Net Neutrality - Computerphile
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ค. 2024
- The current debate about Net Neutrality may not be as clear cut as you'd imagine. Professor Derek McAuley lays out the details.
/ computerphile
/ computer_phile
This video was filmed and edited by Sean Riley.
Computer Science at the University of Nottingham: bit.ly/nottscomputer
Computerphile is a sister project to Brady Haran's Numberphile. More at www.bradyharan.com
Finally a video with all of the information and additional background information, while also including examples. The majority of videos on this topic are extremely biased, while this video presents the information in a non-biased method. Although the facts do make the opposition of net neutrality look slightly less desirable, they are still the facts and isn't someone attempting to sway people, allowing people to form individual, informed opinions. Keep up the good quality work!
"Heavy bandwidth users ruin it for everyone else". God I hate this argument. How about your company actually invests in better infrastructure instead of hoarding your profits?
Or just throttle these super users, so they cant ruin it..?
mreeeeeigf
"Sorry, you can't get the internet speed you are paying for"
What type of argument is that?
Not getting what you paid for surely seems reasonable.
You ordered a large pizza? Sorry we will give you a small one instead, while charging you the same price!
Might help combat obesity...
You are living in a fantasy world to believe that resources are unlimited. Capacity will be limited in some places in some situations. No getting around that.
Dont sell a package if your infrastructure can't support. Only a few years ago, all the mobile phone companies were crying the same argument. People using too much data! But what were they pushing the whole time... 4G LTE smartphones.
You missed a strong point with regards to charging for services. The problem isn't that services are being charged for. The problem is that the ISPs want to charge for services being provided by other companies.
You purchase an internet connection, and then separately purchase access to Netflix. Why should Netflix be charged by your ISP for a connection to you? They're not using your ISP's services... you're the one using those services.
I've just read the comments. If 90% of them are indicative of the general populace... we already lost. That's it. Pack up... time for sneaker net revolution! :D
Can't netflix refuse to make the connection to that ISP? I don't understand the subject but I want to. I thought the problem was that netflix uses a lot of bandwidth and should pay to get priority (since they are stream video providers). Am I wrong?
>You purchase an internet connection, and then separately purchase access to Netflix. Why should Netflix be charged by your ISP for a connection to you?
When Anyone pays for an internet connection, what they are paying for is access to a publically routable IP address, with a throughput of some specific amount of bandwidth. This is their pipe to the internet, and with it they can connect to any other publically routable IP address on the internet. The only difference between you and netflix is that Netflix has to pay for enough bandwidth and publically routable IP's to service millions of customers.
So you see, If netflix wants to have a web streaming service at all, they must pay for a publically routable IP address. Otherwise your computer would have no way of reaching their computer, so you could watch movies on your toilet.
The fact that you pay netflix for a service is totally separate from the fact that both you and Netflix have to pay money to an ISP to get online.
Netflix basically turned to the public and said. "Hey, Isn't is terrible that this ISP isn't letting you use our product just because we didn't pay the bill for our internet connection!" and people fell for it.
You've deeply and fundamentally misunderstood who is connected to whom.
Netflix already pays for internet access through a backbone provider. Your ISP ALSO pays for internet access through a backbone provider. Now your ISP wants to charge Netflix, despite the fact that Netflix isn't actually attached to their network.
ISPs are trying to charge people who aren't on their network for access to their network. If we allow that, it will likely be the end of online competition.
An analogy for this would be if people were calling your business, and a phone company in a different state started asking you for money. You don't do business with that phone company, but they say they'll block your number on their network if you don't pay up. This is despite the customers already paying fees for long distance calling.
Another analogy would be if a toll road tried to charge a dealership in another state under threat of making all the cars sold by that dealership pay an extra toll or use the slow lane. The dealership doesn't use the toll road, only its customers do.
Rodolfo Yes, the whole bandwith thing is a lie from these companies
I'm glad one of my favorite channels put out a video. My dad is confused so I hope when he watches this he'll get a better understanding.
In my country, we have no net neutrality law to speak of. So, last year, all three internet ISPs, who are also phone and gsm providers, agreed to ban Whatsapp audio calls, and Skype and other mainstream voIP, because the price of a voIP call using 4G is a lot cheaper than your usual GSM call, so they wanted to make people use GSM more, especially in international calls. And after many weeks of people protesting and some lawyers filing law suits, people started migrating to encrypted anonymous distributed ways of making calls, like tox and bleep, and used proxies with extra encryption, so the government feared the widespread of anonymity and had to force ISPs to give us back voIP for security reasons.
