Quote:
Originally Posted by donquixote99
Good. Let's move on to net neutrality. You'll need to step me though these bad effects of net neutrality you cite. How would that work? Because net neutrality is what we have now. If we DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING, why would video content 'become a casualty?'
The net neutrality movement is best understood as the 'keep the ISPs from fucking with the net' movement. Why exactly do we want to give Comcast the power to extort more money from Netflix? Won't THAT be what makes video content more expensive or harder to get?
http://consumerist.com/2014/11/13/he...et-neutrality/ |
No, we really don't have net neutrality. At least not as the FCC would define it, which is why the FCC is preparing to propose their own rules on it. The concern of those in the industry that have gotten an inkling of what the FCC might propose is that the FCC's definition will be a "bits are bits" definition: all traffic on the net must be treated equally.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/1...ty-rules/?_r=0
While that sounds good, it's not reality. Different applications on the net have different demands on the network. Streaming video is more demanding - and requires more capacity management - than sending and email or browsing web sites like this. "bits are bits" rules will make it more difficult - and yes, less profitable - to not only manage a network but also to host certain types of content - like streaming video or audio (particularly high res audio).