Net Neutrailty is back

[Jimmy Higgins]

Just to make it clearer, three companies in one market had similar problems with Congent. Another company didn't, during the exact same period. We call that a "red flag".

And if there was other providers in that market that didn't have it, people could switch over. So the decision comcast would have to decide is how many people are going to switch to the new provider.

You need help shifting those goalposts? I don't want you to hurt your back.

The crux of the point was that the issue with Cogent was not technological.

Comcast's network runs on its cable network, not fiber so it's bottle necks are different then what the bottlenecks that USInternet will face.

If only Comcast had the ability to start rolling out upgraded fiber networks.

And the question was who was going to pay for that upgrade? comcast wanted Netflix to pay for some of it too since they were the ones driving the upgrade.

Funny, Netflix was also the one driving the demand for people to want to pay Comcast for higher speeds. The folly of this argument...

Comcast: If it weren't for you Netflix, we wouldn't need to spend a few bucks more for our switches because there wouldn't be as high a demand for our streaming internet. Wait... umm... let me rephrase that...

 

[coloradoatheist]

And if there was other providers in that market that didn't have it, people could switch over. So the decision comcast would have to decide is how many people are going to switch to the new provider.

You need help shifting those goalposts? I don't want you to hurt your back.

The crux of the point was that the issue with Cogent was not technological.

Comcast's network runs on its cable network, not fiber so it's bottle necks are different then what the bottlenecks that USInternet will face.

If only Comcast had the ability to start rolling out upgraded fiber networks.

And the question was who was going to pay for that upgrade? comcast wanted Netflix to pay for some of it too since they were the ones driving the upgrade.

Funny, Netflix was also the one driving the demand for people to want to pay Comcast for higher speeds. The folly of this argument...

Comcast: If it weren't for you Netflix, we wouldn't need to spend a few bucks more for our switches because there wouldn't be as high a demand for our streaming internet. Wait... umm... let me rephrase that...

The last part was Netflix's argument, but Netflix was relying on its competitor to carry its product, and they worked out an agreement without government intervention. Funny how the market finds a way.

 

[ksen]

but Netflix was relying on its competitor to carry its product,

Netflix is not an ISP.

hth

 

[coloradoatheist]

but Netflix was relying on its competitor to carry its product,

Netflix is not an ISP.

hth

Competitors in any line of business don't have to be offering the same product, just be alternatives to spend the same money. And both Comcast and Netflix are entertainment providers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You need help shifting those goalposts? I don't want you to hurt your back.

The crux of the point was that the issue with Cogent was not technological.

Comcast's network runs on its cable network, not fiber so it's bottle necks are different then what the bottlenecks that USInternet will face.

If only Comcast had the ability to start rolling out upgraded fiber networks.

And the question was who was going to pay for that upgrade? comcast wanted Netflix to pay for some of it too since they were the ones driving the upgrade.

Funny, Netflix was also the one driving the demand for people to want to pay Comcast for higher speeds. The folly of this argument...

Comcast: If it weren't for you Netflix, we wouldn't need to spend a few bucks more for our switches because there wouldn't be as high a demand for our streaming internet. Wait... umm... let me rephrase that...

The last part was Netflix's argument, but Netflix was relying on its competitor to carry its product, and they worked out an agreement without government intervention. Funny how the market finds a way.

The mob works in a similar manner. Problem solved.

 

[KeepTalking]

But where can a corporation with a market cap over $150 billion be able to find access to the capital to perform such improvements to their infrastructure. After all, when SBC bought Ameritech and then AT&T, they made it clear to the Federal Government that it'd be impossible to improve their services notably due to the mergers, and that'd lead to higher prices and lower competition.

I often think, "Will my daily activities hurt the benevolent Comcast?", for they are a very poor company with a razor thin profit margin.

Ask not what Comcast can do for you, ask what you can do for Comcast.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You need help shifting those goalposts? I don't want you to hurt your back.

The crux of the point was that the issue with Cogent was not technological.

Comcast's network runs on its cable network, not fiber so it's bottle necks are different then what the bottlenecks that USInternet will face.

If only Comcast had the ability to start rolling out upgraded fiber networks.

And the question was who was going to pay for that upgrade? comcast wanted Netflix to pay for some of it too since they were the ones driving the upgrade.

Funny, Netflix was also the one driving the demand for people to want to pay Comcast for higher speeds. The folly of this argument...

Comcast: If it weren't for you Netflix, we wouldn't need to spend a few bucks more for our switches because there wouldn't be as high a demand for our streaming internet. Wait... umm... let me rephrase that...

