3 ms·
For such services non-neutrality makes no sense whatsoever. Basically the whole point of purchasing internet access is that you can use the sites and services
by ubernostrum 16y ago
For such services non-neutrality makes no sense whatsoever.
Basically the whole point of purchasing internet access is that you can use the sites and services you choose, just as the whole point of purchasing telephone service is that you can call the people you choose and receive calls from others.
Thus I have a hard time seeing how non-neutrality makes much sense on any sort of plan. If a customer is using the service to excess, charge the customer for use -- that's perfectly sensible. But saying "this customers used the service to excess, therefore we will disable part of the service for all customers" is nonsensical.
- grandalf 16y agoI think the key point is that customers are very different and that currently "broadband" is sold as a single type of product. The person who downloads a few songs and videos and checks email wants a very different product from the person who is constantly uploading torrents. Net neutrality is mostly just FUD though b/c with the exception of protocols that specifically exploit "shared bandwidth" pricing, it's unlikely to impact anyone (since consumers do like choice). Even my google/bing example is quite farfetched, b/c it's not likely worth enough to Google to subsidize bandwidth just to get search clicks, and in any case Comcast could sell Google analytics data without having to restrict anyone's choices.