Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Insiders are suggesting that net neutrality will soon come to a close. (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Insiders are suggesting that net neutrality will soon come to a close.
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
Another analogy that may be instructive: telephones lines. Telephone infrastructure companies (the baby bells) are required to connect anyone to anyone else without preference. That is similar to what is meant by net neutrality.

This idea shows up a lot, not to pick on you MattP, and it's easy to understand but it fails to confront why there is an issue here. If high speed internet really worked like a telephone line net neutrality would never have become an issue. But the dispartity in data usage is like insisting that a family with a single phone line pay the same price as a multinational corporation with thousands of phone lines.

The problem is capacity. Specifically limited capacity and fair compensation for its use. People seem to be aggrieved by the idea that they should pay for capacity usage. Why should streaming video users paying the same rates as those just reading text? Why should we disallow someone who streams videos from paying part of the cost to ensure their users are given the capacity they need?

Don't get me wrong, the idea that some providers will be disadvantaged or throttled is a little scary. But if you're going to have a throttling situation because of capacity irregardless, I don't think its unfair to give extra capacity to people paying more.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Specifically limited capacity and fair compensation for its use. People seem to be aggrieved by the idea that they should pay for capacity usage. Why should streaming video users paying the same rates as those just reading text? Why should we disallow someone who streams videos from paying part of the cost to ensure their users are given the capacity they need?
That's a red herring, because something that already happens and is perfectly legal as the market stands. Subscribers pay for whatever level of bandwidth they want. It's certainly possible to pay for more bandwidth than you use, but that's your option as a consumer. Net neutrality has nothing to do with that at all, but rather with the fact that the ISP should not be allowed to dictate to you how you can use that bandwidth that you paid for based on who is paying it on the back end to filter or limit certain content and privilege other content.

Subscribers should be 100% in charge of how to prioritize the segment of bandwidth they pay for. The only capacity based limit that the ISP should be imposing is on based on what the consumer has paid for, not what content providers might be willing to pay to squeeze their competition off the wire.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ISPs are absolutely free to offer many different tiers of service to their subscribers, and nobody is suggesting that they should not be able to offer some subscribers a 1 mbps connection for email and casual web browsing for $25, and other subscribers a 150 mbps connection for multiple HD video streaming for $100.

That is absolutely NOT what net neutrality is about.

It's about whether the guy that pays $100 for his 150mbps connection is going to see Comcast or Netflix services prioritized over Vimeo (regardless of how much raw bandwidth each company has purchased from their own ISPs).

A lack of net neutrality could impact this user's experience of various services depending on whether the ISPs involved are giving priority to certain services.

quote:
But the dispartity in data usage is like insisting that a family with a single phone line pay the same price as a multinational corporation with thousands of phone lines.
It's actually more like whether the telephone company is allowed to charge VISA extra money so that if the circuits in an exchange are nearly all full, they get priority over Mastercard in accessing the available lines.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why should streaming video users paying the same rates as those just reading text?
This is coming at the question from precisely the wrong direction; as Pyrtolin notes, that angle is already settled. We all -- by which I mean both the Tom Davidsons and Netflixes of the world -- pay for capacity usage. The question is whether Netflix should be able to pay to make its capacity somehow better than, say, Hulu's. Currently, Netflix and Hulu have to compete on quality of software and content; if one of them can afford to be delivered three times faster than its rival, that opens up a completely artificial avenue of competition that is purely negative from a consumer standpoint. It's also horribly anti-competitive; no upstart could afford to compete with Netflix if they had to pay similar rates for "priority" bandwidth.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The fact that ISPs (such as Comcast) are also distributing content makes the anti-competitive concerns even more acute.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
[QB]
quote:
Specifically limited capacity and fair compensation for its use. People seem to be aggrieved by the idea that they should pay for capacity usage. Why should streaming video users paying the same rates as those just reading text? Why should we disallow someone who streams videos from paying part of the cost to ensure their users are given the capacity they need?
That's a red herring, because something that already happens and is perfectly legal as the market stands. Subscribers pay for whatever level of bandwidth they want.
All three of you missed the point. There are two sides to the internet transaction the content provider and the content user. There is no reason that the middleman should not be able to make deals with both ends, with the customer for faster access and more capacity, and even as Pyrtolin suggests to priortise certain content, but also with the provider to ensure that they will have the capacity to provide their content to consumers regardless of the consumers selections.

That is exactly what net neutrality is about.
quote:
Net neutrality has nothing to do with that at all, but rather with the fact that the ISP should not be allowed to dictate to you how you can use that bandwidth that you paid for based on who is paying it on the back end to filter or limit certain content and privilege other content.
If you only consider one of the customers relevant - end user - you get this extreme view.
quote:
Subscribers should be 100% in charge of how to prioritize the segment of bandwidth they pay for. The only capacity based limit that the ISP should be imposing is on based on what the consumer has paid for, not what content providers might be willing to pay to squeeze their competition off the wire.
If I only want to pay for minimal service, but there is someone out there who wants me to see their content so bad they're willing to pay for content delivery on their own, there's nothing wrong with that.

I do agree you shouldn't be able to downgrade your competitors traffic, but moving to a premium tier versus - all other internet traffic - is no reasonable way rewritten to be downgrading your competition.
quote:
Originally posted by Scifibum:
It's actually more like whether the telephone company is allowed to charge VISA extra money so that if the circuits in an exchange are nearly all full, they get priority over Mastercard in accessing the available lines.

Why shouldn't they be able to do so? Again so long as the tiering is non-specific it's not specifically harming Mastercard over little Johnny downloading pron.

