Net Neutrality

You can’t be against net neutrality, and, at the same time, understand how the Internet works.

There is no additional cost to the IPS to offer access to obscure sites; it’s not like a cable package where the cable provider pays a fee to carry some niche channel that no-one watches.

Basically, net neutrality means that the ISP has to keep the queues fair; there are no VIP lanes on the Internet. Everyone gets in the same line, and are processed on a first come, first served basis. This is fundamentally fair. The business class traveler may be angered by the inability to buy his way to the front of the line (at the expense of everyone else), but that’s just tough titties.

It’s clear that not everyone has the same speed on the Internet; I live in an area where the owners association decided against having fiber installed, so I have a shitty (but sufficient) 20/2Mbit ADSL connection. My friend across the bridge, in Sweden, has a 100/100Mbit at half the cost. But that has nothing to do with net neutrality.

If my friend wants to access my server, my upstream channel is limited to 2 Mbit per second. This is by my choice, I can choose to host my server somewhere else, I could try to get a better link and so on, but basically, I decide for myself who, and how much I want to offer. There are sites that will flat out refuse to serve data to certain visitors, and that’s their prerogative.

However, with net neutrality removed, my site may get throttled or artificially bottlenecked to the point where people just quit visiting my site. I would have to deal with several ISP’s and possibly have to pay them a fee to remove the cap. If the site is not commercial* I may not have the funds to do that. I may not be aware that an ISP is throttling my site into oblivion, or even be offered an option to remove the cap.

Clearly, ending net neutrality is not the end of the world. Guatemala and Morroco are two examples of countries w/o net neutrality. In Morroco, the ISPs decided to block Skype, since it was competing with their (more profitable) voice service, so that might give you a hint of what’s to come. They did complain to the King when the ISPs went too far though.

Naturally, fast access to Facebook LinkedIn and Snapchat might be cheaper, and probably all you care about if you’re against NN.

With cloud-based IP video surveillance starting to become viable, this might prove to be another, unpredictable cost of the system. Some ISPs already take issue with you hosting a web server via your retail connection. And they go out of their way to make it difficult for you to do so: Changing your IP address every 4 hours and so on. This is to push you into a more expensive “business plan”, where they simply disable the script that changes your IP. I think it is safe to assume that if you’re streaming 30 MBit/s 24/7 to an Amazon data center, the ISP will eventually find a way to make you pay. And pay dearly. Once you’ve hooked your entire IP video surveillance system into the cloud, what are you going to do? Switch to another ISP? #yeahright

I guess the problem is that the ISP business model used to be to sell the same bandwidth 100 times over. Now that people are actually using the bandwidth, that model falls apart, and the ISPs need other means to make sweet sweet moolah. And that’s their nature and duty. But why cheer them on?

*In the early days, commercial activity on the Internet was banned.



Author: prescienta

Prescientas ruler

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s