Following up on a previous discussion, a demand for “net neutrality” usually means a demand that the network must not discriminate between applications being carried in IP packets; that identical transmission characteristics (throughput, delay, number of errors, etc.) are to be provided for all packets regardless of what is being carried in them.
But a demand for “net neutrality” is usually also wrapped together with a demand by these same people for no metering, no usage charges. This would mean that users who are continuously transmitting and receiving packets would pay the same flat rate as someone who is paying only for a typical traffic profile.
If this principle were applied to electricity, it would be like having no electricity meter. Everyone pays the same, regardless how much power they use. The problem: if you’re one of the 99% of normal users, you would have to pay DOUBLE what you normally would, to cover the costs of the 1% of users constantly drawing 200 amps 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
Here’s how that would work:
You, along with the other 99% of people in your city use maybe 50 amps, at various times during the day, most of the time a lot less… a usage profile that fits within a pretty narrow bell curve. Knowing this usage profile, how much money it costs to fire up those oil-fired generators to produce that much electricity, and the costs to develop capital infrastructure to deliver it, we can calculate what the monthly flat rate should be.
But hold on, it turns out that we haven’t taken into account the net-neutrality advocates, who are the 1% of the people in your city who would take advantage of this to draw the max: 200 amps 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
To pay for them, the flat rate has to be raised. Everyone has to pay more.
OK, you’re thinking, raised a little more, what’s the big deal? So everyone pays, what, $53 per month instead of $50 to cover the 1% of full-bore users who are drawing 200 amps 24/7/365 ?
Here’s the problem: it ain’t just a bit extra. The power used by the 1% is equal to what you and the other 99% use together. The 1% double the demand. So the price increase to pay for this 1% of users is closer to $50 in the example above. Instead of paying $50, which is your fare share, we would be talking about everyone else paying more like $100 to cover those 1% of people who use a LOT more power than you do.
Sound like a good deal?
Yes, if you are one of the 1%, (the net-neutrality advocates!)
… but not if you are one of the 99% and use pretty much the same amount of power as your neighbors.
And the net-neutrality advocates make this sound like it is a noble objective?
They have the moral high ground?
Carriers are “bad” and “corporate” because they give these 1% a choice:
– pay the same and use the same, or
– pay more and use more,
instead of making the 99% subsidize them?
Give me a break.
And don’t forget what they are doing is basically stealing… the disingenuous part.
ALL “NET NEUTRALITY” ARTICLES:
Net Neutrality – Foolish, ignorant or disingenuous?
Net Neutrality II: If the power company allowed this, your electrical bill would double
Is the Internet a Public Utility?
“NET NEUTRALITY” AND IP NETWORKING TECHNICAL RESOURCES:
TERACOM VIDEOTUTORIAL V9: QoS and Traffic Conditioning:
http://www.teracomtraining.net/previews/TERACOM-VIDEOTUTORIAL_V9-qos-and-traffic-conditioning.wmv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSNhcJDuA2s
Course 101 Telecom, Datacom and Networking for Non-Engineers,
Chapter 3-3 “Bandwidth-On-Demand: Packet Network Services” and following
Course 110 Understanding IP Telecom: IP, VoIP and MPLS for Non-Engineers,
Chapter 14. Quality of Service in the IP World: NET NON-NEUTRALITY
Video Course DVD-4 “Understanding Networking 1”
Part 3 WANs – Bandwidth On Demand: Packet Network Services
Telecom 101 Textbook
Chapter 18 Bandwidth on Demand