We've Already Squandered Net Neutrality — And That's OK (Op-Ed)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

eriko

Distinguished
Mar 12, 2008
29
0
18,580
0
@ hizzyshizzylizz

So because Netflix actually used the bit-rate that they paid for, they should be made to pay MORE? How does your logic work?

If they ISPs contracted to provide links to Netflix, don't like them using those links, why did they supply them?

Let us suppose Netflix paid for a 10Gb/s pipe (I'm sure they have many pipes, but whatever), is it your position that if they use all 10Gb/s of that bit-rate they should pay more? How, why?

If the ISP can't handle the traffic, then don't sell the links. If you want to limit a customer to say half of that pipes' throughput, say 500Mb/s, then sell them a 500Mb/s plan, and be prepared to peer that 500Mb/s to whereever it is going.

ISP sour grapes. Do your dam job.
 

bit_user

Distinguished
Herald
Jan 20, 2010
68
0
18,590
2
@kiniku: "In the guise of equality and fairness the government wants to control the internet. So now politics will be a factor in a consumer product. Fees will be added to fund internet for the "poor" also in the guise of fairness."

It's basically the same thing as telephone service. If they hadn't subsidized rural telephone access, a lot of homes in the US probably would've never had phone lines.

There are two ways to solve this problem: either subsidies to make it economically viable for the private sector, or the government builds the infrastructure, itself. I think most people would agree that while the subsidies scheme has the potential for abuse, as long as it's operated by a non-partisan committee, it's probably the cheaper and more efficient option.
 

bit_user

Distinguished
Herald
Jan 20, 2010
68
0
18,590
2
This article seems based on two fallacies. First, that whatever's trending on twitter really reflects the entirety of what people think. Secondly, that the lack of people dwelling on the Net Neutrality, after it's been largely resolved (in most people's opinions) has any bearing on its significance.

Yes, we get the significance. That's why there was so much furor over the issue. But everything that needed to be said about it has already been said. So, why would we remain stuck on it?

Don't worry, I'm sure Internet toll roads will return by means of some clause in one of the "free trade" treaties. You can write about it some more, then.
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
774
0
18,940
4
Marshall Honorof, pat yourself on the back all you want, we're enjoying the net as it's supposed to be when we subsidize the lines in our yards with taxes as well as property access, or should we all pay some one to invent a throttling device and install it on the line in our yard until comcast, sprint , qwest, at&t, time warner and cox and charter pay us for fast lane access.
speed bumps can be installed any where, my property, my terms and conditions with out net neutrality all of us could do that legally.
don't expect every one to pat themselves on the back when they can enjoy their liberty instead. even the founding fathers went back to work the day victory was declared.
 

alextheblue

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2001
640
0
18,930
0
@hizzyshizzylizz A bit IS a bit, and should be handled as such. If you have a specific type of bit that needs to be prioritized for your purposes, buy a decent router and prioritize it yourself. I could care less if Netflix is prioritized, as I don't use it. The VPN connection to my office however, is critically important to me, and I maintain the priority status of that traffic, not my ISP.
That is incorrect. You can prioritize the traffic on your own network (on both ends, even in the case of a VPN), so that Johnny Chimpo's streaming can't take priority over your "critical" packets. But the second the packets leave your PHYSICAL network(s) and are carried around by equipment you don't own, you have no say in the priority of that traffic vs. all the other subscribers traffic being carried by said equipment you don't own. What happens on your hardware is one thing... when it's on your ISP's network or any network you don't control, it's lumped in with everything else.

Right now that's OK because ISPs prioritize things during peak hours. When they start enforcing bit neutrality, things get interesting. Some providers won't be hit hard (FiOS will likely remain almost unphased in most regions, DSL is too slow to matter), while others may suffer accordingly (cable networks, "unlimited" wireless plans) during heavy usage.
 

Marshall Honorof

Editor
Herald
Aug 1, 2013
1,491
1
19,245
1
"Now, think about how much less fun they would have been if your ISP had blocked some of them or preselected the "best" ones for you."

Do you seriously think that would have happened, Marsh?

At this exact moment in time? No, I don't think ISPs would be quite that bold. If net neutrality had been shot down, however, I do think that ISPs would eventually start prioritizing traffic to their own websites (Comcast to NBC stories, etc.). As long as you don't completely throttle the competition (which I admit would be a silly thing to do), I don't see any reason why ISPs wouldn't want to favor stuff that could make them money and give a gentle nudge to stop consumers from using other sources preferentially.

Also, "Marshall," please! "Marsh" makes me feel like a wetland.
 

bit_user

Distinguished
Herald
Jan 20, 2010
68
0
18,590
2
Wow, I guess some people are so determined to turn every action by government into an assault on their liberty that they won't even let the facts or common sense stand in the way!

First of all, ISPs don't care if you throttle yourself. In fact, they'd prefer if you'd actually use zero bandwidth but keep paying the full subscription fee. Secondly, net neutrality is about limiting what non-citizen corporate entities can do to consumers - not about what you do to yourself on your own LAN.

Perhaps you just can't accept that there's a useful role for government and that regulation isn't all bad? I dunno, but I suggest you might open your eyes to other sources of evil and misery in the world than representative governments that are actually acting to protect the interests of the governed.
 

bit_user

Distinguished
Herald
Jan 20, 2010
68
0
18,590
2
I voted this up because you're correct. But I think it's just sad when people up-vote their own posts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY