But the beneficiaries of your "net freedom" are a handful of regional monopoly ISPs who are protected by regulations that realistically won't ever be rolled back.
No thanks. It’s amazing what a little bit of polishing a turd and renaming it will do.
No it doesn't. The FCC's net neutrality orders have always included an exception for "reasonable network management", most recently defined as:
> (f) Reasonable network management. A network management practice is a practice that has a primarily technical network management justification, but does not include other business practices. A network management practice is reasonable if it is primarily used for and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service.
(emphasis mine; source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/8.2)
Prioritizing gaming latency is clearly a "primarily technical" concern rather than a matter of "business practices" - at least as long as the ISP didn't try to charge game publishers for the service. So it would be fine.
That isn't a thing. ISPs don't actually do that.
Latency on any reasonably provisioned network is determined by distance and the speed of light. There is no magic thing routers can do for special packets to make it go down, it's just the laws of physics.
They could only do something when the network isn't reasonably provisioned and the ISP's uplinks are fully saturated, but that should never normally happen unless the ISP is either incompetent or creating artificial scarcity for anticompetitive reasons.
See Verizon and Comcast. Today. With Net Neutrality on the books. Want to bypass this congestion? Buy some PNIs.
So what we have here is dilettantes talking about a how they think the world should be or is today rather than acknowledging that net neutrality stopped existing in 1995 when AS1239 started asking for $$ to get peering routes.
That absolutely is a problem with the existing rules. Some people pointed that out when they were proposed.
But the existing rules solve some problems, just not all of them. And you don't go forward by going backward.
NN does not live in reality. In reality there are so many line cards that one can put into a router/switch/linux box, there's so much space in a cabinet and there are only so many people who know how to operate in a physical world. Everyone with a little money and clue can generate a hundred gigabit per second traffic towards eyeballs behind Comcast but only those with serious money and serious clue would be able to do it with reasonable performance - Comcast/Verizon/ATT/NewFiberToEveryoneOnTheEastCoast ISP will need to prioritize physical world deployment and it would go to the one with serious money and serious clue. And since NN cannot address this, it is toast and it has always been toast.
The solution is regional ISPs and regional networks - breaking up franchise agreements with Comcast and Verizon that your little town has, getting ROW via cities/towns, leveraging small electric companies ROWS, etc.
Which is why we still need a rule prohibiting that. But the existing rules are still helpful. They address the consumer side of things. At least you don't have Comcast charging its customers money for a Netflix package and charging Netflix for peering.
> The solution is regional ISPs and regional networks - breaking up franchise agreements with Comcast and Verizon that your little town has, getting ROW via cities/towns, leveraging small electric companies ROWS, etc.
That could be a solution, but it would certainly take at least a decade if not more, and until that has actually happened we need something else.
ISPs do not care about charging customers for tiered packages - policies are too difficult to implement. It is much easier to charge Google, Netflix and Facebook. Single point of contact, single large payment and if Google/Fb/Netflix don't pay ability to deliver real pain.
> That could be a solution, but it would certainly take at least a decade if not more, and until that has actually happened we need something else.
That is the solution and it is something that needed to be started twenty years ago. If we started it at that time, we would not even be having this conversation because ISPs would be highly competitive utilities. The problem is that building networks, digging ditches, mounting routers and dealing with customers is not as sexy as launching HotOrNot or SnapChat.
No it doesn't. Having every customer use 100% of their connection at the same time is something that could happen in theory, but it never happens in practice. Literally never.
A certain amount of over-subscription is perfectly reasonable. As long as you have the capacity for the actual peak load, there is no congestion, regardless of whether you have enough capacity for the theoretical peak load.
I need to buffer that 50mbit of traffic, which could be 100,000 packets. It also introduces delay.
I can still use qos to ensure packets I want with less jitter get through in front of the 100k queue.
The latency over the second will vary from zero to 50ms, even with 20% network utilisation (or I get lost packets)
Sending at gigabit for 100ms implies a 12.5MB buffer. A lot of routers sensibly won't (or just can't) buffer that much data, so sending in such large bursts is a good way to get your packets dropped. Which is why sensible programs (and the TCP stacks in major operating systems) don't do that. Instead they'll either use a smaller time slice or use the event-based TCP "ACK clock" where packets are sent in response to receiving acknowledgements of previous packets, which spreads the transmissions more uniformly.
Moreover, notice that the thing you're describing still shouldn't happen within an ISP's network, because it's caused by an individual stream sending faster than the path bandwidth. That can happen when you go from 1Gbps LAN to <1Gbps WAN, which is why QoS can be helpful on the customer's edge router, but that isn't part of the ISP's network.
It shouldn't happen when you go from a 500Mbps customer link to an unsaturated 40Gbps peering link. The 500Mbps link can't saturate the 40Gbps link, and if some combination of them do, it's not because of the sending pattern, it's because the uplink is too over-subscribed.
Pre 2015 people were worried about the government actively monitoring and controlling what could be said on the internet. It was a fight to protect free speech on the web.
The current issue about the actions of the FCC focuses on net neutrality. While also being essential for free speech on the web, this issue focuses on the prevention of monopolization and antitrust practices by internet service providers.
Or did I miss some point you made?
EDIT: I do not claim everything I say is right. But I will stand the courage of my convictions and am happy to be proven wrong. So far this thread is a total disaster of emotional pleas, doomsday predictions, and bad reddit-like behavior (such as yours).