A. The rule isn't that packets must be delivered at the same time, the rule is that you can't shape based on source (but you CAN shape based on other things - so, you can prioritize VoIP for example). Basically it means the telecoms can't favor their own streaming services over Netflix. B. The clients are literally paying the telecoms in order to get access to Netflix. That's what they use their internet connection for, that's what they pay the monthly bill for. Why shouldn't they be able to stream?

I don't know about the specific rules in the US. But in Eurpean hacker circles when talking about net neutrality the strong definition is used. Meaning the provider should not be allowed to change quality at all.

Some think it would be fine as long as the user indicates the quality level he wants, others are against it completely.

There have been a number of debates of the years, at the Chaos Communication Congress for example.

In the US, under the OIO/Title II, an ISP could do basic network management (e.g. blocking ddos attacks, holding people to the bandwidth limits they paid for) and basic QoS, though I'm not exactly sure how that was defined or implemented.

Because objectively there is a limit on bandwidth that grows slower than streaming business and it is unfairly distributed among users in general. You can think of 10 items or less as an analogy. If I try to use my LTE from 17:00 to ~19:30, my bandwidth is almost dead because everyone returned from work to watch their feed. The only way to return my fairness is to storm the network with millions of torrent packets or video read-aheads. If ISPs would sorry me and charge less (I get exactly the same bill, btw), then it is equivalent for them to simply charge heavy users more or throttle them down.

Edit: it is worth noting that ISPs hugely oversell their bandwidth.

Missing from your equation is the important fact that people usually pay for the bandwidth they use, and that that's how bandwidth is split amongst people. Once they paid for it, I'm sure you'll agree it's really their business how they use it.

Net neutrality prevents the ISPs from selling bundles where some sites are discounted, and from throttling or blocking some sites.

Its not so simple. NN is not political, its commercial, and partly technical. One main sticking point is that ISPs don't want to pay for asymmetric peering. If you're sending more traffic on my network and I'm sending you almost none, I need to have larger 'pipes' to accommodate your traffic, but you don't, for my outgoing traffic. So, If peering were 'settlement free', as Netflix wants, that is beneficial for Netflix but not for Comcast. Also, any network, already has several routes for any given packet. By default, you HAVE to do some prioritization. Traffic internal to the ISP will always be prioritized. So if I were an ISP and I became a content provider, obviously my packets will be "cheaper/faster" to route than incoming NetFlix/Hulu, etc etc.

The above is just a supersuper simplified summary of some points off the top of my head. There are tons of nuances, which are more suitable for a detailed blog post, and not a comment. I'm sure someone has done that already.

Networks drop packets once they become over-saturated. You can either drop specific packets (e.g. netflix) or you can drop packets indiscriminately (e.g. everyone, including netflix, experiences degraded service). This is a pretty normal, planned-for part of the internet - it's one of the main problems TCP/IP tries to solve (it intentionally slows down traffic if it notices packets are getting dropped) and hasn't been a problem so far in the xx years the internet has been a thing.

Net neutrality covers that, and then also charging for use of some services but not others (imagine Comcast charging for bandwidth to netflix, which it does not own, but not Hulu, which it has a sizable stake in - there are a handful of examples of this having happened before the NN regulation went into place) and blocking certain traffic (see: Verizon blocking facetime) and allowing services of large companies to pay for prioritized traffic.

The end game NN proponents fear is something similar to Cable now, where you have to buy access to websites or protocols ala cart. I don't think that's necessarily going to happen, but I'm 100% sure ISPs will start abusing their monopoly/duopoly to further their vertical integration efforts by favoring content they own or news sources that cover them favorably over indirect competitors or detractors.

you seem to assume that the bandwidth used by netflix is fixed. however, what actually happens on network saturation (given net neutrality) is that both netflix and non-netflix content will slow down. netflix watchers will see buffering or will get a lower resolution.

that is the point of net neutrality: handling packets on a non-discriminatory best-effort basis. if the "channel is stuffed", then a certain percentage of all the packets in the channel, including the netflix ones, will be dropped.

