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 2)

 - 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)
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
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.
Lol. You do have a penchant for false interpretations.

So specifically then, with respect to cable providers, you're asserting we were better off in the days of true cable monopolies than we are today with satellite and internet providers competing for our business? I'm not in favor of no regulation, but I'd like to see the focus on things that increase consumer choice and options rather than suppress it.
quote:
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.
Nice laundry list of liberal delusion. Not that any of that is relevant to the basic decision of whether to sell something for less than it costs.

What percentage of businesses intentionally commit crimes in your world? Now what percentage of them spend a big chunk of money on attempts to comply with law?
quote:
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.
Is it really? You're claiming its technically impossible - and that it would remain impossible in the near future - to actually create higher speed capacity and make it available to consumers based on who provides the content?

I thought you claimed some level of expertise in this field? Care to share that claim with your employer?
quote:
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?
These days? All over the place. In a lot of communities there are more than one high speed provider option over the phone line and over the cable line - granted not in all. And both satellite and cell based technologies are rapidly heading towards (but still some distance away from) providing truly viable options as well.

I'm totally in favor of using regulation to increase the number and types of ISPs out there. In fact, that's partly why I oppose this change, you're foreclosing the ability of new niche providers to jump in by closing down their ability to target a smaller share of the market. Under the common carrier rules, to compete with Ma Bell you have to be Ma Bell.
quote:
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.
You guys are like a dog with a bone. What you actually saw happening was a data abuser being throttled. The interpretation that this was extortion versus reasonable network control is not a fact in either direction. That doesn't mean that conducting an extortion campaign is not criminal. I don't see why I should bother arguing this anymore, it's just a fact, whether you like it not or understand the distinctions or not.
quote:
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.
If that remained the case then it would be a bad thing. On the other hand, allowing content providers to actually pay for their overuse of the existing pipeline ENCOURAGEs the development of new capacity.

What part of what you're advocating ENCOURAGEs new pipeline? Or pays for it?

For people who seem to believe there are no good companies, you're really going out of your way to protect Netflix's profit margins by allowing it to externalize its usage of the pipeline.
quote:
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.
Yep, FCC overreached when it tried to tell a company they didn't have the right to control their own service offering. If they had tried to regulate in a way that didn't prohibit an ISP from acting in protect of its customers band width they may have had a chance. But there's no way they could rationally address claims that the bandwidth IS limited, and lots of customers have a right to access it and certain customers were overusing it and that harmed every other customer.
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? [/QUOTE]I do, which is why I'm favor of allowing Netflix to make that payment. Why are you opposed to allowing a company profiting off of bandwidth to bear the fair cost of using that bandwidth?
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 
Extortion has to be proven. Again, given how obscure the factors governing internet speeds are, the advantage is all to the ISP. If Netflix and Comcast couldn't be shown as extortion, what succor will the law give any other content provider?

I also don't see how permitting ISP to simply charge more for some data over others will encourage them to invest in greater capacity? Why bother spending money on bigger pipes when you can just charge more for what you already have? Especially if you can get both consumers and content providers to pay for priority.

ETA:
quote:
What percentage of businesses intentionally commit crimes in your world? Now what percentage of them spend a big chunk of money on attempts to comply with law?
The percentage of them that find breaking the law to be more profitable than complying with it. It's a simple cost/benefit analysis. It'd have to be a pretty impressive set of fines to outweight the benefits of monopoly control and rent extraction.

[ March 02, 2015, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]

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 Pyrtolin:
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?
Because extortion is illegal. You really to leave your bubble and realize there are way more laws and regulations applicable than just what the FCC brings to the table. Not mention there are multiple tort theories that could be used to establish civil liability in that circumstance.
quote:
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.
That is not what was shown. I would say read the case, but I suspect you did and didn't understand it. Or maybe you've been reading tech analysis of it rather than legal. None of the cases stood for the proposition that they manage "however they want," or that they can engage in criminal activity because you don't understand that a regulation isn't the only applicable law. They did stand for the idea that ISP's can in fact can manage their networks to provide the services they've contracted for with their customers.
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 NobleHunter:
Extortion has to be proven.

Based on the hysterical hypo's it was already proven. All you'd really have to show is a throttle that wasn't required by capacity, after a demand for priority access payments and you'd most likely have established a prima facie case.
quote:
If Netflix and Comcast couldn't be shown as extortion, what succor will the law give any other content provider?
Lot's under the hypo's presented. Why do you think imposing throttles to protect customer access speeds would be deemed extortion?
quote:
I also don't see how permitting ISP to simply charge more for some data over others will encourage them to invest in greater capacity?
Try and brainstorm on it, then tell me if you really can't understand it. If you were an ISP what would encourage you to expand capacity, if you were a new ISP trying to break into a market what you deem to be your potential competitive advantages over older capacity constrained ISP's?
quote:
Why bother spending money on bigger pipes when you can just charge more for what you already have?
See prior and tell me if you can't see it.
quote:
Especially if you can get both consumers and content providers to pay for priority.
You can only milk it so long before a high margin business finds itself in trouble.
quote:
quote:
What percentage of businesses intentionally commit crimes in your world? Now what percentage of them spend a big chunk of money on attempts to comply with law?
The percentage of them that find breaking the law to be more profitable than complying with it. It's a simple cost/benefit analysis.
Is it? How many businesses do you work with? I can honestly say, it's not remotely my experience that people intentionally break the law in the business world. Most rational people are willing to work with grey areas, but not to deliberately break a law. The fact is, intentionality often makes it so that there is no rational cost/benefit analysis in favor of breaking a law. You end up with punitive damages, criminal charges and bars on conducting business.

Sure it happens, but you didn't cite a percentage for a reason, because it's actually quite tiny, whereas EVERY company out there spends on compliance and legal, most of them spend far more on complying with law than they end up with in profits in a given year.
quote:
It'd have to be a pretty impressive set of fines to outweight the benefits of monopoly control and rent extraction.
Monopolies are illegal under existing law. The only reason they exist in this area at all is because of intentional governmental manipulation and support. Net neutrality is a way to protect the existing monopolies from competition with new providers and specialists. Again to compete with common carriers like Ma Bell you have to be Ma Bell.

