Net neutrality (another thread)

Not sure why this thread was locked when it actually contains current events and an intelligent conversation. Meanwhile, a random, fish-eating, spam filled thread appears 2 days later and it's alive and well?

On the topic of Net Neutrality, if you don't realize what it is or means, here is the real-life of it.

Unless you live in a major city serviced by Comcast or a Tier 1/Prime,/Premium, etc. provider, chances are you're ISP is a "Tier 2" provider that has to lease bandwidth and infastructure from the larger providers, such as the actual telcom lines, sat relays and microwave dishes.

If a Tier 1 provider decided to service an area they weren't before and that area has a few smaller providers leasing space from them, the larger provider could skyrocket their rates, slow down service, etc. all to force them out of business or make their customers shift to their newly established service.

New Neutrality says they pretty much can't do that. They have to keep providing service as they were, to who they were regardless of who the customers are and how they'll use the service. It also prevents ISP's from throttling service to other company's Web sites and online services even if that customer is a competitor in a different market.

It also prevents the major providers form entering into negotiations with other companies that would show favoritism to their services. Like Sony having a contract with Comcast that allows for premium access to all data coming to and from PS3 consoles, ensuring PS3 owners lag-free, high speed access to any game they like, while XBox owners have to live of the scraps of bandwidth left.

It's worked well with telecommunications companies in the past, preventing providers from denying certain customers or areas based on their own business interests. So I don't see how re-classifying Internet access to fall under this same umbrella cold be considered a bad thing... unless you're a billion-dollar share holder in Comcast maybe?