Net Neutrality

[TV and credit cards]

Help save America from itself. Tell the FCC what you think about Net Neutrality.
John Oliver

 

[bleubird]

I knew John Oliver would be good.Thanks.

 

[Togo]

This does seem like a peculiarly stupid move. Why abandon net neutrality?

 

[KeepTalking]

This does seem like a peculiarly stupid move. Why abandon net neutrality?

It's only a stupid move if you actually care about the internet being free and open. When you are a former cable industry lobyist who now gets to make the rules, and you are expecting to make a fortune when you go back through that revolving door into the cable industry, well, it seems pretty damn smart.

 

[coloradoatheist]

This does seem like a peculiarly stupid move. Why abandon net neutrality?

It's only a stupid move if you actually care about the internet being free and open. When you are a former cable industry lobyist who now gets to make the rules, and you are expecting to make a fortune when you go back through that revolving door into the cable industry, well, it seems pretty damn smart.

The first part is the issue at hand, the free part. The Internet isn't free and the bandwidth used to get things around isn't free. Somebody has to pay for it, the argument is who.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

This does seem like a peculiarly stupid move. Why abandon net neutrality?

It's only a stupid move if you actually care about the internet being free and open. When you are a former cable industry lobyist who now gets to make the rules, and you are expecting to make a fortune when you go back through that revolving door into the cable industry, well, it seems pretty damn smart.

The first part is the issue at hand, the free part. The Internet isn't free and the bandwidth used to get things around isn't free. Somebody has to pay for it, the argument is who.

The bandwidth is there. Here where we have competition DSL and fiber optic run $25/mo for 20Mbs... Comcast: $55/mo. Comcast is willing to "pay for it", but Comcast wants to charge for content like they do cable TV. They want to charge producers and consumers. It's not about bandwidth, its about charging the highest amount the market will bear.

 

[coloradoatheist]

This does seem like a peculiarly stupid move. Why abandon net neutrality?

It's only a stupid move if you actually care about the internet being free and open. When you are a former cable industry lobyist who now gets to make the rules, and you are expecting to make a fortune when you go back through that revolving door into the cable industry, well, it seems pretty damn smart.

The first part is the issue at hand, the free part. The Internet isn't free and the bandwidth used to get things around isn't free. Somebody has to pay for it, the argument is who.

The bandwidth is there. Here where we have competition DSL and fiber optic run $25/mo for 20Mbs... Comcast: $55/mo. Comcast is willing to "pay for it", but Comcast wants to charge for content like they do cable TV. They want to charge producers and consumers. It's not about bandwidth, its about charging the highest amount the market will bear.

Of course they want to make the most money they can. And so does Netflix..but the issue right now is who pays for bandwidth upgrades in the cross connects between companies. Comcast says level 3, and level 3 says Comcast. Netflix is in the position of having to use a competitor. The same thing is done with retailers and the manufacturers. The solution is things like higher commissions, slotting fees, etc.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This does seem like a peculiarly stupid move. Why abandon net neutrality?

It's only a stupid move if you actually care about the internet being free and open. When you are a former cable industry lobyist who now gets to make the rules, and you are expecting to make a fortune when you go back through that revolving door into the cable industry, well, it seems pretty damn smart.

The first part is the issue at hand, the free part. The Internet isn't free and the bandwidth used to get things around isn't free. Somebody has to pay for it, the argument is who.

The bandwidth is there. Here where we have competition DSL and fiber optic run $25/mo for 20Mbs... Comcast: $55/mo. Comcast is willing to "pay for it", but Comcast wants to charge for content like they do cable TV. They want to charge producers and consumers. It's not about bandwidth, its about charging the highest amount the market will bear.

Of course they want to make the most money they can. And so does Netflix..but the issue right now is who pays for bandwidth upgrades in the cross connects between companies. Comcast says level 3, and level 3 says Comcast. Netflix is in the position of having to use a competitor. The same thing is done with retailers and the manufacturers. The solution is things like higher commissions, slotting fees, etc.

Except we are paying companies like Comcast for bandwidth, faster bandwidth. If we want to stream more, we pay more to these companies. For them to then throttle what we want to stream is fraud. If they can't handle streaming the bandwidth they have sold, then they are overselling their product and committing fraud.

It'd be like a Football Stadium selling too many tickets in the front row. Then the stadium complains to the football team, saying that they have to pay to build more front row seats. The people paid the higher price, yet because the stadium doesn't physically have enough seats on the front row, the fans have to sit further back.

 

[coloradoatheist]

This does seem like a peculiarly stupid move. Why abandon net neutrality?

It's only a stupid move if you actually care about the internet being free and open. When you are a former cable industry lobyist who now gets to make the rules, and you are expecting to make a fortune when you go back through that revolving door into the cable industry, well, it seems pretty damn smart.

