"In Portugal, with no net neutrality, internet providers are starting to split the net into packages."

Same thing in New Zealand, except specifically for mobile internet. For now...

Hey, USA! In New Zealand we don't have #NetNeutrality. What I'm about to link and post to you is real. This could be what's in your future. https://t.co/Kye4w0e6zh pic.twitter.com/l2OOyp8C0S

— Elaine, The Tired 🦊 (@Kitsunelaine) November 22, 2017

The proposal, made by the F.C.C. chairman, Ajit Pai, is a sweeping repeal of rules put in place by the Obama administration. The rules prohibit high-speed internet service providers, or I.S.P.s, from stopping or slowing down the delivery of websites. They also prevent the companies from charging customers extra fees for high-quality streaming and other services."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/fcc-net-neutrality.html

Here are some scenarios that can become reality in the US as a result of this:

More on Ro Khanna's twitter: https://twitter.com/RoKhanna

Ajit Pai made sure to mention that the regulations they are trying to tear down were placed by Obama, to make sure that people who dislike Obama will blindly support it, not realizing they're screwing themselves over.

If you don't understand what net neutrality is, I suggest this very informative video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak

So, those plans only include specific sites, right? That'd cut out so many sites and monopolize the market. Take VGC for example: how would we access it?

Whose fucking idea is this? Don't we have more pressing issues to worry about? Especially in the US?

Basically, the Obama administration put in regulations that prohibit internet providers from slowing down, or flat out stopping, access to specific sites. They have to treat every site neutral.
What the FCC wants to do is tear this down, so that internet providers can for example, slow down the streaming service of Netflix to the point where no one will want to use it anymore, and opt for the streaming service of a competitor that the internet provider owns. Or one that bribes them the most money. HBO could for example pay an internet providers to slow down Netflix, or even prevent access to it.

In the USA this is especially problematic because they only have a few relevant internet providers, who bought up all the competition. So they can essentially do what they want in this case because they have a monopoly. Sites will be forced to pay the telecom companies money, or become slowed down or inaccessible at worst.
And coming up with the money is of course harder for smaller sites.

This is dumb as shit, I hope we don't see this sort of thing in the UK o.O

This is so disgusting, just another way to try and control the masses

Telecom companies paying millions to the FCC to get this passed.
It's already becoming a thing in certain countries. If it happens in the US, it'll set a precedence for more countries start to mimic.

I think we're more protected from any shit like this. Not just legally, but I mean there's actually a lot of competition for internet providers here. From what I understand the US internet situation is completely messed up with very little choice between providers, I think some regions literally only have one choice even, so if they want to carve up the internet and charge piece by piece for it there's nobody waiting to take all their customers by offering a better deal like we have.

For some reason, I see people defending the decision to remove Net Neutrality. The decision to remove it will do much more than just split the internet up into different packages. ISPs will have much stricter control over what they want to with the internet and their consumers. With the removal of the act, ISPs can:

- Censor websites that don't align to their best interests
- Throttle the speed of websites who aren't partnered with them
- Make consumers pay for websites they aren't allied with so consumers are forced to use free websites that ISPs would be allied with
- Cripple the right for consumers to criticize whomever or whatever they please
- Force certain websites such as Netflix or Hulu to charge a surplus to account for the amount of money they would have to pay ISPs in order to avoid having their speeds throttled


If the FCC goes through with the decision, all the work that has been done by Americans since the 1990's will have been lost. If a future chair for the FCC wanted to get reinstate Net Neutrality, the process would be time consuming. The definition is of Net Neutrality is really hard to summarize and I intend to start a thread in a week or two that goes more in depth into the complexities of the act. With the removal of the act, corporations will have complete control over the internet without and federal intervention. Many people consider this a good thing, and would rather have businesses control them rather than their own federal government. Also, if the FCC does agree on the act, suggestions for the removal of Net Neutrality in countries such as Canada will be made and eventually passed. Nevertheless, Ajit Pai is a corporate shill that yielded to big money offered by the likes of Verizon, ATaT, erc. and will go down as one of the most hated men in America if he follows through with the decision.

pretty sure they don't limit you to just those sites.. you just get a bias cause it doesn't count to your monthly data allowance if you surf those sites.

it is terrible, but not as limiting as it sounds, newcomers will not be happening though in that kind of marketplace.. cause why would you choose X if it drains your data while Y does not.