Amtrak has priority on the rails, yet the commuters on the MetroNorth get there just fine, generally with only an occasional minor delay.

Tom on your point, you've paid for access, and I agree no one should be able to target a specific company to derail or delay their content versus general content of that type. But there's no reason that the provider shouldn't be able to prioritize content that satifies a large number of its customers over high usage content going to a limited number. Nor is there any reason they shouldn't be able to say install an extra line of capacity and offer its usage up for a fee to content providers who want to ensure that their customers are less likely to be delayed.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Scifibum:
It's actually more like whether the telephone company is allowed to charge VISA extra money so that if the circuits in an exchange are nearly all full, they get priority over Mastercard in accessing the available lines.

Why shouldn't they be able to do so? Again so long as the tiering is non-specific it's not specifically harming Mastercard over little Johnny downloading pron.
Why do you think they are specifically NOT allowed to do so under current regulations? And what do you mean by "non-specific tiering"?
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
All three of you missed the point. There are two sides to the internet transaction the content provider and the content user. There is no reason that the middleman should not be able to make deals with both ends, with the customer for faster access and more capacity, and even as Pyrtolin suggests to priortise certain content, but also with the provider to ensure that they will have the capacity to provide their content to consumers regardless of the consumers selections.
No, you still are talking about the status quo. Providers have to pay for their bandwidth ance can get throttled if they're serving up more data tahn they've got pipe space.

quote:
That is exactly what net neutrality is about.
Not at all. Net Neutrality is about making sure that verizon isn't allowed to arbitrarily throttle Netflix access to people who use Verizon as an ISP, despite the fact that both the consumer and netflix had sufficient bandwidth in their respective subscriptions to fully support the transfer at regular speeds, because Amazon has paid it to make just that Netflix is unusable, while prime traffic is allowed to flow based on advertised bandwidth levels..
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin, you can say "not at all" till you're blue in the face. I've read the arguments on the regs that went before the SC. It's very much a debate about whether Verizon can reach a deal with Amazon to improve Amazon's capacity. There is no body of law that would allow them to reach a deal to ensure that Netflix is unusable.

It seems very clear that not requiring common carrier treatment, means that they will be entitled to reach commercial arrangements with content providers. They still have to be legal arrangements.

Nothing you guys have said explains simply why a content provider should not be allowed to pay to ensure its content is ensured the best possible transmission rate. Your worst nightmares, ie Verizon gave away so many preferences that no other content could get through, can't occur without it providing a massive incentive for competitors to arise and providing a basis for a class action for Verizons end user customers who are not getting what they paid for. The most likely result, by far, is that during heavy usage periods like the days before Christmas and the hours right after work, you'd be able to stream video better from Amazon. But later that night you'd not notice any difference.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But there's no reason that the provider shouldn't be able to prioritize content that satifies a large number of its customers over high usage content going to a limited number
Which it does by selling its customers a certain amount of bandwidth (and this includes providers in as much as they are also consumers when they purchase their bandwidth). Then the customers vote for what the company should prioritize by applying their bandwidth to the content they want. Removing net neutrality means that the company can override those customer votes based on being paid to restrict certain content so that the entities that paid for privileged access can operate at the full speed allowed by their relative bandwidth levels while those that can't pay are throttled to slower speeds, without regard to actual available bandwidth on either end.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pyrtolin, you can say "not at all" till you're blue in the face. I've read the arguments on the regs that went before the SC. It's very much a debate about whether Verizon can reach a deal with Amazon to improve Amazon's capacity.
Sure, that's why you're parroting back the misleading corporate propaganda on the issue without showing any inkling that you understand the actual issue or technology at play.

quote:
There is no body of law that would allow them to reach a deal to ensure that Netflix is unusable.
Net Neutrality was a policy that explicitly prevented them from making such a deal. The only practical effect of removing it is that there is now no legal protection to prevent such a deal from being made.

quote:
Nothing you guys have said explains simply why a content provider should not be allowed to pay to ensure its content is ensured the best possible transmission rate.
Because that's an absurd strawman. They already can pay for as much bandwidth as they want. No one on any side of the argument has said that they shouldn't be able to pay more more bandwidth if they want more bandwidth. Under net neutrality, the only reason their traffic would slow down would be if either the provider or the requester did not have the bandwidth necessary to support the link. (Unless your assertion is that the ISPs in question are overselling their bandwidth- telling people they have more bandwidth available than they really do and tricking people into buying a product that actually delivers less than advertized, in which case they're up against a completely different unethical practice)

The only practical effect of Net Neutrality is to allow the ISP to artificially throttle bandwidth above and beyond what any given user is limited to, and then allow specific people to effectively pay a ransom to take that throttle off and actually be able to use their full allotment.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
Pyrtolin, you can say "not at all" till you're blue in the face. I've read the arguments on the regs that went before the SC. It's very much a debate about whether Verizon can reach a deal with Amazon to improve Amazon's capacity. There is no body of law that would allow them to reach a deal to ensure that Netflix is unusable.

It seems very clear that not requiring common carrier treatment, means that they will be entitled to reach commercial arrangements with content providers. They still have to be legal arrangements.

Oh, yeah. I realize the courts concluded that such arrangements are LEGAL. That's why I think we should be pressuring the FCC to reclassify ISPs as common carriers, so we can actually enforce net neutrality (and we have a better chance there, maybe, than pushing through new legislation on the matter, since Congress is full of people who don't understand technology and hate cooperating).

I was talking about why it's BAD. Net Neutrality is good.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Which it does by selling its customers a certain amount of bandwidth (and this includes providers in as much as they are also consumers when they purchase their bandwidth). Then the customers vote for what the company should prioritize by applying their bandwidth to the content they want.

