Very, in my opinion. It goes beyond throttling, ISPs could also choose what sites they carry and what types of traffic they carry. It would create a backdoor in censorship laws and regulations. An ISP could use any excuse, such as cost, bandwidth utilization etc. to suppress anything they see fit. It goes beyond just websites, VPN traffic, TOR traffic, and similar privacy technologies would also be at risk. Think of the implications. Open-source software?
Bitcoin and cryptocurrency? Torrents? What if ISPs decide not to carry the traffic or charge prohibitive amounts of money to carry the traffic? With Net Neutrality internet access is regulated as a utility, like electricity. Just like like a power company can't refuse to provide you with electricity, ISPs can't refuse to provide full internet access to you. Net Neutrality isn't just about internet access, it also protects our civil liberties and right to free and fair access to information. It also stifles innovation. If you're a startup, how could you compete with companies like Facebook or Google who can afford to negotiate contracts with ISPs and pay for full access? What if a company like Facebook uses their influence and capital to get ISPs not to carry sites critical of them or competing with them? How could Linux and other open-source projects afford to compete with companies like Microsoft and Apple? Those companies could certainly afford it. A handful of companies would control what you see and can access on the internet. Open access to the internet is vital to freedom and democracy.
Potentially. It would still be up to the carrier but in much of the U.S. there is limited or no choice in the ISP you have access to and major ISPs such as Verizon, AT&T, Comcast etc. control much of the internet backbone. Independent companies could try to route around them or build out their own infrastructure but it comes down to cost. The major players can just outspend the competition and charge whatever they wanted to carry 3rd party traffic through their networks. The implications of full deregulation that's being pushed are concerning to say the least.
Comments
Very, in my opinion. It goes beyond throttling, ISPs could also choose what sites they carry and what types of traffic they carry. It would create a backdoor in censorship laws and regulations. An ISP could use any excuse, such as cost, bandwidth utilization etc. to suppress anything they see fit. It goes beyond just websites, VPN traffic, TOR traffic, and similar privacy technologies would also be at risk. Think of the implications. Open-source software? Bitcoin and cryptocurrency? Torrents? What if ISPs decide not to carry the traffic or charge prohibitive amounts of money to carry the traffic? With Net Neutrality internet access is regulated as a utility, like electricity. Just like like a power company can't refuse to provide you with electricity, ISPs can't refuse to provide full internet access to you. Net Neutrality isn't just about internet access, it also protects our civil liberties and right to free and fair access to information. It also stifles innovation. If you're a startup, how could you compete with companies like Facebook or Google who can afford to negotiate contracts with ISPs and pay for full access? What if a company like Facebook uses their influence and capital to get ISPs not to carry sites critical of them or competing with them? How could Linux and other open-source projects afford to compete with companies like Microsoft and Apple? Those companies could certainly afford it. A handful of companies would control what you see and can access on the internet. Open access to the internet is vital to freedom and democracy.
Thanks for the response.
Would an ISP blocking IP's or services cause any issues to one that isn't? (i.e., peer exchanges/access points)
Potentially. It would still be up to the carrier but in much of the U.S. there is limited or no choice in the ISP you have access to and major ISPs such as Verizon, AT&T, Comcast etc. control much of the internet backbone. Independent companies could try to route around them or build out their own infrastructure but it comes down to cost. The major players can just outspend the competition and charge whatever they wanted to carry 3rd party traffic through their networks. The implications of full deregulation that's being pushed are concerning to say the least.