Can someone please tell me why “Net Neutrality” is a bad thing, or point my in the right direction? I am having a hard time getting my mind wrapped around this.
“Can someone please tell me why “Net Neutrality” is a bad thing, or point my in the right direction? I am having a hard time getting my mind wrapped around this.”
—
If you’re using AOL with a 56k baud phone modem, it’s not so bad. Otherwise....
Here’s some info on NN -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
See post #24
“If you’re using AOL with a 56k baud phone modem, it’s not so bad. Otherwise....”
—
I mean the -ending- of Net Neutrality there as “it”.
It heavily favors the content providers over those who actually built and operate the internet.
It makes the carriers mere regulated utilities like your local phone provider, or power provider...limited to eight cents on the dollar in profit. And FORCED to sell their services to their competitors at cost.
That’s what will kill the internet as we know it. The march of broadband will stop except as forced by government regulation and subsidy. Additional leaps beyond the 40gbs backbone (to 100gbs and beyond) will be stillborn.
The internet will be frozen in it’s current state. All the while the content providers are free to make as much money as they can even though the people who built the internet have no reason to invest in further expansion.
When the great bandwidth crunch comes, OR the complete burn down of all available IP addresses under IPv4, the content providers will then scream for further regulation to force the carriers to invest without return.
Net Neutrality means Marxist Internet.
And I’ve been in the network business for over 40 years.
The best analysis I have seen about this is from The Truth Factory. The hosting cat is just a plus -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB3bfrmfT-I
Overall, this is one of the best channels I know. Serious analysis done with a light touch.
In simple terms, consider FedEx, UPS and the USPS. When you send a package, the cost is based on weight and volume in proportion to the resources needed to ship it. Net neutrality amounts to a government decree that flat rate shipping applies. The cost to ship a bowling ball or a post card is identical (even though the resources required to deliver are far from equal). Small e-mails are the postcards. Streaming 4k UHD movies are bowling balls. A movie monopolizes significant bandwidth for extended periods. E-mail and casual net browsing are bursty transfers with lots of idle time between uses. The kind of network infrastructure required to provide good service to those vastly different types of usage is significant. The ISP that provisions for 5,000 e-mail users and is suddenly saddled with 1,000 streaming movie watchers is going to have an angry customer base. Traffic can be segregated by type to utilize the network efficiently as provisioned. Want to watch movies? Then pay a rate for hardware that must be dedicated for hours on end to serve you.
One of this interesting things is that nothing REQUIRES our ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to be “non-neutral,” that is, nothing requires our ISPs to discriminate based on the content or source of our personal internet traffic.
It is one more example of leftist progressives wanting to boss everyone around.
Gosh, if everyone is actually SO in favor of “net neutrality” then you figure they would DO it whether there is a law about it or not. I don’t plan to steal stuff whether there is a law or not. So why would these supposedly highly principled progressive ISP corporations “discriminate” just because there is no law on it? They are free to pass on all costs they have evenly to all their subscribers even though it is really unfair to charge the same to someone who only uses e-mail and someone with 4 in the family where they stream 4k video on 4 machines for 10 hours a day.
But if I want a company that discriminates, I should be able to have that too.
That is the biggest problem: in general there is only 1 or 2 or maybe 3 good options at the most to choose from for ISP in any given area. So it becomes like electricity or gas, public-utility-like because there is only so much easement space to tolerate multiple unities.
Electricity in “de-regulated” states like Texas gets around it some by having one single company per area that handles the power lines and delivery, and multiple other companies that sell you electricity plans. It gets weird and complicated but encourages competition and choice — there are good plans and there are weirdo plans for snowflakes.
Network delivery on a single network with multiple subnets might be a lot more subject to abuses than just keeping track of kilowatt hours and time of day.
I am glad for more freedom — and to be doing the opposite of what the progressive national socialists want — while on top of that, they and their minions can still keep doing just what they want, EXCEPT now they do not any longer get to boss me around and tell me what I cannot do.
Bossy leftist fascists suck.
ISPs are not censoring us (so far). The problem is google, facebook, twitter etc.