11–20 of 60 posts
Surely people have not forgotten what it was like pre-neutrality (Compuserve, Prodigy, Genie, AOL, et al)?
We could ultimately replace our internet infrastructure with something more distributed which makes it difficult for ISPs to determine what traffic they're carrying. Ultimately traffic analysis works right now because the ISPs can detect where the traffic is coming from. In a more distributed internet, that wouldn't be the case. If all packets are encrypted, it would also make it harder to snoop and shape traffic tha…
What is the technical definition of net neutrality? I look at a lot of these articles and they seem to imply people are using the same term for multiple things.
If you want to know what the world looks like without network neutrality just go back to the days of Compuserve, Prodigy, Genie, AOL, et al. Dismal does't even begin to describe the situation.
The major providers like to pretend that they're in a wonderful competitive market where, if only they were allowed to discriminate on traffic more, there would be more competition, prices would be lowered, and investment in infrastructure would grow due to the competition. This is a nice rosy view of things, but it's just not accurate. They're de facto infrastructure builders, and for their efforts they want a monop…
In the US, many major roads are owned by private companies like Cintra [1] to give one example, and they charge tolls [2] on those roads.
It's become common practice in many US states that any new highway construction must have a toll on it and then the state sells the road to a private company.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cintra [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_road
The idea that we won't get enough bandwidth in the future unless the telecos et. el. are allowed to play gatekeeper makes no sense to me.
What is the technical definition of net neutrality? I look at a lot of these articles and they seem to imply people are using the same term for multiple things.
I had a bit of back-and-forth with Marc on this topic and I think he's underestimating the difficulty of regulating a non-neutral 'net such that competition (and, therefore, innovation) isn't stifled. I can't help thinking that if, 20 years ago, Microsoft had struck a deal with the major ISPs to prioritise packets being downloaded to Internet Explorer over those being downloaded to Netscape browsers, Marc would have…
Interesting point. However, imagine if regulators had dictated the web browser as a "common carrier" and defined exactly what it can and can't do, we might never have had all of the new tech that makes the modern web so much better than the IE5 days.
The major providers like to pretend that they're in a wonderful competitive market where, if only they were allowed to discriminate on traffic more, there would be more competition, prices would be lowered, and investment in infrastructure would grow due to the competition. This is a nice rosy view of things, but it's just not accurate. They're de facto infrastructure builders, and for their efforts they want a monop…
>>" It's why major roads aren't owned by private companies" In the US, many major roads are owned by private companies like Cintra [1] to give one example, and they charge tolls [2] on those roads. It's become common practice in many US states that any new highway construction must have a toll on it and then the state sells the road to a private company. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cintra [2] http://en.wikipedia…
I think it's unfortunately down to the incessant anti-tax rhetoric in the US. It's a lot easier to get a private company to finance a toll-road with a concession agreement than it is to pass bond measures or increase taxes.
I don't know how Marc squares his free markets love with his presence at the table being substantially enabled by the government (internet + UIUC + NCSA). Surely people have not forgotten what it was like pre-neutrality (Compuserve, Prodigy, Genie, AOL, et al)?