Matthew van Eerde wrote:
Clearly the proposed Net Neutrality law would create a large burden for ISPs.
Imagine if you were a bus driver, or a post office, or a taxi driver.
Imagine if there was a law... a law... that said you had to treat all passengers, packages, fares equally.
Ugh!
Except that this would mean for the ISPs to ... DO NOTHING. Wouldn't first-come-first-serve any pakets be your neutrality?
Matthew van Eerde wrote:
Laws don't do any good unless they're enforced. How in the world could this law be enforced?
Like most laws on the book. Punish the telcos if they're found to break neutrality. But you can't punish them if you don't have a law.
Matthew van Eerde wrote:
If anything, the consumer will be stuck with a single quality of service... rather than being able to choose between fast, expensive service and slow, cheap service.
I'm not entirely sold on NN -- this would be my fly in the ointment. But I think telcos degrading a COMPETITOR's data a more compelling
reason for NN.
I still think sending "internets" isn't the main point with NN. "Internets" are just text & are miniscue compared to video data.Matthew van Eerde wrote:
EDIT: I left out one other major beneficiary of the proposed NN law - spam kings. If an ISP sees a tremendous amount of outgoing traffic to port 25 from Grandma's home cable account, they can in principle ease up on the throttle and send her a letter. Under NN, that would be a federal crime.
