Anyone arguing that ending Net Neutrality is a good thing, is highly delusional, and incredibly naive to think the ISPs, and those who monopolize and control them, will not abuse their new found powers. This is bad for everybody, except for the people running the 4 or 5 companies who own all of the ISPs available to U.S. consumers.
Don't be that guy. You are on the wrong side of history.
How is it price for performance? Elaborate please.
Just think about how much the playboy channel is. Now think about bow much the internet porn package would be. The bronze package would be $50 a month and only show soft core bull shit. Silver would be $100 a month and you might get some penetration. Gold package would be $150 a month and would feed the fetishes, midgets, brazilian farts, and that dude with the grill and the 3 foot long fake dick that spurts more jizz than paris hiltons cock holster after a night of partying. Amateur porn would become obsolete as the faithful uploaders would have the free avenue of showing off stripped from them, pun intended of course.
I hadn't thought of any of this! Perhaps there is more than one issue being address with a single solution?
From my view, which is living on the edge of where services are provided, the internet has never been as good in response time as you city slickers seem to need so desperately.
Thanks to your tutoring, I now know why.
But as things improved, small step by even smaller steps, it became adequate to gather information. The first Satellite internet was a huge step forward from the dial up connection. Not great at 750k download speed but really much better than the 59k telephone.
But then it soon was actually worse, as people began downloading the shit out of stuff. The provider would indeed throttle people once they exceeded their monthly allocation, but the system became so damn over loaded that no one could get anywhere near the download capacity we were suppose to get. The system could not delivery to all the users the plethora of download data requested from so many sights. The system died of it lack of manageability and people walked away as it was not worth any price.
There was a period of poor choices then but over the air data connection like Verizon filled the gap for awhile, expensive and slow and data caps, all annoying. Then we got DSL after Verizon sold the phone company to Frontier. Wonderful! Geez, in the tall grass now with 3meg download speeds. Man I can do all I need, well nearly. Trying to watch a Blazer game on the internet sucked as you were always waiting for a buffer to fill. Herky Jerky shit. No need to watch that!
Now as more and more people stream more stuff the response time for even the people that just want to access websites is shitty. Like it is a real pain in the ass to have your website time out when filling a form because the providers system is just overloaded, primarily with streaming data.
Who should pay for internet hardware needed to satisfy the end users? You can't tell the guy in the middle he can't throttle! Excess requests exceeding hardware capacity will effect it automatically indiscriminately if the middle guy doesn't manage the load.
It seems to me, there are origin users uploading data, and end users downloading data that should pay for volume and speed at some point in the equation. Perhaps the concept of Net Neutrality can only apply to the users in the middle ground of bits/second count. Porn might get a little costly up and down.
History as I see it. Extra blacklight bundles do nothing until you add a digital light on the ends. The question is who pays for volume and performance? Probably unfair as hell to load everyone with the price of porn.
