What is Network Neutrality - And Why Does It Matter?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ค. 2024
- Last week the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, voted to restore "network neutrality" in the United States... what's the big deal? Why does network neutrality matter - and what's the surreal legal mechanism behind why it's been abolished, reinstated, abolished again, and now reinstated again, all in less than a decade?
- บันเทิง
![THE TOYS x NONT TANONT - ดอกไม้ที่รอฝน (spring) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pPa1d5cC8M4/mqdefault.jpg)
I’m really digging your videos. Simple, informative, and relevant. Nice 👍
I really love the cars example!!!
I'd like to add to it that the speed limit won't go from 45 to 170 for payers, it's gonna be 45 for the payers and 10 for everyone else
@@mtarek2005 Good point... but they'd still tell you when you went to buy a BMW that the limit was gonna be 170...
@@DylanBeattie yeah definitely
Thank you!
😀
A constitution for the entire world seems more and more needed.
Something along these lines:
• Free speech within reasonable limits.
• Personal freedom for all within reasonable limits.
• Human rights for all, including high speed internet. No throthling.
• No, you can't grab other peoples resources, not even if you have a lot of bang-bang toys.
• ...
We have that, it's called the human rights and the other such UN documents
@@frankhaugen
Net neutrality and access to the Internet isn't (yet) part of human rights.
And the status of human rights is sadly not on the level of a constitution.
(Yes, I am looking for enforcement and a stronger body than the UN)
@@madshorn5826 a constitution is as strong as its enforcement, the internet itself is a UN regulated "thing". I bet something says something about "everyone should have equal access to the internet" in all the charters and stuff
ICANN and IANA can do a lot but they choose to not interfere
@@frankhaugen
You are right: Enforcement is the key.
Nation states and businesses have shown they are the source of our current trouble.
Time for that world government, I guess ¯\_ (ツ) _/¯
Thats why i subscribed to your channel. Nice to know topics and explained very good.
Am I ever glad to be an EU citizen, the things America does sometimes baffles me.
I have had internet since 2001 and have never had anyone interfere with my speed or what I did on it, in fact they can't even provide lawyers with my address because of privacy laws in my country.
I really like that analogy, this would make way more sense than how I've been explaining it 😂
Unless you enjoy speaking German then you should be thankful of the US.
top notch! :)
Aren't the US ISPs practicing net neutrality on their own initiative? I was reading about this many years ago that it was because of something about it stimulating disruptors to emerge if they optimized the "squeezing", so like tobacco companies lobbying for bans on advertising, making the playing field equal to ISPs made the most financial sense. I can't find the article from around 2017, but it was stating something to that general effect
Network neutrailty is the concept that network providers shouldn't be permitted to charge extra to stop sabotaging a customer's Internet service.
There is a massive wrinkle about the US situation that Dylan left out, and that is where it really, _really_ gets surreal: what happened in places like California after the Title I reclassification.
The fact that anyone is still talking about this shows how fucked the world is.
omg please net neutrality is needed
First?
congrats
Starlink is available everywhere, and speeds are great considering it’s coming from a fast moving satellite overhead to a fixed antenna I hastily mounted on my roof.
It makes sense but I wish you steel-manned the counter-argument. More money for ISPs that they share with billionaire Trump is a bit thin.
TDS detected! BOOP BOOP!
What's the titanium counter-argument, then?
"Subsequent administration" a.k.a He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.
And-who-will-be-back-soon 😁
He, whom I and many are voting for.
You're better than this. You know your comedic talks at conferences? Consider doing those to the internet at large. Let someone else take care of explaining such basic topics as Net neutrality. Much respect
I disagree. I think that if netflix is the majority of the traffic on my ISP's network, there should be some cost. At the same time, government being in charge of anything is a disaster; ergo I must agree to it because in practice whatever system a government comes up with will become corrupt nearly overnight, and end up costing the market more money.
If this ever becomes a reality it needs to be free market based.
For example, I set up a parallel internet with parallel infrastructure (future b.s., it's over made-up tech); why would I not charge netflix more money to have their services available on my network than joe schmo that has a tiny personal website? Why should joe schmo subsidize netflix?
Do you not understand that if you use Netflix you are also the one paying for the bandwidth to deliver that movie or show to your tv? It's included in your monthly bill.
I pay for 1000 megabits per seconds, that means I am allowed to use 1000 megabits every second, every minute, every hour, every day for the entirety of the month.
> I think that if netflix is the majority of the traffic on my ISP's network, there should be some cost.
Some cost to whom?
(a) To Netflix? If so, you've already got what you want, because that's how peering agreements work between Autonomous Systems (ASs) on the internet. The bandwidth that an ISP allocates to its routes between itself and Netflix are up to that ISP. The same goes for any peering AS on the internet. If an ISP has a peering agreement with Netflix, there is money changing hands to route those packets. Where things become more complicated is when the routes are indirect, involving more than two ASs. For example, ISP A has an agreement with ISP B, who in turn has an agreement with Netflix. There, the nature of packet delivery between ISP A and Netflix is dependent on the nature of each's respective agreements with ISP B.
(b) To Netflix users? Why? As an ISP customer, I pay them to provide a certain amount of bandwidth along the route(s) between my house and their infrastructure. I essentially have a one-way peering agreement with my ISP. What my ISP does with my packets beyond that, other than delivering/routing them, is not a term of my contract.
Net Neutrality is actually about neither of these things, because it does not concern bandwidth over routes; rather, it concerns preferential treatment of certain _service providers,_ such as Netflix vs. Amazon Prime TV. What is being debated here is whether my packets, once they arrive at the ISP, should be routed differently depending on the destination or the payloads, regardless of route or peering agreements. In practice, this amounts to ISPs doing things like throttling packets sent to/from Amazon because Netflix gave them a bunch of money, or not imposing a data quota on Netflix access despite them imposing a data quota on all other collective activity.