Why I am not for total net neutrality

Community Tech Policy & News
#1

I know a lot of people on here think that total net neutrality would be an awesome Idea. Here is the problem I see with it. Should we really put file downloads, and skype, and Video Gaming on the same level? Gaming needs low latency, so does skype, but file downloads need a big pipe. So why would I waist resources by making a game compete for latency with a file download? Isn't this the bases of QoS which is used on every network? So why should the internet be any different?

Now yes I know that a lot of the stuff going on with the ISPs isn't good, and that they sell high priority spots to companies. I am against that, but total net neutrality isn't the solution.

1 Like
#2

I don't know how well you're familiar with the arguments for both sides, but the main pro-net neutrality argument is the one of innovation. Today's large internet companies like google, amazon, twitter, facebook,... all started out as small players. The problem with internet "fast lanes" and "slow lanes", is that "the next google" won't be able to buy these fast lanes straight away, and thus having a disadvantage over the current big companies who would be able to afford it. That way, "the next google" won't be able to grow so easily because their service is slower.

So in that regard, it's exactly like you said. It's not a good thing if that would happen.

By the way, it's not that net neutrality would change anything. It's just keeping the current system. Nowadays all traffic is more or less treated the same way. I'm quite sure most ISPs already use some sort of QoS in order to make their network run a bit smoother. So QoS is not really the same thing as non-net neutrality.

The way I understand it is that ISPs want to be able to sell faster connections to companies. It's not that certain types of traffic gets faster, like all gaming traffic, but only one specific company.

You could think of it this way. Take the highway system. Right now, i assume there might be some rules that cargo trucks have to go a bit slower in certain situations and normal cars don't have to do so. This can be considered to be equivalent to QoS.

On the other hand, if net neutrality is not a thing, then individual logistics companies can buy some sort of permit from the government saying that all their trucks can go faster, no matter what. This way, new logistics companies who can't afford such a permit have a disadvantage. Their trucks can't go as fast so why would anyone use their service? They can't deliver cargo as fast as the bigger companies.

I think it's fairly easy to see that this will reduce the amount of new logistics companies, and that's the big problem.

2 Likes
#3

The real reason I'm for net neutrality is because there's really no reason not to have it. You can make all these arguments about 'oh it'll slow down other users' and it's total BS. Cisco and Juniper now have Line Speed 48 Port L3 switches, so upgrading the distribution layer shouldn't take more than a few years.

When companies like Time Warner (I'm going to use them for my arguments just because the data is out there) are running at a 98% margin, and only spending 146 Million of that profit on their infrastructure, they can go fellatio a donkey. This scenario is horrible for consumers of all types of media. We have the technology right now to where every house in the country could have Gigabit, at the least, and most people are paying through the nose for 30Mb.

Yes, I'm not stupid, I know they still have to pay Level3 and XO and the likes for lines, but it's still a drop in the bucket compared to what they're bringing in at the astronomical prices they charge for the pittance we get. If you have even the smallest bit of sense, you can setup a network that will handle everyone running at line speed in every major city in America. If you live in BFE, you're probably still going to begging for good service because it's not profitable to have massive OC768 POPs in that area. But in the year 2015 for places like Seattle, and Dallas, and Miami, and Boston to not have ubiquitous Gigabit available is just unreal to me.

I deal with this type of tech all the time, and it's unreal to me how some companies try to pack things so densely that no one can move in order to keep their insane margins. I'm very happy to work for a company that doesn't do it, and every time there's so much as a whisper, the entire tech leadership comes down so hard on the business person who came up with the idea, that they either leave the company, or learn to ask the geeks before they make stupid unilateral decisions.

Net neutrality has the possibility of forcing ISPs to do the right thing for their customers, which is why they are so adamantly against it. It hurts the bottom line a lot less to pay millions in legal fees right now to fight the FCC than it does to lose 5-10% on your 98% margin.

In this day and age, there's honestly no reason for QoS for residential, and certainly not for data centers. Whoever is selling you on this idea is just feeding you BS, and you aught to find the CCIEs and other network professionals that run the backbone and ISP networks. Many of them are just as frustrated about this as I am. Higher profits are what's holding back a real revolution in the internet, and it sickens me.

I'm a DEEPLY devout capitalist, but I feel like I'd draw the line at 70% if I was forced to make the call and say "alright profits are at an all time high, what can we do to bring people TO US rather than just be the 'well they have no choice' provider".

I don't like google as a company, but they are forcing the hand of these other ISPs to do exactly what I'm saying, and before they and community run ISPs started popping up, the big ISPs had no reason to start upgrading their lines. Now you have places like San Antonio and Austin with 300MB from TWC because Google is rolling out there. I wonder why now that Google is there, all of a sudden the infrastructure can handle these high bandwidth numbers that just a few years ago were unheard of. Fiber still (to my knowledge) caps out at 40Gbps, so they have to have the bandwidth to serve these customers somehow....and there's no reason why google should have a better relationship with backbone providers than the Big consumer ISPs.

I'm going to tie this up now, but please, I beg of you, don't make the QoS argument. With the tech available today it's not needed, and most of this argument is just trying to keep profit margins at an all time high rather than furthering the state of technology.

1 Like
#4

On Lvl1, 2, 3 carrier level it should not mater what the packet is. A ISP should always have enough resources to serve its customers.
After all, up until now, as a customer you pay for X MB/s and/or X GB/month.

