Can someone explain, in plain English, what 'NET NEUTRALITY' means?

11/13/2014 | maineman

[zeugma]

The point is that when anyone - me, you, or Netflix - contract for Xmbps we should get Xmbps as needed, and not get squeezed for more $$$ when the content indicates the ISP might be able to negotiate a greater cut of the action.

Well said.

[TexasRepublic]

Government control.

[ctdonath2]

Third option: they can offer fixed bandwidth (know the definition). Xmbps is there when you need it, no “up to” or “cap” BS.

They can also agree to alternative hosting methods to mitigate delivery distance. Rather than deliver to customers from a single central server farm, chewing up “trunk” space, Netflix has offered to provide localized boxes containing their entire service. The entire Netflix library can fit in 100TB, size of a large shoebox, and costing a relatively paltry amount (about $10,000); such boxes can be placed at a major hub in every major city, relieving much load on major infrastructure. ISPs are declining the offering, even when at no cost and no reduction in revenue.

The problem is the ISPs know what the data is, and its value relative to other customers, and views squeezing Netflix & others as free money.

Alas, the Leftist implementation of “net neutrality” is not simply “charge & provide honest bandwidth regardless of customer & content” (as it should be), it’s “deep government regulation making things even more complex & costly”.

[jaydee770]

“Net Neutrality” as I understand it, means that the company you get your internet access through can’t slow down or block legal traffic they don’t like.

For instance, say you get internet access through AT&T and they don’t like Republicans, so they block GOP sites. Or say they don’t like you streaming NETFLIX movies 24/7, so they slow down your connection until the movies are unwatchable.

That all sounds well and good. I’m all for internet providers not filtering or discriminating against content I like.

The PROBLEM is giving the Govt the power to regulate it. The govt is wholly incapable of passing a simple law that says “all legal internet content must be treated the same”, and leaving it at that. They can’t help themselves and will pass a gazillion-page monstrosity that makes you pine for the days when your ISP could filter/throttle your content.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

If net neutrality is stricken down (and it IS the status quo now), look for a wave of ISP mergers and acquisitions with the major content providers and the existing cable and satellite companies.. Basically, ISPs want to be in the content business, with all the ancillary streams that can produce.

The cable and satellite business is withering as people cord cut and move to internet-based forms of entertainment. This is about controlling that new stream.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Good explanation.

[Vineyard]

But the water system analogy would not just apply at the source -but the distribution to the homes.

Imagine a 6” water main along a rural road that supplies lots of homes AND some businesses. When the businesses decide to draw water, they can suck the system down so much that flow to homes is REALLY REALLY reduced! The home owners complain - but the provider says that the only way to meet everyone’s need for high speed flow all the time is to upgrade the pipe to 24” - and oh by the way - everyone will get hit with big price increases to upgrade the delivery system.

The point of service delivery - ISPs might be able to deliver 10 MB ‘bursts’ to everyone....but if everyone on the same ‘pipe’ trys to watch HD videos, the combined data stream overloads the ability of the system to deliver. What then? Is the ISP deficient for the jerky poor quality video? For the guy who is trying to run his business on the data line, and business transactions are disrupted by the high traffic volume - what is he entitled to?

Shifting analogies...imaging trying to deliver FEDEX packages - on antiquated roads, when you need 4 to 8 line super highways. Who pays to upgrade the roads? The big users, or everyone?

[zeugma]

Thanks. There is really a lot of misinformation out there about this. I wish it could all be boiled down to a bumper-sticker, but it just can’t. Like many complex issues, you actually have to think about it to understand it.

[zeugma]

Netflix may push a lot of data, but people have paid ISPs to receive that data. Where that data comes from is largely irrelevant, total bandwidth matters. ISPs are trying to double charge for one service rendered.

Younger folks might not be familiar with this, but do you recall when cellphones were first starting out? If you made a long distance call (a concept totally foreign to many kids today), to a cellphone, you were being charged for the call as well as the recipient. Same if it was cellphone to cellphone for the most part. The same was not true if it was landline-to-landline.

[dearolddad]

It’s like “fair share” but different sort of.

[MoochPooch]

The danger is that once federal regulation is admitted as to web content source, it could become intrusive and endorse or even require some forms of discrimination.

Shows, ironically, that "neutrality" really does not exist. Or rather, to be neutral & involved. Everything is subjective.

The only way to stay neutral is to butt out.

[napscoordinator]

I wish FR had an ignore button....you’d be the first.

[Rockingham]

There are always going to be rules, whether made by government or by private actors. Since Internet Service Providers tend to be local monopolies, market forces are weak and impaired, making some sort of utility style regulation of ISPs advisable. The issue then becomes the nature and extent of regulations and who should make them.

In practice, cable companies are the dominant ISPs and tend to easily subvert the current model of limited local regulation. To the extent that regulation is needed, primary but limited state regulation would probably be best and would make for strong and effective opposition to broad federal regulation.

Moreover, primary state level regulation of ISPs would permit experimentation with disputed regulatory concepts like net neutrality while setting up competition between states as a restraint against foolish and excessive regulation. There is wisdom of letting the states function as "laboratories of democracy" and we ought to rely on it as to net neutrality.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

Use your imagination. It’s clearly an outstanding example.

[palmer]

“Net neutrality” can also be considered an alternate term for “common carrier”: the phone company can’t listen to your phone call and charge more based on the content.

Here it is a couple years later and you are still beating the same dead horse. The carriers cannot look at your data unless it is so extreme (e.g. HD video) that you can't encrypt it. All such attempts at censorship/overcharging can be rerouted and encrypted. The exception is content that is too big to hide like streaming video which is 99% garbage that you shouldn't be watching anyway. But if you really wanted it you could get it non-streaming and there is nothing the internet providers can do to stop that or charge more for it.