Good to read a post here on Medium from someone who understands what Net Neutrality really is. I saw a spate a couple of weeks ago of people ranting about how unfair it is and what a disaster for free speech and democratic values that people who pay for a 100mbps link will get their data faster than people who use an internet — for -free ISP.
One guy even told me to read a paper by Prof. someone or other a professor of law, who had coined the phrase Net Neutrality in 2006. I passed on that because having worked as a digital networks specialist for years until I retired I rembembered we were talking about net neutrality in the 1990s and it refers to treating content equally, and not rigging search result listings for commercial or political advantage.
Another point that confuses a lot of people is that of content. Blocking access to racist or political extremism sites, or writers who oppose say sex marriage or question global warming is nothing to do with Net Neutrality and everything to do with censorship, which is a much more dangerous animal.
So yeah, because I’m a fair minded person I think content should be treated equally, even if it’s stuff I don’t like. The only reasons content should be sidelined is because it depicts or incites criminal behaviour.
But I also believe that someone who pays for a faster line than I do should get a better line speed just as I believe my BMW should go faster and be more comfortable and have more gadgets than a basic Nissan Micra.
I could afford a faster line but I don’t stream live content and have no need of it. Simples. I really have no need of a BMW 320i but I like it.