[ March 02, 2015, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

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 specifically then, with respect to cable providers, you're asserting we were better off in the days of true cable monopolies than we are today with satellite and internet providers competing for our business?
Specifically, what I said was that it would be a mistake to say that cable providers operate in a free-market environment.

quote:
You're claiming its technically impossible - and that it would remain impossible in the near future - to actually create higher speed capacity and make it available to consumers based on who provides the content?
Technically impossible? No. However, to the best of my knowledge, the only provider actually creating higher-speed capacity right now is Google. Are you asserting that, say, Verizon or Comcast would invest in better lines if they could be assured that they could rent access to those better lines at a higher price? Because both Verizon and Comcast have specifically said they have no intention of doing precisely that.

quote:
In a lot of communities there are more than one high speed provider option over the phone line and over the cable line - granted not in all.
Are we pretending that DSL counts as "high-speed" Internet nowadays? Okay, let's say we do that. That gives you about 60% of American homes who can choose between two Internet providers, one of which will only be able to offer reasonable speeds within two miles of its office, and even then at roughly half the speed of the other provider in town. The other provider in town, in over 85% of cases, will have no other cable competitor.

quote:
you're foreclosing the ability of new niche providers to jump in by closing down their ability to target a smaller share of the market. Under the common carrier rules, to compete with Ma Bell you have to be Ma Bell
Um, no. There is nothing stopping a niche competitor from running its own lines. And if they don't want to run their own lines, now they can use the existing ones.

quote:
What you actually saw happening was a data abuser being throttled.
By "data abuser," do you mean Netflix? Using the bandwidth it paid and contracted for? That's abuse? Dude, do you work for Comcast, or just shill for them in exchange for free cable? [Smile]

quote:
On the other hand, allowing content providers to actually pay for their overuse of the existing pipeline ENCOURAGEs the development of new capacity.
Bull. It hasn't happened in fifteen years; it won't magically start happening now.

quote:
Yep, FCC overreached when it tried to tell a company they didn't have the right to control their own service offering.
So you admit you misspoke when you noted that it would be illegal for Comcast to force Internet services to pony up in response to their demands, and that Comcast was not in fact slapped down when it did exactly that?

quote:
I do, which is why I'm favor of allowing Netflix to make that payment.
Except that's not what Netflix is paying for. They are not paying for more capacity. They are paying to prioritize their current capacity. Netflix, like the rest of us, pays for X amount of monthly bandwidth. Their ISP agrees to support that amount of bandwidth. Comcast -- who, it's worth noting, is not Netflix's provider; it's just a provider to some of the homes that pay it money in the expectation of receiving a certain amount of bandwidth -- doesn't want to carry that amount of bandwidth to consumers' homes, even though they have contracted with consumers to do it, so they tell Netflix "since we can't charge our consumers for extra bandwidth without scaring them off, how about you pay us a protection fee to make sure that your data gets where it's going? Because the consumer will just figure your site is bad, not that we're actively evil."

[ March 02, 2015, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 do you think imposing throttles to protect customer access speeds would be deemed extortion?
Hey, hands up: which naive dillweeds think Comcast was "protecting consumer access speeds?"

This is a good way to figure out who can be safely ignored on this issue.

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 
quote:
All you'd really have to show is a throttle that wasn't required by capacity,
Right, out of the many services provided at near capacity (one presumes that all services will be offered as fast as possible), how do you demonstrate which of those services are throttled unecessarily?

What would encourage an ISP to expand capacity? The threat that the other guy (and I've not seen anything that indicates the majority will find it just one other option) will provide faster service. If they provide the impression of faster service by rationing access, without needing to spend money on bigger tubes, why wouldn't they ration access with extra fees?

If I'm a new ISP, I've got no chance if all the big content providers are buying premium access from the established players. Who's going to switch to not-Bell if Netflix and Steam is only half as fast on not-Bell?

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 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 
And more problematically: if you're a new content provider, you have no chance at all if the big content providers are willing to pay for premium access.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

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

What percentage of businesses intentionally commit crimes in your world? Now what percentage of them spend a big chunk of money on attempts to comply with law?

What concerns me is the percentage that spend a big chunk of money to make the law comply with them.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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 
It occurs to me that the big driver for faster is the ability to charge more for faster. If you can only provide 5 Mb/s, you have to charge everyone more or less the same rate. If you can provide 40 Mb/s you can impose ceilings on people willing to pay less and charge a premium to offer the potential for 40 Mb/s. Capacity expands to ensure people get something reasonably close to the upper limit they pay for.

The trick with allowing people to pay for premium access to content is that the ISP can levy a charge on top of that premium for 40Mb/s and let the other customers to suffer the consequences of not coughing up. They're only paying for up-to a ceiling afterall.

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:
Because extortion is illegal
There is a crime called extortion, which is illegal.

There is also a behavior which is extortion which includes criminal extortion, but is not illegal in and of itself. Extortion is illegal when you threaten to do something illegal to someone else to change their behavior. It is not illegal when you only threaten to excessive control over your own resources in a way that isn't in their best interests to change their behavior.

Without a noise ordinance to limit yo, you could freely pay very obnoxious music loudly unless they agreed to pay you or give you something in exchange for turning it down.

That's extortion, but it's not illegal, because, with no local ordinance on sound, you are fully in your rights to play whatever music you want as loud as you want.

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:
If I'm a new ISP, I've got no chance if all the big content providers are buying premium access from the established players. Who's going to switch to not-Bell if Netflix and Steam is only half as fast on not-Bell?
The problem is bigger than that, because if you're not-Bell, you need to run a wire to the person's house to give them service, an in all but the most remote areas, exactly one phone company and one cable company have locked the rights to be the only ones allowed to do that.

And while there are wireless and satellite options, not only do they not even remotely provide comparable speeds (to the point that satellite TV services usually partner with one of the two land based services when they bundle in networking), but you're also up against limited availability of broadcast bands which are quickly bought up by the big players so as to expand their own services and limit possible competition, because they can afford to outbid small players for them.

