Federal Regulator Expected To Hand Huge Win To Net Neutrality

[Axulus]

If this causes internet companies to go back to a model of fixed fee per month plus variable fee per GB of bandwidth used, potentially increasing internet bills, is it still a win for consumers?

Does anyone really think that the ability of broadband companies to pass some of the distribution costs to content providers won't instead be passed on to the customers in a net-neutrality situation? Is that definitely going to be a win for the consumers, or maybe more of a win for the content providers who now face lower costs (paid for instead by you and me more directly)?

Why would it? Net neutrality is about keeping them from abusing their near-monopoly position, it's not about making them pay more.

Because, if they have a near monopoly position, then they can simply pass the distribution costs onto customers instead of having the content providers pay for them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So what you are saying is that (despite the evidence that it will increase prices) is that sites like Talk Freethought should pay to have content available to Comcast subscribers?

What evidence are you referring to? If they can't get revenue from content providers, they'll get it from the customers instead. Also, do you seriously think they would charge FRDB for access to their network? Such a site places essentially no burden on their network. It is the sites like Netflix and Youtube that place the heaviest burdens on their network, where bandwidth and latency actually matter most. What we would most likely be talking about is Youtube and Netflix paying Comcast extra to have priority access on the network to deliver the best quality/performance. Other traffic would get lower priority (such as FRDB, which really doesn't need high bandwidth low latency to perform adaquately). The fears that little text and image based websites would have to pay for access seems to be entering into the realm of hysterics.

What you would see is more of what happened to Netflix--no pay, not enough bandwidth.

 

[Axulus]

Funny how in areas with competition this isn't a problem. Comcast still charges 3x what DSL and fiber optic do because they "bundle" with cable subscribers who don't know they can get service cheaper.

Does anyone really think that the ability of broadband companies to pass some of the distribution costs to content providers won't instead be passed on to the customers instead in a net-neutrality situation? Is that definitely going to be a win for the consumers, or maybe more of a win for the content providers who now face lower costs (paid for instead by you and me)?

So what you are saying is that (despite the evidence that it will increase prices) is that sites like Talk Freethought should pay to have content available to Comcast subscribers?

The price for a site like Talk Freethought to have its content available would be maybe a few dollars per month at most. It uses so little of the distribution network that the far more plausible scenario is that internet providers like Comcast would let them access their low priority lane for free and include the cost as part of the bundle to their customers. Do you seriously think they will bother to have small contracts with billions of sites when they could simplify it by charging the customer instead with all the cost savings that would entail? Do you seriously think Comcast would piss off its customers and have them leave in droves by removing access to desired sites?

 

[Axulus]

What evidence are you referring to? If they can't get revenue from content providers, they'll get it from the customers instead. Also, do you seriously think they would charge FRDB for access to their network? Such a site places essentially no burden on their network. It is the sites like Netflix and Youtube that place the heaviest burdens on their network, where bandwidth and latency actually matter most. What we would most likely be talking about is Youtube and Netflix paying Comcast extra to have priority access on the network to deliver the best quality/performance. Other traffic would get lower priority (such as FRDB, which really doesn't need high bandwidth low latency to perform adaquately). The fears that little text and image based websites would have to pay for access seems to be entering into the realm of hysterics.

What you would see is more of what happened to Netflix--no pay, not enough bandwidth.

For the biggest users of the network, the cost is either going to be paid for by the customer or by the content provider. There's simply no other option. Net neutrality seems to me to eliminate the option to have the content provider pay anything thereby leaving the customer as the only option.

 

[Axulus]

What if Google demands that Comcast pay it to provide its subscribers access to Google search engine and Youtube? Should that be allowed?

 

[Jarhyn]

Axulus, you have been schilling long enough for them by now to understand this, I'd think, it isn't about how much load they use, it's about how much money they can 'get through the market' (read: extort from their exclusive position of leverage). It's about profit. If they can extort $1000 a year from FRDB, they will. Not because they must, but because they CAN. IF they can shut out all competing content with Comcast branded forums, and block out any dissenting voices on those forums, they will. It's what they already do on their own forums. And if the people there despise atheists, they just won't make that an option. Not because they must. Because they can.

 

[Axulus]

Axulus, you have been schilling long enough for them by now to understand this, I'd think, it isn't about how much load they use, it's about how much money they can 'get through the market' (read: extort from their exclusive position of leverage). It's about profit. If they can extort $1000 a year from FRDB, they will. Not because they must, but because they CAN. IF they can shut out all competing content with Comcast branded forums, and block out any dissenting voices on those forums, they will. It's what they already do on their own forums. And if the people there despise atheists, they just won't make that an option. Not because they must. Because they can.

If they can "extort" it from FRDB, then why will they not "extort" it directly form the customers who access FRDB?

This idea that they would charge small sites like FRDB is just hyperbolic paranoia. It makes _no_ sense from a cost perspective to charge a billion sites a few hundred bucks per year instead of charging those costs to the customers who access the sites via the monthly subscription fees.

