It is the failure to see the correlation that is frustrating. How do you think throttling happens or why technically speaking? The previous system address abuses by the ISPs. Net Neutrality is technically flawed b/c it assumes a technically flawed premise (ie all traffic can be treated the same). You cannot effectively manage a network in 2017 without some traffic shaping. Who gets to decide if some decision in traffic management is ‘legitimate’ or ‘abusive’. Do you really want a bunch of unelected officials who got their position due who they connected to make those calls? Should ISPs have to gain approval for every policy decision to be sure it is not abusive. How do you think this going to be enforced?
The situation you feared was attempted in the past and was dealt with. We already have a legal framework to address those abuses.
Finally let talk about censorship. Who in 2017 is silencing Free Speech? The ISPs or Google, Facebook, Twitter? You do not search too hard before you find stores of these content providers silencing political speech they deem inappropriate. People talk about a Free and Open Internet but do we have that now?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:04 PM, Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> wrote:
>
> I think some of y'all forget that the net neutrality debate isn't really about QoS, latency, or bandwidth. It is about ISPs intentionally throttling or blocking services and websites that compete directly with other services that an ISP might offer, or even for arbitrary reasons or no reasons at all.
>
> Since the vast majority of us are in the Phoenix area, we are likely serviced by either CenturyLink or Cox for our physical internet, and by Verizon, AT&T, Sprint or T-Mobile for cellular internet. Without net neutrality, Cox will be allowed to throttle services like Hulu, Netflix and Youtube to horribly slow speeds if they want, while allowing their own competing television services and streaming services to go through at high speed; they can "restore" normal speeds for an extra fee, or not. Verizon could block or throttle access to Google Drive, Apple iDrive, or One Drive, while freely allowing access to their competing "Verizon Cloud" and "Verizon Messages". The same with AT&T and blocking Skype, Google Hangouts, Apple Facetime, or WhatsApp. Unless of course you pay extra, or not if the ISP doesn't want you to access a service at all.
>
> In countries that do not have net neutrality, this isn't hypothetical. This actually happens. See: https://twitter.com/rokhanna/status/923701871092441088?lang=en
>
> Lets not forget that some ISPs were actively sabotaging certain network services such as Bittorrent. See: https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/10/evidence-mounts-that-comcast-is-targeting-bittorrent-traffic/
>
> At some point, this does cross the line into corporate censorship if an ISP is allowed to arbitrarily block access to websites. Would you want to pay $5/mo for the "right" to access facebook.com, google.com, or ubuntu.com, or play games via Xbox Live or Steam? I sure as hell don't. With net neutrality gone, nothing is stopping this theoretical scenario from actually happening.
>
> If the goal is to free up network congestion from an ISP perspective, this is easily accomplished by imposing download limits (which Cox most certainly does, as well as all cellular providers, even under "unlimited" plans), and other content-neutral means (such as throttling during a peak time of day). Or ISPs can continue to raise prices.
>
> -Matt
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)