Net Neutrality, Redux

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
4) and ban paid prioritization of content, which involves a content provider paying an ISP to get its offerings to your home faster than other content is delivered - Maybe this is where I’m confused. This certainly sounds like “Comcast can’t charge Netflix more than Joe’s Porn Stash, even though Netflix is 300x the strain on the system, because HD Netflix requires faster speeds than low quality homemade fart porn.”[/quote]

See I thought this mean’t Comcast couldn’t charge to speed up delivery of content or slow down delivery conversely. I haven’t seen much of anything on what they can charge or if it can be based on volume.

I mean, it seems kinda dumb if they can’t charge by volume.

Edited. [/quote]

That’s my point. They have to use a significantly higher amount of resources to get Netflix to users (who pay for both the net & the fucking movie) than they do, say, a forum where we all sit around and shit on each other all day about politics. The Netflix needs more speed to be effective, if TNation loads 3 seconds slower… Not many of us are going to notice. If Netflix buffers every 10 seconds, people will lose their fucking minds. (I’m not joking when I say riots in the street).

That means Comcast HAS to provide Netflix with more speed, and it HAS to provide TimmyGamer the same speed when Timmy develops an ultra popular game in 4 years that requires twice as much data as “Friday the 13th” in HD, and 600x times more data/speed than TNation forums. But, Comcast can’t charge them different rates…

That sounds fucking stupid as shit. If that happened to my firm we would be screwed.
[/quote]

I guess I still don’t get it. If Comcast has the ability to push 50mb/s it should push 50mb/s whether it’s to a Netflix user or a forum user. It’s in Comcast’s interest to provide everything as fast as possible or Verizon Fios is going to take their market share, right? Where Comcast would make their money is volume. Every second on a T-Nation sub-forum amount to say an average of what 2MB/s where as for Netflix it’s 30mb/s (Just made those up fyi). So you charge by volume consumed regardless of delivery speed. Kind of like a cell phone I guess just without a data cap.

IDK if that makes sense or not. I’m an accountant for Christ Sake…

22

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
4) and ban paid prioritization of content, which involves a content provider paying an ISP to get its offerings to your home faster than other content is delivered - Maybe this is where I’m confused. This certainly sounds like “Comcast can’t charge Netflix more than Joe’s Porn Stash, even though Netflix is 300x the strain on the system, because HD Netflix requires faster speeds than low quality homemade fart porn.”[/quote]

See I thought this mean’t Comcast couldn’t charge to speed up delivery of content or slow down delivery conversely. I haven’t seen much of anything on what they can charge or if it can be based on volume.

I mean, it seems kinda dumb if they can’t charge by volume.

Edited. [/quote]

I think you’re correct. I don’t think this has anything to do with restricting ISPs from charging by volume. It will restrict them from charging content providers for prioritization.
[/quote]

If demand is that users are requesting the ISP to deliver Netflix at a 200:1 ratio between 7pm and 12am on any given night, why the fuck shouldn’t Netflix be charged more? Comcast can charge me more for wanting fast service… Why can’t the content providers pony up some dough too.

Why is the government looking to protect the pocket books of Netflix, Google, etc?[/quote]

I think you’re mixing up bandwidth and speed. If Netflix wants more bandwidth to allow large amounts of data to be transferred at once then yes charge based on volume. But speed is a different thing. When you buy internet from a service provider you’re not buying speed your buying bandwidth. I could have a 20mb download and you could have a 100mb download and it’s possible for the ISP to manipulate the actual transmission of the data so that even though i have less bandwidth my internet can be faster than yours.[/quote]

This is how I thought it worked… :confused:

23

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
4) and ban paid prioritization of content, which involves a content provider paying an ISP to get its offerings to your home faster than other content is delivered - Maybe this is where I’m confused. This certainly sounds like “Comcast can’t charge Netflix more than Joe’s Porn Stash, even though Netflix is 300x the strain on the system, because HD Netflix requires faster speeds than low quality homemade fart porn.”[/quote]

See I thought this mean’t Comcast couldn’t charge to speed up delivery of content or slow down delivery conversely. I haven’t seen much of anything on what they can charge or if it can be based on volume.

I mean, it seems kinda dumb if they can’t charge by volume.

Edited. [/quote]

I think you’re correct. I don’t think this has anything to do with restricting ISPs from charging by volume. It will restrict them from charging content providers for prioritization.
[/quote]

It means that the federal government decides where it applies. Once it’s labeled title 2 the ISP’s will lobby to create price controls on the client side as well to create a formal monopoly.[/quote]

I’m not disagreeing that this could eventually happen

24

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
4) and ban paid prioritization of content, which involves a content provider paying an ISP to get its offerings to your home faster than other content is delivered - Maybe this is where I’m confused. This certainly sounds like “Comcast can’t charge Netflix more than Joe’s Porn Stash, even though Netflix is 300x the strain on the system, because HD Netflix requires faster speeds than low quality homemade fart porn.”[/quote]

See I thought this mean’t Comcast couldn’t charge to speed up delivery of content or slow down delivery conversely. I haven’t seen much of anything on what they can charge or if it can be based on volume.

