This is what has confused me. The (or at least a) literal definition of net neutrality doesn't allow this, because it says:Just contributing to our common knowledge, the technology used to prioritize certain applications is called Quality of service (QoS). Implemented this a few years back on a Nordic banks WAN.
"In the field of computer networking and other packet-switched telecommunication networks, quality of service refers to traffic prioritization and resource reservation control mechanisms rather than the achieved service quality. Quality of service is the ability to provide different priority to different applications, users, or data flows, or to guarantee a certain level of performance to a data flow."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service
I am just naive, and assume that if people say they are fighting to keep net neutrality, we must already have it! The reality is that everyone (but me) seems to know that net neutrality is only about the ability of corporations to buy advantage over other corporations. The other fine words in the definition are just for show, and obviously optional. ISPs can unilaterally choose to do what they like, based on "user, content, platform, application, type of attached equipment or method of communication".Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication
Basically, if I thought that my remote weather station (if I had one) would not have its packets delayed in order to make way for Netflix video, that would be a naive hope based on a literal reading of the definition of net neutrality. In fact, the ISPs already do hold my packets up for Netflix. What they don't allow (yet) is for Netflix to pay my ISP to do this in preference to someone else's streaming video. Have I got this correct?
Last edited: