Forbes on Silk Road

Silk road is drug trading website that uses distributed cryptography (TOR) to evade detection. For Derid - TOR is only possible because of net neutrality principles.

TOR isnt distributed cryptography, its just a series of proxies. If you dont encrypt your actual payload people on the network can snoop with ease - and do. (It stands for The Onion Router ). Joining the network, and snooping on all the traffic people dont bother to encrypt is actually a favorite pasttime of quite a few people, and intelligence agencies.

And... wtf are you doing trying to bring "net neutrality" into the discussion? Has no relevance.

Anyhow, I have heard of silk road and look forward to reading the article.

Net neutrality is surprisingly sore topic for you and the only instance where you simply refused to engage on any level. Especially considering net neutrality falls squarely into libertarian school of thought.

The reason TOR (or any other peer2peer) networking can exist is because data passing through has to be treated in a neutral way. What would be the quickest way to kill p2p? QoS until it is unusable.

Using force to conform a service provider to an arbitrary and politically heated standard is not something very libertarian.

Any QoS or packet shaping can be defeated with a little effort, unless the QoS/blackout is entirely based on the routing table. In that case the only thing particularly hindered is sharing of large files, simple page transfers with a few GIFs arent a big deal and TOR has always had huge latency and low bandwidth anyhow.

Addendum: The answer to any net issues is for the govt to not so blatantly favor a few well-lobbied and DHS-friendly providers. Govt makes it harder for smaller telcos/ISPs to compete, which is the only reason "net neutrality" is even an issue.

The concept of using more govt force/control to "fix" an entirely govt-created problem is what I find so utterly abhorrent.

The whole mindset of "Who cares if this govt action/policy creates huge problems... we can just use that fact later to justify more govt actions/policies!" is itself the root of a great many of our societal issues.

2nd addendum: If you want to talk solutions that are slightly less libertarian I am all for them. Such as govt treating inet more like highways, and building/facilitating equal-access infrastructure across the country - and letting would be ISPs pay usage fee taxes for "offramp access"/backbone access." Provided of course, that it was completely illegal for the govt to tap in, control, or otherwise tamper with the data - which is typically the sticking point. US Govt as it currently stands just cannot be trusted, which is a shame because if it could be there is actually quite a bit of good that could hypothetically be accomplished.

There is a lot of (mis?)information that conflicts with my understanding of net neutrality.

Do you want to discuss it?

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101

At lot of people I have talked to in the past "when this was a big deal" were confused about whos side they were on. They all knew exactly what they were opposing but didnt understand exactly which side to support.

The article above does a decent job of putting it in a nutshell.

Yes, this is consistent with my understanding of net neutrality.

Derid, what do you think net neutrality is?

You as a internet user greatly benefit from our current model of net nuetrality.

The people opposed to net nuetrality are massive ISPs that want to double dip for profits. This would also cripple a lot of start up businesses and overall be negative for the average internet user.

I am all for companies making profit. Hell, I am for companies making A LOT of profit. In my opinion though this is an unethical way for large corporations to produce more profit.

Yes Sethan, no argument here. I am curious what Derid has to say (he has avoided this topic in the past, simply stating he is against NN).

I did not avoid it, but sure feel free to revisit it. I will answer your questions/inquiries.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/...missioner-says/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57565561-38/the-strange-resurrection-of-net-neutrality/

Some interesting reads.

Why do you think that giving an ability to existing last-mile duopolies to block competitor's content is a good move?

Why do you think bandwidth has to be sold more than once - paid once by user in form of a subscription and paid second time in form of costs passed down by content providers having to pay to not get penalized by low priority?

Yes I have decided to stop beating my wife.

Aside from ideological opposition to any kind of government interference and/or regulation, on what grounds do you oppose net neutrality?

It is based on a faulty premise that internet content and distribution regulation should be run by unelected govt bureaucrats.

-

It will create unintended consequences.

-

It ignores the fact that any monopolies or duopolies are created by govt in the first place. You think running an ISP is technically hard? Its not. The hard part is dealing with

1: regulations
2: Taxpayer subsidized telecoms
3: Politically connected/subsidized telecoms that get eminent domain going in their favor, and have govt granted control over public infrastructure.

-

The internet has worked because it has been a self-generating system, and not an exogenous order - and by transforming it into such we forever abandon the very principles that has allowed it to work.

-

Why should we accept telecom monopolies and grant them permanent rent-seeking status as an entrenched entity, instead of leveling the playing field while we still can?

