[jankiel]

I agree with all your points, but:

1. ...but why give them ability to charge based on what you're doing with access they give you? It's like your electric power provider would charge you more if you have a blacklisted freezer...

2. ...but maybe let's start by lowering the bar for new ISPs and getting rid of monopolies instead of giving them more means to squeeze more money? How getting rid of NN helps with that? Google couldn't get into that market.

3. ...but what if my provider throttles wired network, not wireless, and not 4k, but full HD? What if they throttle my twitch, because they got a deal with google to serve unlimited access to Youtube Gaming at the cost of limiting access to twitch? Sure, change IPS! Whoops, there's no competition in my area. What now?

[dingo_bat]

> 1. ...but why give them ability to charge based on what you're doing with access they give you? It's like your electric power provider would charge you more if you have a blacklisted freezer...

The electricity analogy doesn't work because the electricity company literally cannot figure out what brand of appliance you're using. Again, if you enter into a contract with your electricity company locking you into only running apple chargers, that's on you. No regulation needed.

> 2. ...but maybe let's start by lowering the bar for new ISPs and getting rid of monopolies instead of giving them more means to squeeze more money? How getting rid of NN helps with that? Google couldn't get into that market.

Makes sense. Except nobody's getting rid of nn. They are trying to prevent nn from being introduced. Till now, there hasn't been a concept of nn enforced by the regulatory authority. So no change in status quo, as far as nn is concerned. And Google did get into the market without over-reaching regulation like nn. It seems logical to me to continue the current state, it has allowed much innovation to occur.

> 3. ...but what if my provider throttles wired network, not wireless, and not 4k, but full HD? What if they throttle my twitch, because they got a deal with google to serve unlimited access to Youtube Gaming at the cost of limiting access to twitch? Sure, change IPS! Whoops, there's no competition in my area. What now?

Fully agree. This indicates the actual problem with ISPs today. They are operating as monopolies or duopolies or I'd even say cartels. This monopolistic behavior must be tackled. But enforcing nn will be like throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

As I said earlier, my points are not very well thought out. I really want to hear about problems that will get solved by enforcing nn. Thanks for responding, and not just downvoting.

[pjc50]

> electricity company literally cannot figure out what brand of appliance you're using

That's a technological limitation; I know various companies that have half-working solutions for discriminating what kind of appliance you're using from a smart meter, based on its consumption profile and noise profile. Nobody's yet attempted plug-level DRM but it's not technologically impossible ...

Really what America needs is "local loop unbundling" in addition to net neutrality. But we're in the realms of what's politically achievable.

[theandrewbailey]

> Really what America needs is "local loop unbundling" in addition to net neutrality.

If we have local loop unbundling, NN will come on the backs of meaningful competition it would ensue (as opposed to Pai competition).

[blubb-fish]

bingo - stuff like twitch is the reason why people here are afraid. and your full HD transmission is getting more expensive - oh, cry me a river - well, no HD for you. then again why would anybody be interested in making HD video less available? I really don't see that.

And if your freezer is blacklisted b/c it wastes 50% more energy than comparable freezers ... thinking about it is very likely that something like this might come to improve efficiency of the electricity supply. Wouldn't even be that bad.

[jimmies]

>if your freezer is blacklisted b/c it wastes 50% more energy than comparable freezers

What if it's not because it wastes more energy? What if it's because it has a certain brand that didn't pay the energy company? If it wastes energy, then they should just charge you 50% more (or whatever their scheme is for the person that uses 50% more energy).