4 ms·

"prohibits requiring fees from websites or online services to deliver or prioritize their traffic to consumers" This is not 'Net Neutrality'. If data provider

"prohibits requiring fees from websites or online services to deliver or prioritize their traffic to consumers" This is not 'Net Neutrality'. If data providers like Netflix want 'special service' then they can pay for it. 'Net Neutrality' is more like Carriers cannot charge more for email, than for games, than for messaging, than for something else. Carriers should be able to charge whatever they want for whatever QoS (Quality of Service). If Netflix wants more bandwidth with lower latency, fine, they can pay for that. But Carriers cannot arbitrary charge 'more' to Netflix because they are 'richer' or because of the type of content. Federal legislation needs to go further and separate content form data networks. AT&T has a vast Content Empire that is in direct competition with Netflix, this is a gigantic conflict of interest. AT&T can sell bytes of data at a quality of service. That's it. Maybe phones - so long as those phones can work on any network and other phones work on it's network. Content? No way. Same with cable distributors. And more difficult to articulate but Apple shouldn't be able to compete with those in the App Store, for example and by law be very 'neutral' there as well: they have to treat everyone the same.

monkeywork 5y ago
>If Netflix wants more bandwidth with lower latency, fine, they can pay for that. Why should Netflix pay for this? They aren't the one choosing to send traffic onto that network, the ISPs CLIENTS are. The ISP shouldn't have any ability to charge Netflix for actions their clients are taking - and they should have to treat all traffic that a client asks for equally. Can you imagine an electric company trying to get some sort of fee from Samsung because they sell a lot of electronics that people use in their houses...
- jollybean 5y ago
  Netflix pays for connectivity just like consumers do. They can pay for better QoS, which will result in better QoS for their customers if they want. Or their customers can, or both. "Can you imagine an electric company trying to get some sort of fee from Samsung because they sell a lot of electronics that people use in their houses..." That analogy doesn't work because Samsung, in that case, has nothing to do with the data flow. Netflix obviously does. Netflix should not have to pay special fees because they are 'Netflix' or 'it's video' or 'it's movies' - but they should definitely have to pay fees relevant to QoS of their upload bandwidth. Just like you, I and everyone else.
  - wtallis 5y ago
    > They can pay for better QoS, which will result in better QoS for their customers if they want. Please, stop using QoS as a synonym for explicit prioritization. QoS strategies have advanced greatly since the 1990s, and the goal of providing better quality of service should not be used to defend obsolete non-neutral techniques. Net neutrality and QoS are not conflicting goals, and enforcing net neutrality is an excellent way to incentivize ISPs to transition to better QoS strategies.
    - jollybean 5y ago
      I used to work in networking to help define such QoS terms, and clearly you didn't read what I wrote because I'm using QoS as an example of how to properly do Net Neutrality.
      - wtallis 5y ago
        You seem to be using QoS to refer exclusively to stuff like DiffServ. That's wrong, even if it was widely accepted back in whatever decade you were working in networking. The DiffServ/DSCP mindset for how to achieve QoS is obsolete and inferior, and encourages non-neutral network management to the detriment of everybody except the ISPs that get to charge third parties extra for fast lanes and the few content providers who can afford to pay for the fast lane. If your mental model of QoS treats packet scheduling as a zero-sum game and views latency and bandwidth as inversely related (implied by one of your other comments in this thread), then you're more than a decade out of date. Business models based on such wrong ideas do not deserve any protection from public policy.
  - d110af5ccf 5y ago
    > Netflix pays for connectivity just like consumers do. Yes, Netfix pays their ISP. They should never need to pay the customer's ISP. Peering should be cost neutral. ISPs shouldn't be allowed to double dip.
    - jollybean 5y ago

monkeywork 5y ago

>If Netflix wants more bandwidth with lower latency, fine, they can pay for that. Why should Netflix pay for this? They aren't the one choosing to send traffic onto that network, the ISPs CLIENTS are. The ISP shouldn't have any ability to charge Netflix for actions their clients are taking - and they should have to treat all traffic that a client asks for equally. Can you imagine an electric company trying to get some sort of fee from Samsung because they sell a lot of electronics that people use in their houses...

jollybean 5y ago
Netflix pays for connectivity just like consumers do. They can pay for better QoS, which will result in better QoS for their customers if they want. Or their customers can, or both. "Can you imagine an electric company trying to get some sort of fee from Samsung because they sell a lot of electronics that people use in their houses..." That analogy doesn't work because Samsung, in that case, has nothing to do with the data flow. Netflix obviously does. Netflix should not have to pay special fees because they are 'Netflix' or 'it's video' or 'it's movies' - but they should definitely have to pay fees relevant to QoS of their upload bandwidth. Just like you, I and everyone else.
- wtallis 5y ago
  > They can pay for better QoS, which will result in better QoS for their customers if they want. Please, stop using QoS as a synonym for explicit prioritization. QoS strategies have advanced greatly since the 1990s, and the goal of providing better quality of service should not be used to defend obsolete non-neutral techniques. Net neutrality and QoS are not conflicting goals, and enforcing net neutrality is an excellent way to incentivize ISPs to transition to better QoS strategies.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    I used to work in networking to help define such QoS terms, and clearly you didn't read what I wrote because I'm using QoS as an example of how to properly do Net Neutrality.
    - wtallis 5y ago
      You seem to be using QoS to refer exclusively to stuff like DiffServ. That's wrong, even if it was widely accepted back in whatever decade you were working in networking. The DiffServ/DSCP mindset for how to achieve QoS is obsolete and inferior, and encourages non-neutral network management to the detriment of everybody except the ISPs that get to charge third parties extra for fast lanes and the few content providers who can afford to pay for the fast lane. If your mental model of QoS treats packet scheduling as a zero-sum game and views latency and bandwidth as inversely related (implied by one of your other comments in this thread), then you're more than a decade out of date. Business models based on such wrong ideas do not deserve any protection from public policy.
- d110af5ccf 5y ago
  > Netflix pays for connectivity just like consumers do. Yes, Netfix pays their ISP. They should never need to pay the customer's ISP. Peering should be cost neutral. ISPs shouldn't be allowed to double dip.
  - jollybean 5y ago