Doesn't seem like you guys have thought this through very well.

 

[arkirk]

Axulus, you have been schilling long enough for them by now to understand this, I'd think, it isn't about how much load they use, it's about how much money they can 'get through the market' (read: extort from their exclusive position of leverage). It's about profit. If they can extort $1000 a year from FRDB, they will. Not because they must, but because they CAN. IF they can shut out all competing content with Comcast branded forums, and block out any dissenting voices on those forums, they will. It's what they already do on their own forums. And if the people there despise atheists, they just won't make that an option. Not because they must. Because they can.

If they can "extort" it from FRDB, then why will they not "extort" it directly form the customers who access FRDB?

This idea that they would charge small sites like FRDB is just hyperbolic paranoia. It makes _no_ sense from a cost perspective to charge a billion sites a few hundred bucks instead of charging those costs to the customers who access the sites.

Axulus: You either haven't played enough Monopoly to understand it yet or you are one of Comcast's shills....which is it?

 

[Jarhyn]

Axulus, they want to do more than just get money from FRDB. They want all the money of FRDB going to one of their chosen affiliates. They will bleed out any money they can from everyone until only the rich and powerful and complicit remain. the. They will charge customers for the premium services, and get a healthy kickback from the affiliate, who makes sure nobody says anything bad on 'their private platform'. It'll be the bad old days again, and we'll have market schills to thank for it.

 

[Axulus]

If they can "extort" it from FRDB, then why will they not "extort" it directly form the customers who access FRDB?

This idea that they would charge small sites like FRDB is just hyperbolic paranoia. It makes _no_ sense from a cost perspective to charge a billion sites a few hundred bucks instead of charging those costs to the customers who access the sites.

Axulus: You either haven't played enough Monopoly to understand it yet or you are one of Comcast's shills....which is it?

You've apparently never been in business. If your proposal is to "extort" tiny websites with empty pockets like Talk Freethought you'd be laughed out of the building for wasting everyone's time.

 

[arkirk]

Axulus: You either haven't played enough Monopoly to understand it yet or you are one of Comcast's shills....which is it?

You've apparently never been in business. If your proposal is to "extort" tiny websites with empty pockets like Talk Freethought you'd be laughed out of the building for wasting everyone's time.

They are after control of the whole shooting match, Axulus. I made NO SUCH PROPOSAL. How about you?

 

[Axulus]

Axulus, they want to do more than just get money from FRDB. They want all the money of FRDB going to one of their chosen affiliates. They will bleed out any money they can from everyone until only the rich and powerful and complicit remain. the. They will charge customers for the premium services, and get a healthy kickback from the affiliate, who makes sure nobody says anything bad on 'their private platform'. It'll be the bad old days again, and we'll have market schills to thank for it.

What money of FRDB? The website has empty pockets. It runs purely on donations that just barely cover the costs to keep the thing running. To have a paranoia that they'd waste their time trying to shake down websites that have empty pockets when they could just attempt to extract the value delivered by the site directly from customers (and even then I doubt it would be worth it as that is already covered in the monthly fixed fee for access to sites like this) is just silly in the extreme.

 

[Jarhyn]

Of course they'd shake down FRDB. The mob shakes down shops that can't pay in New York. The fact that someone can't pay the Protection money has never stopped an unethical player from charging it. People will figure out a way to pay it, monetize their services, or be shut down in favor of those who will monetize. And Comcast wants to see that happen, because while there will be less real value in the world at the end of that day, they'll have their hands on more real value. And that's all the greedy care about.

 

[Axulus]

Of course they'd shake down FRDB. The mob shakes down shops that can't pay in New York. The fact that someone can't pay the Protection money has never stopped an unethical player from charging it. People will figure out a way to pay it, monetize their services, or be shut down in favor of those who will monetize. And Comcast wants to see that happen, because while there will be less real value in the world at the end of that day, they'll have their hands on more real value. And that's all the greedy care about.

No they won't. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever if they are in fact greedy as I've already explained. The mob analogy is ludicrous - the mob doesn't have a product they sell to millions of people whom they can charge directly. The mob also doesn't go after non-profit organizations for shakedown money.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Funny how in areas with competition this isn't a problem. Comcast still charges 3x what DSL and fiber optic do because they "bundle" with cable subscribers who don't know they can get service cheaper.



So what you are saying is that (despite the evidence that it will increase prices) is that sites like Talk Freethought should pay to have content available to Comcast subscribers?

The price for a site like Talk Freethought to have its content available would be maybe a few dollars per month at most. It uses so little of the distribution network that the far more plausible scenario is that internet providers like Comcast would let them access their low priority lane for free and include the cost as part of the bundle to their customers. Do you seriously think they will bother to have small contracts with billions of sites when they could simplify it by charging the customer instead with all the cost savings that would entail?

They don't need to write a separate contract, they can just force the websites to register with them for a fee, say $100 to carry them at all. They will also charge their customers to receive the website package. I think you underestimate their power in this situation.

