Not having net neutrality is simply fraud as long as you claim to sell internet access.
And yet the Internet survived and thrived for decades without NN.
It's always had net neutrality until the point where some "I"sp started to operate fraudulent.
Get this. The other day I and a work colleague took a business trip to Dallas, with both of us on the same nonstop flight. I paid $240 and he paid $0. You know why? Because he used airline miles associated with his airline's frequent flier program. His airline provided him with incentives to pay less for his flight than I did. NO FAIR! DOWN WITH AIRLINE FREQUENT FLIER PROGRAMS! WE NEED AIRLINE NEUTRALITY!!!
And again you demonstrate that you don't understand net neutrality. It is irrelevant that you paid a different price, it is only relevant that you got on the same plane.
And again you demonstrate that you don't understand net neutrality. Hertz customer don't get faster transportation. We already have airline neutrality.
By the way, this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about when I say NN advocates have never taken a single solitary second to think through what their arguments actually are.
We even took the time to understand what net neutrality is.
You all speak of this dystopian nightmare, and yet in other industries, companies have preferred partners, and not only is there no dystopian nightmare, customers....actually kind of like it, because they realize savings and benefits from using the preferred partners in the program. THE HORROR!
Again you demonstrate that you don't understand net neutrality. There is no benefit in faster Netflix for me as a customer if I want to see cat videos.
it's funny that for someone who keeps claiming I don't understand the topic of NN because I've previously brought up data caps during these conversations, that it's you who went back to complaints about data caps. First off, I like reasonable data caps!
I am not against it either, I am merely pointing out that consumers dont accept them by and large.
Now with regards to neutrality of content itself, if an ISP wants to incentivize me to use their preferred product, I'll consider it, just like I consider when airlines try to incentivize me to use their airline frequent flier program. If United will reward me for using Hertz, it doesn't mean I'm going to use Hertz. But I might!
And again you demonstrate that you don't understand net neutrality. You get an incentive to use Hertz, you get to decide you use it. That is what net neutrality means. What you proposed is united putting you on a slower connection BECAUSE you don't chose Hertz.
My concern with ISPs is the lack of competition, not this completely fake issue of net neutrality that you can't even logically defend without resorting to hysterical hypothetical arguments that won't ever actually transpire.
No need for hysterical arguments, you said yourself that providers should have the right to limit my access to cat videos over something YOU think is more valuable. I don't care what you do with your data/bandwith, you dont get a say in what i use my data/bandwidth for. And as long the provider sells me internate access and not Netflix/Youporn/Catvideotube, they don't have a say either.
The only logical argument needed is that I paid for my internet connection, the bandwidth is mine to use in whatever way I chose, And not yours or my providers.
But I think you also fail to see a logical reason why your car dealer can't just rent your car out to Uber when they want to, after all you are arguing for days that your car dealer should have that right.
It starts to feel the only reason for you to be against net neutrality is the hope that all data you deem superfluous will be slowed down, so you can have your internet cheaper. I.e. you want cat video lovers to subsidise you.