China and North korea and many communist countries in south east asia are great examples.
I'm not the original poster so how should I know exactly what country hes talking about?? However the best I can do is list other countries doing similar things. You don't have to deny that these things happen just because it goes against your agenda.
Which country do you live in?
It has nothing to do with 'examples' it has to do with why it happened. There's a difference between correlation and causation, however I think you lack the braincells to know that difference.
+Jeebus Ok mr. I get my sources from Fox news and Ben Shapiro. ISPs "never" do anything corrupted. Obviously you are the one who lacks brain cells as to what an example even is. I've stated examples of countries with SIMILAR incidents without NN, obviously, a normal person with a brain would get what my comment is about.
The Portuguese company in question is offering an optional service to mobile internet users to have unlimited access on their plans to particular social media networks, without the data used being taken from their mobile data plan.
I'm from the Netherlands and my mobile provider has something similar with spotify. Where you could stream music without the data being used from your plan.
As far as I can tell literally nobody has an issue with this lol
Thanks for clearing that up.
This is something a lot of people seem to miss out on, and is an important difference.
You are right, and all the Portuguese ISPs do that. But I think it still violates net neutrality. What they are all doing is called zero-rating, and it consists in creating "free lanes" sponsored by the owners of some services (spotify, netflix, google, etc...), so you don't hit your monthly (deliberately low) data cap.
well it seems cool for first look, that you get free stuff, but it kills the chance of a social media site starting out grow big, because they can't pay the free lane for users
Especially with how the CCP has been growing its influence, I would feel safer if ISPs, on the "request" of the CCP or its cronies/allies, did not have the ability to slow down sites that, say, talked about Falun Gong or Taiwan or human rights in the PRC.
Danuki L surely none of that will matter once sesame credit becomes mandatory.
CCP? That sounds familiar..
Chinese Communist Party
This can be accomplished via VPNs and obfuscated networks like Tor, but those are tacked onto the Internet, and they're somewhat detectable and blockable themselves, as China does regularly.
It would be nice to have such a thing be incorporated into the fabric of such a network, but then politicians would complain that they can't keep us safe from terrorists.
grantcivyt right, everything is pretty much built around the damn internet
i have never heard a single argument in favor of NN that made sense and was anything other than "I deserve everything i ever want ever"
I can't believe how this is happening
Really? When was the last time you thought the majority of humans were intelligent? At least 50%+ are mouth breathing morons that can barely operate a computer.
Shyhalu it's true that many people don't even know about this whole problem
Where exactly should the previous work experience of the FCC Chairman be? Cattle rancher? Welder?
How about FCC Chairman as an IT engineer and NOT a corporate shill!
@1:13 McAuley says that one concern is that ISPs might be able to favor some types of content over. That is not just merely a concern and has happened numerous times over the last decade by major ISPs in the US, most notably against WhatsApp, Viber, Riot Games and Netflix.
That also doesn't count the many, many ISPs across the globe that offer zero rating (unlimited bandwidth) for Spotify, TH-cam, Netflix, Snapchat, the ISPs own streaming service, etc. on platforms that have very limited data caps, while leaving lesser services such in the dust, unable to compete on those platforms.
+
The package carrier analogy is interesting. I like that one.
It's interesting as it can be used both ways: you can pay more to deliver the same package faster.
People are not making the distinction between bandwidth and content. Throttling is done against competitors, as well as by the amount of bandwidth used. Throttling is a form of censorship.
The fact is that we can't have a mature or sane conversation about NN while there is so much conflict of interest and lack of transparency. There is astroturfing, bots, and a whole lot of money flowing into the FCC chairman. This entire thing is far beyond a rational debate at this point.
It's "fear the bogeyman" style arguments on both sides, and sadly it seems these days, both sides will use the arguments to cause harm. Literally if someone setup a "save orphaned kittens from burning sinking tinanics!" fund, the money would get siphoned off to make kitten burgers instead. So we seem stuck if we support things meant to help us, and miss out if we try to avoid possibly corrupted attempts to help. :(
There isn't much to discuss - all NN does is stops ISPs from capitalizing on supply and demand. And believe it or not, it's actually cheaper that way for consumer. Actually there's no need to believe, it's evident, just imagine if cars were always sold with maximum options at maximum price - that's what NN does.
You have no idea. The ISP is not selling cars. They are selling roads and at times gas/petrol. They are selling "access to *other* companies packets". Thus, in your car example, it is as if the ISP is asking "who is sitting in the car, who are they talking to? Google? Oh, that is *extra*, they are Amazon? Oh, that is less". Now, they may have the right to read your/my packets and data, but careful what you wish for.
