3 ms·
I think it's a legitimate concern that this definition of net neutrality doesn't consider that different networks have different costs associated with them. If
by tolodo 9y ago
I think it's a legitimate concern that this definition of net neutrality doesn't consider that different networks have different costs associated with them. If a service offers peering for free at the local internet exchange which adds little additional cost for the provider I have a hard time seeing why you should have to treat that traffic the same as the traffic the provider has to pay for.
That means that someone on a community network, that isn't using the Internet very much, can't take advantage of that free peering. Instead they would have to join the same "traffic pool" as heavy users.
- wvenable 9y agoI completely agree and that's totally fair. What isn't far though is charging more for (or slowing) traffic that could be 20 hops away (and thus not directly connected to your network) just because the packets happen to be labeled "Netflix". As it is everyone pays for their own connectivity. Netflix pays to connect to their ISP. You pay to connect to your ISP. The ISPs pay to connect to each other. They have agreements on traffic levels and bandwidth. But an ISP shouldn't be able to double-dip and "tax" certain services for which they have no direct connection with. It effectively amounts to extortion.