The end of the level playing field
&quot;Neutral&quot; just means using some QoS setting that someone thought was &quot;fair&quot;.<p>It&#x27;s heavily biased toward current protocols and their current uses, and is just as unfriendly to potentially groundbreaking tech as an &quot;unfair&quot; QoS.<p>While the alarmists predict that all google.com requests would be redirected to bing, I think the reality is likely to be far more like T-Mobile&#x27;s recent controversial approach.<p>Some factual points to keep in mind:<p>- There is a big difference between peak and average bandwidth, and it&#x27;s very specific to the protocol what defines acceptable performance.  This applies to every upstream provider, not just ISPs.<p>- Bandwidth providers (ISPs, ISP&#x27;s ISPs, etc.) are often in the business of speculating on demand.  Simply put, this means that they preorder bandwidth that they expect to be adequate for the peak and average bandwidth demanded by their downstream nodes.<p>- The characteristics of bandwidth demand are a function of the protocols in use and random variation.  QoS is used to create a graceful fallback when there is not quite enough bandwidth to route all traffic instantly.  Optimal QoS settings are a function of the protocols being used by downstream nodes.  It is not guaranteed that every network congestion situation can be mitigated by QoS without a desegregation in service to someone downstream. This applies to ISPs as well as upstream providers.<p>- So aside from the google =&gt; bing scenario everyone pretends is worrisome, in reality what would happen is that removing net neutrality would allow for bandwidth speculators (ISPs and everyone upstream) to make smarter longer-term deals which required less extra bandwidth. This is analogous to an improved financial instrument to make longer-term thinking (and longer-term deals) possible, with less uncertainty about demand, etc.  For example, a startup could offer a 4K streaming service by negotiating a deal with ISPs to ensure high quality.  See the next point for an example of why this matters.<p>- Services with heavy demand such as youtube are not vulnerable to QoS (except for the google=&gt;bing dystopia).  Why7? Because there is extremely predictable demand.  If you are an ISP and your upstream provider offers you discounted bandwidth for youtube only traffic, you can safely make that decision for the medium&#x2F;long term because you know youtube is infrastructure and your customers are going to use it.  This predictability creates the incentive for firms to add fiber links and capacity between youtube and ISPs so that customers get high quality video without slowdowns at peak times.  Note that Youtube encouraged this competition between ISPs by having an ISP ratings page a few years back.<p>- For services like Tor or BitTorrent, there may be increased fees for residential circuits that require those services, because they will opportunistically use up any available bandwidth.  This doesn&#x27;t really fit the residential pricing model that is arbitraged by ISPs, and is more akin to a business level circuit.  If the protocols become more widespread then that will change, and it will be included in the profile of residential data.<p>In conclusion, net neutrality limits the ability of firms to offer long term deals.  It&#x27;s why we don&#x27;t see things like $4.99&#x2F;month youtube only data plans or  $1.99&#x2F;month email only plans.  Sure you may think that all users should subsidize those running tor or bt nodes, but that&#x27;s really more of an extreme position.<p>Also, it would probably be better for privacy if protocols like Tor and BT started to be more indistinguishable from regular residential traffic.