What is your point? We should remain in denial? "Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented"...partial quote - Elie Wiesel
Mi 28 Terrible comparison, with NN all you pay for is internet speed, its not like everyone pays the same prices, no, with NN you choose your internet speed and can choose a slower speed to save money, no extra charges and you get the WHOLE internet but with slower speeds. Your argument proves that you don't even pay for your own internet and rely on someone else to pay for it for you and are pulling nonsense to prove your invalid agenda.
Net neutrality is and *must* be a cornerstone principle of a free and open internet.
I was hoping you would talk about peering and core routing, ASNs and the like. That's really where NN gets complicated: how it effects peering agreements.
Jonathan Bennett that would be great
BAH! Why allow ISPs to decide what web sites you can view.
because the goverment doesn't, so someone will.
Indeed that is one of the things that people don't get when they start whining that big content providers paying for better connectivity to their customers. They already do that now by buying direct peering and transit services to the networks where many of their customers are connected or even in many cases actually paying to place content distribution servers directly into the ISP's network by co-locating them at their facilities where they have very low latency and high bandwidth to that providers customers.
b-but that's not what reddit said on their banner
Great video, really good description of what's going on :)
I think my biggest issue with all this is the lack of any sort of replacement rules. Like, sure, maybe the current rules are having unintended negative side effects. But don't tear them down without new rules to take their place. It's like taking the tires off your car before you've got new ones. It's dumb.
Very informative and straightforward.
As with many political issues, net neutrality is a question of how far we're willing to take the concept of property rights. Most people say that you should be able do whatever what you want with things you own, but not all businesses and consumers are created equal. We still haven't come to a consensus on whether telecom oligopolies are so powerful that we need to curtail their property rights for the greater good.
Would you say that an anvil company has the absolute right to throw anvils towards your house? It's their property, they never *touched* your house? Or should laws protect everyone?
Likewise, if you send a post on youtube, should your ISP decide "my pipe, my right to stop/read/copy your post!?" How about your phone, do you own those photos hosted on an OS you do not own, patented silicone memory you do not own?
To further the OP, the internet really began as a connection of several universities, colleges, and various institutions. Which was paid for by....wait for it....government funds. It began as a government funded program; that should highlight why ISPs need to give credit where credit is due and respect those boundaries. It was created as a free use platform, and should be treated as such.
That mail comparison, a packet is a packet, we don't charge differently to ship a kilogram parcel based on what makes it up. That's a pretty good analogy, and I've heard nothing like it before. It's excellent.
I agree. Postal services don't charge differently based on content, but they do based on priority. Overnight express costs more than the economy option for the same kilogram parcel.
Exactly, just like postal services charge differently based on speed of delivery the ISP's charge differently based on speed of download. A 50Mb/s plan is not as cheap as a 10Mb/s plan.
Yes, but that's different. Net neutrality is about packet priority of individual packets, not about the total throughput (ie. total amount of packages).
Yep, I get that. I should have mentioned that the example I gave was for the neutral net.
Here's another example: I currently live in an European 1st world country but I was born and raised in East Central Europe. Right now I have poor internet for which I pay a very hefty amount, 12Mb/s for €43. That's €3.6 per Mb. My friends back home have 300Mb/s for €9.15 (with 2ms of Ping on speedtest). That's €0.03 per Mb which is more than 100 times cheaper. Blows my mind.
If my ISP needs to increase my monthly bill in order to improve the network and allow for better speeds in the not so distant future I'll gladly pay for it but I will always support Net Neutrality.
+Seeker Erebus The postal system does charge differently based on content if you want to insure the packet's arrival. This is like paying for priority treatment of voice calls over the Internet.
Separately, it isn't an apt metaphor to compare the policies of a government bureaucracy with those of a private enterprise. Governments do not do the intelligent thing from the perspective of either the consumer or the service provider. They do what is mandated for political expediency. By way of example, the USPS had been trying to end Saturday delivery for a long time but Congress repeatedly rejected it until the USPS gave up, no doubt for political reasons.
When you want a package delivered securely, you use a private carrier like FedEx or UPS. When you want more assurance still, you can hire a courier service. Ultimately, you can hand-deliver the thing yourself! That kind of variety of carriage is what's needed in the Internet as well. It's necessary on a per-packet basis. Some things I need delivered quickly and safely, but most things I need delivered merely eventually.