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:
The problem is bigger than that, because if you're not-Bell, you need to run a wire to the person's house to give them service, an in all but the most remote areas, exactly one phone company and one cable company have locked the rights to be the only ones allowed to do that.

To be fair, I think Seriati would find those existing agreements to be objectionable. Not that the last mile isn't sufficient barrier to entry all in its own.
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 
They are problematic to a degree, but they exist.

An there is some value to them, for the same reason that it would be bad overall to have ever electric, gas, transportation, etc... provider have to run separate infrastructure through town to each of their customers.

It makes sense for each medium to have one fully connected distribution network that all providers share. Making ISPs need to follow the same common carrier rules as the phone and other utility companies do opens the possibility of requiring the companies that own that infrastructure to have to lease it to competitors or otherwise bill separately for infrastructure and service, the same way that other utilities, including phone and electric providers do. It creates the possibility of a competitive market, despite the current infrastructure monopolies.

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 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
So specifically then, with respect to cable providers, you're asserting we were better off in the days of true cable monopolies than we are today with satellite and internet providers competing for our business?
Specifically, what I said was that it would be a mistake to say that cable providers operate in a free-market environment.
When they specifically you should acknowledge that you were arguing a strawman since I never said it was a free market environment. What you said though was that it would be a mistake to assume the free market applies, not quite the same thing, which is why I interpreted it to be an argument that free market forces couldn't be used here - which is nonsense.

I agree that cable has a long history monopolies, and that's not necessarily a good thing, even if I understood the rationale. Doesn't make efforts to restore the monopolies, which is what net neutrality does for ISP's, the right solution.
quote:
quote:
You're claiming its technically impossible - and that it would remain impossible in the near future - to actually create higher speed capacity and make it available to consumers based on who provides the content?
Technically impossible? No.
I take it was a mistake in terminology then?
quote:
However, to the best of my knowledge, the only provider actually creating higher-speed capacity right now is Google. Are you asserting that, say, Verizon or Comcast would invest in better lines if they could be assured that they could rent access to those better lines at a higher price? Because both Verizon and Comcast have specifically said they have no intention of doing precisely that.
What do you think fiber optic is? We haven't necessarily hit the maximum capacity of our current lines, but there is no doubt a program to install new lines is going to cost a fortune. What I suspect is that it's not going to happen at all. If I had to guess, it'll be satellite, cell, microwave or some other direct transmission will be what comes next.

You'd have to close your eyes though to pretend that no one sees value in upgrading connections. Local providers here have managed to provide additional capacity by adding more hubs, speeding up access for both people who switch and those left behind.
quote:
quote:
In a lot of communities there are more than one high speed provider option over the phone line and over the cable line - granted not in all.
Are we pretending that DSL counts as "high-speed" Internet nowadays?
Are you pretending that "net neutrality" is going to upgrade people to cable modems? Really, being an opponent of net neutrality doesn't make me responsible for the state of cable in the country today.
quote:
Um, no. There is nothing stopping a niche competitor from running its own lines. And if they don't want to run their own lines, now they can use the existing ones.
They already could. If you stopped the regulation at guaranteeing equal line access like they did when the cable and telephone monopolies end, I wouldn't be objecting.
quote:
quote:
What you actually saw happening was a data abuser being throttled.
By "data abuser," do you mean Netflix? Using the bandwidth it paid and contracted for? That's abuse? Dude, do you work for Comcast, or just shill for them in exchange for free cable? [Smile]
What's so difficult about understanding that streaming live video takes more bandwidth than the existing system could handle? There have been a lot of system upgrades, with less subscribers sharing capacity to adjust for a higher level of common data use.
quote:
quote:
On the other hand, allowing content providers to actually pay for their overuse of the existing pipeline ENCOURAGEs the development of new capacity.
Bull. It hasn't happened in fifteen years; it won't magically start happening now.
It's happened virtually everywhere and is still happening. Increased connections to the backbone handling less subscribers in most populated areas.
quote:
quote:
Yep, FCC overreached when it tried to tell a company they didn't have the right to control their own service offering.
So you admit you misspoke when you noted that it would be illegal for Comcast to force Internet services to pony up in response to their demands, and that Comcast was not in fact slapped down when it did exactly that?
No, I didn't misspeak. If you're asking in good faith, I will try to explain again. There is a difference between managing an overcapacity pipeline and suppressing usage below available capacity.
quote:
quote:
I do, which is why I'm favor of allowing Netflix to make that payment.
Except that's not what Netflix is paying for. They are not paying for more capacity.
They would be paying to ensure that when the capacity is overused, their customers are at the front of the line with a guaranteed result.
quote:
Comcast -- who, it's worth noting, is not Netflix's provider; it's just a provider to some of the homes that pay it money in the expectation of receiving a certain amount of bandwidth --
Which amount of bandwidth is set by the expected use of Comcasts' customers and their own hardware and equipment. Material changes in the expected use will cause degredation in service until the hardware can catch up. This is a fundamental law. Which means that providing the promised service to ALL customers requires that customers who are using more than expected be slowed during peak times. Its just a physical fact.
quote:
..doesn't want to carry that amount of bandwidth to consumers' homes,..
Correction, is happy to carry that amount of bandwidth to customer's homes but built their hardware for a capacity and usage that has fundamentally changed.
[qutoe]..even though they have contracted with consumers to do it,...[/quote]I've never seen a contract that provides for that, only that provides for a maximum capacity.
quote:
..so they tell Netflix "since we can't charge our consumers for extra bandwidth without scaring them off, how about you pay us a protection fee to make sure that your data gets where it's going?
Tells Netflix, you're customers are using 5 times more data than anticipated, which means they are going to start seeing buffering when we act to protect the 75% of our customers who don't use your services. However, if you pay us an additional fee we'll be happy to prioritize your customer's data - including as we expand our capacity.
quote:
Because the consumer will just figure your site is bad, not that we're actively evil."
Because we're not going to let your increased flow cause us to slow down 100% of customers making them believe we stink, when we can slow you down as the over-user instead causing customers to not use your data hog services.

I don't know why I bother. Every argument you're making is illogical, unless you start with a company's are evil philosophy.

