1/ “contention ratio”, back in the day everyone, customers included, knew what this was, and how it related to peak speeds, the always on nature of the first 128/512 k xDSL changed this from the old dial up days.

2/ “traffic shaping” it’s a fuzzy term, what we used to do and what many still do is QOS based on ports, so email always gets priority, then port 80 web browsing, all the way down to P2P downloading ISO images of bluray at the bottom… so some serviced could completely freeze while others carried on.

3/ local proxies / caching can help a lot, cache the daily mail and bbc news websites locally and update the cache once a hour, almost nobody will notice

4/ he’s not wrong about the business model (region G in my spiel) depending on externalising the costs to other regions, while retaining the revenues themselves.

by “big players” I did not just mean amazon, youtube, etc, backbone providers play these games too, and so do state agencies, as do software licencing and updates, and gaming sites and servers

it’s not just bandwidth either, load the daily mail website and your router has to deal with around 50 different routing requests, not one, multiply this by all the websites and suddenly you need 20x as powerful routers even though the bandwidth hasn’t gone up that much.

Load up firefox with noscript and adblock and a bunch of shit to lock everything down to http and you are in for a shock, most of it no longer works, you get a blank page.

oh yes, these same agencies all also require the use of MY CPU and MY RAM and MY BANDWIDTH to display their ad content and scripts that offload the processing from their servers and routers to my cpu…

But on net neutrality the argument here is that it is something different from peering, and I don’t get it, sorry.
For me the argument works like this:

=> Region A is mostly “upload”, that is YouLube or FakeBook content flowing to the peering point. Traffic in region A is paid mostly by senders.
=> Regions B-F are mostly “download”, that is mostly traffic from the peering point to content consumers. Traffic in regions B-F are mostly paid by receivers.
=> “Net neutrality” to me means that the ISPs for regions A and B-F pay the same for peering, and the direction of traffic does not matter: channels are full duplex, and the cost of peering is paid for by content producers to the region A ISP, and by the content consumers to the regions B-F ISPs. Each ISP gets paid to carry traffic to its customers by its customers, and the content providers get paid by advertisers.
=> One more popular opposite of “Net Neutrality” means that the region B-F ISPs want to get a cut of the content provider revenue, else they won’t deliver the content to their customers or do so crappily.
=> Another less popular opposite of “Net Neutrality” means that the content providers want a cut of the region B-F ISPs revenue or else they will block or give crappy access to the customers of ISPs B-F from content they want to access.

Hard to see why either opposite of “Net Neutrality” makes sense “globally”: in the first more popular case of “Net Neutrality” the B-F ISPs are getting fully paid by their own customers for both peering and delivery of the content, so why should they be demanding from content providers a share of their ad revenue or else they will sabotage the network access that their customers have already paid for?

What’s surprising to me is how naming seems half the battle these days, people just can’t see past the framing.

It was the same with the affordable care act, or no child left behind, good luck arguing against those premises.

Good luck arguing against equality, that free men are not equal; and equal men are not free! (quote by – Berkeley Cotten)