LMAO. You've been listening to Ted Cruz. Here's a site with pretty charts and pictures that explains how it works. "Dear Senator Ted Cruz, I'm going to explain to you how Net Neutrality ACTUALLY works" http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality Study it, then comeback and tell us why you're against Freedom and Liberty for Americans on the internet.
There's information about it all over the internet, but here's a few links to get you started 5 Major Ways the Internet Could Change Without Net Neutrality http://abcnews.go.com/Business/major-wa ... d=26815256 A Super-Simple Way to Understand the Net Neutrality Debate http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/upsho ... 0002&abg=0 6 reasons real conservatives should defy Republicans and support net neutrality http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7187 ... upport-net Why we need strong Net neutrality rules now http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-we ... 2014-03-24
Um... isn't that 3rd party advertising? Last I checked, ATA wasn't affiliated with any of those sites.
@Black-Dragon this things already happening here in Europe. But the other way around. From what I understand is highly possible in the feature to be extra charged according to your ISP deals. Here is the same, but the other way around. Just two examples: Lebara in Netherlands offer free data to use Whatsapp. Orange in Romania was offering 3 years ago (don't know if the offer still stand) unlimited traffic with Yahoo portal or on Yahoo Messenger app.
Last I checked ATA wasn't in competition with those websites neither. Moreover you are allowed to provide links to external websites if it is important for the topic.
Many of the companies that make money by providing a product or service over the internet support neutrality. Google does. They're they ones who would be charged higher fees for preferential treatment or be penalized if they don't pay. The ones looking to make money are the communications companies. The internet service providers. Contrary to what low information posters may say, this is not about the government taking over the internet. The government isn't going to regulate what you can access, how fast you can access it, or what you have to pay for it. All Net neutrality would do is keep the internet like is now. You pay an ISP for access. All data gets treated equally. You go where you want at the speed you paid for.
I don't doubt ISPs are aiming for this. Not sure how they can put it in stage. Either they charge the "target"(website) either charge the clients. Let's take first instance. Charging website to lift the "bottleneck". If they are aiming only big dogs (Google, Bing, Yahoo, Facebook) i doubt they'll bend over in front of ISPs. If the costs will go to clients how will client chose where they want increased speed? But of course the success rate of such a policy depends on the market too. If in an area there's only one ISP he's going to make the rules. In area where's more ISP the market makes the rules.
@ IIIVladIII You hit the nail on the head. The problem is there's very little competition in the US high speed internet market. "There are only a handful of key players nationwide: AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and a few other regional companies. Broadband providers have found a way around the monopolization issue, by dividing the country up into regions and cities that one company controls, rather than trying to compete for the nation as a whole. In most areas, when it comes to providers, you really have one choice. Sometimes a second may be available, but it is vastly less popular than the first. Others are free to enter the market, but rarely do. This way, the company can argue they are not a monopoly because they have "competition," but only one continues to dominate the marketplace...In this sense, broadband has become a natural monopoly over time. There is also the case of pricing. The cost of broadband to providers is about $5 per month. It is sold, on average, for $50 a month. Inflated pricing is one of the most common features of a monopoly, both natural and privately regulated." http://www.thewire.com/technology/2014/ ... ty/362093/ So the ISP makes the rules, not the market.
@Black-Dragon: exactly! Here in Netherlands I pay 20euro/month for a crap internet connection (20mps). If I want to switch from KPN to UPC would be a nightmare. At my home in Romania instead I pay 10euro/month for 200mps connection + landline with unlimited national phone calls + 60 TV channels. Why's that? Because there's 3 major competitors (RDS/RCS, Telekom and UPC). All of them are national players and is a huge competition between them for market share. Just to imagine what competition is between them. One of ISP was offering a free PC for a 2 years contract. Then another ISP started to offer a free laptop for a 2 years contract. Then the other ISP offered even a better laptop. And switching from a provider to another is piece of cake. So I doubt that an ISP in Romania will try to go on the path described in OP. If is doing that the other 2 big ISP will eat his market share in a blink of an eye.