3 ms·

But I think you are confusing things. There is no question anywhere as to whether people who use more data can be charged more for that use. The fact that most

by macrael 16y ago

But I think you are confusing things. There is no question anywhere as to whether people who use more data can be charged more for that use. The fact that most home plans are all you can eat has nothing to do with net neutrality. So in your example, hopefully the security camera company would be charged a higher fee than a competing company who streamed non HD video. Youtube pays a hell of a lot more to hook up to the internet than I do. The question is whether Verizon can charge a separate fee to prioritize one company's traffic over another. My understanding is that this recommendation partially closes that door for wired traffic but leaves it wide open for wireless traffic. Now fledgling startup security video hooks up their cameras to the web and find their bandwidth artificially restricted compared to the entrenched competition because they aren't paying for the super deluxe plan, or because Verizon has an exclusivity agreement with the entrenched player, or whatever. That is what seems to be left possible in wireless land with this recommendation, and that is frightening.

nl 16y ago
I understand your argument. Did you see my line Yes, there are other solutions - a price per Gb of traffic is an obvious one. But my point is that I'm not convinced other options should be outlawed yet? My point is that it may make sense - and be good for consumers - to deprioritize and/or discourage some kinds of usage over wireless. http://danweinreb.org/blog/google-and-verizon-a-new-hope http://danweinreb.org/blog/google-and-verizon-a-new-hope references the story http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/The-Truth-About-Google-Verizon-and-Net-Neutrality-371606/ http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/The-Truth-About-Googl.... I hadn't read this when I made my original post, but it makes a much more compelling argument based on the same ideas. It makes the point that for VOIP to work properly over wireless you can't have jittery delivery. One way to solve that it to use QOS to increase the priority of that in comparison to video. That isn't "neutral" access, but it is good consumers.
- gamble 16y ago
  Except that it won't be VOIP that's prioritized, it will be Skype, or Magic Jack, or whatever company offers Verizon the biggest kickback. It will be terrible for consumers, since those companies with a monopoly will have no incentive to excel when their success is determined in a backroom deal at Verizon HQ.
- wtallis 16y ago
  As long as my neighbor and I are both paying the same ISP the same amount of money for an internet connection, then we should have the same probability of one of our packets making it through their network. If I'm making an FTP transfer and my neighbor is teleconferencing, it's fine for some of his packets to be delivered more quickly than some of mine, provided that over any given second, we get to transfer roughly the same amount of data. Until our ISP redefines itself as a telecom provider with ancillary FTP capabilities, their QoS strategies shouldn't benefit my neighbor at my expense. If ISPs are allowed to discriminate significantly based on the protocol, then what's to stop them from inventing a new proprietary video transmission protocol and prioritizing that over any protocol used by YouTube, effectively reimplementing discrimination on the source or destination of traffic (which is the most obvious justification for net neutrality)?

by macrael 16y ago

nl 16y ago

I understand your argument. Did you see my line Yes, there are other solutions - a price per Gb of traffic is an obvious one. But my point is that I'm not convinced other options should be outlawed yet? My point is that it may make sense - and be good for consumers - to deprioritize and/or discourage some kinds of usage over wireless. http://danweinreb.org/blog/google-and-verizon-a-new-hope http://danweinreb.org/blog/google-and-verizon-a-new-hope references the story http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/The-Truth-About-Google-Verizon-and-Net-Neutrality-371606/ http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/The-Truth-About-Googl.... I hadn't read this when I made my original post, but it makes a much more compelling argument based on the same ideas. It makes the point that for VOIP to work properly over wireless you can't have jittery delivery. One way to solve that it to use QOS to increase the priority of that in comparison to video. That isn't "neutral" access, but it is good consumers.

gamble 16y ago
Except that it won't be VOIP that's prioritized, it will be Skype, or Magic Jack, or whatever company offers Verizon the biggest kickback. It will be terrible for consumers, since those companies with a monopoly will have no incentive to excel when their success is determined in a backroom deal at Verizon HQ.
wtallis 16y ago
As long as my neighbor and I are both paying the same ISP the same amount of money for an internet connection, then we should have the same probability of one of our packets making it through their network. If I'm making an FTP transfer and my neighbor is teleconferencing, it's fine for some of his packets to be delivered more quickly than some of mine, provided that over any given second, we get to transfer roughly the same amount of data. Until our ISP redefines itself as a telecom provider with ancillary FTP capabilities, their QoS strategies shouldn't benefit my neighbor at my expense. If ISPs are allowed to discriminate significantly based on the protocol, then what's to stop them from inventing a new proprietary video transmission protocol and prioritizing that over any protocol used by YouTube, effectively reimplementing discrimination on the source or destination of traffic (which is the most obvious justification for net neutrality)?