And I agree they should be able to use that bandwidth how they choose, but last I checked consumers are not guaranteed bandwidth, they are sold a maximum rate and explicitly told that their rate will suffer at high usage times. It's certainly true that my rates do.
quote:
Removing net neutrality means that the company can override those customer votes based on being paid to restrict certain content
No one can be paid to restrict certain content. It's illegal regardless of the net neutrality rules. It may be too subtle for you, but you can only pay to get better access not to downgrade someone else's (other than indirectly).
quote:
so that the entities that paid for privileged access can operate at the full speed allowed by their relative bandwidth levels while those that can't pay are throttled to slower speeds, without regard to actual available bandwidth on either end.
That's one way it could work. A provider buys their outgoing capicity the same way an end user buys their incoming. Of course, that's only one way it could work. Even that though isn't a particularly egregious result.

More likely, is that favored provider's will have their traffic pushed into the capacity pipe first (like Amtrak).
quote:
Sure, that's why you're parroting back the misleading corporate propaganda on the issue without showing any inkling that you understand the actual issue or technology at play.
Lol. I understand the principals at play, which apparently you're having trouble with. The "other side" of a debate is not just propaganda. They may use propaganda (as you frequently do) but that doesn't alter that they have an argument - even if you think its self serving.

The problem is you discount any factors other than the ones you consider important. Unfortunately for you, lots of other people get to have opinions too.
quote:
quote:
There is no body of law that would allow them to reach a deal to ensure that Netflix is unusable.
Net Neutrality was a policy that explicitly prevented them from making such a deal. The only practical effect of removing it is that there is now no legal protection to prevent such a deal from being made.
See you say that because you have no actual understanding of the law. Such laws predate the internet but still apply to contracts negotiated covering it. Net Neutrality prevented not only illegal arrangements, but also a whole host of arrangements that we wouldn't normally think of as illegal or improper.
quote:
quote:
Nothing you guys have said explains simply why a content provider should not be allowed to pay to ensure its content is ensured the best possible transmission rate.
Because that's an absurd strawman. They already can pay for as much bandwidth as they want. No one on any side of the argument has said that they shouldn't be able to pay more more bandwidth if they want more bandwidth. Under net neutrality, the only reason their traffic would slow down would be if either the provider or the requester did not have the bandwidth necessary to support the link. (Unless your assertion is that the ISPs in question are overselling their bandwidth- telling people they have more bandwidth available than they really do and tricking people into buying a product that actually delivers less than advertized, in which case they're up against a completely different unethical practice)
ISPs routinely sell more bandwidth than they have available. That's why they sell it at a "maximum" rate with a warning that says you may not achieve that rate.
quote:
The only practical effect of Net Neutrality is to allow the ISP to artificially throttle bandwidth above and beyond what any given user is limited to, and then allow specific people to effectively pay a ransom to take that throttle off and actually be able to use their full allotment.
That's like three year old logic. There are so many practical effects, so many possibilities but you just see your shiny toy getting taken away.

You understand it really is possible that the new way could result in more capacity not less? You're only assuming that it will result in all things evil cause that's the way your world view works.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Nothing you guys have said explains simply why a content provider should not be allowed to pay to ensure its content is ensured the best possible transmission rate.
Netflix has its servers in datacenters in various locations, and its own deals with ISPs for a certain level of bandwidth - they are selling Netflix access to the Internet core infrastructure. They are NOT making a deal with Netflix for access to the last mile of wire into customers' homes - those deals are made separately.

Comcast has made deals with consumers for access to the Internet as well.

Now, you are arguing that there's nothing problematic about Comcast - who made their deal with the consumer, trying to charge Netflix money for how that content gets delivered to the consumer.

There isn't even an existing business relationship between Comcast and Netflix. Netflix is not paying Comcast for access to the internet.

Comcast is trying to exploit their position as the last mile provider, selling a "service" that no one (except for last mile ISPs) wants. They are NOT Netflix's ISP. This is NOT business as usual when it comes to tiered bandwidth costs.

(Even if Comcast serves as Netflix's ISP for some data centers, it does not serve as the end-to-end provider of the Internet pipes, and the deal on one end has nothing to do with the deal on the consumer's end. The prioritization would occur on the consumer's end, and Comcast has no business selling the content provider extra features on the product the consumer has purchased.)

[ June 09, 2014, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You're only assuming that it will result in all things evil cause that's the way your world view works.
Who pushes for net neutrality, and who is against it?

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/lobbyists-net-neutrality-fcc/

Do you really think the opponents have the consumers in mind?

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You're only assuming that it will result in all things evil cause that's the way your world view works.
There has almost literally been no practical example, ever, of law allowing large corporate entities to engage in a practice that could potentially squeeze out start ups in the same or similar field NOT being used in exactly that way in almost all circumstances where it could be used that way. This is EXACTLY what large corporations do, and it would be a violation of their share holders expectations NOT to do that. There MAY be some incidental benefits to consumers... but those are almost always massively outweighed by the reduction in competition.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Who pushes for net neutrality, and who is against it?

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/lobbyists-net-neutrality-fcc/

Do you really think the opponents have the consumers in mind?

I want to address this first. I'm really curious what you think we should take out of this. They made the surprising discovery that the biggest lobbyists against net neutrality are the big telecoms. Since they stand to be able to create all kinds of economic benefit from the result why wouldn't they?

