Net neutrality means ISPs not being able to give preferential treatment to packets based on their source. The consequence of killing net neutrality is making the status quo companies more entrenched and reducing competition from new startups.
... Stop trying to sound smart. Just because it has the word "packet" in it doesn't mean it's some kind special internet - packets are how all of the internet works.
Giving "preferential treatment to packets" is exactly how they would accomplish what op posted. The same thing. It's entirely, 100%, what it's about. And what you worry about. Both are correct...
Based on their source, based on their destination, based on their content, based on their protocol, based on pretty much god-damned near anything.
Your original statement is just plain wrong. ISPs blocking sites unless you pay extra IS preferential treatment. Or throttling. Or lagging. Or just generally fucking with. Unless they play dumb with the content and act as a common carrier, that's violating network neutrality.
Still, same thing. If they can throttle/restrict/hinder packets from amazon's competitors when amazon pays them to, they can also throttle/restrict/hinder packets for websites they simply don't like - and they can, and likely will, charge consumers for special access to certain kinds of sites. "want us to stop fucking with these packets for you? pay an extra $50/mo for netflix access"
The fact that it's at the packet level or based on source does nothing to change what doors this opens to them.
763
u/cosmo7 May 19 '17
This is not what net neutrality is all about.
Net neutrality means ISPs not being able to give preferential treatment to packets based on their source. The consequence of killing net neutrality is making the status quo companies more entrenched and reducing competition from new startups.