Hey nerds: Ending net neutrality is not the end of the world. It could be good or bad, but it def isn't catastrophichttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/7dljcy/serious_what_can_the_average_joe_do_to_save_net/ …
-
-
No, I agree. Don't necessarily think that's *so* wrong though, in terms of destroying internet culture. Much of the homogenization of web culture has been self-inflicted.
-
Aren't you worried that it might negatively affect startups that require high bandwidth? Like AR and VR possibly? It could make the barrier to entry higher.
-
Sure, but the flipside of that is faster rollout of the broadband/cellular speeds necessary for good AR/VR. It's murky but sometimes benefits outweigh costs https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3049371 …
-
Yea, I'm with you. It's like net neutrality is a necessary evil only where there isn't competition.
-
It's a tradeoff between expanding access and diversity of providers. You could def make the case that expanding access is more important rn
-
Hm, can you connect the dots for me? (How does ending net neutrality lead to either expanded access or diversity of providers?)
-
One example is zero rating in India. By allowing mobile networks to provide Facebook-only internet free of charge to rural Indians -- Facebook pays, internet access is expanded.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
They could increase prices now regardless. I assume the 'unlimited package' would be the most expensive, which describes the status quo.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.