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 » The End of the World as We Know It (Kinda) (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: The End of the World as We Know It (Kinda)
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Looks like it's going to happen. The First Admendment is going to be scrapped. There is going to be billions in new taxes created. Microsoft and Apple will move out of the United States. It is so bad, America deserves to be wiped out. All to hype global warming, using methods just like the Nazis, the Soviets, and the Chinese Communists used!

Yes, you guessed it: it looks like net neutrality will be preserved. [Smile]

I guess we'll all have to see if any of our freedoms survive after this liberal onslaught. [Eek!] How could the Republicans be so weak! [DOH]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Glad we got this one. I thought it would die a slow death.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's good to see this. Freedom is slavery and 300 pages of new regulations to exert government control of the Internet frees us all. The more control government has, the more free you are. I am confident these regulations will evolve and grow, reaching into every corner of our virtual lives, making us the most free people in history. It's a great day for America.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rafi, I recommend against relying on Verizon to interpret this decision.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rafi's just mad because this decision doesn't follow the Golden Rule: he who has the gold should make the rules. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wait until the government starts imposing tons of taxes and fees on the net more than they ever could have dreamed of.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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 
I'm curious why you think the government has only now gained the power to impose tons of taxes and fees on the Internet. If it wanted to do that, it could have done it already.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They will use this precedent to do it through the FCC as executive action rather than do it the proper way through Congress.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why would they? Is there something from how other utilities are regulated that makes you think they would?
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 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 
More to the point- the government's track record has been to actively resist putting and taxes or fees on it, while the private sector showed that, even in the brief period of time where net-neutrality was no longer the default law of the land, it was more than willing to use its power to arbitrarily throttle connections to extort additional payment and purchase of services from service providers.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca has a unique incite that none of the many consumer organizations that supported this have.

Seneca do you really believe that those who already have a near monopoly on the internet would not have used a failure to attach huge fees on consumer content providers? Or do you think those content providers would have graciously eaten those fees.

I pay my cable provider to provide me with the content I desire at a high speed. Manipulating my access to that content is wrong. Then again I guess since money equals free speech the FCC was wrong.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Rafi, I recommend against relying on Verizon to interpret this decision.

I have no idea what Verizon's stance is in this, I guess they don't like it based on your comment. Can you explain why the government imposing more control over this makes us more free?
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:

I pay my cable provider to provide me with the content I desire at a high speed. Manipulating my access to that content is wrong. Then again I guess since money equals free speech the FCC was wrong.

I pay my ISP for that too. If they manipulate my access to desired content, I change providers to one that doesn't do that.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because the government's influence reduces the ability of others to exercise control. Unless you think it's only the government that can make us less free.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  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 Mynnion:
I pay my cable provider to provide me with the content I desire at a high speed. Manipulating my access to that content is wrong. Then again I guess since money equals free speech the FCC was wrong.

See I also pay my ISP a certain fee to provide me access to certain content, at certain speeds. Their failure to reasonably restrain others from abusing the network over which my content will travel will have a negative impact on my own use of the internet.

Like it or not, it's entirely possible that the end result of this will be buffering, rather than true live streaming in all our futures. True in the prior system you may have been able to live stream Netflix or Amazon Prime and not Mr. Joe's video service, but now you'll get to have the same slow speed on all your traffic.
quote:
Seneca do you really believe that those who already have a near monopoly on the internet would not have used a failure to attach huge fees on consumer content providers?
I think Seneca reasonably believes in the power of the free market to discipline anyone who tries. After all, the free market has an enormous history of both lowering costs and increasing quality, whereas government utilities do not.
quote:
Or do you think those content providers would have graciously eaten those fees.
No, what I think is that Netflix would have "graciously" eaten those fees, allowing the consumer rates to be lower while still causing a big incentive to invest in capacity and quality improvement.

And you guys really are ignoring the tax implications of this decision. It won't be immediate (or at least not likely) but its a certainty that there will be mandatory tax increases on your bill to pay for the regulatory mechanisms to police this change.

So let's review. Slower service, higher cost - both through taxes and because there is no fee splitting with the mega-corps, and almost certainly less incentive to improve or innovate. Yay for the Good Team! In exchange, we get the dubious benefit of allowing data abusers to keep moving forward without limitations.