The very fact that "Net Neutrality" is even an "Issue" in of itself shows that we are focusing on the wrong problem. The question we should instead have been asking is "How can we level the playing field?"

If Ma Bell decides to squelch some service or entity for one reason or another, why would a customer stay with them? The answer in this case is obvious - because Ma Bell has a monopoly. Which begs the question "Why does Ma Bell have a monopoly" and following that "How can we make sure Ma Bell isnt able to maintain a monopoly"

Instead of addressing the fundamental issues, many people seem to want to start up yet another game of regulatory whack-a-mole , give the telecoms a small lobbying target to co-opt (FCC) , and pray that somehow the FCC can micromanage the internet into producing good results.

Objectively speaking, the latter approach is insane. The entire monopoly issue can be easily solved by govt getting out of bed with the massive telecoms, and ensuring equal opportunity to infrastructure. This is a long-term solution, that would not be dependent on the politics of a particular day.

Instead , people claiming to want the internet to have freedom want to embark on a Quixotic quest of regulatory micromanagement while accepting the monopolistic paradigm.

Yes, everything you say is a valid, except you failed to consider immediate consequences of your position and instead talking about some might-never-come ideal outcome and ideal way of things. You assumed that if get government out of enforcing Net Neutrality, then magically we are going to arrive into completely market-driven internet infrastructure free of any kind of uncompetitive distortions. It doesn't work that way.

In reality we will end up in a shithole where providers double-triple-dip charge everyone and build walled gardens. Net Neutrality is what keeps these other evils somewhat in check.

Net Neutrality has to exist because other evils you described exist. When/If they disappear then the need for NN will also disappear.

A lot of your views follow this scenario:

You have a crumbling dam protecting a city downstream. You end up advocating to dynamite the damn and justify your views based on the fact that eventually river will settle into its natural course and repairing the dam will no longer be necessary. Meanwhile it is obvious that your approach will also end up in a city getting washed away.

If you are ready to pay for Internet toll booths to go to your favorite website then keep believing that.

What happens when Verizon, Comcast, Suddenlink or ATT decide they are only going to let their cronies move traffic on their fiber lines. Sucks for you since 99% of America has a extremely limited choice of providers when it comes to getting internet. If you are lucky you may have 2 options.

Lets say ATT has a huge liberal board of directors...they may decide that if you want to go to FOX NEWS then it will cost you 15c per minute. Hell they may decide to just not let you go there at all.

Lets say Verizon needs more profit on the bottom line...Instead of providing a betetr service to their customer they now have other options. Well guys, Hulu is taking up alot of our backbone. Lets charge them 400 million dollars extra per year to move their traffic on our lines or we will block them. Guess what...your Hulu account now cost 70 dollars per month instead of 7.

I could go on for days with examples of why removing Net Nuetrality laws will be bad for the average internet user.

Are you familiar with a concept of last mile? Duopolies mostly exist at the last mile and they exist in this way because of municipal laws.

To connect your house you have to ether dig, hang things on the poles, or go through the sewers. Recently extra option of building cell towers was added. These all fall under municipal oversight.

Federal regulation has nothing to do with this. Issue of telecom monopolies has very little to do with federal government. Yes, they get corporate handouts, but this is not what keeps competition out.

I never assumed any such thing. I get frustrated because our society is ever focused on addressing the *wrong* problems, and crafting "solutions" without even bothering to identify what the real problems actually are. This NN debate exemplifies this.

Neither liberty nor efficiency can be maintained where principle is routinely abandoned in the name of expediency.

Society cannot be improved in this manner, even where effective the only thing this type of NN patchwork thinking accomplishes is slowing the rate of entropy - it obviously does nothing to help a self-organized system regenerate or rejuvenate. Even if slowed, accepting a paradigm of perpetually encroaching stagnation is still accepting failure in the long run.

Or in other words, NN advocates are simply advocating capitulation - albeit a slightly slower one. This is not a good outcome.

-----

In regards to your post on last mile, etc, yes I am fully aware of the entire telecom supply chain. Note I did not say "FedGov" when mentioning gov. In some ways the feds are a problem, in other ways localities... in any case, I wouldnt hold strong views on a system I didnt understand.

NN regulations are new, and still under court challenge and this hasnt happened yet. Assuming it would happen in the near term without NN is an assumption without much merit.

While it is a valid *worry*, cant assume it will happen. There are many reasons outside of NN regulation that still prevent this.

First, there are actually other laws that could come into play.

Second, it would be extremely unpopular and could lead to other legal or regulatory changes addressing this - the worst (from telco view) being the govt taking steps to ensure competition is possible like I outline.

