Obama ruins the internet

ponderingturtle said:
Yes, it is that they know they have a captive customer base who has to take what they give them, so they don't need to do anything about increased demand.
Click to expand...

And how is it that you think net neutrality fixes that problem?

Hint:
It doesn't.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So now we have multiple companies and sets of telephone poles in every neighborhood? That seems impractical for anywhere but urban areas.
Click to expand...
Also seems like a silly argument (although I am not sure what it is an argument for)

How do you get real competition on the local level? Where people actually have a real choice of high speed internet? Much of the country doesn't.
Click to expand...
Do you think network neutrality "gets real competition"? That's the intended purpose?
 
Upchurch said:
IMHO, a market only works well when it has the proper balance of freedom and structure. Sometimes regulations are there for a purpose. I like that there is a maximum level of rat feces in my food and that children can't have a 40 hour work week.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well some of aren't getting that maximum level of rat feces. So naturally, we are going to make a stink about it.
 
marplots said:
Isn't the "invisible hand" supposed to swoop down and let some start-up provider offer better, cheaper service? That's what I've been told happens. Heck, I'm not doing anything next weekend, maybe I'll start my own ISP. And none of this chump cable either - I'm going full fiber right from the start.
Click to expand...

Google Fiber isn't coming along fast enough.
 
Upchurch said:
Who said anything about wasting capacity? Prioritizing one group's traffic over another doesn't necessarily meant that capacity would be wasted.
Click to expand...
The comic the member linked did. It drew a driveway with garbage strewn over half of it. The obvious implication is that capacity is wasted.

Perhaps it was misleading, you think? And the comic misleads about two sided markets as well. And their first argument seems to be argument from status quo (or rather status antiquitus).

So its a fun read but it seems to mislead.
 
Ziggurat said:
<snip>

Do you know why Netflix ran into this problem in the first place? They ran into it because they were pushing more data than the network can handle. Why were they pushing so much data? Because they have a **** ton of customers.


<snip>
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
No, Upchurch. You still don't get it. Comcast didn't do anything. Let that sink in: they didn't do anything. They took NO measures AT ALL to slow down Netflix. None. And the rules would have done nothing to stop that even before they were gutted.

The only thing you said that is correct is what I highlighted.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
What, exactly, do you think Comcast did?
Click to expand...


This article explains what some experts think they did.

Not only has Verizon’s performance become dramatically worse, the company has continued to try and foist the blame for the problem on Netflix, claiming that the online streaming giant is deliberately degrading performance by attempting to stuff data down specific congested Verizon pipes.
Unfortunately, a growing body of evidence suggests this isn’t true. Verizon claims that Netflix “chose to attempt to deliver that traffic to Verizon through a few third-party transit providers with limited capacity over connections specifically to be used only for balanced traffic flows.” Yesterday, backbone provider Level 3 posted a response to Verizon’s claims, noting that in Los Angeles, the peering between Verizon and Level 3 is literally accomplished by connecting four 10 GigE ports between a pair of routers. What does that connection look like?
Level 3’s discussion of the problem. See an issue?

Why, it looks like that. Note that there are four 10 GigE ports sitting unused on the Verizon side.
Click to expand...

Do you find fault with their contentions?

If so, why?
 
Upchurch said:
No. He's saying that real competition is the alternate solution to network neutrality. However, at this stage in the game, it is the less likely solution, by far.
Click to expand...
Not only is it alternate, it is the appropriate solution.

Lack of competition is bad. You seem to agree, despite your penchant for more, ever stronger regulation that does nothing to increase it.
 
Francesca R said:
The comic the member linked did. It drew a driveway with garbage strewn over half of it. The obvious implication is that capacity is wasted.

Perhaps it was misleading, you think? And the comic misleads about two sided markets as well. And their first argument seems to be argument from status quo (or rather status antiquitus).

So its a fun read but it seems to mislead.
Click to expand...

It's a metaphor. If you are going to argue that metaphors are invalid because they are never precisely identical to the thing they related to, then, I think, you're missing the point of metaphors.
 
Francesca R said:
Not only is it alternate, it is the appropriate solution.

Lack of competition is bad. You seem to agree, despite your penchant for more, ever stronger regulation that does nothing to increase it.
Click to expand...

It's an impossible solution, because the major ISPs literally collude, and have outright admitted to doing so. They will not offer service in the same area.

Few companies have the resources to build new lines. Google is probably the only one, and they're still going at a rate of a city or two per year.
 
Francesca R said:
Also seems like a silly argument (although I am not sure what it is an argument for)

Do you think network neutrality "gets real competition"? That's the intended purpose?
Click to expand...

No, what it does is mean that not having competition from your ISP is less important when they can not decide that they don't want you to be able to access their competitors streaming service and so make it unusable or degraded in a significant way.

It permits competition in content providers. The argument against it is that if the ISP's are producing a crappy service then you go with a different service. For that to be an option we need to make sure people have many different ISP's available to them. If you want to solve it with competition you need to remove the problem that people have at most 2 serious options in high speed internet ISP available to them.

You need more players at a local level to have a chance for that competition thing to work. So people against network neutrality, how do we get the infrastructure built to give people the option of serveral different high speed internet service providers?
 
I want the Internet to work as fast as me. Any faster is a waste.

In fact, I would agree to a slower connection if I got a discount for doing so. (Also, a few more rat turds.)
 
Francesca R said:
Lack of competition is bad. You seem to agree, despite your penchant for more, ever stronger regulation that does nothing to increase it.
Click to expand...
Not a stronger regulation. It's a different regulation that enforces a level playing field (thus, more competition) on the web.

You don't want ISPs to kill competition on the web, do you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom