4 ms·

Everything You Need to Know About Why Net Neutrality Is a Terrible Idea

15 points by Firebrand 9y ago

jnordwick 9y ago
Upvoted because we need more diversity of opinion here. We rarely hear the other side of issues and those with differing views are often derided in harsh language. I'm not for Title II network neutrality. I think it will be used in inappropriate ways, as tends to happen with poorly understood laws. I think it is easier to add network neutrality requirement than it is to roll them back, so I would favor moving slowly and deliberately with legislation explicitly crafted for modern technology in mind. I think I could support a limited network neutrality, but I want companies to have the ability to shape traffic, have different billing strategies, etc. One of the things that gets me is that those supporting NN are the same that supported a la carte billing for cable, two things that seem clearly at odds with each other.
- king_phil 9y ago
  I've down voted your post because it does not fit the billing strategy of my company. Please make a payment of $9.99 to get the down vote lifted.
  - equalunique 9y ago
    "We rarely hear the other side of issues and those with differing views are often derided in harsh language." @king_phil you are helping to legitimize this claim made by @jnordwick
    - king_phil 9y ago
      If having a different opinion and stating it in a sarcastic way is a problem for you Americans, then net neutrality is not your biggest problem.
- merb 9y ago
  basically that opinion is a joke. the problem here is, is that he things that if somebody peers directly with a internet exchange, that he can just have as much bandwidth that he wants. which is somewhat correct. but the whole argument is incorrect. since actually peering with a global exchange means that ALL isps can actually use the same bandwidth that you provide to the exchange. this is good for competition since else only ISP A could have a good connection to youtube (because it is inside his network). but most of the time there are at least 3 ISPs and any ISP would actually do everything to get more customers on board which means that other ISPs would have a weaker service. public peering is as fair as something can get, since if you pay for it you can actually get the exact same amount from the cake than anybody else. with private peering things are different and sadly these things are done way too often. private peering means that a big telco does not peer with the public exchanges, which means that to get traffic to them the traffic needs to somehow find his way into their network. they do that to actually force others into private peering, because they can get way more money out of it (they actually can ask for money from the customer and from the data provider). and they would do it even if some service would be inside isp network b... btw. in germany DE-CIX is one of the biggest internet exchanges around the world. but somehow the big ISPs only peer with it, with a really really low margin, only because they make ton of money with private peerings.
  - zeldron 9y ago
    All 'big' isp's use both private peering-points as well as public. Problem is, if Tier1 operators was not allowed to manage private peering, connecting to services oversees would be a 90's experience at best. With DDOS attacks on strategic nodes outtakes that could disconnect entire countries wouldn't be unusual. Im not from the USA and do not have a detailed understanding of what 'Net Neutrality' means for you in terms of laws and practice. For me it seams quite sober to separate T1's and T2's peering with each other and data-centers vs T3's censoring end users by capping access to selected services. If anyone could clarify the 'scope' of Net Neutrality as the term is used in the US press that would be greatly helpfull.
    - equalunique 9y ago
      >the 'scope' of Net Neutrality as the term is used in the US press I believe it is intentionally kept vague, such that people who do not support the agenda of Google/Facebook/Amazon may be labeled as "anti Net Neutrality", which simply sounds bad.
feistypharit 9y ago
Funny how that article completely talks about it from the large corporation point of view, and not of that of the consumer. Yes, if I could, as a consumer afford to peer directly again exchange and backhaul to my house, I wouldn't care either! Then he mentions competition at the end...as if most US consumers have more than one choice for broadband.
- pfedak 9y ago
  The article seems deliberately deceptive, entirely ignoring the second half of what it claims net neutrality means except to criticize Google for not treating all the bits it sends the same, and then encouraging us to think net neutrality creates a "bevy of regulations" for Google's competitors. What new regulations apply to non ISPs? How does net neutrality change that other companies have to make deals with service providers? There's no argument here, just a complaint that Google is huge which, while probably valid, seems irrelevant.
contravariant 9y ago
I don't quite get the argument here. Is the author saying that net neutrality is a terrible idea because it doesn't prevent google from controlling it's own traffic?

