Yahoo! Article Uses Portugal as Example of the Internet w/o Net Neutrality

Quote from BKL

Nothing wrong with paying more faster access, but I do not expect my ISP to give me slow response from a website that hasn't yielded to an ISP's blackmail demands for their content to get delivered. I already paid extra to get access to whatever site I want to view. Now if the ISPs are wanting to shift access costs from the consumer to the provider, that's one thing, but I don't think they should be allowed to charge at both ends if I am already paying for faster access.

I think you have it backward, there is something wrong with the end user having to pay for faster access. I dont think content users should have to be the ones to pay more as you and I do. you and I are the customers, the end users of content that most content providers make money providing to us, either by selling us something or by subjecting us to advertising. If they want us to have the best access to their content they should be the ones that pay extra for higher speeds to make it more available to us so that we want to use their sites and not others. If they dont want to pay extra then we the end users are free to find a content provider that is willing to pay to give us the speed/access to make it easy for us to be their customers. I agree with you that it shouldn't be paid for on both ends, but under the "net neutrality" that has supposedly been in place for the last 4 years every provider I know of has been selling people like you and me different levels of services where we the end users are the ones that have to pay more if we want to receive content faster and in my view that is totally bass ackwards.

Over the last 4 year this so called net neutrality has done nothing except force us the clients and users of content to be the ones to pay if we want it faster instead of being able to charge the providers to pay if they want to give/it to us faster.

I dont make a dime using the internet but many companies using the internet do make money from me and frankly if they want to make money from me then they should be the ones to pay to make it easier for me and the ones who pay more to make it easier are most likely going to be the ones that make more money

Quote from EricRedSL

I'm paying 65 a month for my connection. i refuse to pay a penny more. i will just cancel and do without. i know i am in the minority but enough is enough.

Not an option if you rely on it for business. I moved to a rural location and had to use Hughes net, the only provider available and the speed sucks. Kind of proves @'BKL''s point: Why improve service if they're the only provider?

Anyone who was subscribed to comcast and had Netflix a few years ago when the whole fiasco happened and Comcast pretty much brought Netflix to a slow crawl mode of infinite buffering until Netflix coughed up a few millions should understand why net neutrality is a necessity.

soon after Netflix paid the fee they increased all their plans so is not like they had to pay the fees, we did.... The consumer had to pay a premium price twice, once to the ISP for internet and then to Netflix to pay to comcast.

If net neutrality is completely out of the question then there is nothing stopping ISPs like Comcast from choking every other content provider and make the whole cord cutter a thing of the past.

Quote from EricRedSL

I'm paying 65 a month for my connection. i refuse to pay a penny more. i will just cancel and do without. i know i am in the minority but enough is enough.

I have only had a personal computer since 12/01/14 so I know that I can do without. That was when one of my doctors tried to kill me and I was laid up in the house for 2 years and had to have something to do. I used computers at work and my first computer class was about 1975.