After Hours

Net Neutrality explained in one picture

This faux product package explains the argument for Net Neutrality in one cynically hilarious image.

netneutrality_large.jpg

This faux product package explains the argument for Net Neutrality in one cynically hilarious image. This should warrant an angry rebuke from George Ou any minute now.

(Found via reddit.)

About

Jay Garmon has a vast and terrifying knowledge of all things obscure, obtuse, and irrelevant. One day, he hopes to write science fiction, but for now he'll settle for something stranger -- amusing and abusing IT pros. Read his full profile. You can a...

10 comments
escher
escher

There are two kinds of people who work in IT. And please forgive my oversimplification, but I'm trying to make a point. The first kind are those whose expertise lies in layers 1, 2 & 3 of the OSI model. The second kind are those whose expertise lies in layers 4, 5, 6 & 7. You very rarely hear the "Network Neutrality" mantra from the first group and you routinely hear it from the second. This is not a coincidence. My point lies within those statements and I hope that I have not been too oblique.

JackOfAllTech
JackOfAllTech

I don't get it. What does the picture have to do with the topic?

Absolutely
Absolutely

Your illustration doesn't mention Microsoft or Intel. Also, both "Google" and the "Gmail" logo? I think somebody was in a hurry.

seanferd
seanferd

Even for things you didn't actually say. :D

Htalk
Htalk

That images is FAR too diverse for what the end of net neutrality would mean. A more accurate picture would be a box with a single logo (AT&T), the word Internet, the introductory price, and a list of buzz- words each with its own additional charge.

Jay Garmon
Jay Garmon

The argument against Net Neutrality is that Internet carriers--ComCast, AT&T, etc.--should be able to prioritize certain Net traffic. They claim that once Internet subsumes phone service and the like, they should be able to decide which are the most important packets--911 calls, for example--and route them through first, last, and always, regardless of who else is jockeying for bandwidth. The argument for Net Neutrality is that if the providers are able to prioritize traffic as they see fit, they'll just start partitioning the Net much like your cable television provider partitions its channel line-up. The base fee only gets you so many sites, and if you want to get to any high-bandwidth premium sites--like Google, for example--you'll have to pay extra. And if AT&T or ComCast decides that a Web site is too much of a "problem" (like, say, representing a competitor of their service), they can just block it all together. The picture illustrates the second argument.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

JOAT, I don't get it either. Apparently we don't have enough information on the topic to appreciate the humor.

Absolutely
Absolutely

...leading to "net neutrality" whining?

Jellimonsta
Jellimonsta

I wouldn't mind QoS on the net (my Vonage would be sweet!), but I don't see why separation of traffic class should be lumped with segregation of web sites. Setting ToS or CoS values is not dependent upon destination. Regardless, Net Neutrality is not something I see in a favorable light. While I am all for having one neck to choke, vendor competition is a good thing.

fdmundo
fdmundo

If QoS were enabled on the wild and wooly internet as it is now, soon every packet would have a high priority traffic class, and we'd be right back where we started. I agree that segregation by actual traffic class could be effective, and perhaps could be a revenue opportunity for service providers.

Editor's Picks