The Last Poster Wins! [v21]

[Pokemon Trainer Sarah]

I'm still not sure whether net neutrality is an issue in the US or everywhere. Like it's your companies that wanna limit people right? I mean I guess if it gets through over there, it's more likely the rest of the world will follow suit, but yeah.

[Noblejanobii]

I'm still not sure whether net neutrality is an issue in the US or everywhere. Like it's your companies that wanna limit people right? I mean I guess if it gets through over there, it's more likely the rest of the world will follow suit, but yeah.

It's definitely just a USA issue for now. Pretty much net neutrality in a nut shell is that our internet providers, like Verizon and Comcast, currently cannot prevent us from visiting certain sites by lowering bandwidth for those sites and such. It's illegal because of net neutrality. However, if we lose net neutrality, then Comcast can say that they do not like that people are using Netflix and Youtube rather than, for example, Hulu. So Comcast will lower the bandwidth for Netflix and Youtube for its customers, saying either the customers have to pay more money to get the regular bandwidth for these sites that Hulu has, or, if Youtube and Netflix want to be on the regular bandwidth platform automatically, then those companies have to pay Comcast a certain amount of money every month in exchange for the regular bandwidth.

ISPs are already monopolistic as it is, but this gives them way more power than they should have. It allows these companies to control where people go to get their news, their facts, and other things, as well as decimating the chances of new companies from taking off on the Internet without having to deal with hefty fees. It's to the point that this is so bad that Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Deviantart, Discord, Youtube, and Imgur all have banners up for it.

[Pokemon Trainer Sarah]

It's definitely just a USA issue for now. Pretty much net neutrality in a nut shell is that our internet providers, like Verizon and Comcast, currently cannot prevent us from visiting certain sites by lowering bandwidth for those sites and such. It's illegal because of net neutrality. However, if we lose net neutrality, then Comcast can say that they do not like that people are using Netflix and Youtube rather than, for example, Hulu. So Comcast will lower the bandwidth for Netflix and Youtube for its customers, saying either the customers have to pay more money to get the regular bandwidth for these sites that Hulu has, or, if Youtube and Netflix want to be on the regular bandwidth platform automatically, then those companies have to pay Comcast a certain amount of money every month in exchange for the regular bandwidth.

ISPs are already monopolistic as it is, but this gives them way more power than they should have. It allows these companies to control where people go to get their news, their facts, and other things, as well as decimating the chances of new companies from taking off on the Internet without having to deal with hefty fees. It's to the point that this is so bad that Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Deviantart, Discord, Youtube, and Imgur all have banners up for it.

Yeah I'd heard about how bad it is. I just don't get WHY the government wants to do it?? Is it just because they get donations from the internet providers? I mean there must be some "reason" for why they're even considering it?

If it goes through, won't new internet providers just pop up that DON'T restrict people? Then everyone would just sign up with them instead xD

[Noblejanobii]

Yeah I'd heard about how bad it is. I just don't get WHY the government wants to do it?? Is it just because they get donations from the internet providers? I mean there must be some "reason" for why they're even considering it?

If it goes through, won't new internet providers just pop up that DON'T restrict people? Then everyone would just sign up with them instead xD

It's not entirely clear why exactly the FCC is reconsidering this but there's a few factors at play that make sense. Firstly, the current FCC chairman is largely anti-net neutrality and the common theory as to why is because he worked for Verizon at one point and Verizon is already kinda breaking net neutrality laws (they're only getting around it because of the wording of the stuff they're doing so it kinda clears on a technicality). In addition, the way American politics works nowadays it's impossible to get elected without accepting corporate money, some of which comes from ISPs. So when something for or against the corporation's interests comes up, that corporation will often "remind" the politician that they funded the politician's ability to get into office so now it's time to pay up by passing or voting against bills that are in the corporation's offices.

That's the thing though, without net neutrality that can't happen. New ISPs already have a difficult enough time because they're fighting against monopolies that can easily out perform these smaller companies bandwidth and price wise. They'll just either buy the new company or run it into the ground because these companies have the money and power to be able to get away with it. And if we lose net neutrality, not only will it be nearly impossible for any new businesses of any kind to function without being charged large fees, but also the ISPs will get even more money from corporations and people to fund more politicians and keep the cycle going.