Third, in the meantime it would open them to retribution. What if TWC then dropped the liberal channels and only carried FOX?

Of course this leads us back to #1 and #2, because at this point the entire country realizes something is drastically wrong with the system.

People often paint a picture of doomsday catastrophe looming in absence of NN, yet even without we are probably not close to doomsday. Many areas of the country actually still have decent competition as well.

I still don't understand how you could rationalize opposing NN when you know direct consequences of not having it. Holding off for perfect solution that might never come is such a weak rationalization and you should know better than that.

Let us simplify this - you hate big telecoms. They are against Net Neutrality. Enemy of my enemy?



This isn't hypothetical doomsday, it is highly likely outcome. You are willing to risk Internet turning into walled garden in pursuit of some pie-in-the-sky free market solution. How impractically libertarian of you. Likely outcome of years of paying through the nose (think pre-VOIP international and long distance calling) will ensure... all while outcome you desire is no more likely to happen. Not unlike pouring gasoline on your house fire is not more likely to increase chances of fire department putting out the fire.

Consider this - having Net Neutrality does not make outcome you are seeking any less likely to happen.

I guess you dont get it, what about my solution is pie in the sky or impractical?

Its like there a hole in the dyke, and I suggest plugging it - and you suggest building a new system of dykes within the the old system.

I ask you why you want to focus on building a whole new system of dykes, that would actually cede lots of ground to the ocean and cause a lot more problems... and your response is that simply plugging the hole is pie in the sky and impractical.

It doesnt follow.

What doesn't flow is your libertarian-utopian notion of free and efficient market solving any and all problems. Meanwhile, you are all too willing to slash and burn old system to the ground. Without first having alternative working.

We jumping out of the plane, and now you are declaring that parachute we have is not the optimal kind. Guess what, it sorta works and before we have better parachute in our hands it might not be a good idea to throw old one away.

Lets say Net Neutrality, how things work today, gets severely undermined. We _know_ things will turn to shit, your argument that they already shitty-ish does not change the fact that they will get worse without NN.

Meanwhile, your free market solution might never realize itself. It might be that duopolies are 'natural' and actually require government intervention to get competition going. It might be that there isn't much money to be made serving some rural markets, so without government distortions dialup is all these markets will ever get. There are just so many scenarios where it doesn't work out.

Erm, lawl? I am the opposite of utopian. Your line of attack just is not credible. If you think I am about slashing and burning the old system.... you either dont comprehend what I have said, or you do not comprehend the system as it currently stands and thus cannot fit my words to proper context.

That you bring up rural markets reinforces this point. I even came out in favor of some publicly funded infrastructure. But publicly funded infrastructure, and govt micromanaging traffic and content are totally different things.

What I have advocated is simply eliminating govt favoritism and leveling the playing field.

We have already established that NN certainly will fail in the long run - possibly even the short run. It is just a regulatory whack-a-mole that will become co-opted and/or less effective over time.

It takes an extremely illogical mind to advocate for a solution that is both not immediately needed, and known to be ineffective over the long run when effective solutions are available. We would all be better off, if people calculated the downside instead of just going all knee-jerk and advocating for any "solution" presented for any "problem".

No we have not established that Net Neutrality will fail in the long or short term, other than being undermined with the support of misguided positions like yours. There are two outcomes to Net Neutrality - ether status quo going to get preserved by getting codified in law or it will get unofficially repealed by thousand cuts of precedences and exploitative practices. This whole fight started when in 2005 AT&T CEO started complaining that Google, that already pays for bandwidth, should be also paying for access to AT&T subscribers, who already pay for bandwidth. This further escalated in 2007 when Comcast (also cable TV operator) got slammed by FCC with fines for throttling traffic to competition. Instead of complying Comcast decided to lawyer it up and challenge FCC's authority to enforce status quo.

Net Neutrality is immediately needed, it is how things have worked as agreed-on rule (Internet Policy Statement) for the past 20+ years and it is how we got where we are today. If it wasn't the case, we would have 1-2 different AOLs selling something that would resemble cable channel subscriptions.

You are mistaken in your assumption that NN is something new, and not a fundamental principle and part of the design that is getting codified in the law. You are contradicted by facts in your speculation that without NN things won't immediately turn for worse (more expensive and/or more limited). You are also mistaken when attributing separate, completely independent problems to NN.

In closing - you don't understand what Net Neutrality is, in your opposition you chose to ignore or discount adverse effects of undermining it, and you base your opposition to Net Neutrality on a) political ideology b) wrongly attributing effects of other issues to NN.

