Should internet service providers be allowed to speed up access to popular websites (that pay higher rates) at the expense of slowing down access to less popular websites (that pay lower rates)?

No, treat all traffic equally and continue the openness of the internet

No, this would allow them to remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and increase prices

Internet should be a service like water, sewer and electric. Just another utility.

No. The internet should be treated as a utility like it is in other countries. Our access speed is much slower than other countries and it's embarrassing.

No, ISPs should be allowed to speed up general internet access based on levels of consumer pay, but not website-by-website.

No, this would not only allow the popular websites to remove their competition, but they create artificial scarcity and increase prices. Internet traffic should be treated equally and that way it can continue the openness of the internet.

If a website is more visited, the connection should be sped up.

yes they should speed it up for people that pay more but dont slow the people who pay less.

No, this would lead to people taking advantage of these sites and would lead to spreading biased and corrupt ideas

No, internet traffic should be treated equally. Whatever speed a user pays an ISP, that is the speed the user should access the website.

No, against throttling speeds for anybody. Often poor people and small businesses are stuck with horrid slow speeds because they can't afford higher priced plans. The min speeds required for broadband are a good idea.

Free markets require fair competition, which means preventing ISPs from becoming gatekeepers who pick winners and losers. Basic internet access should be treated equally (net neutrality) to ensure small businesses, innovators, and individuals can compete with established players. However, ISPs should be allowed to offer premium tiers for specialized services (like emergency services, telemedicine) that require guaranteed bandwidth - but only if these don't throttle basic service. The goal is preventing artificial scarcity and monopolistic control while allowing market-driven innovation. Competition between ISPs, not content discrimination, should drive internet improvements.

Yes, ISP unless they are funded or controlled by the government have the choice to speed up access to websites as a private company of their choice.

They should be able to speed up access to popular websites but not at the expense by slowing down others.

That depends on what kind of website they are trying to reach because if they are trying to reach something they are not supposed to be on they don't need fast internet.

Yes, but only under strict regulation. First of all, it must be a pay-per-quality model and there should be a priority by type (video over images). This also cannot be done to a degree that it forces less popular websites to shut down.

Should providers be allowed to? Sure, but only at their own peril. Government should remove restrictions so that newer competitors can threaten their monopolies. These companies also face threats from decentralized networks like Helium. They should be allowed to implement variable site speed, but it should cost them in the market by allowing competitors to exist.

Yes. Service providers are private entities. They are entitled to run their business how they like it.

Yes and create a separate domain for porn at (.prn) and ban it from all basic internet packages from ISPs. Would require an extra subscription fee and a 10% excise tax on the entire internet cost.

ISPs should be nationalized as a critical utility and treated with the same protections as other strategic assets critical to National Security.

No, and the federal government should not be spending taxpayer money related to this. ISPs should be allowed to speed up general internet access based on levels of consumer pay, but not website-by-website.

No, speed should be adjustable by ISPs based on consumer pay, but overall only, not website-by-website.

It's hard to enforce this kind of thing, or at least it was. I think they should treat all taffic as equal and see where the traffic goes, instead of trying to guide and bolster it. Seems like a conflict of interest between people and the ISPs.

Silly question! Facebook & Amazon can locate their server farms close to a Verizon or AT&T internet switching center, connected via multiple fiber trunks for instant access. Ken runs his business on a Kubernetes cluster leased by a local provider that uses Verizon fiber to reach an AT&T access point 150 miles away. They are hardly comparable.

The govt does not need to be making decisions about how fast ISPs work - the market will make better decisions. The gov't does not decide how fast newspapers print and distribute their papers.

ISPs should be allowed to allocate infrastructure in whatever way they please, provided that all websites are given a minimum amount of access and their allocation choices are transparent, but ISPs should not be allowed to take bribes from any website for preferential treatment.

The consumer and ISP have a contract where the ISP provides internet often at a stated speed. If the ISP is not providing the consumer with that service, then the ISP is in breach of the contract.

each internet provider should be able to choose their services offered. Unless the provider has a monopoly on the market.

Proponents of net neutrality laws argue that they balance the rights and duties of individuals, governments and corporations, while ensuring that the Internet continues to be an open and decentralized network.

Yes, they should speed up access to popular websites but they shouldn't slow down access to less popular websites

Everyone should have the same speedy accesses to websites if possible. Why? Because it may be really important that someone accesses a website faster than slow even if its a small website.

