The neutrality rules for this are written such that it only affects services that are over the "public" internet. Netflix is considered a public internet service, but local TC and phone service are not offer to anyone else other than local customers and not over the same logical connection as the public internet.

They kind of did, by giving ISPs Title II. ISPs will now have access to Right of Ways at the federal level, so the local can't block it like they do right now.

QoS your data, but don't touch mine. I don't care if I'm downloading a 20GB game and your VoIP is going to crap because of congestion, don't touch my packets. Fix the issue, the congestion, or implement a decent AQM, like fq_codel or fq_pie. The biggest issue with congestion is buffer bloat. If we fix that, which is dead simple, most of the issues of congestion goes away.

Packetloss is not a huge issue, latency and jitter is. We already have the tools to completely get rid of latency and jitter issues, which actually reduces packetloss, stabilizes bandwidth, and increases bandwidth utilization. Blame the ISPs for being lazy. Really, go look up fq_codel. It's a stateless fair Active Queue Manager.

Arstechnica touched on this subject. It is written that they cannot ignore certain data sources from caps "for pay". T-Mobile is free to ignore certain sources of data consumption for their own reasons, but may not do so for a profit. It is noted that excluding some data from being counted towards caps is "frowned upon", but will only be decided against if it can be shown to negatively affect the customers due to being overly anti-competitive or being unfairly biased.

Awesome, so we can change people to access our networks? I should tell my ISP that I would like to be paid. Last mile ISPs should not be able to change non-lastmile customers to access their network. A last mile ISP should not be allowed to have congestion on their networks and links to/from their networks. Lastmile ISPs are being paid by their customers to access the Internet at large. It is the ISP's job to access Netflix or to purchase bandwidth from someone else who can access Netflix.

The average USA city has something like 20,000 people per square mile. Since we're talking about averages. On average, there is one hydrogen atom per 1,000,000 cubic meters in the Universe. How can the Sun be sustaining fusion with such a low density?! Because you're an idiot who only thinks in averages.

My position also. I know several people who had this problem. They were forced to pay insurance premiums through their work, but the employer chose really bad companies that would fight everything you attempted to submit. Even then, it would take them 6+ months to process anything, so enjoy having collection agencies after you while you try to get your insurance to pay.

Everyone working person I know benefited from Obamacare. From the $20k/year hourly workers to the $100k/year salaried. Everyone that I have contact with gained better insurance with only marginal changes to their premiums. The only people I've seen have issues are self employed or unemployed. For me, my premium went down(50% reduction), my coverage stayed the same. Something about lower costs to the local hospitals with more people being insured.

My anecdotal experience.

Opening up Right of Way access to ISPs should help competition. As it stands, ISPs don't get RoW access, only telcom or cable companies do. Google Fiber had to fight at the local level just to gain RoW access because GF is neither telcom nor cable. Heck, GF even offers TV services just like a cable company, but being fiber based, they're not a cable company.

Current regulations are anti-fiber and pro-copper. This change levels the playing field.

After a while, some game servers started to segregate between LPBs and not-LPBs. ISDN?! Lynch him!

That was when AMD's x64 architecture was designed by an ex-senior Dec Alpha architect.

In FreeBSD you can share ZFS directly into a jail, allowing the "root" of the jail to manage their own volumes, snapshots, etc, but the host can still maintain restrictions on the jail.

Another fun fact about jails. The host can configure how many jails can be in a jail. Because jails act like a virtualized system, you can just keep chaining jails under jails, each jail can have its own root user, and with ZFS, each jail can manage its own volumes. There is still some work with ZFS resources management that needs to be done to keep jails from DOS'n the host, but you can see how flexible this system is.

As long as current bandwidth is less than 80% of capacity, latency should not be an issue. Bitch at your ISP for not having enough capacity, not at Netflix users for attempting to use what they paid for.

If everyone suddenly [insert impossible thing] at the same time, it would be too expensive to handle that. We've got a genius here, telling us that if impossible things happened, like everyone using the Internet at the same time and attempting to use full speed, that an ISP can't handle that. NO ISP anywhere can handle that, yet you can purchase "dedicated" bandwidth all the same and get crazy awesome performance.

ISPs can supply more bandwidth than you can use while still not providing everyone the ability to use 100% all the time. It's like saying, "they say it's an all you can eat buffet, but if I went there and ate $10,000 of rice in 1 hour, they'd stop serving me".. WTF is wrong with you?! Stop using impossible things are you reason to support crappy internet service.

The Internet has no issues with current loads, bad ISPs have issues with current loads. I pay $90/m for a 100/100 dedicated connection with no cap and I've called my ISP over 10ms ping increases and they've transferred me to an engineer to figure out the issue. Quality bandwidth is cheap. I have quality graphs where my 24x7 1 second ping hadn't lost a single packet in over a month. My average packet-loss is under 5 packets per week, my average ping to my ISP is under 0.2ms, I seed BitTorrent 24x7. My biggest issue is that YouTube's Chicago PoP can burst at least 1Gb/s at me, which forced me to increase my buffer size because I had my buffers configured for 100Mb/s and my ISP's Cisco core router's rate limiter doesn't react fast enough to micro bursts.

To top it off, my ISP uses an AQM, so I can maintain a solid sub 1ms ping with virtually no jitter(under 1ms) or packet-loss while maxing out my connection in both directions. It's not QoS, it's not traffic shaping, it's just one of those nifty new Active Queue Managers that use fair queuing. I recently gave it a test, I uncapped my Torrent client, disabled traffic shaping and let it attempt to download as fast as it could at 9pm. I had a minimum of 98.6Mb/s(1min avg) and a maximum of 99.8Mb/s(1min avg) during a 20 minute window at the peak hours of the night, while getting less than 0.04% packet-loss to a Chicago internet server and maintaining under 1ms of jitter. 0.04% loss is high for me, so I traffic shape to keep it less than 0.00%.

Again, $90/month, not an intro price, and not bundled. My ISP is almost as old as AT&T, they're not going anywhere. In fact, several years back they had to push back my fiber install date a few months because of "unexpectedly high demand". I've never seen so much spam from Charter trying to keep their customer base.