I do agree that no one wants to see the results of the recording industries lobbying, with some kind of mandated spying to prevent the transmission of copyrighted materials.
quote:
quote:
Nothing you guys have said explains simply why a content provider should not be allowed to pay to ensure its content is ensured the best possible transmission rate.
Now, you are arguing that there's nothing problematic about Comcast - who made their deal with the consumer, trying to charge Netflix money for how that content gets delivered to the consumer.
You seem to mean double charging, like your view is that it's getting paid twice for the same service. I do have a problem with recharging Netflix for no improvement. What I don't have a problem with is if Verizon wants to make a deal with Netflix that takes Netflix out of the normal que and gives them a guanteed streaming HD movie bandwidth for customers that want to pay for it. No more loading times or buffering delays. Why are you against Verizon and Netflix making that deal? Arbuably if the service proves popular it'll incent Verizon to upgrade customer capacity to meet the volumn needs to support it.

I added Mass Effect to my PS3 the other day, took 50 minutes to download. Why shouldn't Sony be able to negotiate a deal with AT&T that would've allowed me to pay $2 more and be guaranteed a burst download at my maximum download rate so I can get it in 10 minutes?
quote:
There isn't even an existing business relationship between Comcast and Netflix. Netflix is not paying Comcast for access to the internet.
I think that's the whole point, Comcast is saying they would like to be able to offer new products and improvement to Netflix. You can't use evidence that the arrangements don't exist when they are prohibitted as some kind of argument. And you don't really know if they'll be good or bad without letting them do it.

It's not like you can't regulate it later if it turns out to have been a mistake.
quote:
Comcast is trying to exploit their position as the last mile provider, selling a "service" that no one (except for last mile ISPs) wants. They are NOT Netflix's ISP. This is NOT business as usual when it comes to tiered bandwidth costs.
Maybe. But I don't have a problem with the Sheriff stepping in if this turns out to be nothing but a shakedown scam. I just think you guys are completely jumping the gun on assuming it will be.
quote:
(Even if Comcast serves as Netflix's ISP for some data centers, it does not serve as the end-to-end provider of the Internet pipes, and the deal on one end has nothing to do with the deal on the consumer's end. The prioritization would occur on the consumer's end, and Comcast has no business selling the content provider extra features on the product the consumer has purchased.)
That's an argument based on the current model. Is there some reason that Comcast could not provide an end to end service for Netflix to the consumer that I'm missing? It's not that much different than On Demand cable service.

There are whole realms of innovation that are off the table with these rules. Yes there are risks and lots of things that could go wrong or be unfair, but that's not a reason to not let anyone innovate.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's an argument based on the current model. Is there some reason that Comcast could not provide an end to end service for Netflix to the consumer that I'm missing? It's not that much different than On Demand cable service.
Yes - they don't operate the whole Internet. They provide access at the nodes.

If they want to use something other than the Internet, I'm fine with that.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You understand it really is possible that the new way could result in more capacity not less?
If you believe this, you are delusional.

quote:
It's not like you can't regulate it later if it turns out to have been a mistake.
Which is of course why so many local communities have a wide variety of cable companies available to them. Seriously? You think regulation further down the line is going to happen?

No, of course not.

[ June 09, 2014, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
You understand it really is possible that the new way could result in more capacity not less?
If you believe this, you are delusional.
What part of the history of commerce leads you to believe that a comercial incentive will lead to less innovation and product development? Seriously.
quote:
quote:
It's not like you can't regulate it later if it turns out to have been a mistake.
Which is of course why so many local communities have a wide variety of cable companies available to them. Seriously? You think regulation further down the line is going to happen?
And you think the lack of cable choices stems from a "lack" of regulation? You are aware that in a lot of jurisdictions the entire history of cable is that of state granted monopolies and interference in choice? They had their reasons, like ensuring that someone would be willing to incur the cost of wiring everyone up, but the lack of competition was a fact of government policy.

We have more choices today for delivery of content than we have ever had before.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And you think the lack of cable choices stems from a "lack" of regulation?
Rather, they stem from a lack of ability to go back and regulate after the initial mistake.

quote:
We have more choices today for delivery of content than we have ever had before.
Really? I have considerably fewer. Where are you living, that you have more?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not sure how you could have less than one. At least where I grew up the town chose the exclusive cable provider, and you weren't permitted to go with someone else. You could get a giant satellite dish if you prefered.

Compared with now? Mulitple small satellite options, I can choose from more than one cable provider and more than one highspeed telephone/internet provider. I can use anyone of several major telephone companies and cable companies to provide phone, internet and/or television, and that's assuming I don't go with a fringe provider. I skip getting a cable company, download shows from multiple services. I can skip a phone company and get phone by cable, or VOIP. Not to mention, I can buy a device and service plan that connects wirelessly.

Honestly, how is that not more choices? Where did you live that you had more as a kid?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Compared with now? Mulitple small satellite options, I can choose from more than one cable provider and more than one highspeed telephone/internet provider.
Ah, see, this was the state of affairs ten years ago for me. Now, we are down to one cable provider and one telephone provider. Satellite remains an unviable option, of course, for those idiots who like to pay for television -- but Internet access is where it's at, so we're looking at DSL or cable.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
And I agree they should be able to use that bandwidth how they choose, but last I checked consumers are not guaranteed bandwidth, they are sold a maximum rate and explicitly told that their rate will suffer at high usage times. It's certainly true that my rates do.


