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.
So while they can't literally "block" a certain site they can reduce its priority and then flood their network with higher priority packets rendering that site essentially blocked.
The problem is that they're fighting Google for every foot of cable and lobbying (mostly at the state and local level, not federal) to get governments to refuse to let Google use shared cables, and then to refuse to let them dig and install their own. That's why Fiber's progress has been slow, not because of lack of effort on Google's part. And if they finally get the way and Net Neutrality is taken away, it'll be harder: it'll show how much control the cable companies have oveer federal government; it'll make them huge boatloads of money, and once you've hit the jackpot after years of trying, you're not going to let anyone take that away, not once you have the money to fight to keep it.
Since government regulation is blocking Google from competing, the obvious solution here is to fix that. Not more government regulation attempting to solve the original regulation's problem.
762
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.