On Net Neurtrality
Jan. 22nd, 2007 09:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nowalmartI suppose I am just not "getting it" when it comes to the idea of Net Neutrality. Sure, as a slogan it all sounds good. As a libertarian, I start to think more about it and have some questions.
So right now I could pay Verizon for a 1024kb down / 1024kb down connection. That is, all things being equal, a page from espn.com would come to me at the same speed as a page from maw-and-paw-hosting.com.
Net Neutrality, according to its backers, would make sure this remains the situation. Fine, that is understandable.
Now, suppose I paid for that same 1024kb down / 1024kb down connection, but this time without Net Neutrality. Now, I have a contract with Verizon saying, all things equal, I should be getting things at that speed. Suppose espn.com, however, wants to help me upgrade my plan with Verizon in exchange for looking at their content. So they say "Hey, Verizon, how about *WE* pay the additional $10/month for nowalmart to instead get a 3MB down / 1 MB up plan? One constraint, though - since we are footing the bill, he can only get that speed on espn.com pages."
So I am paying for a 1024 kb down / 1024 kb connection. For most hosts, that is the ideal speed I will see. For paying hosts, though, I will see faster.
Net Neutrality backers seem to be saying that while espn.com might get their 3 MB down connection, suddenly maw-and-paw-hosting.com will not get any at all, since they are not paying.
Somehow Verizon would be throttling every other host to be slower. Seems to me that I am paying for 1024 kb down, and Verizon would have no choice but to honor that.
And, while we are on the subject - is Verizon not already throttling that connection? I mean, there is no hardware difference between different DSL plans.
It also seems like a foolish thing for Verizon to do. They would be trying to shake down every maw-and-paw-hosting.com, but surely there is more money to be made from having paying DSL customers.
Sure, it is all too easy to claim complete evil of big corporations like Verizon, but, at the same time, is there not the chance that non-Net Neutrality is a chance for Verizon to offer another service, but have the hosting services pay for it?
So right now I could pay Verizon for a 1024kb down / 1024kb down connection. That is, all things being equal, a page from espn.com would come to me at the same speed as a page from maw-and-paw-hosting.com.
Net Neutrality, according to its backers, would make sure this remains the situation. Fine, that is understandable.
Now, suppose I paid for that same 1024kb down / 1024kb down connection, but this time without Net Neutrality. Now, I have a contract with Verizon saying, all things equal, I should be getting things at that speed. Suppose espn.com, however, wants to help me upgrade my plan with Verizon in exchange for looking at their content. So they say "Hey, Verizon, how about *WE* pay the additional $10/month for nowalmart to instead get a 3MB down / 1 MB up plan? One constraint, though - since we are footing the bill, he can only get that speed on espn.com pages."
So I am paying for a 1024 kb down / 1024 kb connection. For most hosts, that is the ideal speed I will see. For paying hosts, though, I will see faster.
Net Neutrality backers seem to be saying that while espn.com might get their 3 MB down connection, suddenly maw-and-paw-hosting.com will not get any at all, since they are not paying.
Somehow Verizon would be throttling every other host to be slower. Seems to me that I am paying for 1024 kb down, and Verizon would have no choice but to honor that.
And, while we are on the subject - is Verizon not already throttling that connection? I mean, there is no hardware difference between different DSL plans.
It also seems like a foolish thing for Verizon to do. They would be trying to shake down every maw-and-paw-hosting.com, but surely there is more money to be made from having paying DSL customers.
Sure, it is all too easy to claim complete evil of big corporations like Verizon, but, at the same time, is there not the chance that non-Net Neutrality is a chance for Verizon to offer another service, but have the hosting services pay for it?