They should be allowed to because they are private companies, but they should have to be transparent about it.

Yes, but only because they should be able to have that right and if they are a private company. Not that this is something I agree with.

Internet service providers are private companies that can do whatever they want. Personally, I think that the internet should be open and unrestricted and it would be unfair to slow down some websites but it makes a lot of sense to speed up the service to high traffic sites so that everyone can use sites that are used frequently without any hiccups. It makes sense and I don't think it's a big problem. It shouldn't be legally enforced. Let the companies decide what is best for them.

Get rid of patents so that ISPs can become more decentralized, to increase competition and ruin any chance of a cartel being able to outcompete the guy who doesn't slow access to websites. Theoretically, paying higher rates for faster speeds seems good until you realize ISPs can profit anyways without throttling their own services. It's like gimping a car you already made and selling it for cheaper, you didn't reduce costs, you made a mistake.

no because that would make it be like a pay to win system so other people would have to pay more just for the site to load faster

The term "allowed" infers government regulation. The answer then is that it's a market decision. The government should not be involved.

No, not only would this allow them to remove competition and create artificial scarcity. It also goes against all network morality in the sense that everything on the internet should be treated fairly by the providers of the site and the ISP's

No, This is all a scam that they throttle the internet speed this would only create worse problems and more frustration

Yes, but only over website type (such as video over images) popularity (YouTube over 4chan) and reputability (steam over freegames.com)

Contrary to the option preceding this one, I believe that doing this would create a monopoly for certain websites and make less popular websites unable to gain enough traction to be widely seen. I simply cannot agree with this.

No, keep the current speeds, but allow an limited amount of options for faster internet speed so that larger corporations are able to run faster, but not by a large margin.

No, and abolish private property

They shouldn't provide internet at all

Yes, but only if a minimum standard is met for less popular websites so that they cannot be bullied into paying more just to exist on the internet.

Internet service providers should be able to do what's within the power of their contract with the websites.

Depends how much faster they're made and if its proportional

The internet, like the economy, should be fixed in a way that wouldn't prompt this as a question.

No, and create a free, nationalized ISP service to ensure people in even the most remote locations have access to reliable internet and phone services

I believe it is fine the way it currently is.

The government should have no involvement

Yes, the government should let the free market run its course

Yes, and require transparency so that the market drives customers to corporations without this practice

No, and nationalize the sector

No, and internet service providers should be regulated as utilities

If it's a private company that receives no funding or mandates from the federal government, which it should be, they should not be required to do or not to do anything

No, and make internet access a public utility

Throttling data speeds intentionally should come with a fine.

No they should just be free

No, treat all traffic equally and continue the openness of the internet and this would allow them to remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and increase prices.

No, and the government should have more control over internet content

I think there are good arguments on both sides of this issue.

No, but the government shouldn’t regulate this

The market place has shown Net Neutrality to non-relevant because technology has resolved the issues with speed. Government involvement has shown continually shows its ignorance and only wishes to obtain governance and power.

Their a private business so let them do what they want

there should be no private property, and no monetary currency system, this would remove conflict altogether.

Yes, I disagree, but it is their right to manage their own business.

No, and the internet should become a nationalized utility

Separation of Business and State.

it depends on what it can do for me.

No, and the only internet service provider should be state-owned

No, i do not really understand this sentence.

i don't understand what this means.

not enough knoledge

Yes, directing speed where it's needed

No, and nationalize all internet service providers and unionize the workers

Yes, and government should not interfere

That’s up to them not the government

I do not have enough knowledge of this issue to have a stance

Yes, but speed up access to media outlets such as Renegade Tribune and other nationalistic websites that are fighting Jewish supremacism and communism.

Yes, they're a private company and can do as they please.

Internet should be a right to everyone living in America, citizen or otherwise and should be free to everyone.

Transmission rates should not be lowered only raised based on pay scale

i don't really have a stance on this

I don't even know what this question is asking for

Yes, internet providers are private companies and should be allowed the freedom to make their own decision on this.

No, treat internet service providers as utilities, repeal laws against municipal broadband, heavily prioritize open-access fiber optic networks, and separate infrastructure development from service provision

No, in this era the internet is no longer a luxury. We now live in a time where access to the internet is a necessity and everyone should receive the best possible service.

no, and nationalize all internet companies.

No. In the modern world, internet access is as much a human right as shelter, food, and healthcare.