Quote:
Originally Posted by MONEY
When my son visits he likes to watch HULU.
For a long time HULU worked well with what AT&T was selling as it's fastest internet service.
Then AT&T came up with an even faster service for more money.
Well guess what, HULU began to freeze with the service that used to be fast enough.
Because of the freezes I had to pay more for the faster AT&T service, now HULU works fine.
Is Net Neutrality supposed to be better for the Content Makers/Owners, the Service Providers or the end Users/Customers?
I don't know how I've benefited because of Net Neutrality, but then I don't understand who Net Neutrality is for. What I do know is that I am paying more for internet service.
|
AT&T as a data stream through your nearest cell phone tower or AT&T as a internet provider through a DSL connection?
It matters as net neutrality never applied to the telecoms providing cell service. What you describe sounds a lot like throttling over a cell connection.
And that's what's enabled now for everyone with a DSL or Cable connection.
This isn't going to hurt any company with scale. Netflix, Amazon, Facebook and any other company that is familiar will pay whatever it costs to get in the fast lane. It may set up some occasions where negotiations get stuck and you can't get a decent connection on Netflix for a week the same way channels might disappear on a cable provider while they negotiate carrying costs.
Who is hurt is some company you will never hear of because instead of becoming the next Amazon or Netflix that we would be talking about in 10 years, they will be choked off in the slow lane.
Big existing companies are winners. Future choices are a loser. The real problem is that the future has a crappy lobbyist.
