[perrylaj]

There are plenty of examples of real damage caused by ISPs being able to give preferential treatment to what _they_ think is important. A quick search comes up with plenty of examples:

1. ISPs limiting 3rd party VOIP solutions to avoid competition with their own VOIP solutions

2. Comcast blocking bitorrent communication was pretty obvious case of ISP preferentially limiting traffic

3. Verizon blocking text messages it didn't like the political message of

4. Verizon blocking 3rd party tethering apps, limiting users from using the bandwidth they pay for because they want to prevent competition

5. ATT prevented Facetime over their network unless users paid a higher subscription, even though users were already paying for data

6. Verizon limiting bandwidth for arbitrary reasons during natural disasters (first responders communication hampered due to limits justified through 'we don't need to follow net neutrality anymore')

Those are a few, there are MANY more examples in the US alone. Ya, some or many have been rolled back due to public outcry, but they shouldn't have happened to begin with. Allowing ISPs to determine which traffic is allowed based on their own self interest is just a terrible idea. Just because you haven't been harmed by it yet doesn't mean much, especially not in a country where the majority have only one or maybe two broadband ISPs to choose from. It WILL be abused, and we know this because it already has.

ISPs should be dumb pipes and not much more.

[nostromo]

Do you have any examples post 2020, when net neutrality was revoked?

The internet has changed dramatically in the 10+ years since most of your examples and removal of net neutrality regulation has not seemed to cause any of those issues to resurface.

[Cody-99]

Twitch left Korea because of their crazy fees that would be prohibited under net neutrality. ISPs double dip and charge websites/companies like twitch, Youtube, etc to deliver data and also charge their users money at the same time. https://restofworld.org/2024/south-korea-twitch-exit-problem...

>The problem stems from a “sender pays” rule instituted by South Korea’s Ministry of Science and ICT in 2016, to address the growing interconnection demands of video streaming and other bandwidth-intensive services. The rule requires companies to compensate the receiving networks for the traffic they send. It’s meant to tax heavy senders like Netflix and YouTube. Livestreaming sites like Twitch face particularly steep fees, as low latency is critical for live content.

>The “sender pays” model has been widely criticized by net neutrality advocates: In a recent statement calling for the repeal of the rule in the wake of Twitch’s exit, Open Net Korea warned that it “devastates the domestic content ecosystem” and “fragments the internet.”

One doesn't need an example from just a few months ago to see why this is a bad idea. Acting like the internet is so different today than 5/10 years ago so you can try to dismiss good examples is silly and acting in bad faith.

[bisby]

> One doesn't need an example from just a few months ago to see why this is a bad idea. Acting like the internet is so different today than 5/10 years ago so you can try to dismiss good examples is silly and acting in bad faith.

Also, it doesn't matter how old an example is: if we can all agree that companies doing this is bed, then we shouldn't allow it. "It was awful 10 years ago, and it would still be awful now, but it hasn't happened recently, so it must all be fine." is very short sighted.

Either net neutrality is good, and we should have it. Or net neutrality is bad, and you dont need "yeah but that was 10 years ago" as your counter. If you can make an argument for "ATT charging you to use facetime is a good thing", then make that argument. Not "but that was so long ago".

"Yeah I agree, those things were awful, lets make sure they happen again"

[quickslowdown]

Do you work for an ISP or something? I've seen almost this exact comment from you sprinkled all over this thread...