How neutrality locks in the web's 'Hyper Giants'

Private peering/caching/CDNs/etc are, in fact, the example that gives the lie to ISP claims that they can't charge for premium networking services: they absolutely can and already do.

Trick is, that sort of premium service requires an outlay of capital. Equipment may need to be bought, fiber lit, configurations made.

Blocking Net Neutrality, however, would allow the telecoms to enforce artificial scarcity on a per-protocol basis to increase profit disproportionate to any increase in capacity and with almost no capital outlay.

The actual issue isn't whether or not it's wrong for an ISP to accelerate content from a given provider. The issue is whether an ISP should be able to artificially constrain already-promised supply based on largely-arbitrary definitions they control and can game for increased profit.

As there is no Net Neutrality requirement, the ISPs could --today-- create agreements with terms that explicitly lay out QoS based on protocols. There is nothing stopping them from doing so, except for the fact that they'd be required to communicate those terms to the public and that they'd be taking a gamble that some upstart would break ranks.

This squeeze only works if they all agree on the QoS policy and, industry-wide, the peering agreements all change. (If the peering agreements build in QoS, a consumer-side network can't effect a lack of QoS. Everything will have already been throttled upstream.)

This is a horizontal collusion play in plain site.

The author seems to confuse economies of scale with being locked out of the network. They aren't remotely the same thing.

The author is mixing up (or perhaps trying to force into the same boat) private peering and caching with Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is about not prioritising traffic from one source or the other.

And..... a non-neutral internet locks out all of the little guys.

Andrew Orlowski is the worst of the trolls at the register, I stop reading the instant I see his name. You might find that insulting or arrogant, but it's a "don't feed them" policy which leads to a happier life. Judging by the comments here it looks like it's a good policy.