3 ms·

I must be missing something in the discussion. My perception of the network neutrality is that it is supposed to force ISPs to treat every traffic the same. The

I must be missing something in the discussion. My perception of the network neutrality is that it is supposed to force ISPs to treat every traffic the same. The network operator can still prioritize packages about network balancing etc. There is no need for routing update after a node goes down to wait thousands of packages for streaming. However, this doesn't mean that they can favor their own streaming service over any other. Regarding the high speed connections. There is only one issue in mind. Did the network operator install these new high speed lines as a network operator or as a streaming service provider? Nobody is expecting a streaming service to favor their competition. It's a complete conflict of interest though that such companies have multiple hats.

nashashmi 3y ago
The conflict of interest part is a bit funny. Keeping network operators from participating and competing with other web services is going to weaken the network industry. Losses in one sector will cause bankruptcy, if other sectors do not make fill in the losses. A similar situation occurred with transportation companies in the US. Rail companies were prohibited from operating buses because of a conflict of interest. Rail failed. Busses prospered. Until both industries failed. And now airlines prosper. We are just one stone throw away from causing network operators to be bored with their jobs. And then abandon ship until some weak dipstick can’t get a job anywhere else and ends up with securing your boring network.
- itopaloglu83 3y ago
  I agree. I think it’s similar to the power grid. Razor sharp margins that keeps falling down and sustainment is being provided by ever decreasing number of professionals or being handed down to folks that don’t know what they are doing. Queue the forest fires in California. The cost is laying down a fiber network and sustaining it is there and it’s going nowhere. Somebody needs to pay for it. Current approach is to bundle various services under a service umbrella and try to stay profitable. I don’t know what will happen when the streaming boom cools down. It might cause some “network providers” to just bankrupt.

nashashmi 3y ago

The conflict of interest part is a bit funny. Keeping network operators from participating and competing with other web services is going to weaken the network industry. Losses in one sector will cause bankruptcy, if other sectors do not make fill in the losses. A similar situation occurred with transportation companies in the US. Rail companies were prohibited from operating buses because of a conflict of interest. Rail failed. Busses prospered. Until both industries failed. And now airlines prosper. We are just one stone throw away from causing network operators to be bored with their jobs. And then abandon ship until some weak dipstick can’t get a job anywhere else and ends up with securing your boring network.

itopaloglu83 3y ago
I agree. I think it’s similar to the power grid. Razor sharp margins that keeps falling down and sustainment is being provided by ever decreasing number of professionals or being handed down to folks that don’t know what they are doing. Queue the forest fires in California. The cost is laying down a fiber network and sustaining it is there and it’s going nowhere. Somebody needs to pay for it. Current approach is to bundle various services under a service umbrella and try to stay profitable. I don’t know what will happen when the streaming boom cools down. It might cause some “network providers” to just bankrupt.