The Downside of Net Neutrality
blogs.scientificamerican.com
The Downside of Net Neutrality
1–9 of 9 posts
Re: The Downside of Net Neutrality
#2The former net neutrality laws did not apply to wireless. I personally believe they should but there is a strong technical argument why they shouldn’t, as presented here. Additionally there’s for more competition for wireless networks. Most US residents have a choice between 2-4 networks, thus keeping the worst practices in check.
Re: The Downside of Net Neutrality
#3This whole fallacious argument is riddled with strawmen and fallacious arguments. They attempt to equate wireless access with internet access. They talk about "the expectations that we have as consumers" when it comes to the internet as if "consumers" are some sort of monolith. Worst of all, they describe net neutrality solely as a bandwith issue and not one of access. Without net neutrality laws Comcast and other ISPs are under no obligation to make all of the "internet" available to you, at any price. Then will be free to simply block access to websites and other internet services they don't like, for any reason at all, no matter how much you are willing to pay. Net neutrality isn't just about bandwith and packet prioritization - its about access. There is simply no "free market" argument to be made about any ISP or cable company that doesn't own all its infrastructure (including all the land that its wires and cables run through) or one that uses the public spectrum. The only reason that the cable company is able to put a pole in my backyard or run a wire over my property is government regulation. You can't credibly decry net neutrality (ie government regulation of your "private business"), when the very existence of your "private business" depends on government regulation to operate.
Re: The Downside of Net Neutrality
#4Packet prioritization for "phone" communications is actually an obvious example of a conflict of interest for ISPs, since they are the ones benefitting from that. VOIP services can't compete because the ISPs don't allow them to.
Re: The Downside of Net Neutrality
#5> When we apply net neutrality principles of the 2015 regulatory framework to wireless networks, such proposed equal treatment of all network traffic could have the unintended effect of interfering with the quality of our communications
Choosing to bash an imaginary law instead of a real one, but not being particularly clear about that.
Re: The Downside of Net Neutrality
#6This whole fallacious argument is riddled with strawmen and fallacious arguments. They attempt to equate wireless access with internet access. They talk about "the expectations that we have as consumers" when it comes to the internet as if "consumers" are some sort of monolith. Worst of all, they describe net neutrality solely as a bandwith issue and not one of access. Without net neutrality laws Comcast and other IS…
The whole thing read like an only mildly more coherent version of the Series of Tubes speech.
And kept harping on about voice call quality. What.
Re: The Downside of Net Neutrality
#7This whole fallacious argument is riddled with strawmen and fallacious arguments. They attempt to equate wireless access with internet access. They talk about "the expectations that we have as consumers" when it comes to the internet as if "consumers" are some sort of monolith. Worst of all, they describe net neutrality solely as a bandwith issue and not one of access. Without net neutrality laws Comcast and other IS…
> You can't credibly decry net neutrality (ie government regulation of your "private business"), when the very existence of your "private business" depends on government regulation to operate.
Not sure what is meant by this. Maybe this holds true for some moral arguments, but I'm not sure on that either, as fundamental institutions like property rights and contract law are often provided by governments as well.
Most arguments in favor of market based solutions are not moral but practical (efficiency etc.) And of course, you would frequently argue in favor of market mechanisms in highly regulated and/or government rich fields. (Look at banking, healthcare, research, etc.)
There's even a lot of practical benefits in competition between bureaucracies which (at least in the EU) are completely government determined.
Long story short: in the academic discourse, market and government are no opposites, complements, enemies or anything necessarily averse.
Re: The Downside of Net Neutrality
#8This seems like a false-dilemma.
The real value in network neutrality is that companies cannot discriminate based on the human-understood message of the data (e.g. political censorship) or to use it anti-competitively.
Now, QoS is not entirely orthogonal to that, but most of the worrisome overlap involves the case where the ISP's motive isn't too maximize customer experience, but instead to impede a competitor.
The line may not be super-sharp, but it does exist.
Re: The Downside of Net Neutrality
#9Beautiful.
An attempt at a technical explanation of why they simply cannot treat traffic equal as a business.
Hahah, they're doing the QoS/shaping === neutrality argument.
Absolute bullshit.
Net Neutrality is about treating packets equal regardless of WHO asks and WHERE THEY GO, not about WHAT TYPE/PRIORITIZATION.
Want to be prioritize webcam streams to be lower than SMS text? NOT NET NEUTRALITY.
Want to prioritize HTTPS lower than VOIP? NOT NET NEUTRALITY.
Want to prioritize sending this video since COMPANY A sent us payola but COMPANY B didn't? THAT'S NET NEUTRALITY.