15 points by Firebrand 9y ago

Upvoted because we need more diversity of opinion here. We rarely hear the other side of issues and those with differing views are often derided in harsh language. I'm not for Title II network neutrality. I think it will be used in inappropriate ways, as tends to happen with poorly understood laws. I think it is easier to add network neutrality requirement than it is to roll them back, so I would favor moving slowly and deliberately with legislation explicitly crafted for modern technology in mind. I think I could support a limited network neutrality, but I want companies to have the ability to shape traffic, have different billing strategies, etc. One of the things that gets me is that those supporting NN are the same that supported a la carte billing for cable, two things that seem clearly at odds with each other.

king_phil 9y ago
I've down voted your post because it does not fit the billing strategy of my company. Please make a payment of $9.99 to get the down vote lifted.
- equalunique 9y ago
  "We rarely hear the other side of issues and those with differing views are often derided in harsh language." @king_phil you are helping to legitimize this claim made by @jnordwick
  - king_phil 9y ago
    If having a different opinion and stating it in a sarcastic way is a problem for you Americans, then net neutrality is not your biggest problem.
merb 9y ago
basically that opinion is a joke. the problem here is, is that he things that if somebody peers directly with a internet exchange, that he can just have as much bandwidth that he wants. which is somewhat correct. but the whole argument is incorrect. since actually peering with a global exchange means that ALL isps can actually use the same bandwidth that you provide to the exchange. this is good for competition since else only ISP A could have a good connection to youtube (because it is inside his network). but most of the time there are at least 3 ISPs and any ISP would actually do everything to get more customers on board which means that other ISPs would have a weaker service. public peering is as fair as something can get, since if you pay for it you can actually get the exact same amount from the cake than anybody else. with private peering things are different and sadly these things are done way too often. private peering means that a big telco does not peer with the public exchanges, which means that to get traffic to them the traffic needs to somehow find his way into their network. they do that to actually force others into private peering, because they can get way more money out of it (they actually can ask for money from the customer and from the data provider). and they would do it even if some service would be inside isp network b... btw. in germany DE-CIX is one of the biggest internet exchanges around the world. but somehow the big ISPs only peer with it, with a really really low margin, only because they make ton of money with private peerings.
- zeldron 9y ago
  All 'big' isp's use both private peering-points as well as public. Problem is, if Tier1 operators was not allowed to manage private peering, connecting to services oversees would be a 90's experience at best. With DDOS attacks on strategic nodes outtakes that could disconnect entire countries wouldn't be unusual. Im not from the USA and do not have a detailed understanding of what 'Net Neutrality' means for you in terms of laws and practice. For me it seams quite sober to separate T1's and T2's peering with each other and data-centers vs T3's censoring end users by capping access to selected services. If anyone could clarify the 'scope' of Net Neutrality as the term is used in the US press that would be greatly helpfull.
  - equalunique 9y ago
    >the 'scope' of Net Neutrality as the term is used in the US press I believe it is intentionally kept vague, such that people who do not support the agenda of Google/Facebook/Amazon may be labeled as "anti Net Neutrality", which simply sounds bad.

feistypharit 9y ago

Funny how that article completely talks about it from the large corporation point of view, and not of that of the consumer. Yes, if I could, as a consumer afford to peer directly again exchange and backhaul to my house, I wouldn't care either! Then he mentions competition at the end...as if most US consumers have more than one choice for broadband.

pfedak 9y ago
The article seems deliberately deceptive, entirely ignoring the second half of what it claims net neutrality means except to criticize Google for not treating all the bits it sends the same, and then encouraging us to think net neutrality creates a "bevy of regulations" for Google's competitors. What new regulations apply to non ISPs? How does net neutrality change that other companies have to make deals with service providers? There's no argument here, just a complaint that Google is huge which, while probably valid, seems irrelevant.

contravariant 9y ago

I don't quite get the argument here. Is the author saying that net neutrality is a terrible idea because it doesn't prevent google from controlling it's own traffic?