philo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:55 am
Repealing net neutrality is not about creating fast lanes for important traffic, it is about creating artificially slow lanes so ISPs can charge twice to move you from the artificially slowed lane they have created to the normal speed lane you used to have.
This is a narrow perspective. It is unambiguously both: slow and fast lanes are relative, and so any system that differentiates price according to usage will have both. All you imply by this is an expectations for speeds to be slower on average at the same price, but that is an extremely difficult thing to predict. If your netflix price goes up, but your internet price goes down, it is entirely possible for you to pay less on net. Further complicating, internet consumers who do not use netflix would see their costs reduced with no down side.
Title II status for internet is precisely a protections from price discrimination according to usage. Full repeal is probably not the long run outcome, but any amount of repeal was likely a step in the right direction. Regardless of how you feel about ISP, failures of local governments, and high usage content-creators, allowing internet providers to set prices according to usage is essential for achieving better internet in the states. Bit-usage is nonlinear in costs to ISPs, and therefore price should not be either. An argument can be made that we as household consumers are likely paying more for internet service to subsidize the businesses that are pro-NN.
Please don't buy into the partisanship of US politics. The very sites running these pro-NN ads are those receiving the greatest benefits from the protection: reddit, pornhub, netflix, major stream sites, etc. They are literally the other side of this debate, and are throwing far more money at it than the ISPs. Forming your opinion on NN based on what you read on those sites is akin to basing your positions on gun control entirely on what is said by the NRA.
Strength in words; weakness in gags.