thats my understanding of net neutrailuty. although priority to those how pay may not be censroship, priority to govt approved content would be, especially if unapproved content was a trickle bandwidht

I'd say priority to those who pay might or might not be considered a kind of restriction, if not censorship, depending on how they've acquired the cash to pay with.

i wonder where netflix got their cash?

probs with no net neutrality include , suppose baidu gets priority, where does that leave all other search platforms? suppose china telecom hog the bandwidth at higher prices for commericial services, where does that leave the plebs?

@dazzer
In the USA - "net neutrality" was the government's requirement that all data be treated equally - aka no network traffic would receive priority - such as streaming videos, e-cash transactions, etc.

Telcos make profit by providing paid-for SLAs (service level agreements) that prioritize certain forms traffic, during certain periods of time.

Most consumers are unaware of the prioritization of certain traffic - and just wonder ignorantly and blissfully unaware of why the internet is so slow today.

oh! you do understand what it means. hard to tell from your earlier postings

Yes, the principle of net neutrality is that simple. The complications introduced on here simply reflect the ossified political views from left, right and sycophantic nationalism. Lot of the irrelevant stuff portrayed as facts are simply personal ideas by some of the very people that are quick to point to ‘fake news’ and alternative ‘facts’. The original topic buried.

Net neutrality is merely a functional component of the struggle between government vs commercial controls and consumer benefits or abuse.

Looking at issues as isolated issues as opposed to following the thread back to the perceived or potential root cause...occupational hazard. Apologies for the "conspiracy theory" bent.