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 TomDavidson:
quote:
Why do you think imposing throttles to protect customer access speeds would be deemed extortion?
Hey, hands up: which naive dillweeds think Comcast was "protecting consumer access speeds?"

This is a good way to figure out who can be safely ignored on this issue.

What naïve dillweeds think that Comcast wants to have 100% of its customers pissed off because of slow internet speeds when it can choose to punish a service provider that doesn't pay it a dime instead? Raise your hands.
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 
So once Netflix says no and starts get throttled, what's to keep the ISP fair? How do they tell if they're only being throttled enough to maintain service and not more in order to entice them into paying up? Especially if, as in Canada, the ISP has content providing properties? Now the ISP has every motivation to set the fee for a fast lane punishingly high in order to protect its own streaming services.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If I may interject:

The internet has been net-neutral all along. Mainly because people had yet to find a way to monetize gatekeeping, but its inarguable that the history of the internet has been one of net-neutrality.

The internet has also produced a massive explosion of innovation in myriad fields, and is arguably the most important invention ever.

Those two are facts; here is a very safe supposition: the vast majority of that innovation was made possible (not just more likely, but possible) by the fact that it was so supremely democratic. For the first time... ever, any individual could reach a massive audience, and there was no authority dictating who got what reach. Instead, the system was left in complete anarchy, and who got seen, heard and ultimately created entire enterprises was left entirely up to the collective choices of millions of individuals. Though it was not intended as such by the various agents who created the internet, it became an experiment is total media anarchy; no gatekeepers, no content editors, no overlords, no governance whatsoever.

Is it really that much of a stretch to say that the experiment was pretty successful, enough so that it should be allowed to continue? How many people's jobs could not exist without the internet? Better question: how many jobs have been stolen from industries like television, news media and publishing by the internet? Because those industries all operate under the old model, where access is controlled by elites. And this is the model that ending net-neutrality would switch us to. I just can't see a scenario where going from un-precedentedly successful model, to one that is painfully losing to that same model in every competitive arena, isn't an obviously bad idea.

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 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:
What naïve dillweeds think that Comcast wants to have 100% of its customers pissed off because of slow internet speeds...
It seems to me that charging someone based on the amount of bandwidth they actually use covers that one nicely, in the same way that a heavy user of water gets charged more.

Billing Netflix for using the Internet, though, just for being Netflix, is like charging more for water when someone intends to make lemonade with it.

-----

quote:
What do you think fiber optic is?
Where do you think fiber optic lines are being run? The major providers have been so lax at running fiber to homes that municipalities, tired of waiting, are doing it themselves -- and then being sued by those providers.

quote:
What's so difficult about understanding that streaming live video takes more bandwidth than the existing system could handle?
Your specific word was "abuser." If Comcast can't handle the amount of bandwidth its customers demand, it shouldn't promise that bandwidth to them. It seems to me that whether they're streaming video from Netflix or live-chatting or using a 1080p RDP window on their office machine over VPN, bandwidth is bandwidth -- and if Comcast needs more bandwidth, it should build more or charge more for it.

quote:
I've never seen a contract that provides for that, only that provides for a maximum capacity.
Oh, yeah, they're very careful to make it clear that their promised capacity isn't actually their legally-guaranteed capacity. Several people have been quite upset to pay for an upgrade to 60Mbps from 30Mbps, only to discover that they're averaging 35 Mbps.

quote:
There is a difference between managing an overcapacity pipeline and suppressing usage below available capacity.
Specifically for Netflix, though? It's not a matter of general capacity; they were extorting one specific service.

------

quote:
However, if you pay us an additional fee we'll be happy to prioritize your customer's data - including as we expand our capacity.
You keep saying this. Where are you seeing this expanded capacity?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
What naïve dillweeds think that Comcast wants to have 100% of its customers pissed off because of slow internet speeds when it can choose to punish a service provider that doesn't pay it a dime instead? Raise your hands.

That's not an either-or, it's what Comcast actually did. Its customers are a much more captive audience than Netflix's; changing providers is always a pain and often impossible due to monopolies. Netflix users, however, can switch to Amazon Prime in a matter of minutes. So Comcast slowed their speeds down to a crawl and demanded money. Netflix tried several different workarounds, Comcast countered all of them (reneging on agreements to do so in many cases), and finally made Netflix essentially non-functional for two of their most important months. Netflix caved, payed the fees, and their speeds went back up to normal.

Personally, I could care less which corporate giant makes a better profit here. But Comcast effectively denied their customers access to a specific site for months, and throttled down their speeds for much longer, in order to force a settlement. Customers who pay Comcast to deliver Netflix to them. And those customers then ended up having to pay more for their Netflix subscription to cover the extra fees. It takes some really blind faith in "free market capitalism" to spin this as a win for consumers.

In a different universe, where there existed genuine competition between service providers, what you are advocating could work. But the U.S. has more or less abandoned the ideal of competitive markets. Corporate consolidation has been the norm for over a decade now; competition has nearly vanished. Adam Smith would tell you in no uncertain terms exactly what the consequences are for that kind of market structure.

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 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 Adam Masterman:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
What naïve dillweeds think that Comcast wants to have 100% of its customers pissed off because of slow internet speeds when it can choose to punish a service provider that doesn't pay it a dime instead? Raise your hands. [/qb]

That's not an either-or, it's what Comcast actually did.
Adam it's not what they did. The only customers that were impacted were those using Netflix. That is less than 100% of their customers, which is exactly my point. In fact if you read the article, what you saw was not that they reduced the capacity available to Netflix, but that they refused to increase it, which lead to inevitable degredation.

Netflix changed dramatically, the average data usage of a customer on the network. Somebody HAS to pay for that difference. I can not think of any logical reason that it shouldn't be Netflix, the only other logical person is the end user customer with the implementation of data used payments.

So you can have your internet bill of $100 a month without Netflix or $400 a month with it. Is that really going to be less impactful on Netflix when its customers see that data charge passed through?
quote:
Netflix users, however, can switch to Amazon Prime in a matter of minutes. So Comcast slowed their speeds down to a crawl and demanded money.
What makes you think Amazon Prime was going to escape the treatment? This wasn't personal.