I mean, it seems kinda dumb if they can’t charge by volume.

Edited. [/quote]

I think you’re correct. I don’t think this has anything to do with restricting ISPs from charging by volume. It will restrict them from charging content providers for prioritization.
[/quote]

If demand is that users are requesting the ISP to deliver Netflix at a 200:1 ratio between 7pm and 12am on any given night, why the fuck shouldn’t Netflix be charged more? Comcast can charge me more for wanting fast service… Why can’t the content providers pony up some dough too.

Why is the government looking to protect the pocket books of Netflix, Google, etc?[/quote]

I think you’re mixing up bandwidth and speed. If Netflix wants more bandwidth to allow large amounts of data to be transferred at once then yes charge based on volume. But speed is a different thing. When you buy internet from a service provider you’re not buying speed your buying bandwidth. I could have a 20mb download and you could have a 100mb download and it’s possible for the ISP to manipulate the actual transmission of the data so that even though i have less bandwidth my internet can be faster than yours.[/quote]

This is how I thought it worked… :/[/quote]

So you guys are saying it takes the same amount of resources for Comcast to transmit an HD at a speed that prevents buffering, to 3-4 million users, at hones, for 2 hours straight, as it does to load a single facebook timeline at the same speed?

25

[quote] MattyG35 wrote:

Also, I don’t think having fission/fusion knowledge in the public domain is dangerous. To have the resources to do anything with that would negate the fact that it is in the public sphere

[/quote]

It was a thought experiment to convey the intention of esotericism. Perhaps a better example would be a recipe for a biological weapon made from readily available, everyday materials. I would consider it legitimate for such information to be restricted. Once you concede that some knowledge is dangerous and needs to be restricted, you then have to consider what kinds of knowledge, who should do the restricting and how, who should watch the watchmen(checks and balances/independent oversight), who should be initiated into esoteric knowledge, the responsibilities and duties of the initiates. And all of that comes back to legitimate authority, where it resides and how power is derived from it. Those are metaphysical questions. But regardless of the ultimate source of authority, its specific legitimacy or lack thereof in a particular case, the principle of absolute freedom in the pursuit of truth is at best an unrealisable ideal and at worst an existential threat in and of itself.

26

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
4) and ban paid prioritization of content, which involves a content provider paying an ISP to get its offerings to your home faster than other content is delivered - Maybe this is where I’m confused. This certainly sounds like “Comcast can’t charge Netflix more than Joe’s Porn Stash, even though Netflix is 300x the strain on the system, because HD Netflix requires faster speeds than low quality homemade fart porn.”[/quote]

See I thought this mean’t Comcast couldn’t charge to speed up delivery of content or slow down delivery conversely. I haven’t seen much of anything on what they can charge or if it can be based on volume.

I mean, it seems kinda dumb if they can’t charge by volume.

Edited. [/quote]

I think you’re correct. I don’t think this has anything to do with restricting ISPs from charging by volume. It will restrict them from charging content providers for prioritization.
[/quote]

If demand is that users are requesting the ISP to deliver Netflix at a 200:1 ratio between 7pm and 12am on any given night, why the fuck shouldn’t Netflix be charged more? Comcast can charge me more for wanting fast service… Why can’t the content providers pony up some dough too.

Why is the government looking to protect the pocket books of Netflix, Google, etc?[/quote]

The argument is that there is no choice for netflix because the ISP’s don’t have a competitive market. The problem with that argument is the existing 100 years of regulatory capture is what created the noncompetitive ISP market in the first place.

The government is getting on board because once ISP’s are under title 2, Internet service prices can be regulated as well, giving the federal government de-facto ownership of all the entire ISP industry through price controls like they do with other public utilities.