Charging differently for packages from different services incentivizes ISPs to ban the use of VPNs as well.
great video!
I don't like his comparison to the postal service. Speed of delivery can be preferential for that situation as well, depending on how "deep your pockets are".
This was a solid analysis of the NN situation. I applaud the neutral standpoint you took here. Cheers.
If the FCC wants to fix the problems with the old Title II rules, why aren't they proposing new rules that are more up-to-date?
You want to fix the outdated rules, that's cool. The way to fix them isn't to straight up remove them and let there be no rules.
RiokuTheSlayer ah but they will want to write new rules and get Comcast to gave a say in it.
RiokuTheSlayer
I'm not sure what you think they're doing. It's moving back to older rules.
RiokuTheSlayer nailed it
they are going back to the 2014 rules
I'm more wary of government regulation due to the fact it caused the problem in the first place where we have so few choices of ISPs. Poor Telecom bubble...
very important stuff
1:25 that's a silly argument, because it works the other way around: they will charge bigger websites, not the smaller ones, and they will charge bigger companies more too. In fact, TH-cam, Google, Facebook, Netflix and a small number of others comprise well over 50% of the internet traffic. It would be silly to try nickel and dime some noname websites when you can charge Facebook and the like millions in fees not to throttle their disproportionate traffic use. There's also a hidden benefit - in case these companies fail to cooperate, traffic throttling will make some people look for alternatives, which will improve the internet monopolies situation.
It's not a coincidence that all the major net neutrailty proponents are web giants with very deep pockets and huge amounts of traffic.
you really don't get it
The bigs one are gonna pay and are gonna get the fast lane, the smaller websites will get throttled
"There's also a hidden benefit - in case these companies fail to cooperate, traffic throttling will make some people look for alternatives"
Which are none existent in many places in the US
Will you guys do a video about the root w/o password bug in MacOS High Sierra? Some of our uni’s mac lab got wrecked because somebody thought it was funny to do sudo rm -rf on some of the terminals 😂
What a complicated subject. I may need to watch it twice or more...
2022, largest ISP in Indonesia still throttling based on how many data we used
I think the package delivery analogy is one of the best. Amount based on your contents, not the weight, which is actually the real affect to the package delivery company's bottom line. Everyone here should try to explain NN and the real problem to people that don't have any idea, or might not be technically adept.
I tried to explain NN to my Mom and here's the analogy that went the best: "think of it as serving one child before the other first at Thanksgiving"
I was just about to give the World of Warcraft example when the professor beat me to it. You would need to be awfully specific to ban some bittorrent protocol connections but leave some other legitimate ones. That's why "you don't fix a firewall, you identify a breach and patch it" as Pritchard from Deux Ex Human Revolution so elegantly put it.
Thanks for doing a video on this, it's so important
Hello computerphile, I have a question that is rather to the extreme. I find it quite possible. I would like your opinion, please don't hold back on me and tell me if you think I'm totally wrong. I understand you said NN is exclusively within the US only but is it possible that they CAN partner with other ISP outside the US or have contracts outside the US that could censor information that would otherwise be news? For example: censoring a news website showing a war crime that would otherwise lead back to the US government or lead back to the ISP but in this case not a war crime but an international crime?
Eminem - Without me (Cover inspired by net )
The FCC won't let the net be.
Or let me see all Sites E-qua-lly.
So now I need to move Country.
To one that wants Neutrality.
Sure, you don't pay based off of whats inside the parcel, but you can get overnight service, two day service, or regular 5-10 day service (obviously varying sovereign state to sovereign state, or even commercial private carriers). I don't see how that analogy answers the question at all. Instead, I think it kinda reinforces the question.
Your analogy with parcel delivery misses something though: If a large company that posts a lot of packages makes a special deal with a courier company for cheaper rates, that means everyone else (particularly smaller companies) is at a disadvantage. What makes it worse is that you only generally have one ISP, imagine if you had to sign up with one company to deliver all your mail and packages. If you get a lot of stuff from Amazon, you'd probably use their delivery service. What's to stop them charging twice as much for everyone else to send you stuff?
I'm completely and utterly ignorant on technical stuff but if it were to happen could one administrate independent servers or something like that?
Startup cost is the first consideration. If you have enough, you're golden. If not, you can't even proceed to step two.
And that next step is to get the word out. Again, advertisement faces a huge obstacle when a company might see your independent server as bucking the rules of the game, hence shutting you down through economic pressures.
Even if you have a good case economically, there is still the possibility of the ISP saying you are hindering competition by having an independent provider. You'd need not-for-profit status to protect yourself from said ISP.
