/intg/ - International Goonery
Welcome to /intg/!

Posting mode: Reply
Password (Password used for deletion)
  • Supported file types are:
  • Maximum file size allowed is 4.00MB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 98 unique user posts.

Would you like to operate a board, anon?

File: (19.99KB, 547x306, bda413896e83bb612bcc45daf327355cc39edb53_hq.jpg)
•"True net neutrality can't be achieved, anyway. Multiple factors affect content delivery speeds, and regulations can't ensure across-the-board equality. Sure, a start-up streaming service could theoretically match Netflix and Hulu; in practice, however, a start-up can't fix bugs and update software rapidly enough to keep pace.

•No network innovation

The rise of bandwidth-heavy web services like video streaming and content downloads means internet service providers have less money to spend on upgrading their networks, they argue. If they could charge Google, Microsoft, et al for carrying their resource-intensive services, they could invest in upgrading their networks and extending them further.

•Porn and objectionable content thrives

Some opponents of net neutrality lament how easily accessible legal but age-sensitive content like pornography is. While there are plenty of security vendors who allow families to restrict the sites available on a family computer, more children have smartphones and connected devices with which they can get online without adult supervision.

If an internet service provider could block these services at a network-wide level, this would go a long way to solving this issue. This would be the case under the UK's Digital Economy Bill, which, if passed, would force people to verify their identity to access porn sites, and would block those sites from showing 'unconventional' sex acts.

Providers could also crack down on peer-to-peer file-sharing, which is responsible for a lot of illegal downloads, thus preventing piracy.

•No free internet access

Advocates for less oversight of internet service providers say that allowing them to charge for access to some content would lead to free access to certain sites. For example, they argue that if internet service providers charged bandwidth-hungry companies like Netflix more for using their infrastructure, they would be able offer access to sites like Wikipedia or Facebook for free - eve

•My ISP can re-activate bandwidth management features and won’t need to charge per kilobyte during peak hours anymore.

•ISP’s can now block networks where DoS attacks and hack attempts are originating from. NN made this illegal.

•Providers can now create “fast lanes” for specific services instead of having to sit back and watch a handful of bandwidth-hogging users suck up all available resources. NN made this illegal.

•Health and emergency services can have dedicated bandwidth, instead of having to have their requests be treated equally to gamers and people streaming porn. NN made this illegal.

•With the government out of the picture, companies will no longer be able to lobby for exemptions that would force providers to prioritize their traffic. NN opened this door.

•Classifying the Internet as a utility never really made sense anyway. It needs its own classification. NN didn’t address this.

•Everyone agrees that anti-competitive throttling shouldn’t be permitted. With NN out of the way, proper legislation can be drafted that addresses this while still allowing the benefits of bandwidth management.
anon, why haven't you shown your support for repealing net neutrality?
Learn how to read.
Fuck off
Well said. OP.

Delete post [File Only] Password

- Haruko + mitsuba -

  In memory of 314chan's co-founder, goo.