27

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
The argument is that there is no choice for netflix because the ISP’s don’t have a competitive market. The problem with that argument is the existing 100 years of regulatory capture is what created the noncompetitive ISP market in the first place.[/quote]

This much I understood lol

ahhh. Thank you. It makes so much more sense…

Because people want internet like crack heads want crack, the government figures it sticks its greedy little hands in the pie and instead of users paying ISP’s, content providers paying ISP’s and this leading to many more ISP’s coming along to make money… everyone just pays the government, including the ISP’s so congressmen get rich and shit…

28

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] MattyG35 wrote:

Also, I don’t think having fission/fusion knowledge in the public domain is dangerous. To have the resources to do anything with that would negate the fact that it is in the public sphere

[/quote]

It was a thought experiment to convey the intention of esotericism. Perhaps a better example would be a recipe for a biological weapon made from readily available, everyday materials. I would consider it legitimate for such information to be restricted. Once you concede that some knowledge is dangerous and needs to be restricted, you then have to consider what kinds of knowledge, who should do the restricting and how, who should watch the watchmen(checks and balances/independent oversight), who should be initiated into esoteric knowledge, the responsibilities and duties of the initiates. And all of that comes back to legitimate authority, where it resides and how power is derived from it. Those are metaphysical questions. But regardless of the ultimate source of authority, its specific legitimacy or lack thereof in a particular case, the principle of absolute freedom in the pursuit of truth is at best an unrealisable ideal and at worst an existential threat in and of itself.[/quote]

If it was readily available, then the point is moot.

29

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
4) and ban paid prioritization of content, which involves a content provider paying an ISP to get its offerings to your home faster than other content is delivered - Maybe this is where I’m confused. This certainly sounds like “Comcast can’t charge Netflix more than Joe’s Porn Stash, even though Netflix is 300x the strain on the system, because HD Netflix requires faster speeds than low quality homemade fart porn.”[/quote]

See I thought this mean’t Comcast couldn’t charge to speed up delivery of content or slow down delivery conversely. I haven’t seen much of anything on what they can charge or if it can be based on volume.

I mean, it seems kinda dumb if they can’t charge by volume.

Edited. [/quote]

I think you’re correct. I don’t think this has anything to do with restricting ISPs from charging by volume. It will restrict them from charging content providers for prioritization.
[/quote]

If demand is that users are requesting the ISP to deliver Netflix at a 200:1 ratio between 7pm and 12am on any given night, why the fuck shouldn’t Netflix be charged more? Comcast can charge me more for wanting fast service… Why can’t the content providers pony up some dough too.

Why is the government looking to protect the pocket books of Netflix, Google, etc?[/quote]

I think you’re mixing up bandwidth and speed. If Netflix wants more bandwidth to allow large amounts of data to be transferred at once then yes charge based on volume. But speed is a different thing. When you buy internet from a service provider you’re not buying speed your buying bandwidth. I could have a 20mb download and you could have a 100mb download and it’s possible for the ISP to manipulate the actual transmission of the data so that even though i have less bandwidth my internet can be faster than yours.[/quote]

This is how I thought it worked… :/[/quote]

So you guys are saying it takes the same amount of resources for Comcast to transmit an HD at a speed that prevents buffering, to 3-4 million users, at hones, for 2 hours straight, as it does to load a single facebook timeline at the same speed?[/quote]

Yes I agree Netflix requires more bandwidth which they should pay for. But speed of the actual data transmission isn’t a resource. There’s no reason for an ISP to slow down the traffic of a content provider.

30

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious-graph-of-netflix-speeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/

This is what happened to Netflix’s download speed on Comcast during “negotiations” with Comcast. And here I thought strong-armed robbery was a crime.

31

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’m still working through this too…but I don’t think your original assertion is completely correct, CB (and/or it’s a bit more complex than that).

Mufasa [/quote]

Please correct me where I’m wrong then lol. [/quote]

Again. I’m still working through this.

You may well be correct; but so far, I’m finding it a bit more complex.

Mufasa

32

http://www.internetfreedomcoalition.com/?p=4342

33

Don’t know if it’s been mentioned but a former telecom lobbyist was appointed as the head of the FCC by Obama as aswell

So, not too sure that it matters which direction everyone wants the ruling to go, it may have already been decided.
Although with their shitty ways, it may be an opportunity for others to take their place by providing better service (pipedream I know, but hopefully not).

34

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

35

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
The argument is that there is no choice for netflix because the ISP’s don’t have a competitive market. The problem with that argument is the existing 100 years of regulatory capture is what created the noncompetitive ISP market in the first place.

The government is getting on board because once ISP’s are under title 2, Internet service prices can be regulated as well, giving the federal government de-facto ownership of all the entire ISP industry through price controls like they do with other public utilities.[/quote]

But this is no longer true. Title II assumed that telecom would forever be like an electrical or water/wastewater utility, where there is (to date) really only one way of moving ‘product’. Cable and telephone have always been regulated separately, typically by a local government that either owns the infrastructure or delegates its use. We can still only distribute electricity by aluminum or copper wire and water by pipe (and perhaps this will remain true forever, but the point is to recognize that we don’t have the foresight to predict what future technology will bring).