The last part was Netflix's argument, but Netflix was relying on its competitor to carry its product, and they worked out an agreement without government intervention. Funny how the market finds a way.

The mob works in a similar manner. Problem solved.

So if I come up with the next great widget Wal-Mart has to sell my widget just because I say so?

 

[ksen]

Netflix is not an ISP.

hth

Competitors in any line of business don't have to be offering the same product, just be alternatives to spend the same money. And both Comcast and Netflix are entertainment providers.

And there's the root of the "business relationship" challenges M-Lab discovered. Content business should be separate from ISP business.

Break 'em up.

 

[ksen]

So if I come up with the next great widget Wal-Mart has to sell my widget just because I say so?

That's a dumb post. I mean really dumb. And it illustrates you have no idea what ISPs are selling because they can't be compared with retail stores . . . like even a little bit.

Unless of course Verizon got there way in their lawsuit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You need help shifting those goalposts? I don't want you to hurt your back.

The crux of the point was that the issue with Cogent was not technological.

Comcast's network runs on its cable network, not fiber so it's bottle necks are different then what the bottlenecks that USInternet will face.

If only Comcast had the ability to start rolling out upgraded fiber networks.

And the question was who was going to pay for that upgrade? comcast wanted Netflix to pay for some of it too since they were the ones driving the upgrade.

Funny, Netflix was also the one driving the demand for people to want to pay Comcast for higher speeds. The folly of this argument...

Comcast: If it weren't for you Netflix, we wouldn't need to spend a few bucks more for our switches because there wouldn't be as high a demand for our streaming internet. Wait... umm... let me rephrase that...

The last part was Netflix's argument, but Netflix was relying on its competitor to carry its product, and they worked out an agreement without government intervention. Funny how the market finds a way.

The mob works in a similar manner. Problem solved.

So if I come up with the next great widget Wal-Mart has to sell my widget just because I say so?

Netflix already paid to upload their data on to the Internet. Consumers have already paid for downloading speeds. Your Walmart parallel is garbage.

It is one bad argument after the other here. You keep throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something sticks and also hoping no one notices nothing else has.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Competitors in any line of business don't have to be offering the same product, just be alternatives to spend the same money. And both Comcast and Netflix are entertainment providers.

And there's the root of the "business relationship" challenges M-Lab discovered. Content business should be separate from ISP business.

Break 'em up.

If m-lab is that confident, it could always spin off it's own ISP by itself.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So if I come up with the next great widget Wal-Mart has to sell my widget just because I say so?

That's a dumb post. I mean really dumb. And it illustrates you have no idea what ISPs are selling because they can't be compared with retail stores . . . like even a little bit.

Unless of course Verizon got there way in their lawsuit.

They are selling two products and it's because of their primary business they can offer the service. It's an issue all the time in business when one product cannibalizes another one of their products. And the question is when that happens, what does a business do. They have different options.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You need help shifting those goalposts? I don't want you to hurt your back.

The crux of the point was that the issue with Cogent was not technological.

Comcast's network runs on its cable network, not fiber so it's bottle necks are different then what the bottlenecks that USInternet will face.

If only Comcast had the ability to start rolling out upgraded fiber networks.

And the question was who was going to pay for that upgrade? comcast wanted Netflix to pay for some of it too since they were the ones driving the upgrade.

Funny, Netflix was also the one driving the demand for people to want to pay Comcast for higher speeds. The folly of this argument...

Comcast: If it weren't for you Netflix, we wouldn't need to spend a few bucks more for our switches because there wouldn't be as high a demand for our streaming internet. Wait... umm... let me rephrase that...

The last part was Netflix's argument, but Netflix was relying on its competitor to carry its product, and they worked out an agreement without government intervention. Funny how the market finds a way.

The mob works in a similar manner. Problem solved.

So if I come up with the next great widget Wal-Mart has to sell my widget just because I say so?

Netflix already paid to upload their data on to the Internet. Consumers have already paid for downloading speeds. Your Walmart parallel is garbage.

It is one bad argument after the other here. You keep throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something sticks and also hoping no one notices nothing else has.

Except its an issue that applies to different companies as well. I could build a game website on an internet connection in Zimbabwe and pay for a 50Mb pipe. But my users aren't going going to get 50Mb throughput to my gaming site in Zimbabwe so as a game designer you have to figure out where to put your site and which connections will provide the best performance for your users.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And there's the root of the "business relationship" challenges M-Lab discovered. Content business should be separate from ISP business.

Break 'em up.

If m-lab is that confident, it could always spin off it's own ISP by itself.

