Should net neutrality be sacred?

Net neutrality in its most basic form means that all internet traffic is equal no matter where it comes from. No request has any greater priority over any other request.

However, talks are being held between Google and Verizon to discuss how traffic is carried over the internet and possible buy access so that their requests go through at the expense of someone else. This will lead to a two-tier solution where depending on which site you access can determine how quickly you can access the internet.

The problem is the current internet capability is rapidly running out of space given the exponential usage that it is experiencing. Sites like youtube or the BBC iPlayer which use a large amount of bandwidth are having a knock on impact and until the underlying structure is redone, then there will always be an impact.

So, should the internet be split like this. Despite the cry of it being free for all, it is still run by businesses, those who control the networks, and they will look to increase their profits. But why shouldn't they, it is their business after all.

Although the ideal of it being equal is great in principle, in practice they are running out of space, so isn't paying that premium to ensure your message gets through acceptable?

In practice yes but from what I read, the issue is much more complicated that the apt summary you provided.
The main point against this I recall is the bottleneck is a temporary one and allowing this two tier system in place will ultimately cost the consumers and in the long run not provide any real benefit. If a website cannot keep its business model going without recourse to new regulations, it should instead be burdened with changing its business model is at least as valid.

My understanding is that there's no shortage at all of backbone bandwidth -- at least from what I've read, only the "last mile" bandwidth (i.e. in individual houses or neighborhoods, or over cell networks) is actually restricted.

Companies have no business trying to invent a market there. And telecom companies shouldn't be permitted to make money by not investing in improving this infrastructure. The government has every right to put limits on their cartel-like behavior and it should. It's in our interest.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CatInASuit

Sites like youtube or the BBC iPlayer which use a large amount of bandwidth are having a knock on impact and until the underlying structure is redone, then there will always be an impact.

---

That's the part I don't get. I just don't see how that 'problem' is caused by net neutrality. If Youtube, the consumers, and everybody in between pay a realistic price for their connections this shouldn't be an issue.

The impression that I get at times is that the consumer providers painted themselves in a corner with their pricing. In the first half of the last decade people have come to expect affordable flat rates for ever faster connections. The thing was that with the exception of file sharers nobody in a private household really used the potential of their connection. Serious file sharers were a minority and not exactly in a position to complain if their connection was constrained via traffic shaping. Nowadays even normal people can use their connections much better. Ubiquitous online video, more dynamic content and more and more conntected devices make it easy to use a lot of bandwidth without special effort or knowledge. Now providers hate telling their clients that now that they are actually using it the same product should cost twice as much. That means they try to get their money somewhere else.

My main fear is that without net neutrality transparency will go down the drain for end users. Nowadays connections differ in a number of parameters but all in all "internet access" is largely fungible. Without net neutrality we might see ugly differentiation. You could have cheap "All the web you really need" for the masses and unrestricted internet access as a niche product for a premium price.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Feirefiz

My main fear is that without net neutrality transparency will go down the drain for end users. Nowadays connections differ in a number of parameters but all in all "internet access" is largely fungible. Without net neutrality we might see ugly differentiation. You could have cheap "All the web you really need" for the masses and unrestricted internet access as a niche product for a premium price.

---

This is an excellent summary of one problem I see with going away from net neutrality.

Also - let's not forget that just because something is being sold to the public as a temporary solution for temporary conditions, once it's in place, the tendency is going to be to maintain that as the new status quo. I don't have any commercial examples off the top of my head, but Americans may remember the Federal "temporary" phone tax enacted to help support the Spanish-American War? Or the way that tolls on so many of the bond-funded interstates (NY Thruway, Mass Pike, Penna Turnpike) are being extended past the date of paying off the last bond issue, because the entities involved can't give up the income.

It's easier to fight these temporary measures before they get put in, than to remove them once conditions change.