Getting rid of terrenting is what net neutrality is about for a lot of players: it's a significant part of backbone traffic that can be eliminated (de-prioritized to the point of being useless) overnight, given the right legal setting. Frankly, the interests looking to get rid of peer-to-peer bandwidth are so powerful and around invested long-term, I don't think there's much anyone can do.
What goes on in my packets is nobodies business but me and my 'peer', whether it's a web server, a phone, an internet connected appliance, an ftp site or a torrent server.
De-prioritizing (what a word anyway) is not what it is all about it is about limiting. Prioritizing all the traffic is like selecting a volunteer by having someone step backwards.
ISPs sell bandwidth, so bandwidth is what they should deliver. They don't sell quality of service, at least, I've yet to see an ISP that offered me 250K down for torrents, 32K for voice and 128K for web traffic as a single package. They'll sell me 1, 4, 8, 10 or even 20 Mbps down and 2 Mbps up for X credits per time unit. So that's what I expect to receive.
And once they start doing deep packet inspection where does it end? Some websites have a deal with the ISP to prioritize their traffic at the expense of others?
I'm for net neutrality, but the argument that they are "selling bandwidth" is ridiculous -- in fact that's the very argument ISPs have for disallowing it! [Pete Ashdown is the president of a Utah ISP called Xmission: http://peteashdown.org/journal/2006/05/04/net-neutrality/] As providers of a service, they argue that they should be able to "deprioritize" garbage traffic so that all their customers don't suffer, and you might argue that this is not the real reason they de-prioritize, but regardless, your argument is just as easily turned in the opposite direction.
Bottom line, is that net neutrality is about having an accurate picture of the internet, and not a picture that Comcast (or whoever) decides I get. THAT, as well as maintaining user privacy, is the goal here.
EDIT:
I should also add that ISPs have throttled upload-heavy traffic WITHOUT inspecting the packets for a long time, so even if you didn't inspect packets, the issue of net neutrality persists.
I don't see your point at all. The fact that you want the bandwidth you were supposedly "sold" is the very justification ISPs give for throttling the traffic of, say, spammers, or torrenters. Why should those practices make for a worse experience for everyone else? (edit: particularly if they are illegal?)
Again, I'm for net neutrality, but you do it a disservice with that argument.
But anyway, your argument hinges on the supposition that ISPs guarantee your bandwidth all the time. In fact, most of them do not. If you are buying a strict guaranteed bandwidth, do tell me why it is that the ISPs don't actually say that themselves?
Hence the argument that throttling your traffic betters other customers.
I don't know who 'Leo' is, but here is the way I understand it:
Copyright infringement is illegal. Torrent files are not (they don't contain copyrighted information, they contain hashes).
Downloading a copyrighted work using any mechanism, including bittorrent is illegal in many places, but not everywhere.
> But anyway, your argument hinges on the supposition that ISPs guarantee your bandwidth all the time.
No, they have a best effort obligation to deliver what they'e sold. The fact that most of them don't make that effort does not mean they're in the clear.
> If you are buying a strict guaranteed bandwidth, do tell me why it is that the ISPs don't actually say that themselves?
> No, they have a best effort obligation to deliver what
> they'e sold. The fact that most of them don't make that
> effort does not mean they're in the clear.
Well, Jacques, once again, that's actually precisely their argument: that they are "making their best effort" to preserve the user experience. You say they're not providing what you pay for and tell them why, and then they spin around and tell you that they are providing exactly that, because they are doing what you don't like.
And on top of that, they're not promising what you tell them you were sold: there is no bandwidth guarantee. It's like if you showed up to someone's house and bought a stereo, and then after you paid, loudly proclaimed that you actually bought their wife. Saying doesn't make it so, and since this is not a promise they have actually given you, it's a bit unfair to expect that they be held to it.
Remember, though before you head down that hole, that I'm not supporting them. I love net neutrality. It think it's great. I'm just saying that your buying bandwidth is not a good basis for argument of the position you elected.
>> If you are buying a strict guaranteed bandwidth, do tell me why it is that the ISPs don't actually say that themselves?
> Because it is to their advantage.
You're right. It's to their advantage not to sell that guarantee. That would be insane.