It's a pickle, to say the least.
What about transit and peering agreements? I have been told that the current dispute in the United States arose due to a breakdown in transit and peering agreements between Cogent and other ISPs, and it became perceived by the public as ISPs targeting Netflix for throttling only because Netflix happens to use Cogent as their ISP. Two ISPs being unable to come to an amicable agreement for transit and peering isn't a matter of targeting specific sites or protocols for throttling or censorship unless I am mistaken.
There's also the issue of double dipping where the ISP charge the customer and the companies they deliver to.
That's a question ethical position.
I would say that if we aren't already to a point where having a reasonable degree of network service is "critical" then we are rapidly approaching it. Most of us just take it entirely for granted that we'll have internet access whenever we want it. Just try to go a week without it and see how it affects you - that's the situation people with no access are in all the time. Obviously, we pay for our internet access, but the key point is that we CAN - we have the OPTION to pay or not pay for it.
We pay for an inter-net. The ISPs want to turn it into a intra-net.
Not really, in the United States 70% of the nation has 2 or more choices of broadband provider. If they turned it into more of an intranet customers would either leave for another provider, or you would see private proxy servers pop up like daisies.
It should be pointed out that also the EU doesn't do enough to safeguard net neutrality. The Netherlands had more strict laws to protect net neutrality, they had to be canceled due to the EU regulations which go considerably less far.
You have said much yet meant very little. Bottom line is, folks who looked at the ISP menu of internet packages simply chose the speed that was offered, say 25/25 mbps for $30 a month. A few years go by and the customer base increased and then the ISP says, "you are using too much bandwidth, specifically Netflix". Well, where was that in your agreement for the internet package, using the provided speeds as intended? Once the ISP figured out they could throttle speeds based on origin of those packets, they held Netflix hostage as well as the customer who is supposed to be able to stream 25/25 mbps all month long for $30. The ISP does not need to step in and offer up charged services which customers can already obtain on their own and have a choice on those many services.
Look at the ISP as a power company, delivering power. Like a water company, delivering water. Beyond that, the rest of their interests are and should not be a factor mainly because they are already a monopoly as just about all water and power users are stuck without any choice who they pay for utilities. With internet, go back to the 1990's and read the rules, free and open. From one ISP to another, in between them is the real hones internet...no throttling, no filtering and simply best effort delivery of packets. Once the packets get to the "last mile" or the ISP, the last thing the public needs is a "nanny" set of rules/standards and multiple fee's to buy back the open internet service already in place at a fixed fee.
The comparison to shipping is invalid. I used to work at UPS. Weight is not the only factor in cost, size of the package is always part of that function, and certain materials can also add more cost.
He got one thing wrong, what US does will have an effect in the UK. We have already seen it in regards to Netflix and
Comcast. Back in 2015 before the reforms, Comcast started charging Neflix for transit to their customers, as a response Netflix increased subscription fees worldwide. Not just to Comcast customers, not just to US customers but worldwide.
What about sites(usually video streaming) denying service based on country where are you connecting from? I assume that they know the country based on IP. Isn't it also kinda violation of net neutrality?
Not really. Licensing arrangements and other considerations mean that sites like Netflix will often only have the right to distribute a show in particular regions.
However, say your ISP also owns a streaming service. If that ISP slows down any packets that come from a Netflix server to discourage people from using a competing product, THAT would be a violation of net neutrality - it's about treating all data equally.
muy bueno
The teardown of Net Neutrality rules in the US affects people outside the US too. ISPs will be allowed to discriminate against any site, service, or protocol (and historically will do so against content providers who compete with the ISP's cable TV services) which curtails innovation in sectors targeting US consumers. Even foreign start ups could be hurt by the new US regulations, by virtue of having one of the largest consumer markets in the world denied to them, which could mean the difference between success and failure.
12:34, great video length
ZeikJT But it’s 12:35
Still seeing 12:34 on my end, might be a device specific disparity
ZeikJT Yeah, now that you mention it I think I’ve heard of it being a browser/app thing. I’m using the iOS version of the TH-cam app and for me it’s 12:35.
^ IOS probs start counting from 1. Hueueueu
Cue @ 11.38 "We don't charge differentially for parcel delivery on the value of the contents"........ and DPD goes past the window. Cute.
In the US right now, i have the choice at my home to pay for faster internet speeds if i wish.. the choice is there. they will just be able to start squeezing more money out of those packets you mention at any speed i choose to pay for. speed " up to" is the wording .... legally after mid December bad things become legal... this is sad..
