Net Neutrality in Danger?

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is being paid for locally by the uploader and by the downloader at the point of use. The local internet companies themselves are paying for the ride in between the two local access networks over longer trunk lines.

But the argument is about who pays for what throughout the whole path.

Apparently you may be suffering from short term memory recall issues. I already explained who is paying for it. Netflix pays to upload, consumers pay to download.

The whole problem is that Netflix is relying on it's competitor to deliver its product.

Seeing that Netflix and streaming entertainment is a major driving force for people paying for Internet in the first place, that is bogus.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But the argument is about who pays for what throughout the whole path.

Apparently you may be suffering from short term memory recall issues. I already explained who is paying for it. Netflix pays to upload, consumers pay to download.

The whole problem is that Netflix is relying on it's competitor to deliver its product.

Seeing that Netflix and streaming entertainment is a major driving force for people paying for Internet in the first place, that is bogus.

But Netflix isn't paying Comcast for the usage on its network, or at least until it bought a circuit from Comcast. It paid another provider to have an access circuit to the Internet. But we are arguing about the amount and when they pay. You are saying as long as someone pays some amount, it's the right amount even if it's not.

- - - Updated - - -

But the argument is about who pays for what throughout the whole path.

Apparently you may be suffering from short term memory recall issues. I already explained who is paying for it. Netflix pays to upload, consumers pay to download.

The whole problem is that Netflix is relying on it's competitor to deliver its product.

Seeing that Netflix and streaming entertainment is a major driving force for people paying for Internet in the first place, that is bogus.

Except for Comcast the driver to get cable out to all the houses was getting people to buy cable. They just found that they could also use it for Internet. But if people switch just to Internet it changes their cost model. Netflix could work on creating its own distribution network like Google is working on.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Ahh the old "If you don't like the car, you can just build your own car factory" argument.

 

[lpetrich]

So far, the squabbles over net neutrality have involved high-bandwidth services like streaming video. But one has to be concerned that impacts on low-bandwidth services may be a side effect. Services like e-mail or messageboards.

To see how awkward proprietary online services can be, let us consider the glory days of them, in the early 1990's. In the US, there was CompuServe, America Online, Prodigy, GEnie, Delphi, and eWorld. They were separate walled gardens, and they never constructed Internet-like connections between each other.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Apparently you may be suffering from short term memory recall issues. I already explained who is paying for it. Netflix pays to upload, consumers pay to download.

The whole problem is that Netflix is relying on it's competitor to deliver its product.

Seeing that Netflix and streaming entertainment is a major driving force for people paying for Internet in the first place, that is bogus.

But Netflix isn't paying Comcast for the usage on its network...

They didn't upload anything on their network.

It paid another provider to have an access circuit to the Internet. But we are arguing about the amount and when they pay.

Actually, you are the only one arguing. You feel that prices aren't high enough and that Comcast should be allowed to make our prices go up by surcharging Netflix.

You are saying as long as someone pays some amount, it's the right amount even if it's not.

Actually Internet companies advertise that their networks can handle the load. If they can't, that is fraud.

But the argument is about who pays for what throughout the whole path.

Apparently you may be suffering from short term memory recall issues. I already explained who is paying for it. Netflix pays to upload, consumers pay to download.

The whole problem is that Netflix is relying on it's competitor to deliver its product.

Seeing that Netflix and streaming entertainment is a major driving force for people paying for Internet in the first place, that is bogus.

Except for Comcast the driver to get cable out to all the houses was getting people to buy cable. They just found that they could also use it for Internet. But if people switch just to Internet it changes their cost model. Netflix could work on creating its own distribution network like Google is working on.

Oh yes, people like you are why it is good that utilities are under public oversight. They want electricity? They can just build their own distribution network and power plants...

 

[LordKiran]

Why wouldn't it? Comcast can charge websites to load at a regular speed and slow down the ones that don't. (See: Netflix) Talkfreethought may have to start paying internet providers for access.

The biggest concern for Comcast was one of it's biggest rivals using its infrastructure to deliver the competing product. Comcast won't care about this site. And Comcast and Netflix came to an agreement after.

The biggest ISPs typically collude to avoid direct competition with eachother. For many Americans, they can only expect one maybe two to three choices if they're lucky.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The biggest concern for Comcast was one of it's biggest rivals using its infrastructure to deliver the competing product. Comcast won't care about this site. And Comcast and Netflix came to an agreement after.

The biggest ISPs typically collude to avoid direct competition with eachother. For many Americans, they can only expect one maybe two to three choices if they're lucky.

Except they are always competing for those customers. You don't think CenturyLink will maket that we have Netflix while Comcast doesn't?

 

[LordKiran]

The biggest ISPs typically collude to avoid direct competition with eachother. For many Americans, they can only expect one maybe two to three choices if they're lucky.

Except they are always competing for those customers. You don't think CenturyLink will maket that we have Netflix while Comcast doesn't?

You're relying on the assumption that some companies will keep things as is to gain an advantage in the market. Moreover, you're also assuming that for most consumers this would be enough to justify a worse connection or slower connection speeds.

Also something else to consider is how this could be used to the political advantage of the status quo. Don't like something a certain online blog says about a given politician? Just have your buddies in Comcast slow them down to a crawl and suppress the movement of free ideas to your advantage.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except they are always competing for those customers. You don't think CenturyLink will maket that we have Netflix while Comcast doesn't?

You're relying on the assumption that some companies will keep things as is to gain an advantage in the market. Moreover, you're also assuming that for most consumers this would be enough to justify a worse connection or slower connection speeds.

Also something else to consider is how this could be used to the political advantage of the status quo. Don't like something a certain online blog says about a given politician? Just have your buddies in Comcast slow them down to a crawl and suppress the movement of free ideas to your advantage.

