I'm sorry
@Krynn72, but here were the rules before:
LifeHacker:
1.
Fail to deliver service that was advertised: If you were promised 20Mbps service and you find you’re usually only getting 5Mbps (through a service like
Speedtest.net), your ISP has failed to provide you the service it advertised to you. This doesn’t mean your service can
never go below an advertised speed.
2.
Block or throttling legal content or devices: Your ISP is not allowed to block any otherwise legal content. It also can’t throttle your speeds based on the types of traffic or application you’re using. There are some allowances for “reasonable network management”, but even that definition is up for debate, so if it seems like your connection is being throttled, it’s better to report it anyway.
So, now under the loss of Net Neutrality, they CAN block any device and throttle your speeds. It used to be they would simply throttle the services (Filesharing, etc).
If I cancel my Internet service I am no longer paying for it on my own volition. If I have my service throttled, I'm still paying full price for virtually no service (under this circumstance).
Now, I plainly understand that if your are breaking the law then yes, they are allowed to block your traffic or stop your service - but only after being found guilty... this is still America. NOW, you only need to be suspected, a low bar with no recourse.
Let us not forget how Net Neutrality Laws were solidified:
In 2007,
Comcast, the largest cable company in the US, was found to be blocking or severely delaying
BitTorrent uploads on their network using a technique which involved creating 'reset' packets (
TCP RST) that appeared to come from the other party.
[38] An August 2007 report by
TorrentFreak (based on substantial nationwide research led by chief researcher
Andrew Norton) noted that ISPs had been throttling BitTorrent traffic for almost two years, since 2005, but Comcast was completely blocking it in at least some cases.
[39] This was later verified by both the
EFF[40] and
Associated Press[41]. On March 27, 2008, Comcast and BitTorrent reached an agreement to work together on network traffic where Comcast was to adopt a protocol-neutral stance "as soon as the end of [2008]", and explore ways to "more effectively manage traffic on its network at peak times."
[42] In December 2009, Comcast reached a proposed settlement of US$16 million, admitting no wrongdoing
[43] and amounting to no more than US$16 per share.
[44]
In August 2008, the FCC made its first Internet network management decision.
[45] It voted 3-to-2 to uphold a complaint against Comcast ruling that it had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using
file-sharing software because it
throttled the bandwidth available to certain customers for video files to ensure that other customers had adequate bandwidth.
[46][47] The FCC imposed no fine, but required Comcast to end such blocking in the year 2008, ordered Comcast to disclose the details of its network management practices within 30 days, submit a compliance plan for ending the offending practices by the end of the year, and disclose to the public the details of intended future practices. Then-FCC chairman
Kevin J. Martin said the order was meant to set a precedent, that Internet providers and all communications companies could not prevent customers from using their networks the way they see fit, unless there is a good reason. In an interview Martin stated that "We are preserving the open character of the Internet" and "We are saying that network operators can't block people from getting access to any content and any applications." The case highlighted whether new legislation is needed to force Internet providers to maintain
network neutrality, i.e., treat all usages of their networks equally. The legal complaint against
Comcast was related to
BitTorrent, software that is commonly used for downloading movies, television shows, music and software on the Internet.
[48]
So, no, it was not like 'this' before.