The way I see it, the network belongs to the ISP, and it's theirs to do with as they see fit. I don't want anyone telling me what to do with my property, so I have to respect theirs. To me, that's the most important argument for the repeal of the net neutrality legislation.
On a practical level, there is traffic that you do want prioritized over others, and the end-user isn't always the best judge of what the proper priority is. Slowing down file-sharing during times of congestion is perfectly reasonable when VOIP calls are being made, for example. If I'm using a time-sensitive application like GPS, I may need that data prioritized over others on the network, and I may not understand that as a consumer. There are times when it's more appropriate for the provider of the data to determine the urgency of what's being transported.
Lastly, on the problem of monopoly power I have two things to say: 1) monopolies do not last without government help, and 2) there's no better way to attract competition from entrepreneurs than for a monopoly to start making exorbitant profits.
+grantcivyt > "The way I see it, the network belongs to the ISP, and it's theirs to do with as they see fit."
So, by that principle, the phone and cable companies should also be permitted to wiretap and spy on their customers' private communications, because technically they own the cables that the data is traveling over?
> "monopolies do not last without government help"
But there is such a thing as a natural monopoly.
Robert Jenkins As I'm sure you know, the government has mandated such wiretapping against the wishes of industry. We enter into contracts with all telecom companies that allow access to government agents. I wish that weren't so, but I'm aware that's what I agree to.
I struggle to think of a "natural" monopoly that didn't have government working hard to shield it from competition. You'll remember that it was governments across the country that helped establish the current state of affairs.
At some point we have to recognize that politicians take natural problems that do occur in markets, make them worse, blame the market, and then point out (with a straight face) how vital their continued involvement is.
I like how he's so casual about his kids playing WoW and even knows how it works, very different from my parents...
6:08 And now in some households emergency services are only available via Internet. So why shouldn’t universal service provisions apply to that?
Wait a minute. That portugal thing you were refering is not as explained. Those prices seen on the screenshot are for unlimited broadband access for mobile data. If you dont buy those packages, you will be charged like in any other website, but if you do buy them, it's unlimited. So no net neutrality breach here
7:38 "free internet access for certain websites sponsored by certain large companies". Can't you just say "Free Basics by Facebook"? It's already a thing in "certain" African countries.
Wouldn't having a data limit be more of an application layer consideration not a service consideration
That might encourage services to use specialized protocols to effectively result in the same situation.
We'd still all be paying higher fees for services which at some point depend on US operations, since the companies will *not* just be paying a premium price straight out of their metaphorically deep pockets and not pass that cost on to us :(
Is this a big issue in England?
everyone share
Nothing about just modifying the content on the fly (ads, text, comments...)?
"In the days when my two kids used to play World of Warcraft (...)"
I imagined that going a different route.
TCP/IP is by its very nature not a neutral protocol.
Recently Comcast (cable TV provider) and CBS (TV network) could not agree on terms so CBS programming became unavailable to Comcast's TV customers. If there is no net neutrality then an ISP and a Content Provider, say Comcast and TH-cam, may not agree on terms resulting in the ISP's customers not being able to get the Content Providers content.
It has nothing to do with whether the company grows to be a giant or not. A small company that stays small forever should have exactly the same rights as a gigantic one. It's about DOING WHAT'S RIGHT.
net neutrality would put small ISPs out of business, and it would also start to hurt MVNOs.
the whole point is we don't need it. you pay just like businesses of the tier of speed you need.
that's how it has been based on, and there is no issue. if the internet is slow, look at the plan you bought. the cheaper the plan on the major ISPs, the slower the data. the more you pay, the higher the speed.
if you put everyone at the same high speed, the major providers would just jack the price to pay for building out the infrastructure, which includes data centers.
but it would put the small ISP compines out of business because they don't have the money for it.
we don't have net neutrality for cell phones, and everything works great.
there is the big three, then all the MVNOs. I have Visiable that's on Verizons network. I pay 35 a month to get fast speeds.
my parents have US mobile, they pay around the same price and get the same speed as I do, which is the same speed as someone on Verizon.
thing is US mobile pays Verizon so that their customers can have. for me, Verizon owns Visiable.
is all this support for removing net neutrality because it's illegal to express dissent with a parliament decision in Britain? it seems i've never seen a brit disagree with the law... EVER. and i know about half the parliament isn't representative of the population by latest statistics, so i can't fathom that there is unanimous support.
What next? Is Vsauce gonna make a video? The amount of videos that have been made about this issue.