Comcast used to sell hubbed service instead of switched service to consumers- a shady way of lying about what they were selling and put that clause in to cover them. By now I hope that the overall market has pounded that kind of bad behavior out of them. At peak usage times you will see degradation in some service speeds, but that's because the service provider has become bandwidth constrained (or even server processing constrained) not because your provider isn't giving you the bandwidth that you're paying for.

quote:
No one can be paid to restrict certain content. It's illegal regardless of the net neutrality rules.
It was only illegal because of the net neutrality rules. they are very explicitly what made it illegal. Without them ISPs are free to pass or restrict whatever traffic they like, as they like it. In fact it was specifically cases being brought against ISPs for violating net neutrality (such as Comcast choosing to filter file sharing ports) that eventually led to the courts striking down the net neutrality provisions in the first place.
quote:
It may be too subtle for you, but you can only pay to get better access not to downgrade someone else's (other than indirectly).
That's nonsense. Without net neutrality rules, the ISP is free to choose to route traffic to its consumers through its equipment however it wants. We've already seen Verizon jump on the opening made by removing net neutrality to significantly throttle netflix access (and, incidentally, any other services from other companies that happen to use the same hosting facilities), making its own video streaming options look much better to its customers in comparison.
[QUOTEThat's one way it could work. A provider buys their outgoing capicity the same way an end user buys their incoming.[/quote]
That's how it currently works. Net Neutrality just means that the ISP can't get in the middle and force the equation to have more limit points than just the the demands on the providers outbound service vs the availability of the consumers inbound service.

quote:
More likely, is that favored provider's will have their traffic pushed into the capacity pipe first (like Amtrak).
There is no first and last- everything is broken up into tiny pieces and effectively moving in parallel.


quote:
I understand the principals at play, which apparently you're having trouble with.
It's actually very clear that you don't and you're just operating on the misinformation that the large ISPs are using to mislead the courts by taking advantage of their similar ignorance of the actual technology at play.

quote:
The problem is you discount any factors other than the ones you consider important. Unfortunately for you, lots of other people get to have opinions too.
No, the problem is that you're arguing speculatively without showing any actual understanding abut the technology in question and the way it works against people that are moderately, in not very well versed in the actual technology at play.
quote:
See you say that because you have no actual understanding of the law. Such laws predate the internet but still apply to contracts negotiated covering it.
And that's where you get completely absurd, because there's no way a law that predates the internet could apply to what's happening here because the entire shape of the issue is something that only exists in context of the internet, and, in fact, every other law that covers a similar situation already favors the middle man being able to decide what content to make available- a book store can choose not to carry a book that it doesn't want people to get (or to only buy limited quantities) and it's also free to make exclusive content deals with certain publishers and agree to not carry products from that publishers competitors as a condition of that deal. Net Neutrality has, thus far prevented ISPs from operating on a similar model, but now they see a chance to make a large amount of additional revenue by removing the restriction that prevented them from doing so in the form of just such power to control content as it flows through their infrastructure.

If you fell that there is some magical internet predictive law that pre-exists, please do feel free to cite your source here. What laws prevent content access providers from choosing which content they will carry or from entering exclusive content deals with certain publishers in the way you're suggesting that ISPs are somehow otherwise blocked from doing outside of the Net Neutrality provisions that were what explicitly forbade such behavior.

quote:
Net Neutrality prevented not only illegal arrangements, but also a whole host of arrangements that we wouldn't normally think of as illegal or improper.
Net Neutrality prevented ISPs and other infrastructure providers from favoring any kind of traffic based on source or content on anything other than the basis of bandwidth available. What ever else you imagine it may had done isn't based on fact, but just seems to be speculation to fill in the holes in your complete misrepresentation of the issue.

quote:
ISPs routinely sell more bandwidth than they have available. That's why they sell it at a "maximum" rate with a warning that says you may not achieve that rate.
You may not achieve that rate from any given source because the content provider may not have enough bandwidth or server power to deliver at that rate. It has nothing to do with their contractual obligation to make sure that your connection consistently operates at the promised speeds so long as the content is available at that rate. The disclaimer exists so that they can be clear that they don't take responsibility for slow providers that are outside of the scope of their control.


quote:
You understand it really is possible that the new way could result in more capacity not less?
More capacity would result in more capacity. Capacity is completely tangential to net neutrality, which operates within the limits of any current level of capacity.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Compared with now? Mulitple small satellite options, I can choose from more than one cable provider and more than one highspeed telephone/internet provider.
Ah, see, this was the state of affairs ten years ago for me. Now, we are down to one cable provider and one telephone provider. Satellite remains an unviable option, of course, for those idiots who like to pay for television -- but Internet access is where it's at, so we're looking at DSL or cable.
DSL is a phone based service, covered by common carrier provisions, which is why 10 years ago, you had a large number of providers that were able to lease line access and resell it, making a reasonably competitive market.

Now with the switch to fiber, which hasn't been forced to follow the same regulations, we get this narrowing where you have one telephone company and one cable provider in any given area exercising their relative monopolies and making sure that their prices don't vary all that much from each others as to not upset their profit margins. You can go to a few third party satellite providers for TV service, but for anything over DSL speeds, they have to take whatever price is dictated to them by the two high speed carriers, without the common carrier provisions that would allow the possibility of competitive pricing.

(And that's also why you have a handful of municipalities that have decided to eschew that model in favor of building out an explicitly public infrastructure that are able to offer better service at a fraction of the rate that you get in the fully private infrastructure cities- the actual costs and resultant prices needed to sustainably operate the system are a fraction of what the for profit cartel model can get away with asking for.)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
I want to address this first. I'm really curious what you think we should take out of this. They made the surprising discovery that the biggest lobbyists against net neutrality are the big telecoms. Since they stand to be able to create all kinds of economic benefit from the result why wouldn't they?


You've explicitly stood up and declared taht corporations should only be focused on maximum profits, and now you're suggesting we should believe taht they're motivated by creating an economic benefit?

