(12-23-2017, 08:16 PM)DragonFury Wrote:

(12-22-2017, 04:59 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: As I've stated previously in this thread, the people who stream content seem to be the ones most upset with the NN situation. As a functional tool, NN will make no difference in my internet use because I stream very little. However, the ones who watch hours of shows every week will be targeted because they use the bulk of the bandwidth. So the question comes down to if ISPs are allowed to throttle or charge more for those who use internet resources more than others. If we were talking about water with a finite delivery capacity, shouldn't customers who use far larger amounts be limited or charged more? Is my analogy wrong?

Netflix is just the most prominent of the cases in this debacle but without Net Neutrality the ISPs can directly control every thing you view on the internet, whether you like it or not. For example, Comcast can make a deal with Yahoo to allow their search engine to be accessed without limits while Google is reduced to essentially dial-up speeds. The same can happen for your bank, your preferred source of news or even sites like pornhub. Do you really want to be in a situation where Comcast or Verizon get to dictate the fact that the only acceptable source of news is CNN or MSNBC or the Huffington Post?

That sounds like a bunch of hyperbolized hand wringing. In theory it could happen, but so could a visit by space aliens. In reality an ISP would be digging its own grave if it took such egregious measures. ISPs make their money by delivering what customers want, not by denying them in order to promote some nebulous sociopolitical agenda. The free market will dictate what they provide, not the big mean Koch brothers ruling from some evil dark ISP command center.

---