*doublepromote

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, May 3rd, 2014 6:52am PDT - doublepromote requested by eric3579.

That was quick, Thanks!

The ECA has a good page set up for this:

http://action.theeca.com/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=9738

One thing this video (and every other pro-net neutrality video ignores) is that there are valid technical reasons to have some content faster than others. In an ideal world, we should be able to mark some content as more or less latency tolerant.

Static webpages for instance; if your online banking or facebook or even videosift takes half a second longer to load, no-one really cares. But if your video stops for a second or an online game lags, that can ruin the experience.

Right now, if two servers send two packets, they are treated the same, even if one is time dependant (video/game content) and one isn't (static text).

That is the core argument against net neutrality. The problem is that it should be the content providers who decide what data is time dependant, not ISPs. Ideally, ISPs shouldn't even know what content is going through their pipes.

Just in case it's not clear, I do not in any way support the idea that ISPs should be allowed to slow or speed up content on their networks, any more than a construction company should be allowed tell drivers who drives in what lane.

Isn't this what QoS settings on routers are for? I'm not very tech savvy about this stuff.
It's the ISPs job to deliver the end users internet at the advertised speed. How the customer prioritises the packets should be entirely up to them.

Internet Citizens: Defend Net Neutrality - CGP Grey has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

To the best of my knowledge, and it's been a few years since I looked at IP* in any depth, QoS only really works where you can control the entire network, end to end. I don't believe there is any support for QoS in the underlying IP.

But yeah, as I said before, I'll be snowboarding in hell before I trust the ISPs with that kinda power.


* IP as in TCP/IP (internet protocol) not Intellectual Property

People miss the point with net neutrality.

The internet is a packet delivery system.
You are literally paying your ISP for a packets-per-second delivery rate across their network.

That literally means, that the ISP is obligated to make an honest best effort to route your packets at the rate you subscribed to.

Any action to deliberately throttle your packets down to below your subscribed rate, is deliberately not providing a paid for service - i.e. fraud/stealing/whatever.

Net neutrality is the concept that they deliver all packets without prejudice.

That they don't inspect your packets, and decide to treat them differently based on their content.

Kind of how the postal service charges the same to send a letter from point A to B, regardless of what you wrote in that letter.
The postal service doesn't say things like :
"This letter describes a picture. We only allow 3 'letters describing a picture' per month, and you already sent 3, so this one will have to wait.".



So for example, comcast v netflix.

Reports such as this build a case for deliberate throttling : http://www.itworld.com/consumerization-it/416871/get-around-netflix-throttling-vpn

We know comcast wanted netflix to pay for network integration/improvement.
One way to do that is by twisting their arm : deliberately throttle netflix traffic to netflix customers, until netflix pays up (and along the way, selectively not deliver paid for bandwidth to comcast customers)

That would be singling out netflix packets - a non-neutral action.

(blah blah, I changed ISPs because my own experience suggested netflix throttling.)

-scheherazade

You actually had an option to switch ISP? Most of us are left with the options of 'pre-determined ISP A' or 'shitty alternative like Verizon 3mbps or Satalite'.

Net Neutrality in the US: Now What? has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.