Okay so it's net neutrality like this and tell me if I'm right and add to it, it makes your turtle pace internet snail pace and ban some sites like this site and you have to pay roughly 100+ to make all current sites available again like it was before, and I'm Canadian so does it affect me as much as America in non-U.S.A. sites (for example American citizen wants to use weibo and a Canadian citizen wants to use weibo will the Canadian citizen internet be faster).
So it doesn't affect me in anyway like ever, if a meteor crashed in the US and completely obliterate one state will it still affect me.
Net neutrality is a much more diverse topic than the news sites make it out to be. On one end you have the intended guarantee that competitors won't get bullied out of the market. On the other end you have the unintended situations where Netflix and other groups like that eat up a ton of all these isp's bandwidth and they can't charge Netflix for it because of the law that was supposed to protect the little guy. The net effect of them not being able to charge the Amazon primes and netflixes of the world more is that bandwidth gets hogged and consumers get a less satisfactory experience. The question comes, how do you write policy for this? Should you? Personally I don't care if all my neighbors are watching Netflix all day long on 4k as long as it doesn't effect my gameplay.
You have it backwards, net neutrality is what keeps things from legally being slowed down. And how it affects you as a non American is if any of your traffic goes to let's say, a server running on an internet connection within the us, your speed could be slowed or even prevented on the whims of comcast just because that site dosn't pay them enough. At least it's similar to this. (Even though legistically this would be difficult to do imo) Net neutrality == good for consumers No net neutrality == good for ISPs (aka they have the option to fuck you, but they promise they won't)
Don't worry, leave it to the angry hackers, they'll do something about it. That's how VPNs & proxy servers born in the first place, they'll just make something new to bypass it.
To understand net neutrality, and what outcome it can cause without it, just look at the abuses from history: https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history As for how it effects you in Canada, well if our ISPs get away with it and earn good money from it, then obviously other ISPs around the world will also push for it. It's all about presidence
I’m confused by what you’re trying to say. I’ll try to explain what I know tho. New Neutrality is there to keep the internet fair. It makes it so a company can’t do things like slow speeds for its competitors’ sites and charge for access or equal/normal speeds for said slowed down site. It’s so that there are laws and regulations in place that prevent internet companies from controlling access through affecting speeds and costs. More detail on it including recent US NetN news if you watch Philip Defranco on YT. So far if you’re in Canada, it shouldn’t affect you really all that much. It’s more of an US issue expecially due to the US running problem with powerful old businesses, legal local monopolies, and worst/greedy internet services compared to the rest of the world. It also shouldn’t affect NU where US or other.
Net Neutrality is the concept that all traffic that goes through an ISP is treated equally. It means that an ISP can't block or throttle content unless that content poses a risk to the network or subscribers (i.e. blocking known sources of malware), or the ISP receives a court order to do so. It's also important to define which ISPs are the ones that have violated the principles of net neutrality prior to the FCC mandating that ISPs stop blocking or throttling. There are 3 tiers of ISPs. Tier 1 providers own the internet backbone. Examples of Tier 1 providers are Cogent, Level3, AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint. They own the fiber and infrastructure that gets data from one end of a continent or country to another. Tier 3 ISPs are the ones who own the "last mile" of infrastructure that most individuals, families, and small businesses use to connect to the internet at large. Examples of Tier 3 providers are Comcast and Time Warner. The Tier 3 providers pay Tier 1 or Tier 2 providers a per-gigabyte fee to get their customers' data onto the backbone. Also, notice that there's some overlap with Tier 1 providers also offering services to end-users (AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint) Tier 1 providers engage in peering agreements with each other, meaning that they don't charge each other to route data from one Tier 1 network to another. That sucks for Tier 1 providers who aren't contracted with large data users like Netflix because they still have to route that data without being paid. Still, Tier 1 providers have been reasonably fair about not charging large data users to access their networks (save for Verizon and AT&T). It's the Tier 3 ISPs that have, historically, attempted to charge large companies that use a lot of data (Netflix, Youtube, etc.) an extra fee to ensure that they aren't throttled. The Netflixes and Youtubes of the world negotiate contracts with the Tier 1 or Tier 2 providers to get their data onto the internet. Tier 3 providers get nothing from them, but they still have to route that data to their customers when the customers connect to those services. In order to get a piece of the pie, the Tier 3 providers want to charge popular web-based services a fee to use their network, as well. Something similar exists with peer-to-peer services. They typically use a lot of data, but in this instance, there's no one to charge for it since both the sender and receiver are users rather than companies. Prior to net neutrality being enforced, it wasn't uncommon for P2P to be throttled or blocked by ISPs. There are also instances of ISPs owning competing services. For instance, Comcast NBC Universal (yes, that's one company now) own a stake in Hulu. It would be in Comcast's best interest to throttle or block Netflix to shunt their subscribers into using Hulu over Netflix. Or to 0-rate Hulu (meaning it doesn't count against your data cap). Inv included a link in his previous post that covers ISP chicanery associated with anti-competitive blocking of competing services. Whether you agree with the practice or not, net neutrality forces ISPs at all levels to treat all traffic that traverses their networks equally, without slowing or throttling anything. Should Tier 3 ISPs be able to double-dip by charging both their subscribers as well as the web-based services those subscribers connect to? That's a topic for another thread. What's important here is how it impacts you, as a Canadain. As a Canadian, you're unlikely to see your traffic routed through Tier 3 ISPs from the US, if that data is routed through the US at all. so you likely won't see much difference in your daily internet use. What should frighten you is that if this happens in the US, and is successful, it might spread to Tier 1 providers or to Canada at a later date. Further reading: https://datapath.io/resources/blog/what-is-an-internet-service-provider/ http://drpeering.net/core/ch4-Internet-Peering.html https://transition.fcc.gov/statelocal/presentations/Open-Internet-Order.pdf