I realize this view is controversial, but net neutrality is about as logical as arguing that all residential bandwidth should be dedicated symmetrical up/down.
As content + routes become mainstream (the top 1-2% of bandwidth), the price of hosting them approaches the dedicated bandwidth price. This is because the usage pattern variability is arbitraged upstream of the ISP.
Preferential QoS based on content source is a predictable consequence of this, since the ISP begins to have no opportunity for bandwidth arbitrage and must rely on some other revenue stream to avoid having to charge dedicated bandwidth prices.
I'm not sure if you are applying this "logic" correctly. Bandwidth must be treated as utility, just like electricity and water. Like any other utilities, there should be a fixed charge for fair level of use and prorated charge beyond that to consumers of the utility. Here instead the proposal is to charge content providers and that too selectively. That means only big guys favored by cable companies can become content providers. Even worse, existing content providers can buddy up with cable companies to raise the entry point so new content providers have little or no chance. This is a complete utter disaster and clearly driven by cable industry lobby to tighten up their monopoly.
> Bandwidth must be treated as utility, just like electricity and water.
While this sounds good, it is fairly arbitrary. Why should my connection be asymmetric 20/1 with mediocre latency? What if I prefer 10/10 with less latency? The status quo QoS benefits some types of content providers and harms others.
It's also as logical as arguing that a brand new market with unmet demand won't lead to increased competition, investment and innovation. The fast lane can always be made faster and sold for less, pretty much just like every other piece of technology in existence.
Not controversial in my book. Commence the down votes!!!
> As content + routes become mainstream (the top 1-2% of bandwidth), the price of hosting them approaches the dedicated bandwidth price. This is because the usage pattern variability is arbitraged upstream of the ISP.
I'd appreciate a simpler explanation of your point, for mere mortals like myself!
Disagree that it's comparable to symmetrical up/down- the bandwidth my ISP charges me is irregardless of the direction. Your argument would be valid if I were only paying for data that I send, but I'm not.
Why can't I tell my provider that I want to minimize the latency when playing a first-person shooter, and I'm willing to pay for it?
As content + routes become mainstream (the top 1-2% of bandwidth), the price of hosting them approaches the dedicated bandwidth price. This is because the usage pattern variability is arbitraged upstream of the ISP.
Preferential QoS based on content source is a predictable consequence of this, since the ISP begins to have no opportunity for bandwidth arbitrage and must rely on some other revenue stream to avoid having to charge dedicated bandwidth prices.