originally posted by: beezzer
We have something called "Net Neutrality".
Would anyone care to explain it? Or are you all just going with the name?
Sure. To start with I would highly recommend the John Oliver video in this thread. Networking is pretty dry technical stuff so throwing it into a
comedy routine keeps it a bit more interesting if you're the type to tune out, no one likes the details of these systems... they are boring.
Next, I posted this back in June which goes into more details www.abovetopsecret.com...
Now if you want to skip the video and that post and have a slightly more brief version basically Net Neutrality says that all packets on a network are
treated equally. Packets are processed as a que, which means they operate on a first in first out system, like a line at the grocery store. What the
FCC, or rather the telecoms throwing buckets of money at the people in the FCC want to do is to remove this requirement that packets be processed as a
que. Instead they would be processed as a priority que which acts like a que but resolves all objects of the highest priority first, then all objects
of the next highest priority, and so on. This is being billed as a fast and slow lane for internet speeds. Proponents argue that people with money
can have faster responses from servers while people who buy lower tier service can have a less responsive server even when the two pay for the same
Now to some this sounds good, you get service tiers, multiple price points, market choice, and so on. The truth is that none of this stuff matters
it's just a quality of service issue on the users end. What does matter is what this allows the telecoms to do from the content provider end. They
will be allowed to goto a service provider for any reason they want and say pay us X or we shut your website down. Currently contracts only cover
uptime guarantees, max bandwidth, and connection speed. An entirely new set of contracts would need to be negotiated that cover service
responsiveness, so that a servicer can send out packets at X speed but the ISP's servers simply don't process it. Basically what they're trying to do
here is double bill for a service they're already providing.
To give you an analogy lets take roads. Right now you pay a gas tax to use the roads, you can think of this as your ISP fee. Your network hardware
is your car and it gets you from point A to point B. Removing Net Neutrality if it applied to roads would still require your car, and you would still
be paying to use the road however they would also charge you a fee to use the garage/road interface known as a driveway in order to get onto the road
in the first place, and then they would charge you a fee at your destination in order to get off the road and access the parking lot. Then the
parking lot would charge their fee for a service (think Netflix subscription).
The outcome of all of this is that it will shut down all but the biggest websites. Another very real outcome is that due to the monopoly structure of
our networks and that each website would have to pay every single ISP for service for the website to load (beyond their internet subscription fee) we
would end up with a fragmented internet where say Time Warner Cable gives you Bing, Fox News, Itunes, and Netflix while Cox gives you Google, CNN,
Pandora, and Amazon and Charter gives you DuckDuckGo, ABC, IHeartRadio, and Youtube. Different ISP's would essentially carve up the internet and dole
out only specific parts.
So then we get to the big issue. Internet companies in other countries have net neutrality, their companies are able to reach worldwide and compete
everywhere. We would not just be cutting our companies off from global marketplaces but we would be making them regional within the US as well.
Doing this basically kills our ability to compete and guarantees that the US will not be a tech leader, it virtually kills that status overnight.
If you want to see an example of these principals in action look at Netflix. With Net Neutrality and competition Netflix is able to offer their
product and compete with the TV providers. Netflix is buying rights to those shows and offering the product cheaper with a better distribution
method. Essentially they have used new technology to be more competitive. The telecoms started losing large numbers of TV subscribers so rather than
innovate, use the market, and be competitive they instead bought legislation that let them shut down Netflix service unless Netflix started giving
their profits to the telecoms just because they were making too much money. Net Neutrality protects markets and makes companies play fairly yet
competitively. Removing Net Neutrality (which we have taken many steps towards doing) creates an uneven playing field where only a handful of
companies are viable.
If you don't think this would ever happen, I'll present to you the graph of Netflix speeds. I'll let you guess at what points the various ISP's
started negotiating for a lot of money in order to provide access to the service at all (it resulted in two price increases for Netflix)
edit on 10-11-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)