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:
If they manipulate my access to desired content, I change providers to one that doesn't do that.
Oh, look at Mr. Ivory Tower Golden Toilet Hoity-Toity Man, him with an actual choice of multiple Internet providers. Must be nice, Fancy-Pants. [Wink]

--------

quote:
we get the dubious benefit of allowing data abusers
By "data abusers," we mean "innovators and early adopters?" [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati, it was also possible you'd end up with Netflix or Amazon Prime, but not both. Or established online portals buying up bandwith to keep competitors out. Would people have left MySpace if FaceBook was perpetually stuck at dail-up speeds?

Yes, you could switch to another ISP, if there is one and if it offers the same services (I've only got access to one proper high-speed service, though I expect the other one will expand their connectivity soon). But as my parenthetical comment noted, there are only two actual service providers in my area. If they both decide to start screwing with my Internet speed/content, there's no one else to switch unless I want to sacrifice my internet speed (and therefore content). I was downloading a game at 5-6 MB/s (does that make me an abuser?) this week, I don't wanna go back to 5 Mb/s.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  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 NobleHunter:
Seriati, it was also possible you'd end up with Netflix or Amazon Prime, but not both. Or established online portals buying up bandwith to keep competitors out. Would people have left MySpace if FaceBook was perpetually stuck at dail-up speeds?

Which is a liberal fantasy. ISP's that tried to block content were already hammered by existing rules and oversight. It is not possible that I would get one but not the other, it was possible that one would stream all the time, while the other buffered during the day and streamed in the middle of the night.

It's a scare tactic to claim that slowing a site's traffic to dial up speeds (rather than the same as everyone else in the non-priority pipeline) was a realistic possibility. Not least because it's very probably an actionable offense as well as something the regulator was carefully watching.
quote:
Yes, you could switch to another ISP, if there is one and if it offers the same services (I've only got access to one proper high-speed service, though I expect the other one will expand their connectivity soon).
Tom confused you, I never said anything about switching ISPs. However, if I had, I'd point out that in an era of abuse like you suggest, it's entirely likely that we would see an explosion in market share for smaller friendlier ISP's. The big players can't be that abusive and remain the "big players." Their current lack of being abusive is a large part of why we have big players currently.
quote:
But as my parenthetical comment noted, there are only two actual service providers in my area. If they both decide to start screwing with my Internet speed/content, there's no one else to switch unless I want to sacrifice my internet speed (and therefore content).
So you'd be adverse to a new player coming in an offering a basic ISP service at normal rates but that prioritized gaming downloads and live streaming at 10 MB/s?

Or that your neighbor got an ISP with a pipeline into Netflix and e-mail?

Why don't you like the potential for customized solutions?

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:
So you'd be adverse to a new player coming in an offering a basic ISP service at normal rates but that prioritized gaming downloads and live streaming at 10 MB/s?
Hee. Yeah, sure, that'd happen.
It's interesting that it hasn't happened in the last twenty years. That, in fact, the number of available providers has generally been shrinking in most communities. But it certainly could have happened, any day now.

*rolls eyes* Yeah, let's assume that the invisible hand of the market would have started making things better tomorrow, even though it didn't exactly do so for the decades earlier. [Smile]

quote:
The big players can't be that abusive and remain the "big players."
I suspect you examine nationwide satisfaction ratings for Comcast and Delta. *grin* They are not big because they are not abusive. They are big because they make it competitively impossible for "little guys" to actually gain an affordable foothold in the market, and their products are generally inexpensive enough that "abuse" is not worth a 50% discount to most people. It's the same reason that no one makes a killing selling organic canned tomatoes.

------

quote:
It's a scare tactic to claim that slowing a site's traffic to dial up speeds (rather than the same as everyone else in the non-priority pipeline) was a realistic possibility.
As a side note, Gizmodo, Engadget, and Consumer Reports tracked Netflix access speeds over various ISPs during, before, and after "priority" negotiations. The data strongly suggests that deliberate throttling (as opposed to simple prioritization) was actually happening.

