- Think of bandwidth as a highway: If an entirely new lane is added at the ISP’s expense, that does not harm anyone riding along on the preexisting highway. We struggle to understand why enabling an “extra” HOV lane is bad policy that requires government regulation.
One should not simply assume that the creation of fast lanes of dedicated bandwidth forces everyone else who chooses not to pay ISPs, or cannot pay ISPs, into slow lanes. While those lanes may be slower than the fast lanes, they were slower with or without the fast lanes.
And if bandwidth-heavy traffic that would have traveled over the open Internet (adding to congestion) is offloaded onto a separate fast lane that does not impair the preexisting pipe’s bandwidth capabilities, it should actually ease congestion on the existing lanes, rather than create slow lanes.
I don't have any issues with the presence of fast lanes in and of themselves. It's a fact that high bandwidth demand for specific products will require extra hardware and special technical consideration to guarantee service for customers. I don't mind Netflix and Comcast getting together to plan how best to improve their connections. I'm concerned about Netflix paying for it, however. Arguing that is the responsibility of the data provider, rather than the ISP, results in an unfair upper-hand for Comcast. Comcast has customers, those customers pay for internet service. Comcast should do the math and realize that in order to provide acceptable internet service for popular sites, they will have to spend some money to upgrade their hardware and get better connections to those sites. It is Comcast's responsibility as the internet provider to make sure that they are able to provide the internet at acceptable speeds. It is not Netflix's responsibility to both provide the data source and to contribute to the cost of building the network. That's why we have ISPs, so that they can be responsible for the nitty gritty. That's what we pay them for. When you move that cost over to Netflix - two issues arise. One is that popular sites which don't make much money end up getting screwed. If a company is non-profit, but there is a huge demand among Comcast's customer base for the data at a high speed, I don't see why it becomes the non-profit's job to upgrade Comcast's network hardware. Comcast needs to note the increased demand and improve their service to that site in response. Comcast's customers have voiced their demand for that content, and have paid Comcast to get it to them. Now it's Comcast's job to do that. Second, I'm concerned about the fact that ISPs are themselves content providers. This can result in them charging their own affiliates less for fast lanes, and charging competitors more. By being allowed to charge the content providers at all, we are handing them a massive competitive advantage that they have no claim to. We tolerated their monopoly in the internet's infancy, but now we need regulation to make sure the people who own the pipes don't also get to decide what goes through them. The argument for net neutrality is about preserving the democratization of the internet. In that the sites the customer chooses to visit are Comcast's responsibility to make available. Charging sites themselves for a fast lane amounts to Comcast profiting from both ends of the transaction, and being held accountable by neither party. It absolves them of the responsibility that is rightfully theirs, to provide their customers with the product promised. The author compared the internet to a highway. Keep the car metaphor and consider a similar scenario: a taxi company drives 20% of its customers to the airport, which is on the outskirts of town. As gas prices increase, the taxi company is finding it difficult to afford driving those customers out. Rather than eating the cost or upgrading their vehicles, they decide to start charging the airport for improved taxi service. If the airport refuses to pay, they'll still send the mandatory minimum number of taxis, but that turns out to only be enough to serve 5% of the customers. Oh well, I guess people could always choose another taxi company to get them to the airport. Oh wait...
the existence of capable hardware and the default behavior of tcp/ip. bandwidth is bandwidth. if the hardware exists in its default state you can shove anything into the pipe as fast as the pipe can handle it, and it will flow as fast as possible. to put speed limits on particular kinds of traffic going down the same pipe requires artificial limitations of some sort: you can't program something to go faster than the hardware is capable, but you can program it to go slower. to extend the metaphor in the article: if you're going to add a new lane to a highway, it takes an arbitrary designation, legal penalties, and some extra paint to make it an HOV lane. HOV lanes exist to discourage and punish particular kinds of traffic on the rest of the highway, namely single-occupant vehicles. in the case of the article it's less like HOV lanes and more like a bypass around a congested area. to put a toll on the bypass is useless rent-seeking behavior. maybe you could justify it as profit under capitalism, but from the traffic's point of view it's detrimental. the toll discourages people from taking the bypass, making it less effective overall than if traffic were able to route freely. anyway, do you really expect ISPs to add new capability? they're already sitting on fat margins and spend nothing on the infrastructure which they say is bursting at the seams as justification for these new rules. they will just wall off a couple lanes of the already-existing crumbling highway and install tollbooths.