Your position is not unlike opposing use of chemotherapy to treat cancer on the basis that it causes male pattern baldness.

"No we have not established that Net Neutrality will fail in the long or short term"

Um, yeah we have. You get to have your own opinions, but not your own facts - that is a favorite saying of yours is it not?

I fully understand what NN is, and the long term ramifications.

You just do not seem to be comfortable with any solution that does not involve a small group of unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats gaining power to regulate how, who, and what can be communicated over the internet.

If you think NN is not something new, it shows your lack of understanding. Giving govt authority to regulate content via fait accompli is a new and dangerous precedent.

You talk about understanding, but you have never even put forth any evidence that the doom and gloom scenario you are so worried about is imminent. You have ASSERTED it is, but really, theres not much to say doom and gloom was on the way outside a few wild eyed blog posts by various random people.

Even worse is NN tries to pre-empt a non-existing problem. If you want govt regulation via fiat... could always just implement it when it actually was necessary.

Its kind of ironic, that with NN.. the only *REAL* issues have been with cellular wireless. And... NN basically exempts wireless networks. So it does not even target the segment of the market where the real problem exists.

Your position is not logically consistent in number of aspects.

You claim that Net Neutrality will shortly fall on its own (it hasn't since 1980s, or even 1860s if I chose to be coy with telegraph regulations) , you also claim that it is something completely new (and ignore status quo of 20+ years and end-to-end principle), yet you support corporate interests that through the court system (violence of armed men, dur dur) attempt to change this. So does it have to be changed or will it fail on its own?

You present this argument as "giving govt authority to regulate content" when this exactly opposite - it establishing rights of internet users and prevents carriers from engaging in "regulation" of content.

You claim it to be unprecedented, when many comparable "no discrimination of X based on Y" laws and regulations exist, Constitution being one of them.

You chose to ignore evidence that doesn't suit you, just in the post above yours I said:



to get



and call it non-existing problem.

About the only part I agree with you - exclusion of wireless was a mistake.

"You claim that Net Neutrality will shortly fall on its own (it hasn't since 1980s, or even 1860s if I chose to be coy with telegraph regulations) , you also claim that it is something completely new (and ignore status quo of 20+ years and end-to-end principle), yet you support corporate interests that through the court system (violence of armed men, dur dur) attempt to change this. So does it have to be changed or will it fail on its own?
"

You are seriously trying to assert that the NN as currently written, encompasses and embodies all the factors that allowed the Internet to be what it is? Seriously?

As for corporate interests, the only reason NN became a talking point is because mega corporate interests wanted to serve more content and pay less for peering.

As for AT&T and Comcast, note that the issues have been addressed outside of "NN". There are, and have been, other avenues of recourse available in the cases of outright douchebaggery.

In the end though, it comes down to implementing a proper plan and implementing a patchwork plan.

The solution is really pretty simple as I have said - enact controls, and open-access regulations that effect all taxpayer subsidized infrastructure - localities can also be influenced by this if they receive state or federal funds towards their infrastructure, which most do.

Make it so govt is compelled to allow anyone to access the taxpayer funded trunks, or drop in additional fiber on the existing cable lines and have local pole access. Worst case then, Comcast has local monopoly and acts like douches - see how fast someone raises a couple hundred thousand , lights fiber to a backbone node, drops in a couple cabinets and takes all their customers.

Govt could do a lot to make the process easier, eliminate red tape and make sure that public infrastructure was available to anyone.

At the end of the day, the only thing that keep megacorps in check is competition.

Its not that I disregard anything, you just dont like to think things through. If it "sounds good" , then its good enough for you.

I think its also worth noting, that regardless of NN or not - internet in areas that lack competition still typically sucks ass in general.

Even besides the NN issues... the only way people get decent internet period, is where competition is viable. Do you think even an angelic and competent FCC is going to be able to make Comcast / AT&T / Anyone not suck balls in areas where there is no competitive pressure?

There are and have been viable public-private co-op nonprofits in the past, I have worked with some.

Besides, if you are in favor of Keynesian ditch digging - why not dig ditches and bury fiber?

Yes, I have stopped beating my wife.

NN is very key to how web works. It would be AOLs all the way down otherwise, and they won't be talking to each other.

/facepalm

So your saying that the internet came about because the govt was taking action against BBSes who didnt integrate?

Who told you that? Al Gore?

If I was Freud, I'd diagnose you with an anal fixation on government.

