First of all I'm interested in what your definition of net neutrality is.

The simple reality is there is no such thing as net neutrality using the definition that many people consider it to be. It's a concept that simply has not, can not, and never will exist. Ethernet (and the Internet) as a whole is a multiplexed medium that's inherently capable of incompatible with the concept.

sbiddle:

 

First of all I'm interested in what your definition of net neutrality is.

The simple reality is there is no such thing as net neutrality using the definition that many people consider it to be. It's a concept that simply has not, can not, and never will exist. Ethernet (and the Internet) as a whole is a multiplexed medium that's inherently capable of incompatible with the concept.

sbiddle:

 

First of all I'm interested in what your definition of net neutrality is.

The simple reality is there is no such thing as net neutrality using the definition that many people consider it to be. It's a concept that simply has not, can not, and never will exist. Ethernet (and the Internet) as a whole is a multiplexed medium that's inherently capable of incompatible with the concept.

 

gnfb:

sbiddle: First of all I'm interested in what your definition of net neutrality is.

The simple reality is there is no such thing as net neutrality using the definition that many people consider it to be. It's a concept that simply has not, can not, and never will exist. Ethernet (and the Internet) as a whole is a multiplexed medium that's inherently capable of incompatible with the concept.

I was just quoting form the verge

sbiddle:
Treating each and every packet equally seems to be concept of "net neutrality" as many people know it, and can never happen. This is very different to the problem they're trying to solve of artificially restricting or shaping products or services for commercial reasons, which an entirely different argument.

testha: All you need is bigger pipes and all packets can equally co-exist. 

testha:

sbiddle:
Treating each and every packet equally seems to be concept of "net neutrality" as many people know it, and can never happen. This is very different to the problem they're trying to solve of artificially restricting or shaping products or services for commercial reasons, which an entirely different argument.

Why not? All you need is bigger pipes and all packets can equally co-exist. The whole argument against net neutrality is about not having to invest in bigger infrastructure. Once you have a 100MB/s line packet prioritization it doesnt matter anymore. When a 2GB download only takes a few seconds, all other services wont be impacted much.

I already pay my ISP for access to the internet, I also pay my hoster for server traffic, why would I need to live with restrictions? Because my ISP claims to know what traffic is more important for me?

NonprayingMantis:
to stop motorway congestion all you need is more lanes and all cars can equally coexist.
 
Once you have a 100 lane motorway, all cars will be able to travel at 100kph their entire journey. (and if people decide to just hog multiple lanes of the motorway with extra wide cars and jackknifed lorries, just because they find it fun to do so, the solution is to just build more lanes.)

I pay my taxes and rates for access to these motorways with a speed limit of 100kph.  I also paid Mitsubishi for a car capable of going 100kph or faster.   Why should I live with restrictions and slow downs at peak time?

testha:

NonprayingMantis:
to stop motorway congestion all you need is more lanes and all cars can equally coexist.
 
Once you have a 100 lane motorway, all cars will be able to travel at 100kph their entire journey. (and if people decide to just hog multiple lanes of the motorway with extra wide cars and jackknifed lorries, just because they find it fun to do so, the solution is to just build more lanes.)

I pay my taxes and rates for access to these motorways with a speed limit of 100kph.  I also paid Mitsubishi for a car capable of going 100kph or faster.   Why should I live with restrictions and slow downs at peak time?

What a bad comparison.

How many books can you store in a book shelf? How many can you store on a e-reader? Comparing the virtual world with the physical does not work.

There are already a few countries with 100MB/s lines for way less money than is being charged here and the ISPs are profitable. Once you invested in a proper infrastructure there are no additional cost besides administration, maintenance and power.

A more honest approach to advertised speeds will help. Instead of advertising a maximum, tell the minimum guaranteed speed and let customers choose which speed/product they want. Right now a lot of customers think they get the same product, but they dont. And when to many of them are trying to max out their lines they get slow speeds and suddenly ISPs are talking about the need of traffic shaping so VOIP still works.

NonprayingMantis:
the only bad bit about the comparison is that it is a lot easier for a single individual to use masses and masses of international banwidth than it is for an individual to clog up a 100 lane motorway on their own.

NonprayingMantis:
One single customer intentionally maxing out a Gb line in 'Gigatown' with international traffic is going to be costing the ISP that allows them to do it around $20,000 per month just for the international capacity. (international capacity is roughly $20/Mbps. $20 x 1,000Mbps = 20,000) not to mention the national backhaul, handover links etc