16 ms·

I'm fully in favor of net neutrality, but I am not against premium plans for some content. For example let's say I have a 50/20Mb internet. I should be able t

by kuon 9y ago

I'm fully in favor of net neutrality, but I am not against premium plans for some content. For example let's say I have a 50/20Mb internet. I should be able to browse the entire internet at that speed. But, if I want to pay extra to have like 100Mb with QoS only from netflix, I am not against this kind of service.

noxToken 9y ago
That's not a net neutrality issue. They are very similar, but they aren't quite the same. I guess it depends on how you look at an internet connection. Your connection provided by your ISP is a communication channel akin to a phone number. That is arguably a public utility that should be treated as such. Yes, an ISP should be compensated for infrastructure, technical support, etc. Access to the internet is pretty much a necessity in many societies. Your subscription to Netflix is an agreement between you and a private entity for a service. It is up to Netflix to implement throttling policies for different pricing tiers, because Netflix is not providing you a communication channel to the web. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but it really depends on if you're paying the QoS fee to Netflix or to the ISP. An ISP should have to provide reasonable connections to the web at a reasonable price.
- al3xnull 9y ago
  Assuming he has a 50/20 but then gets an increase to 100 for Netflix, it would be the ISP he is paying. If he is capped at 50 by his ISP, he isn't going higher to 100 just because he paid Netflix.
  - kuon 9y ago
    Yes, I imply the ISP could have the Netflix premium package. But if should come in addition to the actual internet connection. But I guess the problem is that, at least here in Europe, high speed internet connection that can handle "anything" (like 500Mb/200Mb) are becoming more and more common. With this kind of connection, any "premium package" would be of zero interest as it would be able to handle anything Netflix would throw at it. Of course, the ideal solution would be to have Netflix pay ISP for peering and the Netflix subscription cover additional ISP bandwidth costs. Anyway I really hope that a solution that won't kill net neutrality will be found.
Paul-ish 9y ago
Whats to prevent ISPs from starving out the whole internet package to force people into buying additions?
- kuon 9y ago
  You are right, this is the main problem I guess.
- cheald 9y ago
  What's the prevent ISPs from reducing their bandwidth offerings across the board to force people into buying more? My local ISP could triple their prices or slash their bandwidth offerings and I'd have no choice but to pay it or not have internet. They could - very neutrally - extract very large amounts of money from me because of how valuable internet access is to me. That isn't a neutrality issue, that's a lack-of-alternatives issue, and before Title II is mentioned, the FCC reclassification explicitly specifies that the rate regulation clauses of Title II are subject to forbearance (ie, not applicable).

by kuon 9y ago

noxToken 9y ago

That's not a net neutrality issue. They are very similar, but they aren't quite the same. I guess it depends on how you look at an internet connection. Your connection provided by your ISP is a communication channel akin to a phone number. That is arguably a public utility that should be treated as such. Yes, an ISP should be compensated for infrastructure, technical support, etc. Access to the internet is pretty much a necessity in many societies. Your subscription to Netflix is an agreement between you and a private entity for a service. It is up to Netflix to implement throttling policies for different pricing tiers, because Netflix is not providing you a communication channel to the web. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but it really depends on if you're paying the QoS fee to Netflix or to the ISP. An ISP should have to provide reasonable connections to the web at a reasonable price.

al3xnull 9y ago
Assuming he has a 50/20 but then gets an increase to 100 for Netflix, it would be the ISP he is paying. If he is capped at 50 by his ISP, he isn't going higher to 100 just because he paid Netflix.
- kuon 9y ago
  Yes, I imply the ISP could have the Netflix premium package. But if should come in addition to the actual internet connection. But I guess the problem is that, at least here in Europe, high speed internet connection that can handle "anything" (like 500Mb/200Mb) are becoming more and more common. With this kind of connection, any "premium package" would be of zero interest as it would be able to handle anything Netflix would throw at it. Of course, the ideal solution would be to have Netflix pay ISP for peering and the Netflix subscription cover additional ISP bandwidth costs. Anyway I really hope that a solution that won't kill net neutrality will be found.

Paul-ish 9y ago

Whats to prevent ISPs from starving out the whole internet package to force people into buying additions?

kuon 9y ago
You are right, this is the main problem I guess.
cheald 9y ago
What's the prevent ISPs from reducing their bandwidth offerings across the board to force people into buying more? My local ISP could triple their prices or slash their bandwidth offerings and I'd have no choice but to pay it or not have internet. They could - very neutrally - extract very large amounts of money from me because of how valuable internet access is to me. That isn't a neutrality issue, that's a lack-of-alternatives issue, and before Title II is mentioned, the FCC reclassification explicitly specifies that the rate regulation clauses of Title II are subject to forbearance (ie, not applicable).