Basically the FCC wasn’t given direct instructions and interpreted what they thought their authority was. The courts decided they had overstepped their mandate. You would probably get more out of the “regulatory history” section of the wiki article than this argumentative and metaphor filled thread.
Great! I agree.
Then, Comcast develops it’s OWN porn streaming service that is $500 a month extra while simultaneously lowering the transfer speeds of any OTHER porn streaming service down to unusable, forcing me to buy their porn service if I want porn. Do you see any problems with that?
Or, you find out that after there is no longer net neutrality, your video teleconferencing works great! But, low and behold, your ISP decides to offer their OWN teleconferencing service, and lowers your teleconferencing traffic throughput to unusable. Your only choice is to purchase the ISPs teleconferencing suite. Do you see any problems with that?
Except that that’s not how it works.
If we are using deliver as an example, which is not the best, but whatever, it would be that all boxes from Amazon get a higher priority.
So, your driver goes into his van, sees a box labeled amazon, and goes and delivers that. He goes back to his van, sees another box labeled amazon, and delivers that. When he gets back out to his truck, loe and behold, yet another box from amazon has appeared in his truck, so he goes and delivers that.
The other packages only get delivered if amazon stops sending packages.
But you don’t generally get to pick your POTS phone service, you just have the one monopoly in the area. It is only your long distance service that you can pick and choose from.
No, I am not conflating them, but you use analogies that are pretty terrible, so it is a bit hard to get them to fit.
But, are you trying to say that bandwidth would not be effected by net neutrality? I am pretty sure it is both bandwidth and latency that will be affected by prioritizing packets. You may be more concerned about latency, but it is not the only important part of the equation for nearly everyone else.
Under the rules that you are envisioning, it would be the ISP that makes that decision. Now, you are thinking of this as if the shipper is the customer, when it is actually the customer that is the customer. When I order from amazon, I can choose different speeds at which they will ship me what I ordered.
So if anyone is going to choose what speed the data comes to me, it should be me, and that’s exactly what I did when I paid for a 10mbps internet package rather than a 1mbps package.
That’s not how it works. Do you think that somehow, with a higher priority, it will skip some stops along the way?
It’s going to have to go through all the same routers that it had to before, only now, it will occasionally get a slight boost in time, from some fraction of a millisecond to a slightly smaller fraction of a millisecond, if it is processed before the other packets in the que.
No, you are going to get a pretty hefty increase in overall latency, as every packet needs to be analyzed as to what ISP it is from, what ISP it is going through, and how much the originating company has paid for it’s priority.
You may see a very slight decrease in latency, but I doubt it will be measurable, much less noticeable. Well, except in the case that you are using a teleconference app that is not paying protection money to the ISPs, in which case, you would notice a change in latency, but not for the better.
How much improvement are you expecting on that? I get very low latency when I VOIP, not enough to notice any delay. I haven’t played twitch games in forever, but when I did, my latency was minimal.
I think if you are having latency issues, it is because something is wrong with your connection, and no amount of prioritizing packets will fix that.
There is no fast lane. You will not be adding a fast lane, you will be just be slowing other packets down.
No, each university would have a data center, from which clients would download data. Uploading would be less common, and would generally be much smaller datasets.
Maybe. The tech industry is littered with examples of companies preferring their own products over competitors. You have to go through Apple to install anything on your phone. Google heavily integrates and promotes it’s own services over those from competitors. When you search for Google Home on Amazon it shows you the Echo and not Google Home. Netflix promotes its Netflix Original Productions over content from other providers.
I am still undecided on if this sort of consolidation is good or not, but I don’t see a good reason to single out ISPs on this front.
I don’t have to use any of those services.
Because you won’t have any choice on whether to use them or not. Want videoconferencing? You HAVE to use the one your ISP provides or you don’t use videoconferencing. That’s sort of the point.
I have a choice between ISPs.
Long Ars piece on how internetworking works. It focuses on the economics of peering, transit and prioritization (“hot potato, cold potato” on the third page). Some of the content will seem counterintuitive, which seems to be case for two thirds of everything in the universe. It is easy to see how neutrality benefits this model, but not as easy to see how the alternative would.
I could see a system of prioritizing packets, but it would have to be something entirely on the subscriber’s side.
Say you are willing to pay an extra $5 a month, and in return, you get packets from a particular IP sent to you at a higher priority.
There are quite a number of technical and logistical problems with this, and it is not the model I would prefer (I prefer the current standard), but if we are going to be using a model that prioritizes packets, then it should be the subscriber, not the content provider and not the ISP that decides which packets get prioritized.
How many?
I would be surprised if the companies that run the huge backbone circuits would alter the routing in them because a guy somewhere paid $5 a month.
Do you have a choice of more than 2 of them?
Quite a number of people only have on broadband provider.
Most people have 2.
Very, very few have 3 or more.
I did say it would be a technical and logistical nightmare, but that is the only form of packet prioritization that makes sense to me.
And it wouldn’t be any different from if netflix is paying $5 a month per subscriber.
This is exactly the problem. The ISP will always pick the cheapest option even if the faster one is more desirable. Without net neutrality, my ISP can pick the fastest route for my teleconferencing data and pick the cheapest for my file transfer.
At least two that I know of. So when you add in wireless options I have more of a choice in my ISP than I do in my phone OS, computer OS, graphics card, or CPU.
Well, if you are fine with ISPs manipulating user data rates in order to get users to purchase ISP services, then more power to you.
I’m not sure it’s fair to include high-speed ISPs with other options. As I understand it, most Americans have 0-2 high-speed options. That’s certainly fewer than the other categories you name except perhaps CPU.
Transit service is pretty much limited to when a small ISP accesses the internet backbone.
Unless you are using a small ISP, the transit traffic’s cost doesn’t matter, and if you are using a small ISP, then net neutrality won’t change the cost.
It will peer with another network, if the traffic goes to another network.
It will keep it in its own system, if both the source and the destination are in the same network.
There is not a single thing about changing net neutrality that will change any of that.
Most Americans have 2 or more high speed options depending on how you classify high speed. It’s roughly 1/3 with 2+, 1/3 with 2, and 1/3 with 1 or 0.
In what way does net neutrality affect any of that?
What you said doesn’t contradict what I said, does it? 2/3 have 0-2. Not great.