Auction-based prioritization of bandwidth. Something akin to bitcoin transaction fees. If Netflix wants to pay extra so they stream video in real time that makes sense.
Notably, this is more or less how the internet already works. Content Distribution Networks pay for access to ISP local networks, which gives them a fast lane to customers. It's how virtually all content is already distributed.
Firstly, it assumes that bandwidth is scarce, which it isn't in the access network.
Secondly, the incentives don't align. Everybody would bid maximum bid during prime time and zero at all other times, which is the same as not running an auction at all.
You either have the bandwidth to serve your customers during prime time or you don't. There is no middle ground.
Any other examples you'd like to try?
> If Netflix wants to pay extra so they stream video in real time that makes sense.
No, it does not make sense. It's not Netflix that wants to stream video in real time. It's the broadband subscriber that sends a request to Netflix and asks for a stream to be delivered to them.
The subscriber already pays for the broadband and the ability to stream. It is not reasonable to ask them to pay more. Also, in this day and age, in no way, shape or form is it acceptable for an Internet connection classified as broadband not to be able to stream video.
> Notably, this is more or less how the internet already works.
No, it's really not.
> Content Distribution Networks pay for access to ISP local networks, which gives them a fast lane to customers.
This is incorrect. CDNs may pay ISPs to colocate on-net on their networks, or they may not. CDNs may just as well colocate for free or not colocate at all. An ISP may peer with a CDN or get access to a CDN via an IX.
Nothing says the CDN has to pay. In fact, the ISP might even pay the CDN for a node. Or the ISP may even not qualify for a CDN node.
CDNs have nothing to do with fast lanes. CDNs work because of physical proximity.
> It's how virtually all content is already distributed.
A lot of content is delivered via CDNs, but not necessarily on-net.
>Upgrading your infrastructure to meet the demand your customers place on it isn't a cost of regulatory compliance. It's the cost of doing business.
No, that's not how business work. If customers are not happy with a service they can shop elsewhere. The business is not forced by government to improve its infrastructure, just by customers pressure. The fact that some places only have one ISP is because government over-regulate right to pass and install fiber.
> Where in the network neutrality order did the FCC impose censorship on the Internet?
Once you turn the internet into a public utility, it gives the power to the FCC to censor it anyway it wants, just like TV or radio. Of course it won't be done overnight. Just wait for a big nazi/antifa/pedophile/terrorist internet scandal that would lead to a tragic death, than people will rush in a bill that says "sorry folks but we can't allow people to publish anything they want, think of the children" just like they did with public broadcasting on tv and radio. Making the internet a public utility is a requirement to pass these censorship laws, it's a first step. Censorship always happens in small steps. Think of the patriot act, if you give the government the power to take your rights away, they eventually will. Although to be fair they already have that power, but this will basically give them even more justification and power.
Yes, we had NN before 2015. It was the default state and how the Internet was originally built.
We used to have competition for Internet services (dialup and DSL), now we don't (most people access the Internet through cable which is a monopoly).
The reason why we are losing NN now is because it's become feasible from a technical and business perspective to violate NN.
Pai's arguments are pure unadulterated bullshit. Abolishing NN will not increase investments or create competition. CEOs are on record that NN will not impact business or investments.
>We used to have competition for Internet services (dialup and DSL), now we don't (most people access the Internet through cable which is a monopoly).
Calling Dial-Up and DSL "competition" is downplaying how shitty things were even in 2015. They are technically competition, but effectively and practically they aren't because the modern web doesn't even work with dial-up and in the many places stuck with the low-end of DSL it is next to worthless too.
> On the one hand, I can see why monopolistic powers in the hands of ISPs would be bad, but I like that the order would restore "police" powers to the FTC instead of the FCC,
The FTC is not the correct body to "police" broadband.
> and I can't blame ISPs for wanting a piece of the $ pie.
I can. They are already getting paid. They should not be able to go back for seconds.
> And it's not like the internet was a horrible wasteland until 2015.
That's because network neutrality was the default state before. It's only now that is becoming feasible both from a technical and business perspective to violate network neutrality.
> But then again, Pai plan proponents keep saying this will spawn more innovation and improve utilities. That sounds pretty dubious and I haven't seen much proof. I don't recall any big innovation suddenly being stifled in 2015
Yeah, that's just a load of bullshit. CEOs have gone on record that NN will not affect business or investments.
> In my perfect world, the regulatory power would go back to the FTC but it would at the same time release a plan for opening up internet utility access so small players can compete with the big ones.
Too bad we already had that, minus the FTC part. Fat chance of getting it back.
Network neutrality is not Ma Bell style regulation. NN will not freeze things. Don't know which oligarchs you are referring to, but any NN laws are unlikely to stop them 'garching.
Killing NN is unlikely to kill all the small players. In fact they might rather thrive by using NN as a competitive tool.
The "NN regulations" that the FCC adopted specifically classified Internet services as Title II "telecommunication services", subject to 1930s-style telecom regulations. Yes, these are "Ma Bell" style regulations.
I presume you don't believe in the existence of selective enforcement in industries where the government holds massive regulatory power? Why does it seem somehow that the most powerful incumbents are never punished, but smaller upstarts are crushed (or not even started) due to the regulatory burden? NN makes this worse.
Pai merely proposes to move things back to the way they were since the beginning of Internet Time to 2015, way back when the Internet was a Title I "information service", subject to much less formal regulation by the FCC. This is met with furious uproar.
> Pai merely proposes ... This is met with furious uproar
His proposal would enable ISPs to make access to some content slower, or more expensive, than others.
His proposal does nothing to resolve existing broadband monopolies.
Many people like the way the internet works today and do not want Pai's policies to pass. We don't want more silos or limited access to content. People are making their voices heard because they feel strongly about this issue.
are you implying that despite the regulatory capture that has already occurred, somehow further regulations will not subsequently be captured? there is a saying about the person who does the same thing again and again expecting a different result.
> are you implying that despite the regulatory capture that has already occurred, somehow further regulations will not subsequently be captured? there is a saying about the person who does the same thing again and again expecting a different result.
Are you implying that even after you solve a problem, there are still other problems, so the best thing to do is to do nothing? There is a word for people who do nothing and criticize those who act.
I never implied that there were no problems, please do not put words in my mouth. My point was merely that centralizing control of the Internet is exactly what the oligarchs want, and you are carrying water for them. Why is the EFF against NN while AT&T is for it? Thanks for helping the multi-billion dollar company, I'm sure they appreciate it.
Please give an example of paid prioritization that isn't anti-competitive.