They stand to rake in huge profits because of it, since the lack of net neutrality means that they'll effectively be able to charge extra to providers and consumers alike for access on a case by case basis. Economic benefit or destruction is completely irrelevant, as long as they can rake in more cash along the way.

quote:
What I don't have a problem with is if Verizon wants to make a deal with Netflix that takes Netflix out of the normal que and gives them a guanteed streaming HD movie bandwidth for customers that want to pay for it. No more loading times or buffering delays. Why are you against Verizon and Netflix making that deal?

Because that's a result that's completely outside the scope of the technology in question. Those delays only exist for one of three reasons- Netflix does not have sufficient bandwidth to support its current request volume, the consumer does not have sufficient bandwidth to support its current inbound volume, or the ISP on one end or the other is throttling the communication.. Net Neutrality makes that last option illegal, the only effect of removing it would be to allow that last possibility so that the ISPs in question could charge extra to let the data flow freely.

quote:
I added Mass Effect to my PS3 the other day, took 50 minutes to download. Why shouldn't Sony be able to negotiate a deal with AT&T that would've allowed me to pay $2 more and be guaranteed a burst download at my maximum download rate so I can get it in 10 minutes?
Because AT&T has no power over that. RAther, right now, there's nothing preventing you from making a deal with _Sony_ such that they offer you a dedicated server with enough bandwidth and low enough load to make that transmission to you at the higher rate. The slow speed you saw had nothing to do with AT&T at all, but rather was a direct result of Sony not having enough capacity to offer a higher rate of data access to you. You could pay all the cash you wanted to AT&T, not a penny of it would changes the fact that Sony is only sending the bits out at a certain rate.

quote:
There isn't even an existing business relationship between Comcast and Netflix. Netflix is not paying Comcast for access to the internet.
To jump out of the hypothetical model and point to real relationships- there actually such a realtionship. Netflix recently leased server hosting from Comcast in order to have more direct access to its consumers. Despite some intiial misunderstandings of what had happened, this is a completely legitimate move, even under the auspices of Net Neutrality. Netflix chose to use Comcast as an ISP, which means that it now has the ability to pay Comcast directly for as much server capacity and bandwidth as it needs to fully serve Comcast's other customers, with less interconnect in the middle.

quote:
I think that's the whole point, Comcast is saying they would like to be able to offer new products and improvement to Netflix.
Not at all. Comcast and Verizon are arguing that they want to be able to throttle any connection at will, regardless of bandwidth provisions so that they can charge people more to remove the rate caps. That's the kind of behavior that Net Neutrality explicitly existed to prevent, and it's specifically the kind of behavior that now becomes legal in in the wake of removing it.

quote:
Maybe. But I don't have a problem with the Sheriff stepping in if this turns out to be nothing but a shakedown scam. I just think you guys are completely jumping the gun on assuming it will be.
Given that the exp[licit point of the provision and only actual function of it was to prevent such shakedowns, it's not jumping the gun at all to say that the primary motivation of the companies pushing to remove it is so that they can make revenue on shakedowns. Anything else they want to do was already legal without the restriction from shaking down providers and consumers for access.

quote:
That's an argument based on the current model. Is there some reason that Comcast could not provide an end to end service for Netflix to the consumer that I'm missing? It's not that much different than On Demand cable service.
Because Comcast does not own the infrastructure from end to end. Under Net Neutrality, there is nothing to prevent Comcast from offering Netflix internal hosting, as it has done, so that it gets a more direct connection to Comcast's customers to the extent that Comcast uses only its infrastructure between them. The only thing that NN requires is that Comcast not throttle anyone else such that Netflix gains an advantage from the lack of such restrictions.

quote:
There are whole realms of innovation that are off the table with these rules.
Just the opposite- these rules are what allows innovation to stay on the table, because they ensure that innovative technologies don't have to pay an additional shakedown fee to gain the same level of access that entrenched technologies are able to pay to secure exclusively for themselves.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin:

quote:
To jump out of the hypothetical model and point to real relationships- there actually such a realtionship. Netflix recently leased server hosting from Comcast in order to have more direct access to its consumers. Despite some intiial misunderstandings of what had happened, this is a completely legitimate move, even under the auspices of Net Neutrality. Netflix chose to use Comcast as an ISP, which means that it now has the ability to pay Comcast directly for as much server capacity and bandwidth as it needs to fully serve Comcast's other customers, with less interconnect in the middle.
Thank you. Both for recognizing that I was harping on a hypothetical (though I meant it to be realistic) and for pointing out the real life arrangement that my hypothetical contradicted.

I agree with you that there is nothing especially concerning about an ISP reaching a hosting agreement with a content provider to reduce the routing hops between the content provider and the consumers that use that ISP, as long as there isn't any additional anti-competitive component to it (like an agreement that it's an exclusive deal and no similar agreement can be reached with another content provider or ISP). It doesn't change how the Internet works.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
No one can be paid to restrict certain content. It's illegal regardless of the net neutrality rules.
It was only illegal because of the net neutrality rules. they are very explicitly what made it illegal. Without them ISPs are free to pass or restrict whatever traffic they like, as they like it. In fact it was specifically cases being brought against ISPs for violating net neutrality (such as Comcast choosing to filter file sharing ports) that eventually led to the courts striking down the net neutrality provisions in the first place.
You got so much right but missed the meaning. The rules got struck down because they interfered with ISP's ability to choose how to effectively provide resources to their customers. That's a far cry from being allowed to delay traffic for any reason at all. You should really spend some time on non-tech comercial law.

