The things that bug me most about the net neutrality debate are:
0) The whole slow lane/fast lane conception is just wrong. Internet traffic looks nothing like vehicle traffic. On roads, you have only a few lanes to put cars in. On the internet, it's more like you break up the cars and trucks into atoms (packets), mix them all together, pour them through various choke points and reassemble them at their destination no matter in what order they arrive.
Traffic management at these levels IS needed, and managed at a e2e level by a TCP-friendly protocol (generally), and at a router level by queue management schemes like "Drop Tail". Massive improvements to drop tail, fixing what is known as "bufferbloat" with better "active queue management" (AQM) and packet scheduling schemes (FQ) such as codel, fq_codel, RED, and PIE are being considered by the IETF to better manage congestion, and the net result of these techniques is vastly reduced latency across the chokepoints, vastly improved levels of service for latency sensitive services (such as voice, gaming, and videoconferencing), with only the fattest flows losing some packets and thus slowing down - regardless of who is sending them. Politics doesn't enter into it. Any individual can make their own links better, as can any isp, and vendor.
Some links:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/dra...
https://datatracker.ietf.org/d...
http://tools.ietf.org/html/dra...
http://tools.ietf.org/html/dra...
Furthermore individual packets can be marked by the endpoints to indicate their relative needs. This is called QoS, and the primary technique is "diffserv".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
There are plenty of problems with diffserv in general, but they are very different from thinking about "fast or slow" lanes, which are rather difficult to implement compared to any of the techniques noted above. You have to have a database of every ip address you wish to manipulate accessed in real time, on every packet, in order to implement the lanes.
IF ONLY I could see in the typical network neutrality debater a sane understanding and discussion of simple AQM, packet scheduling, and QoS techniques, I would be extremely comforted in the idea that sane legislation would emerge. But I've been waiting 10 years for that to happen.
We have tested, and have deployed these algorithms to dramatic reductions in latency and increased throughput on consumer grade hardware, various isps and manufacturers have standardized on various versions, (docsis 3.1 is pie, free.fr uses fq_codel, as does streamboost, as do nearly all the open source routing projects such as openwrt)
I really wish those debating net neutrality actually try - or at least be aware of - these technical solutions to the congestion problems they seek to solve with legislation. I wouldn't mind at all legal mandates to have aqm on, by default. :)
It makes a huge difference, on all technologies available today:
https://www.bufferbloat.net/pr...
See also the bufferbloat mailing lists.
1) if we want true neutrality, restrictive rules by the ISPs regarding their customers hosting services of their own have to go - and nobody's been making THAT point, which irks me significantly. In an age where you have, say, gbit fiber to your business, it makes quite a lot of sense from a security and maintenence perspective
to be hosting your own data and servers on your own darn premise, not
elsewhere.
2) I didn't make any points about competitiveness either; that was robert's piece. I didn't like the original 1996 policy nor do I think title II is the answer.
For the record:
I oppose the time warner merger, and also oppose rules and regulations that prevent municipalities from running their own fiber and allowing providers to compete on top of it. In fact I strongly, strongly favor commonly owned infrastructure with services allowed to compete on top of those, a model that works well in europe and elsewhere.
I came very close to writing a letter to the FCC on that, but didn't.
I LIKED the world we had in the 90s with tens of thousands of ISPs competing
on top of universally agreed upon link technologies. I ran one of those ISPs. That world was pre both of those regulations, where the then monopoly was required to provide access that anyone could buy for a fair price.
I am glad gfiber exists to put a scare into certain monopolists, but even then I'd be tons happier if municipalities treated basic wired connectivity as we do roads and not as we do telephone poles.
It is one of my hopes that one day wireless technologies would
become sufficiently robust to break the last wire monopolies once and
for all.