Posts by Markablejones

Europe fails to ban web 'fast lanes' – what now for Euro net neutrality?

Re: Would it have been too much to ask

Net neutrality means that ISPs can reasonably manage network traffic, but they can't use their power over content to artificially pick winners and losers on the web. Big content providers and ISPs would benefit from a non-neutral structure because startups would never be able to raise the funds to compete. For Facebook and the ISP, this would be a win-win. On a non-neutral internet, Facebook would pay the ISP, the ISP would delivery facebook traffic faster than Facebook's competitors, giving facebook a competitive advantage and allowing Facebook to price potential competitors out of the market (note: a 250 millisecond variance in load time creates a competitive advantage, according to Microsoft). But Netflix is different, because it's content is in direct competition to the ISP, so the ISP might just charge Netflix an absurd fee in order to make it's service more appealing.

It's not just Facebook--Amazon can be prioritized over smaller businesses. Or big banks over local ones. For every small business on the internet, this ruling was a disaster, and it will allow their bigger competitors to push them out of the online marketplace. And a competition decreases, prices will go up.

In all of these scenarios, consumers lose--the new profit is created from artificially imposed bandwidth shortages, profit from thin air; and the results have major implications for freedom of speech and innovation on the internet.

Net neutrality is essential ... if people understood the consequences of today's vote against net neutrality, they would be rioting in the streets.

You're only looking at the end user side of the ISP market

Net neutrality addresses the edge provider side of the market--it's a debate over whether ISPs can use their gatekeeper status between the edge provider and the consumer to extract more profits from the edge provider. In some instances--say for Facebook--it's beneficial for Facebook to pay the ISP for a fast lane so long as all other traffic is related to a slow lane, because tiny variances in load time actually equate to huge variances in traffic (250 milliseconds is the threshold, according to Microsoft). So, by paying to be in a fast lane, Facebook is creating a barrier to market entry for all future competitors, and VCs won't even bother investing in potential competitors.

In short: net neutrality is about whether ISPs can flex their gatekeeper power over edge provider's access to consumers, artificially imposing bandwidth shortages in order to extract more profits and provide competitive advantages for those companies willing to pay for it.Allowing ISPs to do so happens to ruin everything that is great about the internet: open, innovative, competitive, quirky, varied -- that internet is now dying.

EU urged to ignore net neutrality delusions, choose science instead

How can this "expert" be so ill informed

Mister Giddes entire argument against net neutrality is based on the faux premise that it would prevent reasonable network management. That has never been the goal of net neutrality.

What net neutrality regulations support is a flow of information that is not artificially restrained in order to gain an advantage over a competitor. With specialized services available for sale (basically fast lanes), ISPs will be incentivized to not upgrade their networks in order to sell priority delivery. The higher the price, the more easy it is for company's like Google and Netflix and Amazon to set barriers to market entry that price potential competitors out of the market.

How can you publish this garbage and still call yourself a tech publication? How much did the telecom industry pay you?