@Dashrender said:
I do understand what you are saying @JaredBusch, and I mostly agree with you. But the current proposals that I've read about do allow just that, the ISPs can make a 'fast lane' with specific content providers assuming an agreement can be made - not the opposite, which is what everyone wants, which should be a free and open best effort with no intentional roadblocks like Comcast was doing before Comcast and Netflix came to a paid agreement. It was obvious from data flow charts that Comcast was restricting flow rates on Netflix traffic before that agreement...
They do the same thing today to bit torrents and other P2P sharing protocols.
Perhaps we do need net neutrality - but certainly not in the current form being presented....
It's like the Patriot Act - it's anything but patriotic as it strips you and I from our constitutional rights...
Network Neutrality is a thing that is needed. I agree 100% and submitted my own comments using the process above.
The problem is that most people have no idea what they are talking about. They are repeating buzzwords. The concept of making Netflix pay for a connection direct to the Comcast network is 100% consistent with the way the internet has always functioned. The supposition (likely true based on current public circumstantial evidence) that Comcast was intentionally slowing the connection from the Netflix CDN provider that they were using prior to the agreement for direct connection is what violates Network Neutrality. Comcast has a peering agreement with that CDN company. That agreement, until renegotiated, means that traffic from that network should come through with zero interference. That is what Neutrality should mean on the "other side" of the pipe from the consumer.
The internet has always been about network agreements, not all of them are free peering agreements. Many of them are paid connections for XX amount of traffic.
