I really think this is a bad idea. If you're a business and depend on a certain type of traffic (say Skype, or maybe email) why wouldn't you consider the option of trying to ensure faster and more reliable delivery of some type of data that is absolutely critical? Maybe as a business, you actually want something like Netflix throttled to some extent so that Skype chats that you depend on are 100% rock solid. Why restrict the possibility for new types of services to emerge from actual needs?
The real issue with this isn't the lack of network neutrality, but all kinds of local and other types of regulations that make it extremely difficult for all but a few connected big companies to take part in. This is why each region has maybe 1 or 2 really shitty ISPs rather than a decent array of choices.
What you're describing is QoS. Packet discrimination by kind. Bulk file transfer vs streaming video vs VoIP. Necessary because because the impact if your torrent downloads go a bit slow is your torrent downloads a bit slow. If video or VoIP get congested, the effect is the service becomes unusable.
Net Neutrality is about packet discrimination by source and destination.
It's not a problem if VoIP gets higher priority over web surfing and arbitrary file downloads. It's a huge problem if the ISP's VoIP service has higher priority than Skype, despite them being identical traffic.
ISP QoS is fine as long as it's by type and not by source/destination. It's perfectly reasonable to expect all those people torrenting the latest Game of Thrones shouldn't impact other people's Skype calls.
This isn't a value judgement on anything, mind, it's all about what the application needs in order to work. A torrent can still download on a congested network. A VoIP call will have great difficulty on same.
If the ISP can't pipe the advertised bandwidth that's not the user's fault. The torrenter's absolutely should be allowed to fill up the pipes. As for torrenting, there's also a uTP which is supposed to help mitigate some issues at the ISP level.
That all said, if you don't agree that QoS should not be allowed at the ISP level than you don't agree with NN. It's really not complicated.
Advertised bandwidth is always an "up to" number, not a dedicated pipe. If you want that, you want business class service at a significant price premium.
>The torrenter's absolutely should be allowed to fill up the pipes.
And the Skypers should absolutely be allowed to have their calls. QoS ensures that everyone has a minimum usable level of service.
QoS and net neutrality are two different things, as previously mentioned. If you'd like to argue otherwise, you'll have to do better than simply gain-say my definition.
Again, you really fail to explain why you think packet prioritization based on type is the exact same thing as packet prioritization based on source and destination. The latter is always anticompetitive at the ISP level, the former can be, but needs to exist to operate a network of any decent size.
Please explain why it needs to exist? All my packets, no matter what they are, should have equal access to another person's packets on the same network.
I myself will employ QoS so that my packets are arranged how I like them in the bandwidth provided by my ISP.
If my ISP cannot give me sustained bandwidth, then I don't receive proper internet service where anything but browsing and maybe streaming will be great.
In that case, I expect to pay less, not to have the ISP implement some technology to decide my traffic isn't as important as my neighbor's skype chat.
The why is simple. Bandwidth is limited on a given time scale and load is unpredictable. QoS ensures that all of your customers receive a minimum usable level of service. If a bunch of people run off to download a given torrent simultaneously, blowing well past average projected usage and you're not packet shaping, anything that relies on real time packet transfers on that network is hosed.
It's that simple. It's ensuring that a minority of customers can't fuck up the service for the majority.
Everything you've mentioned so far is a lot of statement with no backup. You want "sustained bandwidth" - this is not a thing that most ISPs sell to normal customers at rates mere mortals can afford, and for good reason.
All my packets, no matter what they are, should have equal access to another person's packets on the same network.
QoS's entire raison d'etre is ensuring this equal access by making sure sudden high load does not negatively impact the service for everyone else. Would you prefer your call quality/game/video not get shitty when the latest GoT episode comes out? Or would you prefer a complete wild-west free for all where the "bandwidth hogs" can quite literally ruin a service for everyone?
And don't say "expand capacity", either. Nobody in the world, not even Google, has the ability to deliver their max advertised bandwidth to all subscribers simultaneously.
Please, for your own sanity, learn the difference between average speed and max speed.