So.... If the US screws up NN, it probably won't affect those lucky ones in Europe too much.
Thank you for logically explaining net neutrality on both sides. What we really need are regulations that don't hold back the fruture. There's nothing wrong with asking Netflix or Facebook to help pay for network expansion and development. We need an end to wired connections. We need 5G rolled out so people will have more choices for internets provider and not just one.
dooder What are you talking about NN has no effect on data caps for customers. ISP can implement them with or without NN.
The real problem in America is the monopoly positions of Comcast etc. means they can impose unreasonable tariff structures.
In the UK, at least in ADSL land they installed actual competition at the ISP level and a powerful regulator at the local loop level, which basically fixed the problem there before it started. That just never happened in America, and the result is the push for Network Neutrality.
+
America is always backwards with policy
a bunch of people wanted this channel to go over this topic but they really didn't say anything that hasn't been said 100 times already.
This is economics and politics not computer theory.
Yeah - I don't think what you're doing with your bandwidth should affect your price at all.
I wouldn't mind a free market solution if:
1) I wasn't locked into only one ISP
2) The majority of americans had more that two providers available
3) ISPs weren't actively lobbying the government to block competition.
I can see websites like WikiLeaks being "slowed" down.
And Google&Co can censor any links to WikiLeaks under current "free" rules.
every statement qualified by 'but again' or 'on the other hand,,,' and then its opposite.
No use.
My home network uses between 300 and 425gb a month depending on what gets added to netflix and youtube and such thats with 25mbps download and 5mbps upload speed on gigabit cable. My personal smartphone does not connect to my home network but i pay for 4g lte advanced at 8mbps download and upload unlimited deprioritization after 23gb data witch means when ive exceeded my cap i dont get slowed to 2g or 64kbps i only get slowed down to standard 4g lte at 2mbps when connected to a tower at or above 97% bandwidth load and if by some chance the tower redlines at 100% bandwidth load ill be cut down to 3g or 256kbps. Ill run over 50gb of data every month with a record of 85gb on my smartphone that only has a 720p screen but both camaras are capable 1080p60hz camaras. Now its bull to say my use of google duo on lte hurts the network when i dont even have a 4k camara or QHD display.
you don't pay for the data, you pay for the bandwith, the speed at wich that data comes, that is how, in the netherlands at least is done, and how, in my opinion, it shoudl be done. so you want more bandwith on a phisical line, you pay more, no matter what the data is that comes over that band. i have 500Mbit/s, so 62,5 Mbytes/s, and i use it to run gameservers and such, so i have to have a fast, reliable internet, and then i do pay €60,-/m, but i'm fine with that, cause, relatively, i pay as much as someone else on a lower bandwith, you pay for the b/s you put through.
I see Internet access as a utility more than a "luxury" these days. Imagine if your local electric company could somehow sense the manufacturer of the lights you use in your house... Would you like them reducing power to brands made by people other than their own special "Electric Company Brand"? I think not... :/
Getting rid of net neutrality is like allowing highwaymen to block the road and they demand 5 gold pieces to cross.
And supporting NN is basically supporting state-sanctioned highwaymen, aka dictatorship.
“A small company cannot compete” - not true. A small startup - could compete - if the owners were not greedy - and would sell a share of their stocks to investors. Then use the funds they get to compete for a faster, better net service.
paying for preferential access is the same business model that youtube uses to cover it's costs. Pay more money, get more advert time.
Ayyy
who needs net neutrality as long as i have facebook i don't care
.sarcasm {
float: left;
color: #FF0000;
border-style: none;
}
The way you used the html tags is cool
this.laugh();
10 PRINT "THAT'S SO BASIC"
20 GOTO 10
Colin Laws
bool isFunny = true;
If (isFunny = true){
cout
All traffic should be forced to be equal, because the possibility for abuse is too great. It's pretty simple; how often does anyone use inequality for good? A corporation? Profits? Do we really want to apply that to things like free speech on the internet? I'll take my chances with the way things are thank you very much.
Great Video... Thanks!!!
there is nothing immoral about copyright infringement.
Can you add closed caption options on your videos? At least the auto-transcribing? My American hearing can't make out half the accents and mutterings at the end of sentences of these professors :(
Our IRS in the US was supposed to be "neutral" but do your research into the Tea Party and how they were treated. Government must keep their hands off of everything because if there is one thing they are horrible at, it is fairness. Look at Obama picking Solyndra as a winner and other as a looser.
