Net Neutrality is Definitely a Bad Idea

Old 3 Comments on Net Neutrality is Definitely a Bad Idea 53

    I wholeheartedly share the opinion of Eli the Computer Guy on a wide variety of topics in technology. One of those topics is the controversial net neutrality. People have been complaining about Internet Service Providers (ISPs) prioritizing internet traffic. With only limited resources, only so much data can be transferred at any given time. Some traffic will be allowed to be transferred first, while other traffic sits and waits. Some types of internet traffic will be given special treatment and a higher priority, and ,therefore, be faster than other traffic. Net neutrality argues that all data should be treated equally no matter what kind of data it is, so everything is fair. The ISPs do not have the right to mess with our internet connection after all, right? Well, now everyone is going crazy, losing sleep over this, and making dump propaganda for their cause.

    Certain types of traffic should be given a higher priority than others. Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) traffic, basically a phone call over the internet, should have a higher priority than File Transfer Protocol (FTP), simply downloading files. A live VOIP call should be given special treatment over a cat picture or a pirated movie being downloaded from Bit Torrent (I am also against pirating copyrighted content, as is Eli) so there is no lag in the conversation. A file being transferred only needs to get to its destination eventually, while VOIP traffic should have as low latency as possible to improve the quality of the call. Some supporters of net neutrality argue that the ISPs are trying to block competitors and intentionally blocking or slowing down certain services for personal gain. Until this statement is proven or stops sounding paranoid, I think that net neutrality is a bad idea. As long as the ISPs are only prioritizing by the type or nature of the data being transported, I am fine with that.

    I would argue that ISPs should be obligated to tell the priority of certain types of traffic and which services will be slowed down the most or least. This will reassure users that the ISP is not doing any nefarious activities with the internet connection and only trying to improve service to more important tasks. This should help stop the net neutrality movement. Come on people, do not be paranoid.


Related Articles


  1. Andrei Telteu July 14, 2014 at 4:55 am

    I am pro net neutrality !
    You pay for internet bandwidth and you choose how you want to use it, for voip calls or torrents or any other things like bitcoin mining.
    You say that your ISP should choose the priority and that’s wrong, you should choose the priority, the ISP should only provide you bandwidth.

    Let’s say that my ISP is providing me bandwidth with VOIP priority, but sometimes i want more priority on my torrent, or maybe i want to play some online game and i don’t want lag.
    The right way is: ISP provide bandwidth and I choose how to use it. That’s my opinion.

  2. Rob July 14, 2014 at 5:35 pm

    The writer does not understand what net neutrality is. The writer is confusing it with QoS.

  3. Mendel July 14, 2014 at 8:47 pm

    The question discussed is not about bandwidth, it is about latency.
    E.g. you a buy 1 Gb/s plan and your neighbor buys a 1 Mb/s plan and he is calling grandma with VOIP and your are downloading BF4 with TCP (p.s. this assumes the ISP don’t abuse the government guaranteed monopolys they are given and not provide the net bandwidth, a.k.a. why net neutrality is a problem). If the ISP gives the packets equal priority his call and your download are all over the place. However if he is given priority his call is smooth and your download DOES NOT SLOW (in bandwidth terms) it simply downloads in chunks (a.k.a high latency) when it is capable of giving you 100%+ (including his unused time) of the bandwidth. a small QoS reality which some more political net neutrality supporters are in favor of destroying.

Leave a comment

Back to Top