content: Imagine, if you can even be bothered to fathom an opinion different from your own that didn't come out of Chicago boys thinking, Time Warner decides that every one of its customers gets   6000  premium news from CNN at no extra cost, if you want news from another site than you or that other site will have to pay in order to have access to those sites. Voat already falls under a lot of fuckwits definitions of both social media and news aggregator, its a direct competitor to CNN's websites, what is there to prevent Time Warner from decided it needs play gatekeeper to its millions of customers and ban Voat based on hatespeech unless Voat pays them for access or TimeWarner customers fork over more money to access "unapproved" websites? I'm also going to give you a dose of reality, this is not packet prioritization, this is not international or even national traffic throughput or reliablity at risk, big isps all have a direct line to big web services like YouTube, Google, Facebook, Netflix etc, they all have on network caching so that when Johnny Bumblefuck wants his 40th conservative episode of Cheers his traffic has not left his ISP's network. ISP's like Comcast and TimeWarner are not the fucking internet, they buy connectivity from companies like Level3 but they are cheap fucks unwilling to not only invest in their own networks and additional connectivity but also perfectly willing to enable a scenario where they the companies that own an awful lot of the worlds media can decide, just as a TV provider would, precisely who can have access to what. You know if your doctors internet craps out its your ISP's fault for over fucking selling its capacity right? They oversold what the doctors node / infrastructure could provide while relying on copper cabling that could be up to a mile long and spliced into hundreds of times over a two-three decade period while they refused to roll out the fiber network they were given a tax break to pay for.   but its socalism  No its not its called regulation, its all that stands between abusive practices designed to exploit monopoly sized market shares. Let me give you another dose of reality, the only reason the Obama FCC chairman put any effort into allowing netneutrality was so that Trumps FCC could take all of the flack for fucking over a whole lot of peoples internet services. It wasn't to be socialist, it wasn't to seize the networks for their own gain, it wasn't the first stage in Ministry of Truth style manipulation it was an objectively good thing put in place so that Trumps FCC (the same people as Obamas tbh) would get all the blame for doing what ISP's want.  but Johnny Bumblefuck isn't as important as an ER room!  Your average hospital is going to use a commercial service not a residential ISP, they'd also have their network traffic setup with priories and error checking in mind meaning what is high priority gets sent first and both ends of the data transfer can tell if the data was received intact or not. That commercial service would be a couple gbit per second fiber line not a couple hundred mbit, it would also be buying bandwidth directly off of actual connectivity providers like Level3 so Johnny Bumblefucks netflix shows using so many hundreds of GB of data doesn't fucking matter because its another ISP and Johnnys ISP has cached that data on its local network anyway meaning it never went though the same networks that the ER rooms data would ever go across. I mentioned commercial services, these would be fiber if its possible or sometimes its just very large very powerful microwave transmitters connecting the hospital site to a location where a fiber connection can be accessed so even if Johnny Bumblefuck lived next do and was also a mad torrent whore its not like it would effect the hospitals connection in anyway.