5 ms·

At what point does "prioritization" effectively become blocking? People navigate away from websites that take a long time to load or have advertisements.

wlesieutre 12y ago
Not to mention that companies like Comcast have their foot in the online entertainment content game, and could very easily use paid prioritization to get an unfair advantage over competing services.
- droopybuns 12y ago
  If you do a search for the net neutrality position of companies like AT&T, Verizon, Centurylink- you'll find plenty of material on their policy blogs on why this is a bad thing. http://community.centurylink.com/regulatoryblog/ http://community.centurylink.com/regulatoryblog/ http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/broadband-classification/thoughts-on-todays-vote/ http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/broadband-classification/thou... http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-th... It is extremely interesting that Comcast has made no public positions on title II neutrality.
  - wlesieutre 12y ago
    Interesting that Verizon and CenturyLink focused entirely on the fact that Title II regulations are old. I'm curious what the specific issues they have with it are; after all, there are plenty of old laws that still work fine. It's become really hard to find any actual information or discussion though. Seems like every page I find is a bunch of bullet points either saying "Regulation will stop all innovation, drive ISPs out of business, and destroy the internet" or "If we don't regulate, Comcast and TWC will stop all innovation and destroy the internet." Sheesh...
droopybuns 12y ago
Is your use of the Internet limited to websites? If you play video games, use realtime video services like facetime, or use a VPN for mission critical work, do you really want your traffic flows to be identical to something that delivers content to a rendering engine? Different traffic has different requirements & performance characteristics. From a pure engineering perspective, this is a very poor decision and treating all traffic equally provides artificial and often unnecessary constraints. I have never experienced any situation where prioritization has effectively become blocking.
- daughart 12y ago
  Interesting, but I'm more concerned about prioritization of Skype over FaceTime because Microsoft pays Comcast more than Apple.
- MereInterest 12y ago
  Different types of content have different requirements. Different content within the same type does not. This is not an issue of prioritizing VoIP over a large single file. This is an argument against prioritizing Company A's VoIP over Company B's VoIP.
- tzs 12y ago
  > Different traffic has different requirements & performance characteristics. From a pure engineering perspective, this is a very poor decision and treating all traffic equally provides artificial and often unnecessary constraints. Banning paid prioritization does not stop the ISP from prioritizing traffic for engineering reasons. What it bans is prioritizing traffic because a content provider paid for their traffic to be prioritized. For example, Amazon would not be able to pay to have Amazon video prioritized over Netflix video, and Netflix would not be able to pay to have Netflix video prioritized over Amazon video.
  - novalis78 12y ago
    what would be so bad about that? doesn't that mean that we would have to "regulate" every successful business, because they could use their additional profit to gain "unfair market advantages"?

wlesieutre 12y ago

Not to mention that companies like Comcast have their foot in the online entertainment content game, and could very easily use paid prioritization to get an unfair advantage over competing services.

droopybuns 12y ago
If you do a search for the net neutrality position of companies like AT&T, Verizon, Centurylink- you'll find plenty of material on their policy blogs on why this is a bad thing. http://community.centurylink.com/regulatoryblog/ http://community.centurylink.com/regulatoryblog/ http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/broadband-classification/thoughts-on-todays-vote/ http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/broadband-classification/thou... http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-th... It is extremely interesting that Comcast has made no public positions on title II neutrality.
- wlesieutre 12y ago
  Interesting that Verizon and CenturyLink focused entirely on the fact that Title II regulations are old. I'm curious what the specific issues they have with it are; after all, there are plenty of old laws that still work fine. It's become really hard to find any actual information or discussion though. Seems like every page I find is a bunch of bullet points either saying "Regulation will stop all innovation, drive ISPs out of business, and destroy the internet" or "If we don't regulate, Comcast and TWC will stop all innovation and destroy the internet." Sheesh...

droopybuns 12y ago

Is your use of the Internet limited to websites? If you play video games, use realtime video services like facetime, or use a VPN for mission critical work, do you really want your traffic flows to be identical to something that delivers content to a rendering engine? Different traffic has different requirements & performance characteristics. From a pure engineering perspective, this is a very poor decision and treating all traffic equally provides artificial and often unnecessary constraints. I have never experienced any situation where prioritization has effectively become blocking.

daughart 12y ago
Interesting, but I'm more concerned about prioritization of Skype over FaceTime because Microsoft pays Comcast more than Apple.
MereInterest 12y ago
Different types of content have different requirements. Different content within the same type does not. This is not an issue of prioritizing VoIP over a large single file. This is an argument against prioritizing Company A's VoIP over Company B's VoIP.
tzs 12y ago
> Different traffic has different requirements & performance characteristics. From a pure engineering perspective, this is a very poor decision and treating all traffic equally provides artificial and often unnecessary constraints. Banning paid prioritization does not stop the ISP from prioritizing traffic for engineering reasons. What it bans is prioritizing traffic because a content provider paid for their traffic to be prioritized. For example, Amazon would not be able to pay to have Amazon video prioritized over Netflix video, and Netflix would not be able to pay to have Netflix video prioritized over Amazon video.
- novalis78 12y ago
  what would be so bad about that? doesn't that mean that we would have to "regulate" every successful business, because they could use their additional profit to gain "unfair market advantages"?