22 minutes ago, bondsbw wrote
That's not levying taxes at origin and destination, that's deciding who you want to support through taxes (which is a flaw of the tax structure of our transportation system). Completely different concepts.
You'll note I also pointed out registration which also pays for roads (granted to a lesser degree).
That has nothing to do with net neutrality, at all. Even with net neutrality, the ISP is free to set up the charging structure they want against their end users.
Re-read this thread... you'll notice I'm the only one pointing that out, something virtually every net neutrality discussion lacks... in fact some here are arguing against the possibility of a (higher) fee.
Remember when dial-up charged per hour? And of course, cell data charges per MB or per GB and home broadband service charges a flat rate with data caps. All of these are completely fine under net neutrality.
That depends on who you ask... which you actually argue against below without realizing it.
What the ISP can't do under net neutrality is throttle, alter, or delete packets based on content within the packet or the origin of the packet.
I'm familiar with the bumper sticker claim.
Bandwidth is a limited resource, both how much can enter/leave your home, but also at the ISP. Unlike you, the ISP usually has multiple connections to other data networks, some bigger than others, some more heavily utilized than others. When one of those pipes gets full throttling happens.
It is no different than if everyone on your block flushed their toilets at the same time.
Just because the road way says the upper limit is 55 doesn't mean you'll be able to do that if there is bumper to bumper slow moving traffic.
Like it or not, throttling is a reality, both online and off and net neutrality can do little about it... and sometimes it's even a necessity.
If a small subset of users are using a significant portion of the available bandwidth, throttling them makes sense to ensure other customers are able to have a quality experience. It's a simply a case of prioritizing the 'needs of the many.'
Do you want an virtually unlimited connection without any artificial throttling? You can have that today... you just have to pay for it... it's just going to cost more than most are willing to pay.
For every torrent mad basement dweller there are a couple dozen little old ladies who have a 50mbs connection that they only use for Facebook, email and a Roku. While overkill for them, this makes the economics work out so that we can all have a pretty fast internet connection for not a lot of money (kind of like how insurance is supposed to work)... but does not automatically mean that it's cost effective to upgrade a specific pipe when it is saturated.
Supporters of net neutrality generally ignore the costs involved in running a large scale network and discount the possibility that heavy users will see significant bills due to them having to bare the costs of their usage.