So apparently the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) plans to repeal/completely eliminate remove Net Neutrality laws over the united stated, by that meaning your ISPs can do multiple things:

• charge for specific websites
• slow down access to websites (in return killing them)
• create 'packages' for things even like google
• completely block website access

if the vote were to be passed on the voting date (December 14th) you would also no longer be able to be 'anonymous' as the net neutrality laws forces ISPs to treat all data the same, but without it, it means they can spy in on your data, and see everything you do.

By blocking websites they can force you to only be able to visit certain websites, such as blocking something as this (toribash), blocking access to youtube or putting it behind a paywall to even watch things that dont use youtube red.

overall the repeal could be horrible, and fuck over the united states as a whole, and me being a somewhat poor person i can't move to somewhere like the UK to escape this bullshit.

Overall, i'm afraid this may or may not be the end of a 'free internet' per-say.

Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/t...eutrality.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.5bf1b138cfa1
https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/21/ne...lity-comments/

Allowing internet providers to essentially limit what you look at is scary.
They can easily block youtube or other entertainment websites and say "You didn't pay for the entertainment package, pay $5 to but it." Or straight up allow people to buy faster internet. They can even block any competition's websites, forcing people to only use websites the provider approves of (anything they own).

It's an extremely scary time. What people look at should not be dictated by the internet service provider, and they should not be allowed to block you from using certain websites.

Why is this not the main topic of discussion, THIS IS SERIOUS PEOPLE!!! If internet providers partner with gaming companies this could effect the GAMING INDUSTRY AND EVERYONE IN IT. Your favorite games could be brushed aside in a rule-less internet. This doesn't just effect websites, this effects EVERYTHING INTERNET. If you think just because you don't live in the U.S you are safe, Well let me tell you once your government realizes just how much money is at stake doing this you could very well find yourself in our situation. This isn't just stupid, its dangerous. I genuinely fear for Ajit Pai's safety at this point, he will be messing with some peoples livelihoods.

If this happened i think the market would eventually correct itself. One of the many competing ISPs would offer "net neutrality" as part of their featured service and as customers flock to that provider the rest of the ISPs would follow that fashion.
-----
Or it will all be a clusterfuck.

The main problem is not so much that i think i'm safe as it's being unable to do anything about what's going on in 'murica. I mean sure, i could write to relevant people over there, but they're going to give exactly zero shits about some dude from across the atlantic who they don't make any money on.

Don't get me wrong, this is a DEEPLY concerning turn of events, and although Denmark is slightly less in the grasp of corporate jackasses, i absolutely don't doubt that the politicians would see this as an excellent way to squeeze even more money out of the population (and then they'll use that for tax reductions, whoop-de-fuckin'-doo). All i'm hoping for, if this repeal gets passed, is that people will figure out a way to either bypass the inevitable restrictions or otherwise punch the relevant people directly in the dick wallet. Or, if we're lucky, there'll be a few ISPs left with a shred of integrity who choose to maintain net neutrality without making it a Full Net Neutrality Package (only 20$/month!).

But, alas, anyone outside of USA can't really do much of anything besides scowling and shaking their fists angrily. Even if we could, pathos alone would matter zilch to these people; the only way to make them listen is if their bottom line drops.


... This is already a thing though. Last time i checked, connection speed and monthly cost are generally proportional. :v
The rest of it though, yes, very true. It could very well end up being like it is in China, where you can basically only access goverment-approved websites due to the extreme internet censorship they have. As of right now, the net neutrality repeal is for money and not for propaganda, but unfortunately, it could EASILY swing in that direction too.

I'll explain why it would be a problem, and net neutrality is definitely at risk of being stripped away with little recourse for customers to contest it. It requires understanding a little about how America's infrastructure is.

First, big ISPs generally do not compete with each other in America. They are "competing" ISPs in that they are all ISPs providing services in America, but if you look at their coverage you'll find there's very little, if any, overlap of big ISPs coverage in a region. As such, big ISPs hold a regional monopoly over internet access. Considering how long this has been going on, it's almost certain that there's some degree of collusion between big ISPs to shut down small competitors in an area, and carve out the American country between themselves. This sets the environment for strong arm business tactics, and gives little to no opportunity for a consumer to just go to a competing ISP. Government-run ISPs are rare, and often only function in a small regional capacity, and still require transmitting across larger ISPs networks.