[ February 27, 2015, 03:41 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 
Why "assume" anything Tom? This whole freak out was prompted by the very idea of providing fast lanes to certain content providers. That's the exact behavior that would allow the kind of customization I'm talking about. How can you with a straight face make a claim that it didn't happen, when it was starting to and you banned it?
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:
That's the exact behavior that would allow the kind of customization I'm talking about.
Except that you're dealing with fiction. There will be no service that provides Netflix and gaming at higher rates, because that's not how the money works; the ISPs cannot profitably bleed the consumer for this. After all, if one service offers a 10GB pipeline for specific heavy traffic, all the heavy traffic users will buy into it -- killing that service and driving up its price. It is in every ISPs best interest to offer slower, cheaper pipelines, not big fat ones. So what would happen, from the consumer perspective, is that ISPs which previously offered big, fat pipes for everyone would suddenly start charging more for those people who used them more: which is a net loss for consumers, because you know they're not about to charge less for light usage.

(They could of course just profit less, but they won't choose to do that, either.)

So what they would really do is strongarm services. Instead of telling consumers to limit bandwidth, they would approach high-bandwidth services and say "If you don't want your service to seem slower than all your competitors' services, you'll pay us $2K a month. It would be a shame if people kept timing out when they tried to load your homepage. Or if that new piece of code you've been talking up suddenly seemed all slow and kludgy for reasons that no one except us would know."

We know they would do this, because they did do this. It's why every single Internet-based company in the world came out in favor of access freedom: because they were already being threatened by providers who effectively hold monopolies.

So **** those providers. They supply the pipes. I am exactly as grateful to them as I am to my water company, and for the same reason. They don't "innovate," and made it clear in fact that the few innovations that colleges dropped in their laps -- like fiber -- aren't headed to anywhere but the most immediately profitable markets. So screw 'em, and let the actual innovators freely provide the actual services to us over the pipes that the ISPs don't care about and already don't bother maintaining.

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:
True in the prior system you may have been able to live stream Netflix or Amazon Prime and not Mr. Joe's video service, but now you'll get to have the same slow speed on all your traffic.
This is straight up false; a deception being passed around by people taking advantage of ignorance of the technology in question. The only way it becomes even remotely true is if ISP's are actively lying about the amount of bandwidth they're selling to consumers and service providers. There is no magical "faster than what is sold" lane. There is the speed sold, and there are artificial restrictions placed on that speed.

Faster speeds will be achieved and sold regardless of this reinstatement of the rule that speed be provided on a provider and content neutral basis- that each side gets the bandwidth it pays for, without regard to what they use the bandwidth for.

Throttling does not open up room for anyone else (unless, again, the company is actually falsely advertising how much bandwidth it can provide and is trying to deceptively provide less than it promised) it simply slows communication down to the benefit of no one but the person with their thumb on the switch asking for extra money before they allow the promised speed.

(Throttling does have a benefit if you have a fixed amount of bandwidth that you are tying to apportion between uses that you have for it- preventing one from taking up too much. But the ISP only has the power to do that in terms of the contract it made with you to provide a certain slice of its total bandwidth to you, not on the backed, deciding that it will selectively reduce your ability to use that bandwidth as you wish by artificially slowing the information coming through it based on who or what it is pulling down)

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:
This whole freak out was prompted by the very idea of providing fast lanes to certain content providers.
There's no such thing. Only artificially slowed lanes to providers that don't pay extra fees into what's effectively a protection racket above and beyond the bandwidth that they've already paid for.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So you'd be adverse to a new player coming in an offering a basic ISP service at normal rates but that prioritized gaming downloads and live streaming at 10 MB/s?
I want good downloads speeds for games, tv, and movies. In other words, good download speeds. But you're right I totally see the benefit in an ISP charging me an extra $30 a month to get high speed of the only things I need high speed for. I mean, when have these sorts of companies charged less for anything?

