In this case, the people paid significant amounts of taxes to fund the development of the internet, as well as footing the bill for the infrastructure that supports it. Like the airwaves themselves, the access portion is just leased to private entities in trust. The current state of the internet is net neutrality. The alternative is, well, fairly well documented. See Portugal's current sad state of affairs with the internet. https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16691506/portugal-meo-internet-packages-net-neutrality-ajit-pai-planI don't understand how a government takeover of a service is a win for any industry or people.
Not quite. Most of the offerings provided by cable are available via local broadcast. The function of the cable company previously was simply to collect those broadcasts and improve the delivery of them. You were never paying for content - that's what the commercials are for - you were paying for a quality signal. In our current state of the internet, you pay for signal, and the ads on sites fund the content. But hey, if you really dig the cable model and don't mind paying all those nifty fees, upcharges, and extras for 400-500 channels you aren't going to watch for the one channel you will, then you're going to love where this is going.The difference between that example and cable TV packages is that the cable company needs to pay the channels for access to their content, not the other way around.
Which we and other sites theoretically might have to do to pay the ransom model one of the several ISPs roll out to limit, throttle, or segment access. We don't have a paywall and (fingers crossed) no one here wants one. Maybe it sounds absurd, but in 2017 you shouldn't *have* to pay a subscription fee for decent tech news. The internet should not be a walled garden. The destruction of Net Neutrality is set to lay the groundwork for a whole lot of horrible pay-as-you-browse experiences for the bulk of browsers.If anyone were to implement a subscription fee to access content on Tom's Hardware, it would be their parent company, Purch Group, not your cable company, and nothing covered by "net neutrality" rules would prevent them from doing so.
Couldn't be further from the truth. Luckily, we don't have to speculate, as we are able to look at what had begun to occur right before net neutrality was put in place - throttling and constraining of internet speeds with streaming services like Netflix by ISPs. We also have very evident examples in what a lack of net neutrality looks like in the current model in place in Portugal.For the consumer its a whole lot of nothing plus fear mongering.
Well, if there's anything I know in this world, it's that we should all be super-trusting of ComCast to do the right thing when it comes to prioritizing internet traffic. Because if you can't trust ComCast to do the right thing when it comes to taking care of the customer, who can you trust? [/SARCASM]They still need to be able to implement positive traffic discrimination aka QoS for real-time vs non-real-time traffic. Voice/video chat including LTE VoIP, gaming, and even web browsing should get priority over buffered traffic like streaming.
Not true! The ISPs and their lobbying firms benefit. Everyone else gets seriously damaged.It is only the ISPs that benefit from this.
Interestingly, America features one of the crappiest cell phone offerings in the world compared to other developed countries. Ours is both slower and substantially more costlier for a significantly smaller portion of the service provided.To anyone who says "We haven't needed net neutrality forever, why change?" hasn't looked at the fine print of their cell bill lately. Cell internet service has never been included into the broadband rules. In the year of our lord 2017, they are as of RIGHT NOW capping bandwidth for services and giving preferential treatment to some services versus others. THEY ARE ALREADY DOING THIS. It's not a matter of if, the future is here!