If you clutter your last mile with a huge torrenting while trying to play a FPS its your fault. QoS should be implied at the end-user side. You can today tell even your most basic consumer modem to prioritize VoIP over http(s) and so on.

But the intention of ISPs is not to make any VoIP traffic faster, but theirs. So e.g. you only can get ISP A, and ISP A offers its own, ultra super expensive priority VoIP with guaranteed no latency you'll get that.. but if you want to use skype or sip or.... you wont get that.

Or your ISP gets into bed with amazon prime and does not count that against traffic as amazon pays them.. but what if you want to use Netflix?

What if your ISP descides to create a cable network like system? giving the customer the ultimate freedome of choice of putting together the optimal package? - nope

Sorry to say, but that is B.S. a ISP is a access provider. Providing you with peering to other networks, no more no less.

#5

I wish the government would just break up all the huge ISPs, we have anti-trust laws don't we? If we had some choices, we could let the market take care of itself (in places where there are good local ISPs, like chattanooga, that's already happening)

Capitalism is a beautiful thing when it behaves, it's just getting it to behave without turning it into socialism that's the trick.

#6

The problem is, the history has shown, that this just does not work. It's always the law of the strongest. Companies investing more money into persuading or even buying politicans to allow them swallow the competition or extinct them...

All western countries do have.. do they work? no - as lobbying and buying votes is usually what happens

#7

Not to sound silly but America is supposed to be different...there's a first time for everything XD

I think a lot of the problem in America is that we constantly want the government to swoop in and fix things with more regulations. The regulations and nit-picky legislation is what gives the companies all these insane loopholes, so wouldn't it make sense for the regulations to be the bare minimum?

I think if people were actually involved and we made some changes to get rid of these useless career politicians, we could have a capitalism that was actually functional.

#9

I am not an American citizen, I grew up and live in substantially different system (no not communism :P)
But from what I learned and noticed with governmental and corporate America is, that the big companies have way, way to much influence on legislation.
Of course a legislation that is ghost-written by a monopoly company is not improving anything for anyone except the company buying the law.

Every country/society claims that for themselves. And still all do make the same or similar mistakes. One under-regulate others over-regulate.

I may bring an excample from where I live. We have (had) a state owned postal service that was a monopoly. It had to serve every inch of the country no mater how fucking far away from any civilization the residence may have been.

Now the private sector is pushing in for years, and regulators said.. of course have the same rights... bla bla.. but in the end it's like it was expected. The private sector is picking the good spots making easy profit wears the formerly state owned company (now its is partially privatised) still has to serve the last spots which aren’t profitable and no private firm has interest in. - what's wrong with that?
Gov should have (forced) put the same duties for everyone private or not. Serve all or serve none. = good regulation

without legislation they could do what they want anyway

Not the bare, the necessary minimum; to little wont work (e.g. comcast) to much wont work (e.g. soviet Russia)

Pretty much to late.. who ever speaks up will be silenced

Humans - as soon as they get power, they thrive to sustain, expand and abuse it.

#10

Bandwidth that already has been payed for! Imagine you buy food, and than the car maker of your choice goes to the baker and bills them as you used their car to go there (which you bought!) - sounds insane?

Thats triple pay - the customer gets paied for the connection, for the service and for being the product (ISPs try to sell their customer base to the content providers)

Amen

#11

Sorry, bad choice of words on my part, that is what I was trying to say.

I disagree. If the American people elected a president who isn't just another career politician, and we began to participate in politics again instead of just trusting CNN and MSNBC for our information, I think we could make a lot of good changes and take back the government. For example, one thing I think we should do is make Congress have the median wage of their state. That's a lot of motivation to improve the economy. If we did things like this that force people to "play fair" (which is what the founding fathers wanted anyway, if I'm not mistaken) I think America would improve by leaps and bounds.

I'm not saying no regulation is the answer to net neutrality; it's clearly not based on our current situation. I'm just saying that we need to be VERY careful not to regulate something as incredibly important as the Internet too much. I'd rather leave it where it is than make it worse, so we must play our cards carefully here in the states.

#12

That's not just the American people that face that problem - that's all over the world.
Sadly the masses are.. pretty ... uhm... well I don't want to say... dumb... though I don't know a better word. They will believe what ever they get served by their chosen mindmaker (CNN MSNBC.... )

Huge problem with the American system of campaigning and financing those, every politician running for presidency owes someone (company, private) as soon as they are put into charge.
I really like, that e.g. here there is a legislation cutting the costs for campaigns. So every party has the same max. amount of money they can throw at advertising.

That's what we Europeans face right now. It was good as it was.. but lobbying persuaded the EU politicians into thinking something has to be done.. which now happens in favour of big companies and their evil plans

#13

This is my fear with net neutrality. The federal government is arguably the best micromanager in the world, and the people have already pretty much assured them that "something's gotta be done." With how much power the big companies have over our friendly neighborhood congress critters, I'm worried that the "something" that's done will either be well-meaning but cause more loopholes than it fixes, or just be straight-up in favor of Comcast and friends.

I wish this could be done on a state/local level, frankly. Some might argue that it would suck for people who live in states that make dumb decisions, but that's why we have democracy! The state doesn't have to make dumb decisions if you elect intelligent leaders.