Not to mention, how are they going to get here? Bell owns the phone and Cogeco owns the cable. There's satellite, I guess, but I'd probably have to switch all my other telecom services. There are smaller ISP that use the existing lines, but I'm wondering where they've cut costs. And it adds another middleman to my internet experience; my service goes down and my ISP tells me to call Bell.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 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:
So you'd be adverse to a new player coming in an offering a basic ISP service at normal rates but that prioritized gaming downloads and live streaming at 10 MB/s?
One of the things that common carrier protection will likely allow for is new providers to be able to lease access to existing infrastructure to offer their own bandwidth plans, instead of those that hold infrastructure monopolies being able to shut everyone else out, similar to what happened when phone companies and other utility companies were forced to set standard prices for independent providers to offer service along shared infrastructure.

Your scenario can't happen without common carrier classification, because the existing monopoly holders have no incentive to foster competition by leasing infrastructure access.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am trying to figure out why a company I pay a fee to for high speed service should have the right to limit the speeds from any source I request. Netflix is not Comcast's customer I am. The treat of cutting speeds if Netflix doesn't fork out a few billion will only increase the price I pay for content.

For all intents and purposes most individuals live in areas where there is really only one real ISP option. Believing the market will correct this is only true when no monopoly exists.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Does anyone here have a contract with an ISP that guarantees a specific speed or bandwidth? My understanding is that ISP's almost always market these plans and communicate expectations that speeds advertised are under nominal conditions and that for network congestion management those speeds may not always be attainable.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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 
Which is to say, they guarantee you a given bandwidth, but it's possible that the provider that you're connecting to is too saturated to deliver information at that speed, and needs to increase the bandwidth on their end.

They can't be held responsible for a provider being saturated, undergoing a DOS, etc... They are responsible for providing you with the bandwidth that they promised.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Got a contract with an absolute number or not?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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 
I doubt there is any residential broadband contract that guarantees the maximum rate, though mine does have explicit terms that there will be no content- or host-based throttling.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:

I pay my cable provider to provide me with the content I desire at a high speed. Manipulating my access to that content is wrong. Then again I guess since money equals free speech the FCC was wrong.

I pay my ISP for that too. If they manipulate my access to desired content, I change providers to one that doesn't do that.
My office has one service provider: comcast. I cannot get high speed internet any other way.

My home has one service provider: optimum online. I cannot get high speed internet any other way.

I want to leave comcast at the office. I can't. They own my building. I had no real choice but to sign up with them. I called 6 other companies, and looked pretty hard for a solution. There wasn't one.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ScottF
Member
Member # 6897

 - posted      Profile for ScottF         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Will this bill (or whatever it is) change your situation? I haven't read the details on what it actually does and what the implications are. Regardless of what is does, and I'm not denying it could be positive, I'm guessing we can look forward to additional regulatory fees on our bills.
Posts: 177 | Registered: Mar 2014  |  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:
That's the exact behavior that would allow the kind of customization I'm talking about.
Except that you're dealing with fiction.
You guys are funny. You don't really believe in free market economics, yet you try to make arguments about them.
quote:
There will be no service that provides Netflix and gaming at higher rates, because that's not how the money works; the ISPs cannot profitably bleed the consumer for this.
Sure they can. In fact without net neutrality they can bleed both the consumer and Netflix and the game providers. Of course they can only do that for so long before the economics justify competitors to jump on the "goldmine" that creates, which drives the prices back down.
quote:
After all, if one service offers a 10GB pipeline for specific heavy traffic, all the heavy traffic users will buy into it -- killing that service and driving up its price.
No rational business is going to guaranty more than it can provide at a cost that is profitable. What they were going to sell was priorities. A guaranty for instance that your Netflix traffic was going to travel with half the congestion of your other traffic. If all I cared about was Netflix, I'd probably take that deal, maybe even at a premium to the price I paid for a general plan.
quote:
It is in every ISPs best interest to offer slower, cheaper pipelines, not big fat ones.
See, you pretend to make an economic argument then you say something that is completely anti-economic. It is in no ISP's interest to make their service obsolete compared to the their competitors, which is what this would entail. And if they colluded to create a situation like this its ALREADY ILLEGAL.
quote:
So what would happen, from the consumer perspective, is that ISPs which previously offered big, fat pipes for everyone would suddenly start charging more for those people who used them more: which is a net loss for consumers, because you know they're not about to charge less for light usage.
To be fair, a rational model would charge more to heavy users. There are far more light consumer users than heavy ones, so on "net" you're wrong about whether consumers would benefit.
quote:
(They could of course just profit less, but they won't choose to do that, either.)
Who said they had to? Nothing about what's going on hear means less profit, just better matching between needs and payments.
quote:
So what they would really do is strongarm services.
And? Your argument is nonsensical, you want neither high data consumers or high data suppliers to be responsible for the cost of that data, nor for the congestion they cause. Truth is both should be.
quote:
Instead of telling consumers to limit bandwidth, they would approach high-bandwidth services and say "If you don't want your service to seem slower than all your competitors' services, you'll pay us $2K a month. It would be a shame if people kept timing out when they tried to load your homepage.
Lol, they'd go to jail for that. It's already being monitored and already prohibited. What they'd actually do is the opposite, they'd expand capacity for premium customers. And because they'd have an incentive from the premiums they'd expand the pipeline faster than they otherwise would (as would their competetitors).

