easy way to get heard about Net Neutrality:

[B***@BillTurlock.com]

do it

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

[Peter Boulding]

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com
do it
https://www.battleforthenet.com/

That letter hasn't, I think, got it quite right.

It refers to *ISPs* giving preference to some data providers--that is, those
who create and run web sites, etc.--over others. But it isn't ISPs (whose
prime function is to provide us with our gateways to the internet); it's
those who provide the *backbone bandwidth*, that is, telcos, etc., not ISPs,
who feel they have been losing out because regulation prevents them from
monetising that bandwidth the way they would like to.

What they want to be allowed to do is to provide unequal shares of that
bandwidth to the data providers, depending on how much said providers are
willing and to pay them... this would inevitably result, for example, in
your having instant access to Microsoft's web pages about their poxy
firewall, whereas you'd wait a log time before the pages you really
want--namely a private security blogger's article about which firewall you
should really be using--would finally appear.

OK, it's not that simple; telcos and other backbone providers often run
ISPs, for example, but the principle of "net neutrality" means that all data
providers get fair shares of available capacity under regulations that
originally applied, in pre-internet days, solely to phone calls.

Lurking under all this is the even more sinister possibility that without
net neutrality, throttling of some data providers might in future be done
simply to cripple critics or the competition, or even for political,
ideological or religious reasons.

[hymie!]

In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,

Post by Peter Boulding

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com
https://www.battleforthenet.com/

That letter hasn't, I think, got it quite right.
It refers to *ISPs* giving preference to some data providers--that is, those
who create and run web sites, etc.--over others. But it isn't ISPs (whose
prime function is to provide us with our gateways to the internet); it's
those who provide the *backbone bandwidth*, that is, telcos, etc., not ISPs,
who feel they have been losing out because regulation prevents them from
monetising that bandwidth the way they would like to.

Maybe it's different in the UK, but in most of the USA,

Post by Peter Boulding
telcos and other backbone providers often run
ISPs, for example,

So even if I wanted to get my own ISP, they'd either be a Verizon
reseller or a Comcast reseller.

But even so, it's not one or the other. The ISP has as much interest
in monetizing/prioritizing/throttling my data as the backbone does.

--hymie! http://lactose.homelinux.net/~hymie ***@lactose.homelinux.net

[Peter Boulding]

Post by hymie!
Maybe it's different in the UK,

In some ways it's worse: BT (British Telecom), the privatised national
telco, still holds an overwhelming monopoly position and is inadequately
regulated, but at least the regulator tries to ensure that it offers its
services to all ISPs (including its own) on an equal basis, and there are at
least arguably enough ISPs to ensure some level of competition. Almost all
of what little internet backbone isn't controlled by BT is instead
controlled by Branson (Virgin), who has a near-total cable monopoly in the
UK. (OK, it's a little more complicated than that, but that's the gist of
it.)

Post by hymie!
but in most of the USA,

Post by Peter Boulding
telcos and other backbone providers often run
ISPs, for example,

So even if I wanted to get my own ISP, they'd either be a Verizon
reseller or a Comcast reseller.
But even so, it's not one or the other. The ISP has as much interest
in monetizing/prioritizing/throttling my data as the backbone does.

Yes, but (a) there's competition and (b) they are not directly affected by
net neutrality, the impact of which would be on the data providers.

[Questor]

Post by hymie!
In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,

Post by Peter Boulding

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com
https://www.battleforthenet.com/

That letter hasn't, I think, got it quite right.
It refers to *ISPs* giving preference to some data providers--that is, those
who create and run web sites, etc.--over others. But it isn't ISPs (whose
prime function is to provide us with our gateways to the internet); it's
those who provide the *backbone bandwidth*, that is, telcos, etc., not ISPs,
who feel they have been losing out because regulation prevents them from
monetising that bandwidth the way they would like to.

Maybe it's different in the UK, but in most of the USA,

Post by Peter Boulding
telcos and other backbone providers often run
ISPs, for example,

So even if I wanted to get my own ISP, they'd either be a Verizon
reseller or a Comcast reseller.

There are a couple of backbone-only companies, such as Level 3 Communications.
And then there are the "content delivery networks" (CDN) like Akamai... I'm not
sure where they fit in. At any rate, the situation is a little more
complicated. And yes, there has been tremendous consolidation as well.