The first part is the issue at hand, the free part. The Internet isn't free and the bandwidth used to get things around isn't free. Somebody has to pay for it, the argument is who.

The bandwidth is there. Here where we have competition DSL and fiber optic run $25/mo for 20Mbs... Comcast: $55/mo. Comcast is willing to "pay for it", but Comcast wants to charge for content like they do cable TV. They want to charge producers and consumers. It's not about bandwidth, its about charging the highest amount the market will bear.

Of course they want to make the most money they can. And so does Netflix..but the issue right now is who pays for bandwidth upgrades in the cross connects between companies. Comcast says level 3, and level 3 says Comcast. Netflix is in the position of having to use a competitor. The same thing is done with retailers and the manufacturers. The solution is things like higher commissions, slotting fees, etc.

Except we are paying companies like Comcast for bandwidth, faster bandwidth. If we want to stream more, we pay more to these companies. For them to then throttle what we want to stream is fraud. If they can't handle streaming the bandwidth they have sold, then they are overselling their product and committing fraud.

It'd be like a Football Stadium selling too many tickets in the front row. Then the stadium complains to the football team, saying that they have to pay to build more front row seats. The people paid the higher price, yet because the stadium doesn't physically have enough seats on the front row, the fans have to sit further back.

And on the other side Netflix is paying Level 3 for Internet too so why isn't Netflix demanding that Level 3 pays for it? So it's an issue when multiple companies are jockeying to see who pays for it. In the long run, it will be the telcos and the other providers like Google Fiber who will win.

 

[Deepak]

This does seem like a peculiarly stupid move. Why abandon net neutrality?

It's only a stupid move if you actually care about the internet being free and open. When you are a former cable industry lobyist who now gets to make the rules, and you are expecting to make a fortune when you go back through that revolving door into the cable industry, well, it seems pretty damn smart.

The first part is the issue at hand, the free part. The Internet isn't free and the bandwidth used to get things around isn't free. Somebody has to pay for it, the argument is who.

Free as in speech, not free as in beer. Unless you can provide some credible argument being made that internet should be zero cost, then I'd consider this argument a red herring. Everyone already pays for internet access. The guys 'maintaining' the networks which service most homes want their customers and content providers to pay twice for the same packet.

 

[coloradoatheist]

This does seem like a peculiarly stupid move. Why abandon net neutrality?

It's only a stupid move if you actually care about the internet being free and open. When you are a former cable industry lobyist who now gets to make the rules, and you are expecting to make a fortune when you go back through that revolving door into the cable industry, well, it seems pretty damn smart.

The first part is the issue at hand, the free part. The Internet isn't free and the bandwidth used to get things around isn't free. Somebody has to pay for it, the argument is who.

Free as in speech, not free as in beer. Unless you can provide some credible argument being made that internet should be zero cost, then I'd consider this argument a red herring. Everyone already pays for internet access. The guys 'maintaining' the networks which service most homes want their customers and content providers to pay twice for the same packet.

But the issue is that really isn't another analogy equivalent to this because Netflix is relying on it's competitor to deliver it's product. If netflix doesn't like what Comcast or TWC is doing they need to create their own network and provide it to the households. Netflix should be advertising that it's users should move to DSL.

 

[Jarhyn]

The service people pay comcast for, in regards to internet, is bringing data from level 3 to their computer. It is how they advertise the service and that is the 'common' understanding of how an ISP operates. It is the service people are volunteering to pay for. Netflix is paying level3 to TAKE their data. They have already paid to have it delivered. Comcast's job, as far as Internet is concerned, is to deliver data from level 3 to my computer. If you think that their other business (consumer entertainment) is in conflict with their ISP, then the clear option is to divest them of their ISP division due to a clear conflict of interest.

The solution to all this is to declare ISP services, regardless of the pipeline, a telecommunications service and be done with it.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

This does seem like a peculiarly stupid move. Why abandon net neutrality?

It's only a stupid move if you actually care about the internet being free and open. When you are a former cable industry lobyist who now gets to make the rules, and you are expecting to make a fortune when you go back through that revolving door into the cable industry, well, it seems pretty damn smart.

The first part is the issue at hand, the free part. The Internet isn't free and the bandwidth used to get things around isn't free. Somebody has to pay for it, the argument is who.

The bandwidth is there. Here where we have competition DSL and fiber optic run $25/mo for 20Mbs... Comcast: $55/mo. Comcast is willing to "pay for it", but Comcast wants to charge for content like they do cable TV. They want to charge producers and consumers. It's not about bandwidth, its about charging the highest amount the market will bear.

