The internet as we kknow is threatened by an EU proposal right now.

Companies want to abolish net neutrality and introduce a 2 class internet in order to charge more money from companies. Like GOG.com for example. And if GOG is not willing to pay, it gets downgraded.

And the companies that are lobbying this new law call it the fast lane and the `hyperfast lane`. Not kidding.

Defend net neutrality by writing an email to eu parlament.
https://savetheinternet.eu/en/

net neutrality is always under threat by big companies like Facebook.

Is this like the debacle in the US where net neutrality was really just code talk for censorship and locking down the internet?

We already got new internet taxes here in Russia (they will go in power at the end of this year)....

Need to wait, maybe someone will invent charging money for breathing or something of that kind :)

"Come on Cohagen you got what you want, give these people AIR"

If they could they would.

Companies would DRM everything if they could. Look at coffee machine FFS, DRM on fucking K-cups?

That was about censorship of internet.

In absence of net neutrality particular company give benefit to your internet service provider and in exchange ISP gives that company's website/app/product an increased internet bandwidth.

For example : In net neutrality all websites/apps are treated equally.
You have same speed on Google,Amazon, Facebook, What'sApp, Viber, Steam, GOG and all the internet.

Now, Suppose if there is no net neutrality.
Now your ISP/ Mobile Service provider "X" signs a contract with Amazon, Facebook and What'sApp.
And Facebook decide to give free service to customers of "X".
Amazon gives more offers to customers of "X".
What'sApp don't charge for data to customers of "X"

What happens to other apps/website?
You get less download speed on GOG and rest of internet.
If you don't use "X" you will miss offers on Amazon.
You will have to pay more to use Google.

This will lead to competition and eventually cost of data will rise.

Without net neutrality, the established sites would overpower the emerging sites, and try to ensure new sites never become popular. They want to use their current power to glue themselves into the marketplace like parasites they are and they want to keep their position by not providing better services but by sabotaging their competitors. This will eliminate the internet as a place where everyone can do anything; under reasonable limits and be treated equally and be judged only by the popularity. Abolishing net neutrality will give the big companies control over very large swathes of the internet and virtually eliminate any competition. This will mean an established site popular before abolition of net neutrality can only get bigger while any site that comes into the business after it will constantly lack power to grow.

Supporting the abolition of net neutrality will mean you're giving a chance that misleading indoctrinating braindead motherfuckers like Foxnews and ABC will continue to live on because they eliminate the competition. It will mean no one will ever be able to start another new e-commerce site. It will mean that geniuses from areas where internet is only still taking hold can never express their talents without a corporate white collar master. Support net neutrality, and let the shitstains who want to kill the free market burn in acid.

/psychotic rant

You guys are completely misrepresenting what Net Neutrality was, and just buying into propoganda that was pushed by a few big companies against other big companies.

Tell me, why should we have to foot part of the bill for every site out there? If the bigger sites have to pay more for their bandwidth, that entirely makes sense. Some would go the 800 number route, others would go the 900 number route. Would this mean you'd end up paying more for some sites? Yes, but it also means you wouldn't be paying anything for those you don't use. All in all, you'd be paying a lot less since the companies that use a lot of bandwidth would have to foot their own bills. The existence of a faster, more expensive plane doesn't magically break all the slower, cheaper planes, why would you think that the internet would work this way?

Smaller sites would have been mostly unaffected by it. GOG is probably large enough they'd have to make a decision, but it's really only the larger sites that would have been effected. Small sites wouldn't need as much bandwidth.

Besides that, competition drives prices DOWN, not UP. Show me any free market where competitors have driven each others' prices up. Competition is what allows smaller sites to become known, while larger sites have to work to keep their popularity, instead of just resting on their laurels. Let the free market work instead of handing it off to bureaucrats who will turn the internet into China's vision of such.

You clearly don`t understand the concept of this new upcoming bill, if a site like Steam or GOG is not willing to pay, they get downgraded.

Also smaller sites and companies will not have the money to get into the 1st class internet and therefore innovation within the internet will decline, because small startups like google or facebook won`t have a chance to succeed against established brands, no matter if they have the better product or not.

A similar bill was lobbyied in the US and over there internet groups (aka the people) and big corporations like amazon, google, facebook and netflix teamed up in order to prevent this bill.

You clearly don`t know what you`re talking about. Stop consuming the lobby advertisements in newspapers etc and start to use your brain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

capitalist bastards will try to capital on everything, its a like disease or virus turns them in profiting zombies

I've already responded to both of your points. Please reread my posts and respond accordingly.

Also, I find it funny that you defend thing like SOPA, PIPA, NN, and TPP while claiming that I'm buying into lobbyists propaganda.

Your metaphor seems off. This isn't about inventing a faster, more expensive plane/internet system, it's about reallocating what we have. In terms of planes (and ignoring the technological impracticality of what I'm about to suggest - it's a metaphor!), it's more like removing some of the engines from some of the planes and putting them on other planes to make them go faster, then charging more for the "hyperfast planes". People who aren't prepared to pay for the fast planes will be stuck with planes which are going slower than they used to be, due to having fewer engines, and will still be paying the same price.

Note that I'm not necessarily trying to argue that this is a good or bad thing - it's far too late at night to be coming to conclusions like that.

Just generally - f*****g useless politicians everywhere.
They take office to represent the people, and all they ever do is represent their own pockets. Never bothering to read what they sign or pass laws with no real concept or interest in how it will affect others.

I really wish getting into these positions was more favourable towards honest people. Anyway, bookmarked for tonight as I am too tired to write out a long email to our MEP, and I refuse to sign something until I have read it and at least feel I understand what I put my name to.

It's surprisingly difficult from this post to determine if you're for or against network neutrality, since your tone suggests you're opposed to it but every example you give is one where regulation has improved infrastructure and consumer options.

I mean, your other posts make it clear. But I can tell that you haven't done any serious research into the topic or thought about it very hard, because you aren't making good arguments against regulation. To wit, and LIFO queued from your second post:

In the USA, it has been amply demonstrated that a substantial majority of broadband consumers have either one or two options for provider. That does not allow free market philosophy to apply, as time and again we see that those major providers are in a state of detente, increasing speeds and improving service only when a potential competitor arises - and is then rapidly put down or bought out. This, incidentally, is a barrier to entry for the market, again making free market economics irrelevant.

The claim that smaller sites would be unaffected is incorrect and irrelevant, because like wealth distribution, the largest sites represent an overwhelming percentage of network traffic. The relevant concern for network neutrality is that ISPs, which are already allowed to host local content, will include prohibitive tariffs on traffic coming from competition or sites that don't pay up for unthrottled service. As before, free market economic theory does not apply, because the lack of choice the typical American broadband customer has prevents a newcomer from offering better service or cheaper costs.

The reason we should have to foot the bill for every site out there is that as citizens of the USA, we are legally and ideologically driven by the idea of freedom of speech. If someone chooses to capitalize on their speech, it should be their choice, not the choice of the service providers who should exist to provide an information backbone. The idea that customers would pay less if there were no NN ruling has not come to be; the additional regulation by the FCC explicitly allowing and encouraging municipal network provision as an alternative and competitor to the large ISPs is actually one of the most free market things about the whole debate - and it was only made possible by regulation.

This is my field; I'm a network nerd. Network neutrality is in line with the original intent of the Internet (as designed by DARPA and ARPA), the original design of the internet (as a connection between the largest universities and trusted foundry sites in the nation), and the way that the 'net and 'web worked before large businesses began to rent-seek. Not liking NN is fine; arguing like you're doing is not.

EDIT: typos