I know pretty much everyone here understands the importance of net neutrality, but here’s a nice chart you can share with all your non tech friends explaining the importance of it in terms they understand

I remember when it was like this before net neutrality just a few years ago.

Oh wait...

I've already moved half of my stuff to Mars, I've heard their government isn't gone MAD yet.

@Lahsen2016 it’s more the concept of ISPs being able to arbitrarily charge whatever they want for certain sites and they could in theory hike rates whenever they wanted

@Lahsen2016 The problem is that video won't be all video, it will be the big established services, same with social media, games, music, etc. (e-mail is one of the few things that could be generic enough to automatically include any email provider since the email protocols are standardized and don't really change over time).

This effectively means that you won't be able to choose services freely, you'll have to use the ones your ISP offers, new competitors will effectively be unable to enter the market.

It still amazes me just how much Americans have to pay for internet

In the end the free market will make it cheap and more high quality.

There is nothing wrong about having no net neutrality

@Chlodovechus internet service is not a free market unless the infrastructure is public, you will never have hundreds of competing companies with their own infrastructure to your home. (In regions with public fibre networks you can choose between hundreds of isps all offering 100+ mbps at low prices, in regionz where one or a few companies control the infrastructure prices are high, service is poor and net neutrality is essential)

@ItsNotMyFault
In regions where there is poor infrastructure and monopolist companies the free market will defeat them if there will be a need.

Government regulation will keep those strong monopolies alive and prevent fresh yet weak competitors from having a fair chance.

May want to include an "everything else: $59.99" item on the non-neutral portion to really drive the point home that you're paying more for something you were already getting.

@Chlodovechus Your belief in the free market for infrastructure shows a clear lack of understanding of reality.

Quality is rarely the issue with private infrastructure, the issue is that it is very hard to legally build overlapping infrastructure if the company you wish to compete with owns land you need to cross to reach your customers.

I'm currently in a region where the ISP owns the fiber network and prices for 1Gbps connections are nearly 5 times as high as in other parts of the same city where there are public infrastructure. (People living there can choose between 20+ different ISPs all offering 1Gbps)

The city and competing companies can't legally extend their networks to my area since my ISP owns the land around it, the cable tv company offers some competition using their own older cable infrastructure but can't offer good upload speeds (their best option is 500Mbps down / 30-50Mbps up), all the other options are effectively junk (dls, 4G)

Really, this isn't the core concepts of net neutrality. What it really is is that companies could have access to what you search and how fast a search is / whether or not you can do it. For example, CNN could pay a certain ISP to make their website 50% in loading.

Missed one vpn traffic $50/month

I'm still tryna explain to can't why they can't just use their WiFi anywhere...

Let's not bombard them with info graphics.

@BitFlipped You're completely right. The fear is not that you have to pay for stuff, the fear lies in that ISP's can lynch huge companies for insane amounts of money to put them in a fast lane. It can make it pretty much impossible for newer and smaller firms to get a foot in on the market.

@jAsE It is. And that's why my comment and @BitFlipped comment are quite valid. Money from consumers is a small spit in the jar compared to the ocean of money they can acquire from major companies, by providing fast lanes

Honestly, I think this is a great idea. Non-tech-savvy customers will no longer need to gamble as to which number of gigabytes they want to subscribe to. Finally they can just pay for what they actually want to use!
Don't play video games? Sweet. Won't include that. Just want email? Also fine, and cheap!
Shoot me but I actually disagree with net neutrality.

The funny thing IS that without net Neutrallity its 3 Cents cheaper

@JustMrBates That's not really the main point of net neutrality. How would you feel like, if the makers of the game you played the most, or the owners of the website you use the most doesn't choose to pay (or am not able to pay) your ISP a huge sum of money, for you to access that content?
It's about money and censorship and nothing else. The picture in this rant is misleading, as that's not the real threat. If your ISP wants political influence? Easy! They just put the party they support on a fast lane and everything else on a slow lane. You don't agree? Too bad, you have to wait 30 minutes for your favourite site to load

@aaxa do not antitrust laws stop exactly that?

@JustMrBates I don't know. I've just read several papers and articles describing what I just described.
But to be honest, no one can know what the ISPs will actually do if FCC gets their will.

When America scares the shit out of us innocent civilians again... We just want to live our life... Why...

Lol, you need to get out of your tech bubble. That info graphic actually looks great for most regular ppl who only use a few services and don't give a fuck about the rest of the internet. If I showed that graph to my parents they'd say "So we can just book email and videos without the rest which we don't use, and pay less? Great deal!"

I repeat, this is very, very important. Get out of the tech bubble. If you don't, you will loose. Nowadays there are way more non-tech ppl using the net and their use cases and usage patterns are much more different.

@JustMrBates Except the problem is that when I want to start a blog, I'll have to use Tumblr, or pay a large "startup enterprise fee" to Comcast.

They won't create a tiered internet on the consumer side — but they will on the supplier side. And the fees will be much higher there.

@bittersweet Exactly my point