By far the most likely result is that even those who are "strongarmed" and refuse to pay would find their data transfer speeds increasing (as there would be less congestion on their pipeline as premium payers went into the fast lanes), they just wouldn't have the same level of percentage increase as the payers. In effect, the exact reality that has occurred every other time the free market has had at a problem.
quote:
Or if that new piece of code you've been talking up suddenly seemed all slow and kludgy for reasons that no one except us would know."
And then the ISP gets smacked by existing regulations, and civil liability to the slowed down group.

Why do you insist on creating hypotheticals that are illegal?
quote:
We know they would do this, because they did do this.
Well, that's the worst possible interpretation of what did occur, and when it did occur they were IN FACT smacked down.
quote:
It's why every single Internet-based company in the world came out in favor of access freedom: because they were already being threatened by providers who effectively hold monopolies.
Or could it be because they already know the truth? They are overusing capacity and not paying a fair price for it today? Someone's going to pay for it tomorrow. With these rules you've taken the best deep pocket out, ie the companies profiting from massive data supplies, those who are in the best position to actual bear the costs of what they are putting in the pipeline. That only leaves the consumers - ie higher bills - or the government - ie higher taxes. The first is going to cause a horrible outcry and the latter is going to be the least efficient outcome possible.

So go ahead and get "outraged". All you've really done is ensure that all our bills are going to be higher and that the government is going to become a far more intrusive presence on the web, so that Netflix can keep getting richer by not having to pay for their over use of a shared pipeline, and other data abusers can keep on keeping on on everyone else's bill. Thank you for your contribution.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Uh, how common are unlimited download plans in the US? We've just recently got them in Ontario but I'm pretty sure our ISP are regulated as common carriers or whatever. The CRTC being far more meddlesome in intent than the FCC.

I'm not sure there's a market for a floor on download speeds. I'm already paying a premium based on the height of the ceiling and the amount of downloading. I would not look kindly an attempt to charge me more to situationally raise the floor. Not to mention that there's no real need for it since the ceiling exceeds the capacity of most websites so even "up to" means I rarely bounce off any practical limits.

Also, though this may be a Canadian thing, a two-tier system for internet access makes me twitchy. If people are allowed to pay for a higher floor, then people who can't pay are going to get a lower ceiling. Given how obsfuscating the factors determining internet speeds are, monetizing the floor seems like recipe for abuse of customers.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 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:
Lol, they'd go to jail for that. It's already being monitored and already prohibited.
No, it's not. It was under the previous net neutrality regulations, but the courts threw those out. Net Neutrality is, very specifically, the policy that prevents it. Net Neutrality is, very literally, the prohibition on such behavoir. Without it, such extortion is perfectly legal.
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:
Well, that's the worst possible interpretation of what did occur, and when it did occur they were IN FACT smacked down.
No, they weren't. Netflix caved to Comcast's extortion and bought hosting service through it because Comcast was throttling it. Verizon has been doing the same thing, but hadn't yet managed to get Netflix to give in again. No one was smacked down, because, without Net Neutrality as a baseline rule such behavior is perfectly legal.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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 don't really believe in free market economics, yet you try to make arguments about them.
I think it's interesting that you admit "free-market economics" is a faith-based claim. [Smile] That said, I also think it's a mistake to assume that the free market applies to cable providers.

