Relevant anecdote: I've recently switched to full-time hotspotting with Verizon, and I'm still adjusting my Netflix habit to match.
Verizon, as usual, sent me my "you're at your last 10% before we throttle you" notice just as I went over my limit, and at the exact same time, DNS stopped working for netflix.com.
Everything else worked just fine, but none of the netflix.com properties would resolve.
I had lazily been using Verizon's DNS for my hotspot. Changing to 22.214.171.124/126.96.36.199 immediately brought it back online.
I can't prove it wasn't just a glitch, but it was pretty damn suspicious anyhow, and exactly the sort of underhanded behavior I'd expect from today's telecoms.
Before anyone gets ahead of themselves, this bill only protects net neutrality and does not enforce net neutrality as defined here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality .
ISPs are still allowed to discriminate traffic under this bill. They are allowed to block and throttle content such as illegal streaming downloads, some torrents, spam, and other traffic that degrades network performance. For example, this bill does not prevent Comcast, At&t, Verizon et al. from blocking port 25 as they have been for the past decade. The bill also does not preclude zero-rating.
This bill is a good thing yes, but let's not get ahead of ourselves and call this net neutrality.
Comcast and AT&T set data caps at 1 TB per month, knowing that we will all soon be doing much more traffic than that. Every year bandwidth requirements go up and it's accelerating.
Home internet access in the US went from unlimited usage to capped with $200 overage fees overnight.
We need an "Effective Sustained Rate" law that says something like:
If you sell internet access with a 1 terabyte cap, you have to market it as a 3 megabit connection. The effective sustained rate. Or preferably, just outlaw data caps entirely.
I don't want to be a bummer, but video streaming might stress the hell out of the internet infrastructure.
Before YouTube and Netflix, video broadcasting meant that you send data once, but a per view service sends a copy each time.
I'm all for net neutrality, but to be honest I think that some use cases might add a little pressure to the whole network when you compare them to more classic uses (HTML, images). I don't think that Snapchat, YouTube and Netflix can really be sustainable models if they keep growing and growing forever.
At some point, transmitting video online, on a large scale, at a good resolution, at peak hours, is going to be expensive.
Netflix is popular because the real cost is on the ISP, and there never are any guarantee of quality of service, it's not up to Netflix.
I wish ISPs billed like a utility. Something like $10 connection fee + 10-15 cents per GB.
This will force bandwidth hogs to self-regulate. If you have the ability to purchase 4k/8k TVs, then you should be responsible for the associated streaming costs and not have others subsidize it.
Also, NN does nothing to foster competition - the real problem. All we have are a bunch of local monopolies/duopolies.
> However, state laws can only restore network neutrality for some Americans, and only a federal rule can ensure that everyone in the country has access to a neutral net.
To accurately reflect the scope of the problem that should read "some Americans some of the time," no?
I doubt California businesses and residents restrict their internet traffic to stay within the state.
This is my simple proposal.
Regulate the use of the term "internet service" to include network neutrality principles. If the provider violates these principles, they cannot call themselves an "internet service provider".
They can all themselves "network provider" or "mobile data provider" but they can't use the term "internet" anymore.
Why not just solve the problem once and for all and build out a statewide public ISP?