Of course they want to make the most money they can. And so does Netflix..but the issue right now is who pays for bandwidth upgrades in the cross connects between companies. Comcast says level 3, and level 3 says Comcast. Netflix is in the position of having to use a competitor. The same thing is done with retailers and the manufacturers. The solution is things like higher commissions, slotting fees, etc.

How much should you pay Comcast to post here?

 

[bilby]

The whole issue would cease to exist if people stopped their crazy insistence that all goods and services of any kind should be subjected to competitive pressure, and realised that the internet is natural monopoly infrastructure, and should therefore be owned and maintained by the people, for the people.

Nobody expects DHL to build roads for DHL trucks to drive on when delivering parcels, and for UPS to build a separate network of competing roads for UPS trucks, and FedEx to build a separate network of roads for FedEx trucks; that would be insane. Instead, the government builds and maintains roads on behalf of the taxpayer, and the taxpayer pays for this service, because they want to have a road network, and all the myriad benefits that network brings.

Competition in a loosely regulated market is the best way to provide lots of things. But that does not imply that it is the best way to provide everything; The Internet is one of those things that is better managed by government.

 

[Deepak]

This does seem like a peculiarly stupid move. Why abandon net neutrality?

It's only a stupid move if you actually care about the internet being free and open. When you are a former cable industry lobyist who now gets to make the rules, and you are expecting to make a fortune when you go back through that revolving door into the cable industry, well, it seems pretty damn smart.

The first part is the issue at hand, the free part. The Internet isn't free and the bandwidth used to get things around isn't free. Somebody has to pay for it, the argument is who.

Free as in speech, not free as in beer. Unless you can provide some credible argument being made that internet should be zero cost, then I'd consider this argument a red herring. Everyone already pays for internet access. The guys 'maintaining' the networks which service most homes want their customers and content providers to pay twice for the same packet.

But the issue is that really isn't another analogy equivalent to this because Netflix is relying on it's competitor to deliver it's product. If netflix doesn't like what Comcast or TWC is doing they need to create their own network and provide it to the households. Netflix should be advertising that it's users should move to DSL.

When I go to Woodcraft I see the house brand bits next to the CMT, in Lowes I see the house brand saws next to the DeWalt, and on Amazon I see the house brand cables next to the Hosa. Fedex ships air cargo for the USPS, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that those brown trucks get some of their components shipped by a competitor's freight services. I know Comcast and TWC see and paint themselves as special fragile snowflakes but they're rent seekers plain and simple.

But I'm sure the folks who will argue in favor of these companies will continue to argue in favor of these companies. I'm sure there are people who think that rail lines should all be different sizes too. C'est la vie.

The whole issue would cease to exist if people stopped their crazy insistence that all goods and services of any kind should be subjected to competitive pressure, and realised that the internet is natural monopoly infrastructure, and should therefore be owned and maintained by the people, for the people.

Nobody expects DHL to build roads for DHL trucks to drive on when delivering parcels, and for UPS to build a separate network of competing roads for UPS trucks, and FedEx to build a separate network of roads for FedEx trucks; that would be insane. Instead, the government builds and maintains roads on behalf of the taxpayer, and the taxpayer pays for this service, because they want to have a road network, and all the myriad benefits that network brings.

Competition in a loosely regulated market is the best way to provide lots of things. But that does not imply that it is the best way to provide everything; The Internet is one of those things that is better managed by government.

I'm not necessarily sure that competition is the real culprit here. Actually I think that there is no real competition in the infrastructure game in most areas, and the practices by the MSO are decidedly anti-competitive.

While I'm of the opinion that internet services should be classified as utilities, I think that some meaningful application of antitrust laws should have these companies smashed like Ma Bell was smashed. Splitting out the media companies from the infrastructure companies would also have a beneficial effect for consumers, and actually I'm of the opinion that both should be done.

 

[bilby]

This does seem like a peculiarly stupid move. Why abandon net neutrality?

It's only a stupid move if you actually care about the internet being free and open. When you are a former cable industry lobyist who now gets to make the rules, and you are expecting to make a fortune when you go back through that revolving door into the cable industry, well, it seems pretty damn smart.

The first part is the issue at hand, the free part. The Internet isn't free and the bandwidth used to get things around isn't free. Somebody has to pay for it, the argument is who.

Free as in speech, not free as in beer. Unless you can provide some credible argument being made that internet should be zero cost, then I'd consider this argument a red herring. Everyone already pays for internet access. The guys 'maintaining' the networks which service most homes want their customers and content providers to pay twice for the same packet.

But the issue is that really isn't another analogy equivalent to this because Netflix is relying on it's competitor to deliver it's product. If netflix doesn't like what Comcast or TWC is doing they need to create their own network and provide it to the households. Netflix should be advertising that it's users should move to DSL.