quote:
No rational business is going to guaranty more than it can provide at a cost that is profitable.
Ah. Rationality. Similarly, no rational business will commit crimes, refuse sales to customers based on bias, or pollute areas in which their customers live. Businesses are very rarely rational.

quote:
What they were going to sell was priorities. A guaranty for instance that your Netflix traffic was going to travel with half the congestion of your other traffic.
No, they weren't going to sell that to consumers. For one thing, it would be technically impossible to actually guarantee that to consumers.

quote:
It is in no ISP's interest to make their service obsolete compared to the their competitors...
Competitors? Where do you believe local ISPs have competitors?

quote:
Lol, they'd go to jail for that. It's already being monitored and already prohibited.
No, it was not prohibited. And no, they would not go to jail for it. In fact, if you examine the Netflix bandwidth statistics on Comcast in 2013-2014, you'll see clear evidence of it happening.

quote:
By far the most likely result is that even those who are "strongarmed" and refuse to pay would find their data transfer speeds increasing (as there would be less congestion on their pipeline as premium payers went into the fast lanes)
There are no fast lanes. None. There is no intent to build fast lanes. These "fast lanes" would be some of the existing lanes, with other lanes arbitrarily crowded and slowed down. No one's transfer speeds would increase.

quote:
And then the ISP gets smacked by existing regulations...
Which specific regulation do you believe would prevent this, in the absence of net neutrality? Bear in mind that ISPs have already successfully argued in court that the FCC lacked the power to actually enforce such regulations, which is why common carrier status was necessary to gain that power.

quote:
when it did occur they were IN FACT smacked down
What "smack down" do you recall, specifically?

quote:
They are overusing capacity and not paying a fair price for it today?
It seems to me that, in a free market, ISPs should charge more for high usage. You don't think that solves the problem?
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 NobleHunter:
Uh, how common are unlimited download plans in the US?

For home use they are almost all unlimited. Even on cell plans they started as unlimited.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  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:
Lol, they'd go to jail for that. It's already being monitored and already prohibited.
No, it's not.
Actually you're just wrong on this. Deliberately slowing after an attempt at extortion would definitely create civil liability and I suspect criminal as well. It's not my fault if you don't understand that this is well beyond a regulatory issue if someone conducted their business in that manner (there are plenty of cases out there that would demonstrate the principals involved if you bother to look).
quote:
It was under the previous net neutrality regulations, but the courts threw those out.
I don't know why you talk about the "courts" cause you never get it correct. They said what I said, that there isn't any reason that someone can't provide premium access for premium fees, that is very different than slowing someone because they refuse to pay premium fees. It's also very different than slowing someone who is abusing your capacity and actually causing a degradation in service to your paying customers. You guys are going to be really disappointed if you think net neutrality is going to prohibit throttling of traffic that is overwhelming a network.
quote:
Net Neutrality is, very specifically, the policy that prevents it. Net Neutrality is, very literally, the prohibition on such behavoir. Without it, such extortion is perfectly legal.
What nonsense. Extortion is and will remain illegal. Net Neutrality is a sledgehammer for a problem that needed a screwdriver to fix, nothing more, nothing less. The primary reason it has been passed is to empower another government regulator to overreach. I've listed out the consequences above, it will not be in the consumers best interest.
quote:
No, they weren't. Netflix caved to Comcast's extortion and bought hosting service through it because Comcast was throttling it. Verizon has been doing the same thing, but hadn't yet managed to get Netflix to give in again. No one was smacked down, because, without Net Neutrality as a baseline rule such behavior is perfectly legal.
Like I said, that was the worst possible interpretation of what occurred. I don't think its an accurate interpretation. Again though, you're just wrong if you think throttling won't be allowed under net neutrality. There won't be any choice since you killed the incentive and a bunch of the funding for overinvestment in capacity with this change.
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:
Actually you're just wrong on this. Deliberately slowing after an attempt at extortion would definitely create civil liability and I suspect criminal as well.
Why? It's their private equipment and, absent regulations that say otherwise, they can manage traffic on it however they want. This was already very explicitly established when the previous net neutrality regulations were thrown out and the ruling specified the only way to say otherwise was to classify them as common carriers.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

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