Ken Meyer is a Software Architect from Pensacola, Florida, USA.

You can reach him here.

For the record, I believe broadband is no more a utility than cable or satellite TV, but that is a discussion for another day…

Neutrality

Neutrality by definition is to be passive (a position of disengagement). Attempts of the government to control the “internet” via the FCC were far from neutral. In fact, you could say they were attempting to help the minor users by limiting the much bigger (major) ones; or at least that is what the activists hoped for.

True net neutrality would be like a super highway without any rules. Any control would be based on how quickly each vehicle (packet) could reach its destination, hopping from one node to the next along the way. In such a scenario, the user with more packets will still be able to get better performance than users with much less, just due to sheer numbers.

If a particular ISP is constantly slammed with packets bound to/from a particular address, they will monopolize the network, unless the number of packets is restricted to allow other addresses some advantage. That would be net bias, not neutrality. The idea of restriction would also be problematic, since larger users would be able to add more lines and addresses much easier than the smaller ones.

Throttling

Just for sake of argument, let’s assume they could implement such throttling. With the size of a Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc., it is possible for one or more of these to create their own network and bypass the “internet” entirely, forcing the issue, while disconnecting loyal users from the free internet.

Without the FCC rules related to wireless communications, this quite possibly could have already happened. Such regulations, while discouraging innovation, were able to allow new wireless companies to enter into the mix. Regulations meant to control are far from neutral.

True net neutrality is a goal that most people can support, but it is far from what the FCC determined under the previous administration! Controlling the flow of information is not neutral. Limiting the large companies with a huge number of lines is not neutral. Keeping the ISPs from processing packets blindly is not neutral.

With all this in mind, ISPs and wireless companies need to be able to prioritize packet processing somewhat, if only to reduce re-transmission requirements. If they prioritize packets from one user versus others, they are not neutral, whether they choose to favor the larger or smaller user addresses.

If you would like to publish an article email info@Jeppstones.com