No, World Wide Web as we know it today exists because it was designed around and created with understanding of net neutrality. Up until mid 2000s design alone was sufficient to enforce compliance - it was too computationally intensive and cost prohibitive, but Moores law made it possible to work around the design.

Again, you are not entitled to your facts that the internet was designed to operate based on Net Neutrality principle, and FCC only had to step in recently when irresponsible corporate players decided to ignore these principles.

Framing this as a government intervention is something that crawled out of conservative fewer swamps. It isn't and there is no sane interpretation that could frame FCC actions in this light.

Freud, like you, turned out to be mostly wrong.

You are improperly conflating things, and do not seem to understand how these things actually work or what is involved.

You dont seem to understand that the "issues" you brought up were dealt with outside the context of what is now known as "NN" , that both the FCC and other govt bodies had the power to put a halt to it without the FCC making additional power grabs.

You should read up on the history of the internet, and find out how it actually works. You might even come to understand why different ISPs link up, and you might even find out its not because some greater power told them to.

I find it funny that you try and make it seem like the FCC is codifying the way the internet always has been, then when I press you on whether they are actually doing just that - you make it seem like a loaded question.

Once again, after displaying your lack of understanding you fall back to "swamp fever" ctrl+v.

Just FYI, once you do that - I know you have at least admitted to yourself that you are probably wrong.

If you really think FCC unilaterally expanding its mandate to regulate the internet in this fashion is preferable to improved infrastructure and evening the playing field with regard to how govt interacts with telecoms and ISPs because a few blogs and Google said so - then so be it.

You can tell when he has self-doubt, he starts insulting and slinging the republicans are evil and crazy and only watch fox news, and now has added to his list of insults to libertarians, all due to his lack of knowledge and I would assume his fear of frogs.

Galiophobia. I had no idea.

I have zero self-doubt on this issue, and have much more detailed understanding of underlying technologies than most people out there. Your allusions to greater understanding are amusingly transparent, but feel free to ask me questions if you want to get informed. What I am starting to do is getting annoyed at blunt fact-denying and unwillingness to consider information I present to you.

Derid, you are wrong on this issue. I have explained why, I presented examples where negative effects of your wrongness already manifested.

What I am amazed is that otherwise intelligent people like you were played like a fiddle by special interests and were convinced that black is white and Net Neutrality is government intervention into content control. There is absolutely no sane interpretation of FCC's "you may not restrict..." that would lead one to conclude they are trying to control content. Have you actually read it yourself or just relied on what others told you?

So, is that kinda like the last immigration bill saying that the border fence "shall be built" or this time does the legislation actually mean what it says?

Your absolute trust in the government is one of the primary things that the rest of us find so naive.

I invite you to read it, but for lazy people I quoted relevant parts.



Derid acting strange about Net Neutrality, he opposes it out of his general disdain for government any regulation whatsoever. In this case this is a good regulation.

Don't take my word for it - just read it.

You completely missed the point of my post and just reposted your previous point in a more condensed form. Do you even lift bro?

What does border fence has to do with this? I ignored this because it was the usual conservative derp.



And horse your rode in too.

I don't absolutely trust government, I simply do not share your conservative paranoia that assumes that any and all government activity is nefarious and the only reason gov. exist to take away your guns or some other dumb shit like that.

Border fence is referring to the fact that back in the 60's there was legislation that included said fence, which was never actually built. Govt said one thing, did another. Thats where that comes from.

I am reading through this updated FCC NN crap. Will see if its better than it was the last time I read it, which was 2009 or 2010 or something.

-----------

Core issue: In some areas, certain telecoms are able to engineer a monopoly for practical purposes. We all know what happens when an entity is able to get a monopoly on an important service. Subsidies play into this as well.

Solution to problem: Ensure that telecoms are not able to effectively shut out competition. This can be reasonably easily accomplished in an even handed and transparent manner, antitrust and other existing law can also come into play.

Addressing symptom: Grant telecoms their monopoly, ignore the fact that monopolistic service will suck in general, have FCC claim additional power to regulate how the monopoly behaves.

-------------

I would be more predisposed to go with FCC NN plans, if the FCC had proven to be a competent actor in the past.

But this just has not been the case. And even if the FCC is sensible today, does not mean it will be sensible tomorrow.

http://news.cnet.com/Covad-tries-an-end-run/2100-7352_3-5306231.html

http://news.cnet.com/FCC-loosens-broadband-rules/2100-1037_3-985313.html

http://news.cnet.com/Baby-Bells-win-another-FCC-victory/2100-1036_3-5298098.html

http://news.cnet.com/New-broadband-rules-draw-criticism/2100-1034_3-5066885.html

Hell, many (non rural) areas STILL have shit for internet a decade later.