Do you seriously think Comcast would piss off its customers and have them leave in droves by removing access to desired sites?

When has Comcast worried about pissing off their customers? And where are these people going to leave to?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Of course they'd shake down FRDB. The mob shakes down shops that can't pay in New York. The fact that someone can't pay the Protection money has never stopped an unethical player from charging it. People will figure out a way to pay it, monetize their services, or be shut down in favor of those who will monetize. And Comcast wants to see that happen, because while there will be less real value in the world at the end of that day, they'll have their hands on more real value. And that's all the greedy care about.

No they won't. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever if they are in fact greedy as I've already explained. The mob analogy is ludicrous - the mob doesn't have a product they sell to millions of people whom they can charge directly. The mob also doesn't go after non-profit organizations for shakedown money.

Axulus, you do know that this is their current business plan? This is what they are doing right now with cable channels. And they are forcing customers to buy content they don't want by bundling it and forcing providers to give them a large share of revenue to carry it. They want to do the same with the internet.

 

[Axulus]

The price for a site like Talk Freethought to have its content available would be maybe a few dollars per month at most. It uses so little of the distribution network that the far more plausible scenario is that internet providers like Comcast would let them access their low priority lane for free and include the cost as part of the bundle to their customers. Do you seriously think they will bother to have small contracts with billions of sites when they could simplify it by charging the customer instead with all the cost savings that would entail?

They don't need to write a separate contract, they can just force the websites to register with them for a fee, say $100 to carry them at all. They will also charge their customers to receive the website package. I think you underestimate their power in this situation.

Why would they bother with the registration fee? Remember, any website unable or unwilling to pay it is a loss for their customers. Meaning they wouldn't be able to charge as much to their customers as the product they offer would now be inferior. It is far easier to extract the money from the customers since that's where the money is and the cost can be spread over millions of customers instead of putting the burden on all these tiny websites.

Furthermore: why do you refuse to take any insight offered by the cable industry? Comcast has to pay _them_ to carry their channel, not the other way around.

When has Comcast worried about pissing off their customers? And where are these people going to leave to?

Even a monopoly has to worry about pissed off customers: it means you can't charge them as much.

What's stopping them from charging $250/month for home internet if you think they have unlimited power?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

They don't need to write a separate contract, they can just force the websites to register with them for a fee, say $100 to carry them at all. They will also charge their customers to receive the website package. I think you underestimate their power in this situation.

Why would they bother with the registration fee? Remember, any website unable or unwilling to pay it is a loss for their customers.

That doesn't matter. They've collected their fees.

Meaning they wouldn't be able to charge as much to their customers as the product they offer would now be inferior. It is far easier to extract the money from the customers since that's where the money is and the cost can be spread over millions of customers instead of putting the burden on all these tiny websites.

They want to charge both customer and content provider. If these tiny websites want traffic, they'd better pay. Comcast will provide mirror sites for discussions like this and your little store can easily be cut off from all revenue.

Furthermore: why do you refuse to take any insight offered by the cable industry? Comcast has to pay _them_ to carry their channel, not the other way around.

Actually you have that backwards, they pay Comcast to carry their channels and the advertisers pay the bills of the content providers. Take your time and look it up.

When has Comcast worried about pissing off their customers? And where are these people going to leave to?

Even a monopoly has to worry about pissed off customers: it means you can't charge them as much.

What's stopping them from charging $250/month for home internet if you think they have unlimited power?

They are charging $100 per month here. (The three competing companies charge $30/mo. DSL/Wireless/Fiber optic)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Funny how in areas with competition this isn't a problem. Comcast still charges 3x what DSL and fiber optic do because they "bundle" with cable subscribers who don't know they can get service cheaper.



So what you are saying is that (despite the evidence that it will increase prices) is that sites like Talk Freethought should pay to have content available to Comcast subscribers?

The price for a site like Talk Freethought to have its content available would be maybe a few dollars per month at most. It uses so little of the distribution network that the far more plausible scenario is that internet providers like Comcast would let them access their low priority lane for free and include the cost as part of the bundle to their customers. Do you seriously think they will bother to have small contracts with billions of sites when they could simplify it by charging the customer instead with all the cost savings that would entail? Do you seriously think Comcast would piss off its customers and have them leave in droves by removing access to desired sites?

More likely they would charge the hosting companies.

Don't pay and you just get whatever bandwidth is left over.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you would see is more of what happened to Netflix--no pay, not enough bandwidth.

For the biggest users of the network, the cost is either going to be paid for by the customer or by the content provider. There's simply no other option. Net neutrality seems to me to eliminate the option to have the content provider pay anything thereby leaving the customer as the only option.

The limit was artificial--both networks were quite capable of handing the load, the connection point between them was not. At most it would have cost in the 4 figures to upgrade that connection.


The real reason has nothing to do with bandwidth, the real reason is that services like Netflix are direct competition for their cable TV business. This is an abuse of monopoly power, they should be slammed hard for it.