10 minutes of research and you'll come up with at least 6 common doctrines that would be applicable to these transactions absent net neutrality. And given the exclusive nature of the relationship between the customer and the ISP, things like exclusive dealing contracts (in this case sponorships that exclude competitors) would be exceedingly unlikely to be enforeable and almost certainly actionable by the competitors.

Net neutrality may be a good idea, but it will not be the apocolypse to go away from it, and the results may be better than what we have.
quote:
quote:
It may be too subtle for you, but you can only pay to get better access not to downgrade someone else's (other than indirectly).
That's nonsense.
Seriously 10 minutes research outside of the narrow tech world and you won't sound so silly.
quote:
quote:
stand the principals at play, which apparently you're having trouble with.
It's actually very clear that you don't and you're just operating on the misinformation that the large ISPs are using to mislead the courts by taking advantage of their similar ignorance of the actual technology at play.
I find it completely consistent with your world view that you assumed that I meant the technology when I said the principals at play. I'm not even attempting to put my end user understanding at odds with expert knowledge. But once again, through your narrow focus on assuming the knowledge you have is the most important (if not only relevant) piece you miss the chance to be persuasive, while simultaneously demonstrating that outside the narrow focus you don't know what you're talking about.
quote:
No, the problem is that you're arguing speculatively without showing any actual understanding abut the technology in question and the way it works against people that are moderately, in not very well versed in the actual technology at play.
I'm arguing that you've forclosed a market and stifled innovation, and that you're argument isn't going to persuade anyone enough to make a difference against the massive amount of potential revenue that market will generate and what people will do to access it.
quote:
quote:
See you say that because you have no actual understanding of the law. Such laws predate the internet but still apply to contracts negotiated covering it.
And that's where you get completely absurd, because there's no way a law that predates the internet could apply to what's happening here because the entire shape of the issue is something that only exists in context of the internet
You think constraints on trade and issues with exclusivity in monopolies and near monoploies is a situation that only applies on the internet? You don't think Collusion and tortious interference predate the internet? Could you say something that is more naive?
quote:
...and, in fact, every other law that covers a similar situation already favors the middle man being able to decide what content to make available- a book store can choose not to carry a book that it doesn't want people to get (or to only buy limited quantities) and it's also free to make exclusive content deals with certain publishers and agree to not carry products from that publishers competitors as a condition of that deal.
Sigh. You may understand the tech principals but you sure don't understand how the law works.
quote:
quote:
Net Neutrality prevented not only illegal arrangements, but also a whole host of arrangements that we wouldn't normally think of as illegal or improper.
Net Neutrality prevented ISPs and other infrastructure providers from favoring any kind of traffic based on source or content on anything other than the basis of bandwidth available.
Which prohibitted any number of legitimate distinctions, and prohibitten any number of add on innovations. It's the wrong rule to achieve the goal. Your always free to have it re-established as a common carrier.
quote:
quote:
You understand it really is possible that the new way could result in more capacity not less?
More capacity would result in more capacity. Capacity is completely tangential to net neutrality, which operates within the limits of any current level of capacity.
Yes, but capacity is not tangential to profit, and more business that is centered around higher capacity would promote it. The care should be in ensuring it doesn't lead to just extorting rents out of the existing structure, but that it actually encourages new development and expansion.
quote:
You've explicitly stood up and declared taht corporations should only be focused on maximum profits, and now you're suggesting we should believe taht they're motivated by creating an economic benefit?
Well I never said the first, your misconstruing that I said its the only required element to define a private business. Your the one who cited to an economist that argued that's all it should be.

But simply put, did you read what you wrote? Yes they will be motivated to create an economic benefit specifically because they will profit from it.

You're living in a zero sum world, and the argument on the other side is for growth. It's really that simple. If it's truly going to be zero sum, I'll be on your side to prohibit it.
quote:
quote:
I added Mass Effect to my PS3 the other day, took 50 minutes to download. Why shouldn't Sony be able to negotiate a deal with AT&T that would've allowed me to pay $2 more and be guaranteed a burst download at my maximum download rate so I can get it in 10 minutes?
Because AT&T has no power over that. RAther, right now, there's nothing preventing you from making a deal with _Sony_ such that they offer you a dedicated server with enough bandwidth and low enough load to make that transmission to you at the higher rate. The slow speed you saw had nothing to do with AT&T at all, but rather was a direct result of Sony not having enough capacity to offer a higher rate of data access to you. You could pay all the cash you wanted to AT&T, not a penny of it would changes the fact that Sony is only sending the bits out at a certain rate.
I don't use AT&T. Are you really asserting that it's impossible for AT&T and Sony to reach a deal that would get the data to AT&T's customers at the maximum rate that AT&T can provide those customers? The amount of data transfered here was trivial compared to the maximum capacities of everyone but me.

It's just a circular restatement of what is to say it's not Sony's business, there's no reason it couldn't be their business. It's not the same thing, but everyone with a Kindle has their connection charges and data usage being paid by Amazon (granted its a hidden charge that they are passing back, but it could have been done the other way). Content providers have incentives to want to provide you access.

I mean think about another alternative. What if they requiree that the ISP's split the profits on content provider deals with their customers (like the Obamacare healthplan give back, though actually functional). Imagine if your internet bills dropped 50%, for an "impairment" that next to no one even noticed, is that still a bad result?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You may understand the tech principals but you sure don't understand how the law works.
Two things:
1) The word is "principles." Bill Gates is an example of a "tech principal."

