|Anonymous 16/05/2018(Wed)23:28:45 No.1053|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.