Which leads to the second problem. It only takes one jackass company with a money boner to fuck over everybody else because of how the Internet works.

Very simply put, the Internet is a bunch of interconnected networks, and ISPs are entities that have invested in the infrastructure necessary to facilitate communication between these networks. By this nature, it means that traffic that goes from point A to point B could travel through several different networks and, by extension, several different ISPs who host those connections. It only takes one of those ISPs along that path to hold traffic for ransom (aka, not abiding by net neutrality) for service to deteriorate for everybody who uses that path. Because there's little to no competition in America between ISPs, it often means that there's no other efficient option available. So that ISP can effectively hold everybody's Internet for ransom unless their dickhead demands are met.

Which can lead to a worst case scenario where every ISP decides to hold other ISPs for ransom. This leads to one of two things. One, the Internet becomes fragmented, since ISPs will inevitably pass the cost of "premium" access (aka, access to networks that the ISP doesn't own) to the consumer. This is the threat of no net neutrality that most people are afraid of, and you can see instances of failed net neutrality in places like Spain and Portugal, where there is no regulation enforcing it. There, ISPs charge you extra to access more sites than the default package.

Two, it's possible every major ISP decides to collude with each other to no longer hold each other's traffic for ransom. While this may look good initially, it's a dangerous situation to have. Competing services should have little collusion, since collusion between all major competitors can result in an oligopoly. Essentially, the risk is that now that they're collaborating to not throttle each other's traffic, they may collaborate to now raise all their prices, or all provide worse service. If their "competitors" are all providing the same equally bad service, then there can be no market correction. The multi-company equivalent of a monopoly has been established. There are laws in place against this, but enforcement is dodgy, and it requires proving that the collusion exists, which is difficult.


Basically, nothing is inherently lost by maintaining net neutrality as law, despite what Ajit Pai and his corporate buddies say, but there is a lot to lose by making it optional. Market corrections don't happen with ISPs because ISPs don't have any competitors.

Cant vpn solve this

Maybe. But you need to consider some points:

Let's take for example a company like Netflix. If an ISP were to put pressure on Netflix directly, and in turn Netflix ends up paying the ransom to your ISP, the result is more likely to be reflected in the subscription cost of Netflix increasing. Not in the extra cost of having access to Netflix charged by an ISP. This knock on effect of price increases cannot be combated by a VPN.

Secondly, the ISP could effectively slow down connection to known VPNs to close this workaround. Regardless, VPNs have always been a privacy tool, not a speed tool. They have always been a bit slower due to how VPN tunneling works by encrypting your packets. This results in more data to send and therefore slower connections.

The repeal of Net Neutrality is a very scary thing. As stated in OP, they can put certain sites behind paywalls, and slow your internet when you attempt to access certain websites. I am 100% for Net Neutrality. I think that if I'm paying Cox to provide me with internet services, that I shouldn't be stonewalled when I want to watch Netflix, or Youtube.

Consider the implications of Net Neutrality. If they can see which websites you view, because this is necessary to determine whether or no you need to pay an extra fee in order to access it, whats to stop them from always viewing your browser searches and websites you visit? The invasion of privacy would be limitless.

It also doesn't hurt to mention the fact that Ajat Pai also has connections in multiple organizations that would benefit from this. He used to work for Verizon, and also has had quite the bias towards the Sinclair Broadcast Group. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, because why would someone be so dead-set on doing something as controversial as this unless he had a motive.

Let's take a look at the Sinclair Broadcast Group. Recently, two Democrats in the House of Representatives have asked for a probe into the FCC, though mainly pointed at Ajit Pai's personal bias towards them. Basically what they are saying is that recent legislation that the FCC has passed greatly benefits this single organization. These accusations are fairly without evidence, but it definitely warrants a greater look into the issue.

I believe that the appeal of Net Neutrality will be passed, as the FCC is mainly a conservative organization at the moment. However when it reaches Congress, it will be appealed as many of the conservatives in congress disagree with the actions Ajit is taking.

Let's hope you're right parrot, as im legit worried about this lol