3 ms·

totes. I really think this perfectly illustrates why I have issues with the coinage "Net Neutrality". I currently pay Comcast an additional amount for an addi

totes. I really think this perfectly illustrates why I have issues with the coinage "Net Neutrality". I currently pay Comcast an additional amount for an additional amount of bandwidth, over the minimum they offer. Before I go further, let's clarify that I am not defending Comcast, and that Net Neutrality is not the "Fuck Comcast" law. My old AT&T account that PG&E, oddly, sold me when I moved to Oakland was only 1.5mbit, and it was enough for Netflix, but you could expect Netflix to perform as it performs with 1.5mbit of bandwidth. Certainly, I agree that on a lower-cost plan, services that may be hungry for bandwidth should not be allowed to be blocked, that's silly, and while noone has really ever substantially done anything like this, I agree that there is a very real risk of business interests being presented with such an opportunity. What this humor kind of fails to address is the fact that, some people will use more internet, maybe a house with 5 roommates needs more internet than an individual - this is actually a way that tiered power billing hurts poorer folks, because 1 rich person gets the same alottment as ten poor people at one address, so using even 5 times as much power costs, oh, ten or twenty times as much. The law that forces power costs to be tiered is good, and it is motivated by the right reasons, but the way it is implemented puts no pressure on the actual people who waste the most power. I think a more interesting argument would be to say, the free plan has facebook, and facebook subsidizes your internet (something AT&T is already doing with ads), and the median plan has twitter, and you can only use VPN to connect to your office on the highest plan, even if you use almost no bandwidth. If we're going to have a conversation, let's talk about something of substance.

mikeash 12y ago
Isn't that exactly the argument this site is making? Their fake packages have a low-end service that only includes social media, a middle tier that includes streaming video, and a top tier that allows "any site," and is presumably what you'd require for VPNs.
AlexandrB 12y ago
> I think a more interesting argument would be to say, the free plan has facebook, and facebook subsidizes your internet (something AT&T is already doing with ads), and the median plan has twitter, and you can only use VPN to connect to your office on the highest plan, even if you use almost no bandwidth. Here's the problem. Any such regime will be structured with incumbent use cases in mind. What if a new VPN-like protocol emerges that can be used to ensure more privacy (e.g. TOR). Now only those who can afford the highest tiers of service will be able to access it. Basically the internet rich get richer because they have access to technology that a family subscribing to mid-tier do not. The other problem is that ISPs are not interested in the cutting edge of the internet. If this was 2005, your plan would have the mid-tier selling us MySpace access and Facebook would only be on whatever tier above that gives "neutral" web access - how does that not skew the market forces that pushed Facebook to the top of the heap and why should an ISP be allowed to skew them in this way?
- gandalfu 12y ago
  Telcel in Mexico allows unlimited access to Facebook and Twitter while the rest of the internet is bounded by whatever data plan you have. Not sure if Facebook and Twitter pay Telcel for the bandwidth you consume.
  - artenix 12y ago
    It's known that Zuckerberg is approaching some not developed countries to do that. India is on the top of my head. And this has been categorized as a practice againts Net Neutrality. Chile, IIRC, banned it.

mikeash 12y ago

Isn't that exactly the argument this site is making? Their fake packages have a low-end service that only includes social media, a middle tier that includes streaming video, and a top tier that allows "any site," and is presumably what you'd require for VPNs.

AlexandrB 12y ago

> I think a more interesting argument would be to say, the free plan has facebook, and facebook subsidizes your internet (something AT&T is already doing with ads), and the median plan has twitter, and you can only use VPN to connect to your office on the highest plan, even if you use almost no bandwidth. Here's the problem. Any such regime will be structured with incumbent use cases in mind. What if a new VPN-like protocol emerges that can be used to ensure more privacy (e.g. TOR). Now only those who can afford the highest tiers of service will be able to access it. Basically the internet rich get richer because they have access to technology that a family subscribing to mid-tier do not. The other problem is that ISPs are not interested in the cutting edge of the internet. If this was 2005, your plan would have the mid-tier selling us MySpace access and Facebook would only be on whatever tier above that gives "neutral" web access - how does that not skew the market forces that pushed Facebook to the top of the heap and why should an ISP be allowed to skew them in this way?

gandalfu 12y ago
Telcel in Mexico allows unlimited access to Facebook and Twitter while the rest of the internet is bounded by whatever data plan you have. Not sure if Facebook and Twitter pay Telcel for the bandwidth you consume.
- artenix 12y ago
  It's known that Zuckerberg is approaching some not developed countries to do that. India is on the top of my head. And this has been categorized as a practice againts Net Neutrality. Chile, IIRC, banned it.