Goodbye Net Neutrality

Quote: JB

The government also recently gave ISPs the ability to sell customer web site access history without the consent of the customers.

My congressman called that giving everyone more freedom without unnecessary regulations. Ugh.

Quote: Pacomartin

I doubt that it will come down to discriminating websites.

That's the spirit they are banking on everyone having.

In reality, this discrimination is the reason big cable wanted Net Neutrality gone. Now they can offer a "premium" service which delivers today's speeds at higher prices, while "non-premium" traffic is artificially slowed down. And being the monopolies they are, they can do this at both ends of the transaction. Cha-ching!

Quote: Dalex64

This is why you have that choice:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_Canada

That legislation keeps everyone in the game but even in my small town two different providers have fiber to your door available. Kinda of funny that Bell opposed the legislation since they are the small player in the west and they tag onto the Telus fibre. Shaw updated their co-ax to fibre as well.

Quote: kenarman

I don't know anything about the system in the US but the above seems to be where the real problem is. Where a provider can own a neighbourhood. In Canada in most homes have access to 3 providers via cable/fibre and another provider via satellite.

In Mex City, there are like four options for pay TV, four or five for phone service, three for cel, and 4 for internet.

But I see no problem with users paying their ISPs more for faster Netflix.

Quote: Nareed

But I see no problem with users paying their ISPs more for faster Netflix.

The problem is that, with net neutrality, there is no problem. There is no shortage of bandwidth. Once NN is gone, the ISPs will create artificial scarcity so that they can sell what we currently have as a "premium service level" for a higher price.

Furthermore, the very infrastructure of the internet essentially depends on net neutrality. When your data has to hop across multiple networks before it gets to you, and each network along the way applies their own brand of artificial slowness, everybody's online experience will suffer.

I can't understand why anyone would want to replace something which is already as good as it can be, and benefits everybody, with something that costs more and provides less (unless of course they work for one of the monopolies that stands to benefit from it).

Quote: terapined

Its car competition dealerships having access to roads and highways.

Wouldn't a toll road be a better analogy? You can choose to pay a fee to take the quicker route (toll road) or choose not to pay it and take the longer less convenient way to your destination.

Quote: JB

The problem is that, with net neutrality, there is no problem. There is no shortage of bandwidth. Once NN is gone, the ISPs will create artificial scarcity so that they can sell what we currently have as a "premium service level" for a higher price.

The point is people advocating preferred bandwidth for some sites assume Netflix or YouTube will pay for it. No skin off their ass, right? But if the users had to pay extra, they'd be far less sanguine about the matter.

In the end they will pay extra, be it by higher subscription fees, restricted content or more ads. But the first taste is free.

Quote: DRich

Wouldn't a toll road be a better analogy? You can choose to pay a fee to take the quicker route (toll road) or choose not to pay it and take the longer less convenient way to your destination.

Yes, but a Chevy and a Beamer pay the same toll.

Tolls are based on size and weight, at least in Mexico. So a car pays less than a tractor trailer or a bus. This makes sense, as a heavier vehicle wears out the road more.

On the internet, servers hosting heavier usage, the analogy for a heavier vehicle, already pay for more bandwidth.

Quote: Nareed

The point is people advocating preferred bandwidth for some sites assume Netflix or YouTube will pay for it. No skin off their ass, right? But if the users had to pay extra, they'd be far less sanguine about the matter.

They don't understand the technical details and/or are blindly pushing some corporate/political agenda without realizing it will be detrimental to themselves as well.

Net neutrality is optimal strategy. That's not an opinion, it's not up for debate, it's a technical fact. With net neutrality, every packet of data is top priority, so there is no need to inspect each one to decide if it is high priority or low priority according to some corporate/political agenda. Without this delay, the internet runs like a well-oiled machine.

Now the head of the FCC, a "former" Verizon employee, wants to replace that oil with vinegar by slowing down every packet to determine its "priority". Deciding if a packet is high priority or low priority will be a slow task in terms of computing speed, and this will happen on every network and with every packet travels that across them, creating massive congestion and slowdown for everybody. Without net neutrality, all traffic (including "fast lane" traffic) will be slower than what it is today.

Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.

The Interstate Highway System is 48,000 miles of mobility, connectivity and economic vitality.The Interstate system cost roughly $129 billion to build with the federal government promoting the original idea and contributing $119 billion toward
construction. Though the federal government provided much of the funding, the states own the roads and are responsible for their operation and maintenance.
Over 3,000 miles of the Interstate system consists of toll roads that pre-dated the establishment of the Interstate System.

In Mexico the Interstate system was almost entirely built after 1988. It is all tolls, most of which are amazingly high by USA standards. Yes, by law there is always a free alternative which is incredibly slow. It's construction made a handful of people including Carlos Salinas, 53rd President of Mexico In office December 1, 1988 – November 30, 1994 one of the wealthiest men in history via government graft. A report by the U.S. General Accounting Office indicated that Raúl Salinas had transferred over $90 million out of Mexico into private bank accounts in London and Switzerland through a complex set of transactions between 1992 and 1994.

Quote: DRich

Wouldn't a toll road be a better analogy? You can choose to pay a fee to take the quicker route (toll road) or choose not to pay it and take the longer less convenient way to your destination.

The free interstate system in the USA is probably the most important transportation investment in American history and the engine of much of the economy. A project of that magnitude must have had its share of graft and corruption, but the end result is a fairly solid financial investment which most people share.

I don't think the idea of a single toll road is the best analogy. You have to think about the system as a whole.