2) I understand both the tech principles and the law. What legitimate distinction do you believe would be beneficial to consumers and to the competitive landscape that would allow the paid prioritization of a content provider's traffic over unpaid traffic?

quote:
You're living in a zero sum world, and the argument on the other side is for growth.
That's ridiculous. Net neutrality is not preventing the growth of the Internet. Nor will abandoning it suddenly create growth; it will create consolidation.

-------

quote:
It's not the same thing, but everyone with a Kindle has their connection charges and data usage being paid by Amazon (granted its a hidden charge that they are passing back, but it could have been done the other way).
Just FYI: this is no longer true. Once Amazon reached a critical mass of customers, they stopped subsidizing traffic for new ones. Which is something very similar to what I imagine we'll see with the "growth" here: promotional stunts that are then rolled back after lock-in.

------

quote:
is that still a bad result?
Yes. Because the scenario that you describe would kill innovation on the Internet, as no one could afford to compete with established players unless they could also afford to bribe the carriers. The story of the Internet is little guys and college students entering a zero-barrier field with a service that largely scales for free. The abandonment of Net Neutrality reverses that position.

[ June 10, 2014, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
To jump out of the hypothetical model and point to real relationships- there actually such a realtionship. Netflix recently leased server hosting from Comcast in order to have more direct access to its consumers. Despite some intiial misunderstandings of what had happened, this is a completely legitimate move, even under the auspices of Net Neutrality. Netflix chose to use Comcast as an ISP, which means that it now has the ability to pay Comcast directly for as much server capacity and bandwidth as it needs to fully serve Comcast's other customers, with less interconnect in the middle.
That doesn't convey the complex context of the situation completely and I think there are some legitimate net neutrality implications for the Netflix/Comcast arrangement.

Comcast has required that Netflix pay them for an arrangement that is usually (by convention, not regulation) free and was the result of strong-arming by Comcast. Other providers have committed to not requiring similar arrangements.

But, like I said, it's complicated. There is a cost to carrying Netflix's traffic and the intricacies of how that cost is spread between ISPs, content providers, and consumers makes discussions of net neutrality a little less cut and dried.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't use AT&T. Are you really asserting that it's impossible for AT&T and Sony to reach a deal that would get the data to AT&T's customers at the maximum rate that AT&T can provide those customers? The amount of data transfered here was trivial compared to the maximum capacities of everyone but me.
The amount of data that Sony was transferring out includes the data taht every you is requesting. That total is not trivial compared to their maximum pipe.

It is certainly possible for AT&T to sell Sony additional bandwidth, if it's Sony's outbound bandwidth that's the limiting factor and not their server pool's maximum distributed transfer rate. That's something completely irrelevant to Net Neutrality, though.

It is completely impossible for AT&T to give Sony more bandwidth, however, if Sony is not using them as its outbound ISP. All it's possible for AT&T to do is throttle Sony's connection if they want to limit it to less than what your current bandwidth allows you to get at most. At that point, the only control AT&T has is the ability to restrict the speed of a connection to you, which they'd have to be doing before they could suddenly turn around and offer to let the data through faster if you pay them a little extra for the privilege of actually applying the full amount of bandwidth they nominally sold you to the process.

That's the fundamental nature of the technology in question- the only way that AT&T can actually promise to make Sony's speed faster for you, if they're not directly selling Sony bandwidth to begin with, is to have already been restricting Sony's bandwidth such that they can loosen the restrictions in exchange for your money.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Comcast has required that Netflix pay them for an arrangement that is usually (by convention, not regulation) free and was the result of strong-arming by Comcast. Other providers have committed to not requiring similar arrangements.
Absolutely- to the extent that Comcast coerced Netflix into buying hosting by throttling Netflix traffic until it bought their service, that is definitely the kind of behavior that Net Neutrality blocked and only became legal in its absence. It's also a perfect example of what the "innovation" that the major telecoms want to bring to bear works like.

On the other hand- using hosting as a way to get shorter hops and additional bandwidth is perfectly valid within the context of Net Neutrality

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You may understand the tech principals but you sure don't understand how the law works.
Regardless of the validity of that assertion, the law cannot change how the technology works. And no amount of legal claims that it magically can do so are valid. The stated objectives are entirely possible with Net Neutrality in place, while the only actual effect of removing net neutrality is to allow shakedowns to occur, because it is explicitly what prevents them from happening and the only technological possible outcome of removing them is allowing such shakedowns.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Dear Matthew:

Thank you for taking the time to write to me about Net Neutrality issues. I rely on the input of engaged New Jerseyans like you when making decisions, and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

The Internet is a powerful engine of economic growth, opportunity, and innovation, and it has become essential to our everyday lives. I support strong Net Neutrality rules that would preserve the openness of the Internet and ensure that we continue to enjoy access to online content that is free from discrimination and blocking. To that end, I oppose an approach to Net Neutrality rules that would allow Internet Service Providers to create Internet "fast lanes," prioritizing service for certain content.

On May 15, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to approve a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on new Net Neutrality rules. The vote also marked the beginning of a public comment period in which the Commission will seek input on how to best develop rules that ensure the Internet remains open and free from content discrimination. I am pleased that the Commission is keeping all options on the table, and I support their comprehensive approach to this rulemaking. This is a critically important period for the future of Internet policy, and I am encouraged by the public's engagement with the Commission.

Again, thank you for writing to me. I am honored to represent you in the United States Senate, and I value what I hear from New Jerseyans about the issues our state and nation face. Please continue to keep in touch with your thoughts and concerns. For more information on my work in Washington and New Jersey, please visit my website at booker.senate.gov.



Sincerely,

Cory A. Booker

This is from my Senator after I signed a petition (same one Joshua D. posted?) to him.

Good to hear. I hope it's not political drivel meant to placate me.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1