Re:Amazon gets priority while mail gets delayed, say US lett...
by AmericanChopper on Monday July 27, 2020 @07:26AM
(#23964044)
Every reason that mail service tiers make sense can be applied to net neutrality too. VOIP, streaming media, multiplayer video games all “need” a much better QoS than say browsing a web page, or downloading a torrent does.
Anybody who wishes to compete with Amazon will also have to pay additional fees to offer an equivalent service, and if high QoS delivery channels become over-subscribed, prices for them will increase. Further discriminating against competition.
> So, if Amazon wants to pay extra for that service tier like everyone else ... what's the problem?
What’s the problem with an ISP creating a seperate QoS tier for people who require it, and charging more for it? It’s exactly the same thing.
Re:Amazon gets priority while mail gets delayed, say US lett...
by twblalock on Monday July 27, 2020 @01:17PM
(#23967174)
> Every reason that mail service tiers make sense can be applied to net neutrality too. VOIP, streaming media, multiplayer video games all “need” a much better QoS than say browsing a web page, or downloading a torrent does.
That's a pretty good argument against net neutrality. It's a bad argument against service tiers for mail.
The real issue is if Amazon gets that service at a discounted rate. They probably do, and I can see arguments for why we wouldn't want them to be able to. But I can't see arguments against service tiers.
Besides, service tiers exist under net neutrality. I can choose to buy a 1Mbps connection, or a 1Gbps connection. The latter gives me a clear advantage. Yet that's allowed under net neutrality because _anyone_ can buy those tiers of service.