4 ms·

Net neutrality isn't about preventing QoS, it's about preventing ISPs from degrading service based on the source of the packet, instead of on the protocol. For

Net neutrality isn't about preventing QoS, it's about preventing ISPs from degrading service based on the source of the packet, instead of on the protocol. For example with net neutrality an ISP shouldn't be able to slow down or block Skype while allowing its own VOIP service to work at full speed, but it should be able to give all VOIP packets higher priority than HTTP packets. The recent squabbles about paid peering agreements aren't really a part of what was originally meant by net neutrality, they've been tacked and mostly serve to confuse the issue. They can be a problem, but they're a different problem.

cheald 12y ago
Part of the problem is that there are multiple parties with multiple definitions of what has become a catchphrase to generally mean "I want fast internet". The EFF says net neutrality is "the idea that Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data that travels over their networks equally" (https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality). That is, without regard to both source and protocol. They specifically list Comcast throttling the BitTorrent protocol as an example of a violation. The people leading the charge against net neutrality are very squarely opposed to the idea of QoS (malevolent and benevolent) at the ISP level. I have very little issue with saying "thou shalt not different prioritize same-content traffic by originating IP" (provided said sources are actually not engaged in abusive behavior, ie, DDOS attacks or similar), but that's not what most people are talking about when they talk about net neutrality - they're literally talking about dumb pipes which carry and route every packet at the same priority as every other packet, and that's...just not how the internet works. Some packets are more latency-sensitive than others. You aren't really going to care if your BT or Netflix packets have 1k MS latency as long as the throughput is high, but you're really going to have an issue with your VOIP and online gaming packets when there's a 1-second delay on both ends of the pipe.

cheald 12y ago

Part of the problem is that there are multiple parties with multiple definitions of what has become a catchphrase to generally mean "I want fast internet". The EFF says net neutrality is "the idea that Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data that travels over their networks equally" (https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality). That is, without regard to both source and protocol. They specifically list Comcast throttling the BitTorrent protocol as an example of a violation. The people leading the charge against net neutrality are very squarely opposed to the idea of QoS (malevolent and benevolent) at the ISP level. I have very little issue with saying "thou shalt not different prioritize same-content traffic by originating IP" (provided said sources are actually not engaged in abusive behavior, ie, DDOS attacks or similar), but that's not what most people are talking about when they talk about net neutrality - they're literally talking about dumb pipes which carry and route every packet at the same priority as every other packet, and that's...just not how the internet works. Some packets are more latency-sensitive than others. You aren't really going to care if your BT or Netflix packets have 1k MS latency as long as the throughput is high, but you're really going to have an issue with your VOIP and online gaming packets when there's a 1-second delay on both ends of the pipe.