First off, the greatest problem in the US isn’t the existence or lack thereof of net neutrality, but the fact that you have almost no possibility to switch ISPs because every region is a mini-monopoly with only one option. If every household could have, say, 3 possible ISPs to choose from, the crap in that image would die instantly, net neutrality or not.
And last, why isn’t that nobody seems to care about the opposite (direction-wise) of net neutrality? Ie, that the websites themselves throttle their content based on who you are. We already have websites (Hulu, Netflix, Cartoon Network) that won’t even show you certain content if you come from the “wrong” country. Youtube already throttles you if you’re not in the US/Europe. Websites with their own localized versions (Paypal, Google, etc) do this not to improve service of the “other” countries, but so the “lesser” humans won’t waste the bandwidth of the “good” people. And very soon you’ll see store-type websites (Amazon, Steam, eBay, etc) throttling you based on how much money you have spent on them or other stores.
So already there’s nothing neutral about the net, but nobody seems to care about the other lack of net neutrality.
Netflix and Hulu do not have deals to distribute their content internationally – that’s why you don’t see them outside the US, unfortunately. It doesn’t have to do with net neutrality. What is the precedent for believing that Amazon, Steam, etc will begin to throttle you based on your spending habits? Is this actually happening anywhere?
pepperdick (#)
10 years ago
SIGH remember the good ol days when everything was free?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
…..Yeah, neither do I.
um….i could play Warcraft for $5 a month? i want to go to there.
Rather you can have _the_ability_ to play Warcraft.
yeah…i got it. i was kidding. jesus christ.
First off, the greatest problem in the US isn’t the existence or lack thereof of net neutrality, but the fact that you have almost no possibility to switch ISPs because every region is a mini-monopoly with only one option. If every household could have, say, 3 possible ISPs to choose from, the crap in that image would die instantly, net neutrality or not.
And last, why isn’t that nobody seems to care about the opposite (direction-wise) of net neutrality? Ie, that the websites themselves throttle their content based on who you are. We already have websites (Hulu, Netflix, Cartoon Network) that won’t even show you certain content if you come from the “wrong” country. Youtube already throttles you if you’re not in the US/Europe. Websites with their own localized versions (Paypal, Google, etc) do this not to improve service of the “other” countries, but so the “lesser” humans won’t waste the bandwidth of the “good” people. And very soon you’ll see store-type websites (Amazon, Steam, eBay, etc) throttling you based on how much money you have spent on them or other stores.
So already there’s nothing neutral about the net, but nobody seems to care about the other lack of net neutrality.
Netflix and Hulu do not have deals to distribute their content internationally – that’s why you don’t see them outside the US, unfortunately. It doesn’t have to do with net neutrality. What is the precedent for believing that Amazon, Steam, etc will begin to throttle you based on your spending habits? Is this actually happening anywhere?
SIGH remember the good ol days when everything was free?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
…..Yeah, neither do I.