The cost to consumers of their internet connection is not based on its MAXIMUM speed, its based on their expected usage. Unless you don't understand how streaming video broke the model?
quote:
Netflix tried several different workarounds, Comcast countered all of them (reneging on agreements to do so in many cases), and finally made Netflix essentially non-functional for two of their most important months.
And what did every work around have in common? They all continued to exacerbate the problem that Comcast was having in its Network, you know that Netflix customers were using far more than their projected data.

This is just logic. If you sold access based on expected usage 2 and actual usage is 10, then you have 5 times less capacity than you need at one fifth the revenue you need to be able to deliver it.
quote:
Netflix caved, payed the fees, and their speeds went back up to normal.
It's odd how much empathy you have for Netflix. They "caved" by ceasing their attempts to force data into a Network that didn't have capacity to carry it without paying for it.
quote:
Personally, I could care less which corporate giant makes a better profit here. But Comcast effectively denied their customers access to a specific site for months, and throttled down their speeds for much longer, in order to force a settlement.
Your own article makes it clear they didn't increase capacity. The throttling comes from the level of usage that Netflix's service entails. Why should Comcast be required to buy more capacity from the Tier 1 provider for Netflix's benefit?
quote:
Customers who pay Comcast to deliver Netflix to them. And those customers then ended up having to pay more for their Netflix subscription to cover the extra fees. It takes some really blind faith in "free market capitalism" to spin this as a win for consumers.
How about this. What about the customer who doesn't use Netflix. If this wasn't the solution, the solution would have been for Comcast to go out of pocket to pay for the extra capacity, and that charge would have shown up on every customer's bill. Which is what I said at the start, it would have been low usage customers being forced to pay for high users data.

Socialized internet.
quote:
In a different universe, where there existed genuine competition between service providers, what you are advocating could work.
Before you get there, you have to understand the economics involved. You don't need competition - at all - to understand the simple concept that between users and non-users it should be the users (Netflix and Netflix using consumers) that bear the cost of the extra costs of use and not nonusers (non-Netflix using consumers and Comcast generally). You guys are getting all mixed up about what's really happening here.

Comcast may be bad people, I have no argument one way or the other about that, but Netflix is the one that is forcing additional costs on the system.

Tom really expresses this confusion here:
quote:
Your specific word was "abuser." If Comcast can't handle the amount of bandwidth its customers demand, it shouldn't promise that bandwidth to them. It seems to me that whether they're streaming video from Netflix or live-chatting or using a 1080p RDP window on their office machine over VPN, bandwidth is bandwidth -- and if Comcast needs more bandwidth, it should build more or charge more for it.
The fact is, and its a fact, that Networks are built on a shared capacity model. No one builds a network where they allocate the maximum capacity to each customer, instead they allocate the expected average at peak plus some margin. If they buy 100, and the average is 1, they sell 90-99 subscriptions, even if the maximum on each subscription is 5. Doing otherwise would impose at least 5 times the cost on every customer and result in horrible wastes of capacity.

If a new content provider changes the expected use to a 3, the existing networks are oversubscribed by a factor of 3, and they have no choice but to throttle content or expand and charge more.

Would you really have accepted that your bill doubled cause your neighbors started using Netflix?
quote:
It seems to me that charging someone based on the amount of bandwidth they actually use covers that one nicely, in the same way that a heavy user of water gets charged more.
I don't actually have a problem with that, but you'd have to be willing to accept higher consumer bills to protect Netflix's profits.
quote:
Billing Netflix for using the Internet, though, just for being Netflix, is like charging more for water when someone intends to make lemonade with it.
It's more like prohibiting someone from taking a third of a river for free irrigation when the whole river is already being used downstream for drinking water and irrigation.
quote:
Oh, yeah, they're very careful to make it clear that their promised capacity isn't actually their legally-guaranteed capacity. Several people have been quite upset to pay for an upgrade to 60Mbps from 30Mbps, only to discover that they're averaging 35 Mbps.
You do understand the concept of shared capacity right? You seem to be arguing that consumers be entitled to their maximum capacity at all times (though its not clear why you have a beef with fast lanes if that's what you want).
quote:
Specifically for Netflix, though? It's not a matter of general capacity; they were extorting one specific service.
Yes, one specific service that was STREAMING VIDEO in unprecedented amounts.

Netflix was taking advantage of the open internet to force its own externalities onto everyone else.
quote:
quote:
However, if you pay us an additional fee we'll be happy to prioritize your customer's data - including as we expand our capacity.
You keep saying this. Where are you seeing this expanded capacity?
My own local provider has twice added additional capacity to cope with demand.

Bet you Comcast bought additional capacity from the Tier 1 providers after their deal with Netflix. Look at Adam's article, you can see directly in there where they added additional capacity previously, and no doubt they do it at other points as well.

Are you out there looking for new phone lines or something? I thought you claimed expertise in this area?

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:
They "caved" by ceasing their attempts to force data into a Network...
Seriously, dude, do you work for Comcast? Because the idea that serving video to customers who have paid for sufficient bandwidth to receive video, when you have yourself paid for sufficient bandwidth to send video, is hardly "force" or "abuse." If Comcast did not actually have the bandwidth necessary to fulfill its promised capacity, that is not Netflix's problem; it is not immoral of them to expect equal treatment of their bandwidth.

quote:
Which is what I said at the start, it would have been low usage customers being forced to pay for high users data.
Or, y'know, they could charge the high users more, like in most of the rest of the world and according to the cell phone model.

quote:
The throttling comes from the level of usage that Netflix's service entails.
There is ample evidence that this is not the case. The throttling exceeded any need; it was done to prove a point.

quote:
The fact is, and its a fact, that Networks are built on a shared capacity model.
Boo-freakin'-hoo. If they screwed up their model, they eat the cost or pass it on, if consumers will swallow it. That's the way it works. It's not like my bill hasn't been going up every single year over the last decade; they can probably spend that on something.

