However, I think rules could be put in place to prevent the anti-competitive practices without limiting the legitimate use cases for going against net neutrality.
However, I think rules could be put in place to prevent the anti-competitive practices without limiting the legitimate use cases for going against net neutrality.
This is not convincing to me at all. ISPs could have supported low latency internet for everything, not just for gaming. If latency is too low then it's because the large ISPs are purposefully doing a bad job of upgrading to fiber and expanding fiber to places without internet access. Fiber would allow ISPs to provide service for cheap and still profit in the long term [1]. Subsidy fraud is as normal as breathing among large telecom companies such as AT&T [2], Comcast [3], and Verizon [4].
Internet bandwidth is not like shipping of physical goods. Sending twice the data doesn't cost the ISP twice the money, nor does it take twice the time. Data caps are artificial and unnecessary [5]. Any ISP trying to justify expensive, fast internet by bringing up metaphors of physical transfers and physical scarcity is lying to you.
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/why-slow-networks-real...
[2] https://www.techdirt.com/2020/10/06/mississippi-says-att-too...
[3] https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/15/report-shows-comcast-con...
[4] https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/16/verizon-t-mobile-oversta...
[5] https://publicknowledge.org/no-cap-the-truth-about-data-caps...]
Could you provide an example of how net neutrality might impact a companies ability to form peering relationships and/or raise the difficultly of securing reasonable/enforceable SLAs with service providers?