So companies don't try and steal customers from their competitors? Is advertising just for fun?

 

[LordKiran]

You're relying on the assumption that some companies will keep things as is to gain an advantage in the market. Moreover, you're also assuming that for most consumers this would be enough to justify a worse connection or slower connection speeds.

Also something else to consider is how this could be used to the political advantage of the status quo. Don't like something a certain online blog says about a given politician? Just have your buddies in Comcast slow them down to a crawl and suppress the movement of free ideas to your advantage.

So companies don't try and steal customers from their competitors? Is advertising just for fun?

What I'm saying is that the biggest ISPs do not compete with each other and tend to stay out of each other's territory.

 

[bilby]

So companies don't try and steal customers from their competitors? Is advertising just for fun?

What I'm saying is that the biggest ISPs do not compete with each other and tend to stay out of each other's territory.

Indeed, where the requirement to 'steal' a competitor's customers is that you must install new infrastructure (run a cable to each premises), while your competitor has already got that cable in place, it is near impossible to be competitive.

Householders won't pay for a second water supply pipe, a second electricity cable, a second sewer connection or a second Internet cable to be connected - because it is invariably cheaper to use the one they already paid for. Such infrastructure forms natural monopolies. Expecting competition in this area is crazy, and only rabid free-market ideologues with no grasp of reality would suggest otherwise.

 

[LordKiran]

What I'm saying is that the biggest ISPs do not compete with each other and tend to stay out of each other's territory.

Indeed, where the requirement to 'steal' a competitor's customers is that you must install new infrastructure (run a cable to each premises), while your competitor has already got that cable in place, it is near impossible to be competitive.

Householders won't pay for a second water supply pipe, a second electricity cable, a second sewer connection or a second Internet cable to be connected - because it is invariably cheaper to use the one they already paid for. Such infrastructure forms natural monopolies. Expecting competition in this area is crazy, and only rabid free-market ideologues with no grasp of reality would suggest otherwise.

It helps to basically think of ISPs as Railroad tycoons.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are several providers out here and the big ones could lose market share if they stopped providing internet. So again, you want companies to invest in the facilities to provide you a service, but balk at them trying to pay for it?

Few areas in the US have several viable providers of internet service. It was only a few months ago that we got an even halfway viable alternative. Both providers have data caps, both do not apply those caps to their own data going over the link. They are using their control of the last mile to enforce control over their other services.

Or look at that second provider in our area. They're the only ones that offer any uncapped internet service, only on their highest tier. Strangely enough, internet + TV is only $5 more than internet alone. In other words, you're basically billed for the TV whether you use it or not. Clearly abusive, this should be stomped on hard.

 

[coloradoatheist]

There are several providers out here and the big ones could lose market share if they stopped providing internet. So again, you want companies to invest in the facilities to provide you a service, but balk at them trying to pay for it?

Few areas in the US have several viable providers of internet service. It was only a few months ago that we got an even halfway viable alternative. Both providers have data caps, both do not apply those caps to their own data going over the link. They are using their control of the last mile to enforce control over their other services.

Or look at that second provider in our area. They're the only ones that offer any uncapped internet service, only on their highest tier. Strangely enough, internet + TV is only $5 more than internet alone. In other words, you're basically billed for the TV whether you use it or not. Clearly abusive, this should be stomped on hard.

So your normal philosophy. If something can cost Loren or hurts Loren it's not good, but policies that don't affect you are okay in the traditional sense?

 

[JonA]

Discussion in this thread would be more productive if the phrase 'net neutrality' had any meaning whatsoever.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Discussion in this thread would be more productive if the phrase 'net neutrality' had any meaning whatsoever.

Net Neutrality indicates that all content flows through the internet without being interfered with, based on the origin of the content.

See, that wasn't too hard, was it?

 

[JonA]

Discussion in this thread would be more productive if the phrase 'net neutrality' had any meaning whatsoever.

Net Neutrality indicates that all content flows through the internet without being interfered with, based on the origin of the content.

See, that wasn't too hard, was it?

The Internet isn't magic. All content is "interfered with" to some extent or another.

So again, if only the phrase "net neutrality" actually meant something...

 

[LordKiran]

Net Neutrality indicates that all content flows through the internet without being interfered with, based on the origin of the content.

See, that wasn't too hard, was it?

The Internet isn't magic. All content is "interfered with" to some extent or another.

So again, if only the phrase "net neutrality" actually meant something...

You seem to have trouble with reading comprehension as his exact words were "All content flows through the internet without being interfered with,
based on the origin of the content.

What this means is Comcast cannot block my website from the viewing public if I criticize their business practices and that they are not allowed to treat my uploads any differently than anyone elses. Hence the word "Neutrality"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Net Neutrality indicates that all content flows through the internet without being interfered with, based on the origin of the content.

See, that wasn't too hard, was it?

The Internet isn't magic. All content is "interfered with" to some extent or another.

So again, if only the phrase "net neutrality" actually meant something...

I'll take Obtuse for $800 Alex.

 

[Jarhyn]

Net Neutrality indicates that all content flows through the internet without being interfered with, based on the origin of the content.

See, that wasn't too hard, was it?

The Internet isn't magic. All content is "interfered with" to some extent or another.

So again, if only the phrase "net neutrality" actually meant something...

Neutrality with respect to the specific content, using only the quantity and rate passed through the machine to determine service billing, and only applying rate insofar as it affects the universal availability of the service.

You can claim it doesn't mean anything, but to do so after this point would be a lie.

Net neutrality is to the internet as the prohibition of Non Sequitur is to rational discourse. It simply means that traffic should only be discriminated against insofar as it impacts the real provision of the data, and not for any other reason (to include that the profits for the production of that data are remanded to people who are not partners to the delivery service).