Sustained bandwidth is not out of the ordinary. I consistently get the same bandwidth day after day, but I realize at times it could have issues, because I don't have a dedicated line.
When I don't use QoS, I can't download a large file and skype at the same time. If I use QoS on my network, it's no problem. Clearly this means my ISP is not doing anything particularly special with my data, and I get on just fine.
I go through Midcontinent Communications, one of the better ISPs in the US.
I am very, very jealous of you. I've got a coworker who used to live in that part of the states who tells me leaving that particular ISP was one of the hardest parts of moving here :)
That said, I bet they got out in front of projected growth so they have a large surplus of capacity. Still, I'd be willing to bet you large and ridiculous amounts of cash that the right combination of growth + popular event would result in contention.
Except how does one tell the difference between Skype and Voip? You don't without deep level packet inspection. Simple QoS based on port could easily piss off a customer, for example, if they want Skype traffic on port 80. The simplest way to deal with this is to treat all traffic equally but serve the bandwidth that you promise your customers.
WTF? It's none of the ISPs business what I use their network for. If they don't like me using all the bandwidth up, they should either charge more or instill data caps.
I play a 20-year-old video game [0] with the best players in the world. A 1v1 game requires less than 56k (that is, 0.055 megabits) of bandwidth. Yet there are a handful of players who can't play at certain times of day because their 30 megabit broadband connections end up having extreme latency/loss, because everyone on the ISP is streaming Netflix or playing WoW or downloading porn or whatever and the ISP degrades service equally for everyone.
I would love to be able to buy internet service with an option for a "fast lane" guarantee for certain types of traffic where latency and loss actually matter. (How that ties in to "net neutrality" is, as danielweber says in a nearby comment, a bit vague since NN seems to have dozens of different definitions.)
You can do that with QoS on your own network. Even entry level routers can do that. The default verizon one, for example, can do it. You don't need to damage the internet for this.
You throttle content (QoS) at the local lan level. If you're paying for service, you should have equal service with all other customers on the same network outside of the lan.
> I really think this is a bad idea. If you're a business and depend on a certain type of traffic (say Skype, or maybe email) why wouldn't you consider the option of trying to ensure faster and more reliable delivery of some type of data that is absolutely critical?
Because these 'fast lanes' won't be faster lanes; they'll be the performance we have normally, and other traffic will be degraded.
The solution to the issue that you propose already exists, and it's called Quality of Service; by having your router aware of your upstream/downstream bandwidth and setting simple rules you can prioritize traffic already. You don't need your ISP to charge you extra to do this.
ISPs providing 'fast lanes' would be fine if American broadband issues weren't because of companies with multi-billion-dollar profits not bothering to upgrade their infrastructure to support their customers, or if they hadn't been paid billions by the government to provide universal broadband and then simply not bothered to do so.
History has shown that American ISPs operate as monopolies[1], crush any attempt at competition[2], promise improvements and never deliver[3], and generally take advantage of their customers whenever possible, all the while complaining that the problem keeping them from providing good service is the few regulations under which they operate.
Now they're claiming that their networks can't handle a large proportion of their users using their connections at once, and it's all Netflix's fault (and not theirs for oversubscribing).
So yeah, I think this is a good idea. Force ISPs to deliver the service that people are supposedly paying for, and not pay extra for it.
> Because these 'fast lanes' won't be faster lanes; they'll be the performance we have normally, and other traffic will be degraded.
That's not necessarily true. Consider the possibility of building out new infrastructure and capacity, and specifically using it for that purpose. No degradation of the existing service.
Let's say you're the CEO of an ISP. Netflix pays your company $x million to access a fast lane. You can either spend the money on (a) building $x million of extra infrastructure or (b) giving yourself an $x million raise.
Which do you think will lead to the CEO getting a bigger raise?
The real issue with this isn't the lack of network neutrality, but all kinds of local and other types of regulations that make it extremely difficult for all but a few connected big companies to take part in. This is why each region has maybe 1 or 2 really shitty ISPs rather than a decent array of choices.