You should do some research. The fact is that right-leaning groups which were being investigated by the IRS for claiming tax exempt status under various tax codes were only about 1/5th the number of such investigations the IRS was conducting. The other 4/5 were against left-leaning organizations.
The right-wing just knows how to complain louder so people like you think the exact opposite of reality was occurring.
Walk into post office. “Hello. I’d like to ship a package (it’s an emergency) overnight”. Post office: “we’re net neutral. We’re not allowed to discriminate between packages. Your package will arrive within 3-10 business days (because of holidays - that’s - up to 3 weeks)”.
Assaf Wodeslavsky Terrible analogy. NN would prevent them from discriminating based on the contents of the package, for example if the contents was left-wing, about services offered by other ISPs, etc.
Without net neutrality, from the ISP standpoint, an analogy may be where the line to the service counter is up for bid. Whomever pays the most gets to the counter first. With NN, it is a queue, the first one in line gets serviced next.
I dont understand why people keep calling it the fast and slow lane. I see no reason why they would simply not block sites and charge extra for being able to properly use them.
American greed sure ends up causing such clusterfucks....
because the government upset if their secrets revealed
The post analogy is excellent. You wouldn’t expect to pay more per kg because of your return address or the contents of your package. Internet service should be the same.
I think you underestimate the complexity of the world and the limited information any one person has at his disposal to make a blanket judgment about what's appropriate for a marketplace.
Of course you will pay more per kilogram based on return address insofar as the return address implies the distance the package must travel. Shipping a kg of diamonds is not the same as shipping a kg of meat or a kg of delicate crystal. The contents matter immensely because the handling and speed of shipment can be crucial to the viability of what's being transported. Special handling costs more.
Different packets require different handling. That is desirable, and it requires cooperation among the sender, receiver and transporter. If you think adding a bureaucrat or two and a politician into the mix will make things better, you're not paying attention to the world around you.
i smell a norn iron accent
Appropriate
The argument that Netflix uses most bandwidth and should pay for more infrastructure is like saying your oven uses the most electricity and KitchenAid should pay your power utility. But then, you should also upgrade to the "cooking" package if you want your oven heating over 300F because, you know, not everyone cooks with an oven so why should they pay for your electricity? The whole thing is absurd.
I don't get it. Everyone says that NN is bad because the government sets the prices and it limits competition, because ISP and startups can't pay or afford to start up.
But this is nonsense. ISP set ridiculous prices and price scaling of their services. They don't limit single sites, but they just limit the amount of data you use.
I don't like the government being in control of something, but ultimately nothing will change. NN or no NN will still make the ISPs a ton of money and we're the ones suffering.
NZ has the worse systems and services and charge so much for nothing.
I don't know if NN is in Japan or not, but there are 3 main mobile carriers that offer internet. All other services use those three carriers and the one carrier is the owner of all the lines. Yet, the net here is extremely cheap and fast and limitless. How does that debunk or support NN?
And now, explaining how "net neutrality" makes it very difficult for small-to-medium-sized ISPs to compete with the big networks with comparatively unlimited resources, and pointing out that the rapid growth and innovation of and on the Internet all took place in the absence of any such legislation, is... nobody?
"Net Neutrality" made online service from small business to perform indistinguishably from an online service of big business. So "Net Neutrality" helps all size of business otherwise it wouldn't be called "Neutral".
I own and operate a small ISP, which means I see the side of the story that isn't even mentioned in most articles on the subject--including this video--because, by and large, the technical and economic details don't fit into easily-digestible sound bites. It's hard enough to find an article in the popular media that even attempts to represent the point of view of a business owner, rather than an employee or customer--so the finer points of network traffic management _never_ see the light of day within the general public.
You don't see that side of the coin, and perhaps don't even know that you don't see it; that's why you misinterpret your incomplete information as my confusion.
@wlan2 ,do you set Quality Of Service in your ISP? do you manage every packet made into & out of your network into 4 level of priority? do you really did this or do you just connect users into internet like what "net neutrality" really is?
We are an all-Mikrotik shop. At the moment we prioritize SIP traffic over other traffic for the obvious call-quality reasons, and everything else is best-effort. As it becomes necessary to shape traffic at a finer granularity, we will. (None of which has anything to do with net neutrality.)
Considering we span a grand total of one city at the moment, there is no benefit to exposing it to the entire Internet--and plenty of reason _not_ to draw the attention of thousands of nutters and script kiddies. Thanks, but no thanks.
The net is neutral, it's peoples views that aren't.
BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY IS THE SOLUTION: decentralized internet. Check out Skycoin and Substratum.