Also, a good paper on subsidies I dug back up :

http://www.ericchiang.org/files/Chiang_Hauge_Jamison_JRE.pdf

-----------------

Hopefully the FCC aims are true, and the actual regulatory enforcement details are good and workable. Thats the thing, the devil is in the details - you can have the highest minded goals on the planet, and still utterly fail, and cause even more problems that you had before. I would say that at *least* 60% of our major societal problems are iatrogenic in nature, where various pols thought they could "play doctor".

The bottom line is that I would be a lot more comfortable with a system that relied on competition to foster service and prevent douchebaggery, than I ever will be by leaving that task to politicians.

I was actually referring to something much more recent but thanks for adding to the point. Congress has said more than once that it would do this thing and still doesn't do it. It is nothing more the political posturing, and proves the point that just because something is written in a bill in the way that you like doesn't mean that the actual execution will look anything like that.

Net Neutrality is how Internet works right now (and the fact that it does work should tell you that Congress has nothing to do with it) and FCC decision on NN also has nothing to do with Congress.

You all barking up the wrong tree.

Ok, got bored wading through it so I will just ask you -

1) Does thee current NN still prohibit tiered service plans?

2) Does the current NN still prevent traffic prioritization based on sensitivity to latency?

In concrete terms, not just principles - my biggest objections to the NN plans circa 2010 were those were effectively prohibited. Or may have been, depending on how the FCC wanted to interpret specific wording at a specific time.

My biggest concrete fear, for the immediate term (ignoring for the time being, fears regarding the future ) was that under NN, the ISPs would just let everything through to everyone, on one uniform service plan (that they could still charge whatever they wanted for) and basically everything would be lagged to shit.

Instead of expanding land based infrastructure, the ISPS where a monopoly exists would favor wireless expansion, keep up all the shananigans there... and make a fortune. All the while every gamer would have 200ms+ pings, because of all the Netflix and flash video ads and whatnot because ISPs werent allowed to treat customers differently and offer service plans of varying quality (now the impetus , at least as far as what the blogoshpere is reporting indicates NN is supply/backbone oriented, this wasnt always the case) and have no incentive to upgrade their land based networks.

NN is not the way the internet has always worked, many ISPs have prioritized certain types of traffic like gaming and Voip traffic over video content. Otherwise any close to saturated link would cause everyone to lag balls.

I still think people are confused about Net neutrality.....Get ready for some ass raping by ISPs if they get rid of Net neutrality.

You will not benefit from the removal of these rules.

Did it ever? You pay x$ for YGB, where x and Y is any number between 0 and inf.



Traffic "prioritization" of any kind is still no-go. You can do QoS on your own network, but your GBs from #1 are FIFO.



Strange fear. What would be the business case for this?



This has everything to do with overselling and nothing to do with prioritization.

ISP wanted to be cheeky and sell more bandwidth than they had. When it became obvious (via lag) that they sold what they couldn't deliver, they decided to get nasty and punish people that used most of bandwidth they bought.

It is like selling more season tickets than you have seats in the stadium, and then penalizing fans that show up for every game in order to free up stadium space.

That should be illegal, right?

"Strange fear. What would be the business case for this?"

The business case is this: "This has everything to do with overselling and nothing to do with prioritization."

Almost all ISPs oversell. Thats how they make maximum profit.

The business case for aforementioned practices is - in order to provide quality service for latency sensitive packets in a FIFO you have to be massively overbuilt. If you think any ISP is going to overbuild or over-peer so your Counterstrike ping stays at 40ms your nuts.

People arent going to pay more money for the ultra wide connections where the service in general is shit. Some different tiers and types of package also have prioritization, at least with TWC where I live.

The fear is they just throw the whole business to the dogs, do nothing with it other than make cash on existing infrastructure - because there is no real incentive for them to do anything else.

Also, if NN had SLA requirements I would also be more predisposed to it. Even though it would raise the price of internet... I dont mind that, I pay a lot for internet anyhow compared to some people.

I used to pay a lot more... I used to live in a neighborhood with old terminals and poles and etc, net was constantly going out/degrading.. got water in the tap.

So I just said fuckit and got a "for the time" superfast business class line. They redid the entire neighborhood lol... cause I had SLA. (service level agreement) The neighbors should have been thanking me profusely for that... lol