(And, yes, I'm aware of the truth of the matter: that cable TV providers and telephone providers are both terrified that their respective cash cows are becoming completely irrelevant except as on-ramps to the Internet, which treats both video and phone service as per-packet commodities. (My "phone," for example, costs one cent per hour of talk time.) And, yes, they need to figure out a new revenue model given the death of cable TV. But that's not our problem.)

quote:
Are you out there looking for new phone lines or something?
*grin* Well, you brought up DSL as a viable option. How much upgraded copper do you think Verizon's put out in the last ten years? [Wink]

[ March 02, 2015, 10:56 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:
They "caved" by ceasing their attempts to force data into a Network...
Seriously, dude, do you work for Comcast? Because the idea that serving video to customers who have paid for sufficient bandwidth to receive video, when you have yourself paid for sufficient bandwidth to send video, is hardly "force" or "abuse." If Comcast did not actually have the bandwidth necessary to fulfill its promised capacity, that is not Netflix's problem; it is not immoral of them to expect equal treatment of their bandwidth.
So you ignored everything I said to make this "point"? It's almost a lie to sell the story you're selling. No one was promised their maximum capacity, in fact they were specifically told that at peak times it would be slower.

Couple that with a massive increase in average usage and peak times became all times.
quote:
quote:
Which is what I said at the start, it would have been low usage customers being forced to pay for high users data.
Or, y'know, they could charge the high users more, like in most of the rest of the world and according to the cell phone model.
Why do you care whether Netflix pays for it, or Netflix customers pay for it? It's not a travesty either way. But we all know that Americans don't want to see their bills jump dramatically, even to the point of paying more through other channels.
quote:
quote:
The throttling comes from the level of usage that Netflix's service entails.
There is ample evidence that this is not the case. The throttling exceeded any need; it was done to prove a point.
Lol. Maybe, maybe not, I'd like to see your "ample evidence," since I think you're making a claim you can't support. Citing to opinion pieces isn't real support or evidence.
quote:
quote:
The fact is, and its a fact, that Networks are built on a shared capacity model.
Boo-freakin'-hoo. If they screwed up their model, they eat the cost or pass it on, if consumers will swallow it. That's the way it works. It's not like my bill hasn't been going up every single year over the last decade; they can probably spend that on something.
Your bill is massively subsidized by the shared capacity model. Even if you're willing to pay for full reserved capacity at cost there is no way that's a majority position.
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 
It's amazing how fast Comcast was able to build the new "fast lanes" that were required to continue to support Netflix traffic once Netflix caved.

*GIANT EYE ROLL*

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 
Scifibum, extra capacity from the Tier 1 providers is there for those who pay for it. There's no "building" involved in that part. Locally though a lot of people had slow downs over the last few years as providers had to build out infrastructure to meet the higher demand.
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:
No one was promised their maximum capacity, in fact they were specifically told that at peak times it would be slower.
Yes, certainly when you pay $100 for 60Mbps, the commercials make it very clear that you will generally be receiving 5Mbps more than the people paying $40. Or not, really.

quote:
Why do you care whether Netflix pays for it, or Netflix customers pay for it?
Because one approach actively suppresses innovation.

quote:
Even if you're willing to pay for full reserved capacity at cost there is no way that's a majority position.
Then some people stop paying for Internet (or use their cell phones for it), freeing up bandwidth. It's a free market solution!

[ March 02, 2015, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

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:
They all continued to exacerbate the problem that Comcast was having in its Network, you know that Netflix customers were using far more than their projected data.
This is outright false. The customers were using under the data speeds they had paid for. Netflix was not being throttled to match the bandwidth limits of the customer's plans, it was being throttled significantly under those speeds.

And Amazon wouldn't have escaped either, because the point was to make Comcast's cable and VOD services seem like the better things to pay for, or, failing that, to extract money out of competitors to compensate for fewer cable subscribers. It has nothing to down with using bandwidth on a service that, at full speed clocked in significantly lower than what Comcast told them they were projected to use up front.

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 scifibum:
It's amazing how fast Comcast was able to build the new "fast lanes" that were required to continue to support Netflix traffic once Netflix caved.

And there weren't even any "fast lanes". what they forced Netflix to do was pay for hosting services- to effectively make Comcast one of its ISPs that it uses to communicate with customers. Far from being a lack of bandwidth, Comcast's endgame twas to make Netflix buy more of its available capacity directly and use it.

There was not bandwidth shortage except what Comcast created and imposed until Netflix ponied up extra profits for Comcast by agreeing to take up _more_ of its slack 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:
The fact is, and its a fact, that Networks are built on a shared capacity model
Network hubs are very old tech and not commonly used anymore. Almost all modern networks run on a switched basis instead, which delivers equal, fixed speeds to each person at the other end.
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 Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
It's amazing how fast Comcast was able to build the new "fast lanes" that were required to continue to support Netflix traffic once Netflix caved.

And there weren't even any "fast lanes". what they forced Netflix to do was pay for hosting services- to effectively make Comcast one of its ISPs that it uses to communicate with customers. Far from being a lack of bandwidth, Comcast's endgame twas to make Netflix buy more of its available capacity directly and use it.

There was not bandwidth shortage except what Comcast created and imposed until Netflix ponied up extra profits for Comcast by agreeing to take up _more_ of its slack capacity.

Yes, I was being sarcastic.
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:
Where do you think fiber optic lines are being run? The major providers have been so lax at running fiber to homes that municipalities, tired of waiting, are doing it themselves -- and then being sued by those providers.
To note- they're being sued (or trying to be directly banned via legislation) because the municipalities (and Google, where it has been able to get permission set up shop, for that matter) who have been able to set such up have been able to offer higher capacities at lower prices and still run a significant profit than the major ISPs. Even without the extra attempts at extortion on top of it in the absence of net neutrality, the major US providers have been deliberately keeping overall access slower and more expensive than a competitive market would let it be because they can make more money up front by agreeing to prevent low cost competition as well as manufacturing the pretext for trying to use artificial rate limiting to squeeze more money and subscriptions on the back 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:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
It's amazing how fast Comcast was able to build the new "fast lanes" that were required to continue to support Netflix traffic once Netflix caved.

