was being proposed: Google, Comcast, Facebook, etc. Now ask yourself: Are these corporations known to look out for consumer rights?
Id be all for a bill that protects freedom of information and access to it but somehow I doubt any effort to pass that would be supported by the supporters of net neutrality.
i do understand it seems weird those who support net neutrality and usually i would not trust it, , but i just can't see how something that is supposed to stop internet providers from discriminating against sites as they choose and slowing down or banning them, can possibly be a bad thing . If there is a catch somewhere that im not seeing id like to know.
Best I can find is this: https://reason.com/search/Net%20neutrality/
Left leaning site but has decent articles. If classic liberals are questioning it, something is up.
yeah. i'm gonna have to take a bit of time to figure this out. Net neutrality stuff is hard for me to understand. Whilst i was on the site you linked me to however i found an article that said one district in washington lumped asians with whites and are no longer considering them POC, most likely because if they are POC, it would mean whites end up lagging behind the "catch all minorities" section and we can't have whites looking like they are the ones that need help now can we? Never mind that asians are about as genetically different from whites as you can be, being from the opposite side of the world. Whether you are POC or not is dependent on how successful or not successful you are. But whatever the situation whites cannot be seen to need a helping hand. LOL what a joke this is. It's just communism based on race instead of class. https://reason.com/2020/11/16/equity-report-north-thurston-asian-students-of-color/
It is a bit more complicated than that when it comes to implementation as with all things that don't assume spherical cows. In many case, it is not the ISP deliberately slowing down traffic, but the use of CDNs (Content Delivery Networks) that appear to make certain sites faster and others slower.
Watching Netflix for example, the video would be from a location that is physically closest to the audience to reduce network load across the internet backbone. That CDN may not actually be peered with the ISP and may load the ISP's links, which in turn causes other sites to feel sluggish. You could deprioritize Netflix traffic to make other websites appear to be unaffected, but at this point you're already playing favorites.
Net Neutrality is often confused the way communists see equality. Unfortunately not all websites/application take the same amount of bandwidth, nor do they have the same network load patterns, nothing can change that except upgrading networks and building more CDN peers (which smaller websites can ill afford).
You can explore and look up how your ISP is peered with other networks at https://bgp.he.net/. ISPs are charged by the traffic load coming through their peers, CDNs subvert this by having a local server under the ISP's own network. Series of tubes guy was more right than what was let on.