I think government granted monopoly rights should come with strings attached, such as net neutrality.  So repealing net neutrality would have to be coupled with repealing laws preventing competition between ISPs.

So some people here have shared how things would get worse for them in areas of the US with a monopoly (i.e., they can't change ISP) if the US net neutrality laws were to be removed, but LL and Brice haven't shared their view on how things would improve if net neutrality laws were implemented.

The only positive I thought of was that an ISP could force consumers to pay extra for access to high-bandwidth services like Netflix or Youtube, and use that money to buy additional bandwidth access or improve infrastructure. But the cynic in me thinks they'd just pocket a large portion of the extra money while those who can't change ISP are forced to just deal with it.

Anyway, would be interested to hear LL or Brice's views (or anyone else who has an anti net neutrality view point).

One of the main arguments people have against net neutrality is that it's anti-competitive. If you're in favour of a small government/free market state net neutrality rubs you up the wrong way.

Let's say one company starts limiting speeds or charging to access certain content, people will simply switch to one of their competitors. The new income from charging customers/websites for priority will eventually fall short of the income lost by losing costumers to the competition, so the company will have a strong incentive to revert their policies back to ones similar to today (or not change them in the first place).

You still get a neutral internet, but without any Government interference.

However, while the competition introduced by a free market is a fantastic way of keeping companies in check on paper (and often in the real world too!) in this case it doesn't work, for a very simple reason: If you look closely there isn't actually any real competition between ISPs in the US; and because of the monopolies on the required infrastructure etc it will be incredibly hard to introduce real competition to that market, not least without massive government interference.

To paraphrase a famous quote: "Net neutrality laws are the worst solution, apart from all the other ones"

Whatever your political leanings there really is no winner here except the ISPs.

Thanks for the article, don't answer the biggot and keep going, dogs will always say warf warf.

I love how somes get fucked so hard and say "please take this vaseline cause i'm not gay".

Net neutrality is good for custumers and creativity, it's like saying anti-trust law is marxism.. probably the same that voted Trump and still don't see how the world is taking fun from this clown, please continue to destroy your own country.

Ethics are not the same for everyone it is typical presumptuous of your ideology to assume you own that.
Of course that it is nothing more than a manipulate speech trick for you to be able to say you don't do politics while you do precisely that. So you claim ethics. Yours.

Of course in typical Marxist language manipulative fashion you'll also get very upset with being judgemental ... but it is also what you do.

Like i said i am noticing an increase of adjectives - including in titles - which obviously means "educated" journalists are taking over reporters here injecting their usual proselytism.

Thank you for the article.

I have lived in 12 cities and towns.  One, Chattanooga, had two wired internet providers!  Eleven had one wired internet provider.

Giving monopolies or oligopolies this power is STUPID!  Now monopolies will pick what you can see.

Fits with Republicans donor class of Libertarians (Kochs, Mercers).  Law of the Jungle.

i would not pay for internet whit limitations anymore. i remembered +-10 euro for 2 M/bits when i was student and it was to much. Now internet from Russia are 100 for 10 euro but getting job is to hard.

The idea that net neutrality is "what's best for the average Internet user" is an opinion, which is typically expressed by anti-market big-government supporters.  Those who lean towards free markets and limited government beg to differ with this idea.  So, it's easy to see some politics here.  In order to remain objective notebookcheck should not take sides and say whether net neutrality is good or bad.

I don't really mind politics too much personally.

Quote from: LL on November 26, 2017, 17:31:23
Now we have political crap here. Even with lies.
Seems notebookcheck is going down .
I am also noticing the increase use of adjectives and opinion injected in other posts, "promotions"  etc.

Hey there, LL. Article author here. I'm sorry you think this was meant to be political in nature; it wasn't. Notebookcheck is an objective entity that only concerns itself with technology. Net Neutrality, however, is an issue that, while with political connotations, has significant technological implications for all of us. It's not a matter of politics, it's not even an issue of ethics; it's simply a case of doing what's best for the average Internet user.

Thanks for reading!

Now we have political crap here. Even with lies.
Seems notebookcheck is going down .
I am also noticing the increase use of adjectives and opinion injected in other posts, "promotions"  etc.