> ISPs can either (1) increase bandwidth in order to increase the amount of packets that get through, (2) throttle Netflix which they can't do under net neutrality, (3) charge Netflix (and Google, Facebook, etc.) to not get throttled which they can't do under net neutrality either, or (4) neither increase bandwidth nor throttle Netflix, resulting in all content slowing down and them losing customers to ISPs that will invest in new bandwidth as they should.

FTFY

You’re missing the fact that telecom is less profitable (compared to ads/sub streaming) and when new cool ISP will try to return some investments by charging more or throttling, you’ll throw them over a dick exactly as you did with an old one. ISPs are no fools and will not jump into this trap.

It is your bandwidth that is increasing, not theirs.

You're paying $XX every month for Y amount of bandwidth, it shouldn't matter whether it's used by netflix or viewing text. People however fear that ISPs will start charging you extra for every popular site you want to use, no matter its bandwidth usage (e.g. HN, Reddit, Facebook).

Your assumptions of how the internet works are incorrect.

Comcast wants you to believe you are buying an amount of data from them. In reality you are paying for a pipe that has a given throughput. If the ISP oversold that capacity that's their problem. Yes, bandwidth is limited but that's why you pay for a big enough pipe to do what you want. bandwidth is also limited because ISPs like Comcast do not want to invest in their infrastructure and feel little market pressure to do so.

Streaming services are not getting a free ride. Big tech is simply using the internet. This concept that somehow people are using the internet too much is absurd.

I think this is where I err.

My analogy of us all using a shared pipeline (eg. the ISP infrastructure) is not a great one. Rather, that pipeline is partitioned based on how much people pay to access parts of it - the more they pay for their bandwidth, the more of the pipeline they get.

And how they choose to fill their part of the pipeline is their right, and should affect only them. If the latter part is true (that it affects only them), then I think my questions are answered.

You're not wrong. But when you open the door to private companies throttling, then scenarios like this become possible:

www.comcasttube.com - like youtube.com, but faster... because we're slowing down youtube.com

This would be a valid concern if, and only if, the growth of the bandwidth consumed by the streaming services exceeded the growth of the available bandwidth, which is not the case.

Its a very intersting issue and sadly the debate is always very limited.

Fundamentally it makes absolute sense to have different priorities for different packets. Just like in any logistics you have different priorities for different application. In logistics usually the costumer demands some level of services and if he pays the needed amount he can get what he wants. Most people don't think this is bad. So fundamentally there is nothing wrong.

The IP protocol has this idea backed in already, and inside controlled organisation this is already pretty standard.

The problem happens when you have ISP who without their costumers input make arbitrary choices about the importance of packets. Not only because they don't really know what my needs are also because it requires the ISP to open up each package and analyse what is inside.

Even that might still be OK if there were a truly competitive market in ISPs. If one ISP does not suit you you can move on, enforcing discipline in the whole system. That would still be problematic because applications would then have to make specialised deals with the ISP to get high quality service for specific application rather then making that choice when you send a package.

In practice however ISP for historical, regulatory and economic reason are in a monopoly position allowing them sit in the middle and make money on both sides. This primary what Net Neutrality tries to fix. Providers that are in these positions, like Comcast, would like nothing more then to have Net Neutrality removed. Providers that are in a highly competitive market have far less to gain.

Even worse, then strictly about net neutrality, once the technology is in place ISP also start to act in other ways, for example injecting advertisements into your websites, breaking TLS and so on.

So really I am against Net Neutrality in general, but I would still not have removed it in the current situation.

The solution for me is actually a different one. Quite simply, ISP should not be allowed to open up your packages, just like the post office is also not allowed to do so. They should be allowed to sell you different quality of service in whatever pricing model they wish but it is the costumer who makes the choice about what he wants to do.

Monopoly would still be an issue in that case the potential damage would be way lower.