When I go to Woodcraft I see the house brand bits next to the CMT, in Lowes I see the house brand saws next to the DeWalt, and on Amazon I see the house brand cables next to the Hosa. Fedex ships air cargo for the USPS, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that those brown trucks get some of their components shipped by a competitor's freight services. I know Comcast and TWC see and paint themselves as special fragile snowflakes but they're rent seekers plain and simple.

But I'm sure the folks who will argue in favor of these companies will continue to argue in favor of these companies. I'm sure there are people who think that rail lines should all be different sizes too. C'est la vie.

The whole issue would cease to exist if people stopped their crazy insistence that all goods and services of any kind should be subjected to competitive pressure, and realised that the internet is natural monopoly infrastructure, and should therefore be owned and maintained by the people, for the people.

Nobody expects DHL to build roads for DHL trucks to drive on when delivering parcels, and for UPS to build a separate network of competing roads for UPS trucks, and FedEx to build a separate network of roads for FedEx trucks; that would be insane. Instead, the government builds and maintains roads on behalf of the taxpayer, and the taxpayer pays for this service, because they want to have a road network, and all the myriad benefits that network brings.

Competition in a loosely regulated market is the best way to provide lots of things. But that does not imply that it is the best way to provide everything; The Internet is one of those things that is better managed by government.

I'm not necessarily sure that competition is the real culprit here. Actually I think that there is no real competition in the infrastructure game in most areas, and the practices by the MSO are decidedly anti-competitive.

While I'm of the opinion that internet services should be classified as utilities, I think that some meaningful application of antitrust laws should have these companies smashed like Ma Bell was smashed. Splitting out the media companies from the infrastructure companies would also have a beneficial effect for consumers, and actually I'm of the opinion that both should be done.

I am not suggesting that competition is the problem; indeed, the problem is exactly that there is NO competition in many areas, and no prospect of any - but nonetheless the system is, for ideological reasons, set up as though there were competition, even though there is not.

Where a monopoly is inevitable, commercial 'for profit' systems are amongst the worst ways to provide a service.

These companies don't need to be smashed; they need to be nationalised.

That many people have an almost religious hatred of nationalisation, does not constitute evidence that it is always the wrong way to go.

That some people have an almost religious reverence for the profit motive, does not render profit seeking the best way to ensure efficient provision of goods or services in all cases.

 

[Togo]

If I pay for a road to be built to my house, then I expect to be able to use that road however I wish. If the people who built the road start charging other people for visiting me, I'd sue them.

How is Comcast's request to be paid by content providers any different?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Except we are paying companies like Comcast for bandwidth, faster bandwidth. If we want to stream more, we pay more to these companies. For them to then throttle what we want to stream is fraud. If they can't handle streaming the bandwidth they have sold, then they are overselling their product and committing fraud.

It'd be like a Football Stadium selling too many tickets in the front row. Then the stadium complains to the football team, saying that they have to pay to build more front row seats. The people paid the higher price, yet because the stadium doesn't physically have enough seats on the front row, the fans have to sit further back.

And on the other side Netflix is paying Level 3 for Internet too so why isn't Netflix demanding that Level 3 pays for it? So it's an issue when multiple companies are jockeying to see who pays for it. In the long run, it will be the telcos and the other providers like Google Fiber who will win.

That seeems likes a completely unrelated tangent. This is about what Comcast has sold their subscribers. They are pretty much admitting they oversold their product. So instead of expanding their infrastructure to provide the services they promised their sub base, based on the money they were paid by Internet Sub monthly fees, they are trying rake Netflix for more cash.

 

[KeepTalking]

This does seem like a peculiarly stupid move. Why abandon net neutrality?

It's only a stupid move if you actually care about the internet being free and open. When you are a former cable industry lobyist who now gets to make the rules, and you are expecting to make a fortune when you go back through that revolving door into the cable industry, well, it seems pretty damn smart.

The first part is the issue at hand, the free part. The Internet isn't free and the bandwidth used to get things around isn't free. Somebody has to pay for it, the argument is who.

That is not what I meant by "free", and you know it. I already pay for that bandwidth, and AT&T is making record profits off of me, and all of their other customers. There is no reason they should turn around and charge the sites and services on the other end of the pipe as well. If it is true that they do not have enough bandwidth to serve up what I paid for, then they need to take those profits and improve their service. On the other hand, I know they have the bandwidth capacity, and they are deliberately throttling Netflix to try to strong arm them, because other services that use a similar amount of bandwidth (i.e. Hulu) are not having the same problems as Netflix. I have no doubt in my mind, however, that once they get money out of Netflix, going after Hulu will not be far behind.