And there weren't even any "fast lanes". what they forced Netflix to do was pay for hosting services- to effectively make Comcast one of its ISPs that it uses to communicate with customers. Far from being a lack of bandwidth, Comcast's endgame twas to make Netflix buy more of its available capacity directly and use it.

There was not bandwidth shortage except what Comcast created and imposed until Netflix ponied up extra profits for Comcast by agreeing to take up _more_ of its slack capacity.

Yes, I was being sarcastic.
I know- I was elaborating, not contesting.
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 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
They all continued to exacerbate the problem that Comcast was having in its Network, you know that Netflix customers were using far more than their projected data.
This is outright false. The customers were using under the data speeds they had paid for.
Please re-read what you are responding to. Your answer is completely non-responsive (not to mention erroneous where you assert my claim was false).

Projected data usage and maximum data speeds are not the same thing.
quote:
Netflix was not being throttled to match the bandwidth limits of the customer's plans, it was being throttled significantly under those speeds.
Netflix was being throttled to bring data usage expectations back in line with what the plans that consumers were sold were based on.
quote:
And Amazon wouldn't have escaped either, because the point was to make Comcast's cable and VOD services seem like the better things to pay for, or, failing that, to extract money out of competitors to compensate for fewer cable subscribers.
Of course Amazon wouldn't have "escaped" no content provider that suddenly and materially shifted the expected data usage per customer would.
quote:
It has nothing to down with using bandwidth on a service that, at full speed clocked in significantly lower than what Comcast told them they were projected to use up front.
Lol. That is so far a half truth as to reach the point of being deliberately misleading. If you measure it on a single customer basis you'd have a point, if you measure it on an aggregate customer basis and compare the average to the expected average your claim is untrue. That's EXACTLY why they won their case in the first place.
quote:
quote:
Why do you care whether Netflix pays for it, or Netflix customers pay for it?
Because one approach actively suppresses innovation.
Yes, but I can't understand why you want to suppress innovation?
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:
That's EXACTLY why they won their case in the first place.
No, they won their case because it was their hardware and the courts ruled that unless the FCC imposed common carrier status on ISPs, they could do what they wanted with it, regardless of whether they had a service based reason for it, or because they could charge people more if they did.

What you're saying is that Comcast knowingly oversold bandwidth, and then chose to extort services to pay them more money to use limited resources instead of investing in enough bandwidth to match what they sold. Which is a practice that combines extortion and an anti-innovative attitude.

If they can no longer be dishonest about how much bandwidth they can provide to consumers and extort providers to pay more for access to limited resources, they will be forced to instead invest and innovate to keep with customer demand for bandwidth, which is what they should be doing in the first place, and what municipal services and Google have shown is already trivially possible to accomplish at a far lower price than Comcast, Verizon, and the other monopolistic providers are pretending it would cost them by deliberately restricting availability in the markets they control to demand more money.

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:
That's EXACTLY why they won their case in the first place.
No, that has nothing to do with why they won their case. Did you actually read their case?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Netflix was being throttled to bring data usage expectations back in line with what the plans that consumers were sold were based on.
That any consumer would be OK with this boggles my mind. This is the problem though. They sold us/me a service based on the assumption that I would use it in spikes and be far, FAR under that capacity most of the time.

They guessed wrong for many of us. And now, we want what we paid for. They are freaking out because they know if they ask us for what it would actually cost to get all of us up to "the new normal" data usage, we would balk. So they are trying to extort money out of others.

They made a HUGE error or failed to see this coming. They should suffer for it. When large companies mess up this badly a competitor should be there to take their place.

Will we / should we just pay for usage? Yes, I think so. However, once you sell me on a throughput rate and/or a maximum amount for usage or over a period of time, then get out of my way and don't you dare tamper with what I do with it.

I'm content to pay for what I get but I better damn well get what I pay for. Right now, they are trying to get out of a deal because they thought they tricked us into paying for something we would never possibly use to the fullest.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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:
They guessed wrong for many of us. And now, we want what we paid for. They are freaking out because they know if they ask us for what it would actually cost to get all of us up to "the new normal" data usage, we would balk.
Just the opposite- the fear is that if we saw how _little_ it actually costs them to provide what they promised, they wouldn't be able to milk us for the pittance that hey do offer.

Instead they create the false impression of even more scarcity to try to get more money, and then use legal wrangling to block what competition that does try to arise that exposes just how much they're artificially limiting access to be able to overprice it.

As long as they can keep playing that game, there's little need for them to actually invest in significantly improving bandwidth availability. People have little option but to pay the effective cartel what it wants for what it chooses to offer.

Adam Smith on what is, essentially, the justification of imposing common carrier status on companies that have infrastructure monopolies:
quote:
When a company of merchants undertake, at their own risk and expense, to establish a new trade with some remote and barbarous nation, it may not be unreasonable to incorporate them into a joint stock company, and to grant them, in case of their success, a monopoly of the trade for a certain number of years. It is the easiest and most natural way in which the state can recompense them for hazarding a dangerous and expensive experiment, of which the public is afterwards to reap the benefit. A temporary monopoly of this kind may be vindicated upon the same principles upon which a like monopoly of a new machine is granted to its inventor, and that of a new book to its author. But upon the expiration of the term, the monopoly ought certainly to determine; the forts and garrisons, if it was found necessary to establish any, to be taken into the hands of government, their value to be paid to the company, and the trade to be laid open to all the subjects of the state. By a perpetual monopoly, all the other subjects of the state are taxed very absurdly in two different ways: first, by the high price of goods, which, in the case of a free trade, they could buy much cheaper; and, secondly, by their total exclusion from a branch of business which it might be both convenient and profitable for many of them to carry on. It is for the most worthless of all purposes, too, that they are taxed in this manner. It is merely to enable the company to support the negligence, profusion, and malversation of their own servants, whose disorderly conduct seldom allows the dividend of the company to exceed the ordinary rate of profit in trades which are altogether free, and very frequently makes it fall even a good deal short of that rate. Without a monopoly, however, a joint stock company, it would appear from experience, cannot long carry on any branch of foreign trade. To buy in one market, in order to sell, with profit, in another, when there are many competitors in both, to watch over, not only the occasional variations in the demand, but the much greater and more frequent variations in the competition, or in the supply which that demand is likely to get from other people, and to suit with dexterity and judgment both the quantity and quality of each assortment of goods to all these circumstances, is a species of warfare of which the operations are continually changing, and which can scarce ever be conducted successfully without such an unremitting exertion of vigilance and attention as cannot long be expected from the directors of a joint stock company.
Trade routes and forts, in this case, would be the datalines and switching stations, but the basic principle holds: now that not only has the cable/fiver business model gotten well past the point where it's proven to be a viable business, but established it as an essential element of trade, the pathways need to be opened up to competition, if not the Monopolies that the current providers have on them inevitably lead to the kind of price gouging, stagnant, and anti-competitive behavoir that we're currently seeing in the US ISP market.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm all for more competition, and all for faster speeds and better service. However, my point was only that once I have justified paying for what is offered, I am demanding in that I want the goods purchased / service contracted for.