Today we have internet over traditional cable media, cable over phone & internet media, VoIP that allows phone use over cable, google fiber that does both and is quickly becoming a leader in the KC area, and numerous wireless/satellite options. Federal regulation for consumer protection is completely unnecessary with the ever increasing options. AT&T, Comcast, and Dish are all current options for me. Google is close and Verizon may be another option in the near future. All can provide both cable/satellite & internet. I think I have more cable choices than I do grocery stores, and with wireless communications the barrier to entry no longer relies on access to municipality infrastructure. Side note: It relies on the FCC who controls the wireless spectrum!

CB has really already hit the main points. Certain websites demand much more ISP resources than others. What net neutrality amounts to is populist government action so that Netflix, Hulu, et al subscribers don’t see an increase in price for those subscriptions. One of two things will ultimately happen, you can let the ISP’s charge their content providers in the EXACT SAME WAY THAT CABLE COMPANIES DO, or you can say goodbye to unlimited access to the internet and say hello to data caps with every ISP, which is the necessary conclusion to net neutrality with the added benefit that the FCC now gets to regulate it.

The crux is that Netflix (and others but they are really the main culprit here) cannot get their product to consumers at a rate that allows both Netflix and the ISP to profit. Netflix aims to push the burden of their own profitability and consumer reach onto the ISP and needs government intervention to accomplish it.

36

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

37

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]tedro wrote:

…Federal regulation for consumer protection is completely unnecessary with the ever increasing options…

…Netflix aims to push the burden of their own profitability and consumer reach onto the ISP and needs government intervention to accomplish it.

[/quote]

Like many things in this life…too many folks tend to look to the government as the omnipotent mechanic or physician, imbued with the power to fix any and every thing under the face of the sun.[/quote]

I have a cynical reply to this that I will save for another thread on another day. I think Net Neutrality fully deserves its own thread as this topic really seems to question the principles of people as they fall victim to their own short-sighted self interests.

38

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

39

[quote]tedro wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
The argument is that there is no choice for netflix because the ISP’s don’t have a competitive market. The problem with that argument is the existing 100 years of regulatory capture is what created the noncompetitive ISP market in the first place.

The government is getting on board because once ISP’s are under title 2, Internet service prices can be regulated as well, giving the federal government de-facto ownership of all the entire ISP industry through price controls like they do with other public utilities.[/quote]

But this is no longer true. Title II assumed that telecom would forever be like an electrical or water/wastewater utility, where there is (to date) really only one way of moving ‘product’. Cable and telephone have always been regulated separately, typically by a local government that either owns the infrastructure or delegates its use. We can still only distribute electricity by aluminum or copper wire and water by pipe (and perhaps this will remain true forever, but the point is to recognize that we don’t have the foresight to predict what future technology will bring).

Today we have internet over traditional cable media, cable over phone & internet media, VoIP that allows phone use over cable, google fiber that does both and is quickly becoming a leader in the KC area, and numerous wireless/satellite options. Federal regulation for consumer protection is completely unnecessary with the ever increasing options. AT&T, Comcast, and Dish are all current options for me. Google is close and Verizon may be another option in the near future. All can provide both cable/satellite & internet. I think I have more cable choices than I do grocery stores, and with wireless communications the barrier to entry no longer relies on access to municipality infrastructure. Side note: It relies on the FCC who controls the wireless spectrum!

CB has really already hit the main points. Certain websites demand much more ISP resources than others. What net neutrality amounts to is populist government action so that Netflix, Hulu, et al subscribers don’t see an increase in price for those subscriptions. One of two things will ultimately happen, you can let the ISP’s charge their content providers in the EXACT SAME WAY THAT CABLE COMPANIES DO, or you can say goodbye to unlimited access to the internet and say hello to data caps with every ISP, which is the necessary conclusion to net neutrality with the added benefit that the FCC now gets to regulate it.

The crux is that Netflix (and others but they are really the main culprit here) cannot get their product to consumers at a rate that allows both Netflix and the ISP to profit. Netflix aims to push the burden of their own profitability and consumer reach onto the ISP and needs government intervention to accomplish it.
[/quote]

I’m not sure where we are disagreeing. I think you might have assumed that I thought that treating ISP’s like other utilities would be a resounding success because of the their success of water, etc…
That’s not what i meant at all. Government takeover of “utilities” has been a disaster and will be always and forever.

Imagine a future where they are able to buy votes by providing “free” internet access to “underprivileged classes”.

THAT is where this is going.

40

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
I’m not sure where we are disagreeing. I think you might have assumed that I thought that treating ISP’s like other utilities would be a resounding success because of the their success of water, etc…
That’s not what i meant at all. Government takeover of “utilities” has been a disaster and will be always and forever.

Imagine a future where they are able to buy votes by providing “free” internet access to “underprivileged classes”.

THAT is where this is going.[/quote]

No worries, I understood your post and mostly agree. My point is that despite the current regulatory environment, ISP’s ARE competetive.