Salem

Censoring acces to a certain website, i believe is against net neutrality.

grimkid wrote:Censoring acces to a certain website, i believe is against net neutrality.

No, it has nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality is just a handful of regulations instituted by the Executive Branch (and therefore not even real laws), that say that all traffic must be treated equally. Which is a policy that has actually been damaging competition. Laws against censoring and website blocking already exist and have existed for some time and have nothing to do with net neutrality.

TotalyMeow wrote:Which is a policy that has actually been damaging competition.

Competition is just a fairy tail nowadays when we talk about few big companies. Why should they compete when they can just divide the market and keep the prices high? It's a lesson that every big company learned years ago. It's a concept so common in our modern times that forced states to create a new branch of the law: antitrust (or competition) laws.
A example should be tv cable companies, basically a monopoly. With the tv streaming services over the internet that situation drastically improved and that's one of the reason they attacked net neutrality so much.

Starting a state-wide ISP is not something a common entrepreneur can do and the few big companies that now control the market demonstrated over and over again no interest in competition. But even if.. do you really want to compromise the neutrality for a few bucks less in your bill?

Teoki wrote:

TotalyMeow wrote:Which is a policy that has actually been damaging competition.

Competition is just a fairy tail nowadays when we talk about few big companies. Why should they compete when they can just divide the market and keep the prices high? It's a lesson that every big company learned years ago. It's a concept so common in our modern times that forced states to create a new branch of the law: antitrust (or competition) laws.
A example should be tv cable companies, basically a monopoly. With the tv streaming services over the internet that situation drastically improved and that's one of the reason they attacked net neutrality so much.

Starting a state-wide ISP is not something a common entrepreneur can do and the few big companies that now control the market demonstrated over and over again no interest in competition. But even if.. do you really want to compromise the neutrality for a few bucks less in your bill?

You just described why "net neutrality" is bad, but you seem so confused what net neutrality is. It's the name, I know. If there's one thing the Democrats are good at, it's naming things so that they sound like something they're not, like something you want. Net neutrality was GOOD for larger companies as it made it all but impossible for smaller ones to compete. Net neutrality is why the little ones died off and the bigger ones got even bigger.

Net Neutrality doesn't do anything to stop new companies from starting up, competition is near impossible from broadband providers because utilities commissions only typically grant the rights run cable to one company.