That they are trying to make more money by offereing little and keep out competitors I understand even if I don't care for it and would see it change.

That they are over sold capacity they didn't have (or don't want to maintain/install) is what bothers me. You can't sell an all you can eat buffet then raise the price when the bill comes because "what you MEANT was all the average customer can eat, and only when our kitchen can keep up with the number of customers who came in that night."

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 
Not sure if it's been pointed out yet, but Netflix was throttled across the board regardless of network load. Even at non-peak hours it wasn't possible to get Netflix at full speed unless people switched to a VPN to disguise their traffic. This wasn't a necessary throttling because the pipes were full.

Over the past decade, despite rhetoric from cable companies about building infrastructure, the US has been falling further behind on Internet penetration compared to the rest of the world.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-02-20/americas-10-year-experiment-in-broadband-investment-has-failed

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  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:
That's EXACTLY why they won their case in the first place.
No, they won their case because it was their hardware and the courts ruled that unless the FCC imposed common carrier status on ISPs, they could do what they wanted with it, regardless of whether they had a service based reason for it, or because they could charge people more if they did.
Really, care to cite to that explanation? Cause what you are asserting is contra-factual.

It's like you picked out the elements that were discussed and shuffled the rationale.

Whether you guys believe it, or not, all of the cases have turned on an ACCEPTENCE that network management is something that is required for the benefit of the consumer. When you skip the concept because you disagree with it, it absolutely breaks your understanding of what actually happened and causes you to draw out "conspiracy" style theories.

Specifically, "regardless of whether they had a service based reason for it" this claim of yours is utter nonsense.
quote:
What you're saying is that Comcast knowingly oversold bandwidth, and then chose to extort services to pay them more money to use limited resources instead of investing in enough bandwidth to match what they sold.
Your reading comprehension is terrible. I absolutely reject your juvenile description of what I said.
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
No, that has nothing to do with why they won their case. Did you actually read their case?

Yes, this one and others. Did you understand what you read? Nevermind, you don't need to answer that.
quote:
Originally posted by DW:
quote:
Netflix was being throttled to bring data usage expectations back in line with what the plans that consumers were sold were based on.
That any consumer would be OK with this boggles my mind. This is the problem though. They sold us/me a service based on the assumption that I would use it in spikes and be far, FAR under that capacity most of the time.
It's just a matter of logic. No one runs a business where they sell things under expected cost. Virtually every other company changes their prices when the cost picture changes.

Flat out, video on demand uses more resources. So take your pick, between your choices, but someone has to foot the bill between you the consumer and Netflix the provider, who you going to pick? Even if you want to punish Comcast for an error in forecasting (how dare they not anticipate a new technology would massively increase the data demands of an average customer), you're "gotcha" wouldn't stick past the next repricing opportunity. So when they reset the prices are you cool with your bill tripling? quintupling? More?
quote:
They guessed wrong for many of us. And now, we want what we paid for.
The logic here is broken. They have hundreds of thousands of customers who WERE NOT GETTING WHAT they paid for, the throttling actions reduced a minority back to EXACTLY what they paid for and freed the majority from the degredation of their paid for services.
quote:
They are freaking out because they know if they ask us for what it would actually cost to get all of us up to "the new normal" data usage, we would balk. So they are trying to extort money out of others.
You do get the bill has to be paid? What kind of consumer advocate are you? Do you know how many people would lose their internet connection due to cost if the average data needs of a consumer tripled and the consumer had to bear the full cost?
quote:
They made a HUGE error or failed to see this coming. They should suffer for it. When large companies mess up this badly a competitor should be there to take their place.
Think this through. The "competitor" is still going to have to pay for the heavier usage. They're going to do the same analysis except base it on triple the costs before they sell it.

It's like you think that if only Comcast were good guys they would provide this for free cause you "paid" for five times more data than your contract really buys.
quote:
Will we / should we just pay for usage? Yes, I think so. However, once you sell me on a throughput rate and/or a maximum amount for usage or over a period of time, then get out of my way and don't you dare tamper with what I do with it.
Then go out and sign a deal where your minimum rate is also your maximum rate. That would be a horribly inefficient model to base a system on. You'd have gross waste of resources, you'd have a massively overbuilt system and you'd have prohibitive costs associated with expanding in underserved areas.

If the average approaches the maximum it means a massive cost increase if the planners thought the average would be 20%.
quote:
I'm content to pay for what I get but I better damn well get what I pay for.
The current system is actually designed to get you MORE than what you pay for. It's seems like you're been ungrateful when you're complaining about being limited to just what you did pay for, so everyone else can also get what they did pay for.
quote:
Right now, they are trying to get out of a deal because they thought they tricked us into paying for something we would never possibly use to the fullest.
You don't have a deal. They didn't sign you to a futures contract or promise you a certain minimum data. They can "get out of it" anytime they want.

Instead of "getting out of it" or dumping the extra costs on you, they went to a paid for service company - Netflix - and told them to add the costs to THEIR product cause it wasn't fair to add it to Comcast's customers (particularly when not all of them even use Netflix), and you guys have so illogically flipped this around that you actually believe its in your best interest to have a higher bill to protect Netflix's profits.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 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