Nothing about the article gives off the right impression. For starters the whole point of net
neutrality was for it to keep ISPs from having favorites like charging companies extra to get
their content delivered faster or throwing away stuff they don't like. Basically giving that
power away to companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast feels less like “freeing up the
market” and more of removing the one thing that kept them from exploiting both users and
smaller websites.
What I didn't like the most was the whole reasoning behind it. The court didn't say net
neutrality is a bad policy, it said the FCC never had the legal authority to apply it as a federal
utility rule in the beginning. Which means this will just be a big fight that will go back and
forth every time the political wind shifts instead of ever getting settled. States like California,
Washington, and Oregon still have their own net neutrality laws but that just creates a
situation where your internet rights depend on your zipcode.
To me, as someone who builds content projects and apps I heavily rely on fast hosting, APIs
and video platforms. Taking away these neutrality rules would basically be deprioritizing
traffic to smaller platforms I use or self host while “fast laning” traffic to bigger partners who
pay a price. This also means that my side hobbies like streaming or gaming could get more
expensive or slower unless providers pay ISPs directly which evidently will fall into the
consumers paying higher costs. This will just result in many consumers like me using VPNs
or paying for “premium” tiers just to get decent enough speeds to the services I use for school
and work.
But realistically the outcome wouldn't be immediately bad. ISPs probably know a backlash
would hurt them in the long run but right now that door is only slowly shifting to pay to play
deals that erode an open internet over time. To me that's what worries me the most long term
especially since I rely on the internet both as a student and someone who runs independent
side projects.
neutrality was for it to keep ISPs from having favorites like charging companies extra to get
their content delivered faster or throwing away stuff they don't like. Basically giving that
power away to companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast feels less like “freeing up the
market” and more of removing the one thing that kept them from exploiting both users and
smaller websites.
What I didn't like the most was the whole reasoning behind it. The court didn't say net
neutrality is a bad policy, it said the FCC never had the legal authority to apply it as a federal
utility rule in the beginning. Which means this will just be a big fight that will go back and
forth every time the political wind shifts instead of ever getting settled. States like California,
Washington, and Oregon still have their own net neutrality laws but that just creates a
situation where your internet rights depend on your zipcode.
To me, as someone who builds content projects and apps I heavily rely on fast hosting, APIs
and video platforms. Taking away these neutrality rules would basically be deprioritizing
traffic to smaller platforms I use or self host while “fast laning” traffic to bigger partners who
pay a price. This also means that my side hobbies like streaming or gaming could get more
expensive or slower unless providers pay ISPs directly which evidently will fall into the
consumers paying higher costs. This will just result in many consumers like me using VPNs
or paying for “premium” tiers just to get decent enough speeds to the services I use for school
and work.
But realistically the outcome wouldn't be immediately bad. ISPs probably know a backlash
would hurt them in the long run but right now that door is only slowly shifting to pay to play
deals that erode an open internet over time. To me that's what worries me the most long term
especially since I rely on the internet both as a student and someone who runs independent
side projects.
