3 ms·

A lot of electricity in the US is charged differently during "off-peak hours". I know some EV owners who take advantage of this by scheduling when they charge t

A lot of electricity in the US is charged differently during "off-peak hours". I know some EV owners who take advantage of this by scheduling when they charge their cars.

rglullis 5y ago
Thanks, that's a more relevant example of discriminatory pricing. I wonder though if people defending net neutrality would look at this and think "off-peak pricing is wrong, everyone should pay the same..."
- jyrkesh 5y ago
  Probably not many, but you're probably not going to have much luck changing the minds of people on net neutrality. Judging from your comments, you and I probably agree on the issue, but I think technical folks in particular have pretty well-entrenched opinions on the topic.
- nybble41 4y ago
  > I wonder though if people defending net neutrality would look at this and think "off-peak pricing is wrong, everyone should pay the same..." Probably not, as it has nothing to do with where the electricity is coming from or how it's being used. Having different rates for different times of the day which still apply to all users and all services is not generally perceived as a violation of neutrality.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    Suppose there was a broadband provider charging more for data transmitted when the network is congested, don't you think it would be a violation of net neutrality?
    - nybble41 4y ago
      No, not as long as they charged everyone equally for the same service during the congested times without regard for how the bits were being used. The point of net neutrality is that ISPs should ignore the content, source, and destination of the packets they carry when it comes to prioritization and pricing. QoS is fine as long as it's under the subscriber's control (for example, via DSCP tags), but it can be an issue if it leads to the ISP one subscriber's traffic over another's based on the services being accessed. Tiered services (paying for higher bandwidth, lower latency, etc.) are also fine so long as the tiers assigned to each class of traffic are chosen by the subscriber and not tied to specific protocols or peers. Consider the USPS as a model of neutrality: they offer various grades of service from bulk package deliveries to Priority Mail but everyone paying for the same service gets (more or less) equal treatment.
- beowulfey 4y ago
  Actually, my point above was that if we are going to get rid of net neutrality, it makes logical sense to also get rid of neutrality for electricity since it's more likely to be beneficial there than for the internet. I'm honestly surprised at the backlash against net neutrality on here.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    But there isn't neutrality for electricity.

A lot of electricity in the US is charged differently during "off-peak hours". I know some EV owners who take advantage of this by scheduling when they charge their cars.

rglullis 5y ago

Thanks, that's a more relevant example of discriminatory pricing. I wonder though if people defending net neutrality would look at this and think "off-peak pricing is wrong, everyone should pay the same..."

jyrkesh 5y ago
Probably not many, but you're probably not going to have much luck changing the minds of people on net neutrality. Judging from your comments, you and I probably agree on the issue, but I think technical folks in particular have pretty well-entrenched opinions on the topic.
nybble41 4y ago
> I wonder though if people defending net neutrality would look at this and think "off-peak pricing is wrong, everyone should pay the same..." Probably not, as it has nothing to do with where the electricity is coming from or how it's being used. Having different rates for different times of the day which still apply to all users and all services is not generally perceived as a violation of neutrality.
- rglullis 4y ago
  Suppose there was a broadband provider charging more for data transmitted when the network is congested, don't you think it would be a violation of net neutrality?
  - nybble41 4y ago
    No, not as long as they charged everyone equally for the same service during the congested times without regard for how the bits were being used. The point of net neutrality is that ISPs should ignore the content, source, and destination of the packets they carry when it comes to prioritization and pricing. QoS is fine as long as it's under the subscriber's control (for example, via DSCP tags), but it can be an issue if it leads to the ISP one subscriber's traffic over another's based on the services being accessed. Tiered services (paying for higher bandwidth, lower latency, etc.) are also fine so long as the tiers assigned to each class of traffic are chosen by the subscriber and not tied to specific protocols or peers. Consider the USPS as a model of neutrality: they offer various grades of service from bulk package deliveries to Priority Mail but everyone paying for the same service gets (more or less) equal treatment.
beowulfey 4y ago
Actually, my point above was that if we are going to get rid of net neutrality, it makes logical sense to also get rid of neutrality for electricity since it's more likely to be beneficial there than for the internet. I'm honestly surprised at the backlash against net neutrality on here.
- rglullis 4y ago
  But there isn't neutrality for electricity.