Net Neutrality

The proposal to kill net neutrality has convinced me that the current American Right are the biggest bunch morons the world has ever seen.  I now prefer both Obama and Clinton (either one) to Trump.  Killing net neutrality would be the end of free speech and worst legislation ever to pass in American history.  Yet no one on the Right seems to care.

CONTENTS DELETED

He seems to trouble getting to the point, so maybe you can summarize what he says.  I heard the beginning and starts basically by saying that Google is bad and Google supports net neutrality, so net neutrality is bad.  Using this logic, one can argue that Google is bad and Google supports not blowing up planet Earth, so not blowing up planet Earth is bad.  And I think this analogy is fairly sound.

this guy is a conspiracy wind bag but the main point hes getting to is that he claims Net Neutrality does not mean a free choice of ISPs(as ISP companies already has monopoly due to regulation) and certainly not free speech and content but because of the cost of bandwidth and "peering" which benefits big companies like Google because they can have special "lanes" in "peering" without regulation.

So which side is he on, for or against net neutrality?

against, because he claims that net neutrality has nothing to do with free speech but the cost of bandwidth. ISPs don't regulate content, its the social media and internet giants.

CONTENTS DELETED

Google's reason for supporting net neutrality has nothing to do with free speech, obviously.  But loss of net neutrality means not just charging more for YouTube.  It also means censorship because it really is very easy to censor content once you start discriminating by packet.  Of course those against net neutrality will deny this, but they are wrong.  Without net neutrality, ISPs can choose what content they want to deliver whether by content type or by content political correctness.

I should add that the whole arguments that ISPs are being forced to deliver high volume content for free is just bullshit.  If an ISP wants to limit total content delivered to a home per month or whatever, they can do this now.  This does not violate net neutrality.

CONTENTS DELETED

Allen wrote

My impression was that net neutrality has nothing to do with freedom of speech. ISPs can censor that now subject to local regulation.

This is simply wrong.  Right now, ISPs can't legally censor anything - because of net neutrality.

ISP care for content? My impression is that it’s the internet companies do, not the ISPs. Bandwidth and censorship are two separate things. “Censoring” traffic would mean refusing paying customers service which makes no sense

Peter wrote

ISP care for content? My impression is that it’s the internet companies do, not the ISPs. Bandwidth and censorship are two separate things. “Censoring” traffic would mean refusing paying customers service which makes no sense

Every single thing you said here is wrong.  Anyway, there is no point in me arguing.  America will soon get the internet that it deserves.  And hopefully I will move to another country.

Where would you go?

I don't have to worry about that yet.