I think this is the "free market" version of the Evangelical turnaround of "I know God exists in my heart" tantrum at the end of a discussion when their arguments have been fruitless and debunked.

Netflix already paid to upload their data on to the Internet. Consumers have already paid for downloading speeds. Your Walmart parallel is garbage.

It is one bad argument after the other here. You keep throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something sticks and also hoping no one notices nothing else has.

Except its an issue that applies to different companies as well. I could build a game website on an internet connection in Zimbabwe and pay for a 50Mb pipe. But my users aren't going going to get 50Mb throughput to my gaming site in Zimbabwe so as a game designer you have to figure out where to put your site and which connections will provide the best performance for your users.

What in the world is the argument now? That consumers don't have the same download speed as Netflix's upload speed, therefore fuck Net Neutrality? How in the bloody heck is that supposed to make any sense.

Netflix paid for its data to get uploaded, and probably pays a boatload to do so. Netflix subs pay Comcast and the like to download data from the Internet. This is how the Internet has worked for decades. Now Comcast and Verizon wanted to put up a toll booth that needed addressing in order to allow Netflix data to be downloaded at non-throttled rates.

 

[ksen]

That's a dumb post. I mean really dumb. And it illustrates you have no idea what ISPs are selling because they can't be compared with retail stores . . . like even a little bit.

Unless of course Verizon got there way in their lawsuit.

They are selling two products and it's because of their primary business they can offer the service. It's an issue all the time in business when one product cannibalizes another one of their products. And the question is when that happens, what does a business do. They have different options.

And one of those options is to artificially slow down access to the competitor of their other business.

hey, thanks for making the case for net neutrality and why we need it.

 

[KeepTalking]

That's a dumb post. I mean really dumb. And it illustrates you have no idea what ISPs are selling because they can't be compared with retail stores . . . like even a little bit.

Unless of course Verizon got there way in their lawsuit.

They are selling two products and it's because of their primary business they can offer the service. It's an issue all the time in business when one product cannibalizes another one of their products. And the question is when that happens, what does a business do. They have different options.

In that case, they could have gone the walled garden approach, like early on-line services such as AOL and Prodigy, where they are only selling connection to their very specific on-line services, and would not have to let Netflix inside. Instead, they chose to sell access to the entire internet. As a result, they don't get to pick and choose what parts of the internet they let their subscribers access, and now they can't discriminate that content by throttling certain services, either.

 

[Togo]

They are selling two products and it's because of their primary business they can offer the service. It's an issue all the time in business when one product cannibalizes another one of their products. And the question is when that happens, what does a business do. They have different options.

And one of those options is to artificially slow down access to the competitor of their other business.

hey, thanks for making the case for net neutrality and why we need it.

It's a pretty good argument. Other industries where one business cannibalises another already have extensive regulation. Audit firms selling consultancy services, service providers selling insurance to guarantee continued service, power companies selling pollution monitoring services, banks with corporate lending services that also act as receivers when the same company can't meet it's loans payments, and so on. In every case, you have some kind of legal intervention to prevent firms distorting the free market in their own favour.

 

[ksen]

FCC publishes the new rules

15. No Blocking. Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service must get what they have paid for—access to all (lawful) destinations on the Internet. This essential and well-accepted principle has long been a tenet of Commission policy, stretching back to its landmark decision in Carterfone, which protected a customer’s right to connect a telephone to the monopoly telephone network.¹⁶ Thus, this Order adopts a straightforward ban:

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.

16. No Throttling. The 2010 open Internet rule against blocking contained an ancillary prohibition against the degradation of lawful content, applications, services, and devices, on the ground that such degradation would be tantamount to blocking. This Order creates a separate rule to guard against degradation targeted at specific uses of a customer’s broadband connection:

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.

those BASTARDS!!!!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

FCC publishes the new rules

15. No Blocking. Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service must get what they have paid for—access to all (lawful) destinations on the Internet. This essential and well-accepted principle has long been a tenet of Commission policy, stretching back to its landmark decision in Carterfone, which protected a customer’s right to connect a telephone to the monopoly telephone network.¹⁶ Thus, this Order adopts a straightforward ban:

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.

16. No Throttling. The 2010 open Internet rule against blocking contained an ancillary prohibition against the degradation of lawful content, applications, services, and devices, on the ground that such degradation would be tantamount to blocking. This Order creates a separate rule to guard against degradation targeted at specific uses of a customer’s broadband connection:

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.

those BASTARDS!!!!

I saw 15 and thought, "Crap, that says block... what about throttling?"

...

Oh... there it is.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

There is nothing about "strangulating" so Comcast can carry on...