Obama ruins the internet

[Francesca R]

They just need access to another ISP's set of wires, and those ISP's are not providing that access.

Agree.

 

[Francesca R]

That we agree it is a separate issue does not mean we agree it is the primary issue.

Then like I said--if you want NN feel free to select an ISP offering it.

 

[mumblethrax]

That'd be great. Which one is more likely to be accomplished in the next 12 months? 12 years, even?

Which what? I'm addressing how the argument is framed, here and elsewhere on the internet.

If you're telling me that net neutrality is more likely to be enforced than regulation that fosters a genuinely competitive environment over the short term, sure, you're probably right. But what I'm telling you is that achieving net neutrality (that is, prohibiting packet discrimination on the basis of destination, content, application, user, etc.) doesn't actually address the example you provided in any way.

I suspect that there's a redefinition occurring here.

 

[lomiller]

Yeah, no.

Comcast and Netflix are not competitors. They offer fundamentally different services.

Comcast has its own streaming service that competes directly with everything Netflix does. If Netflix extended their service you can be Comcast would copy the innovation and try to use its monopoly to grab that business for themselves. That’s how vertical monopolies work, they allow the monopoly to effectively seize the innovations of any company that depend on their infrastructure.

Furthermore, I note that you haven't addressed the fact that net neutrality plays no role in this particular conflict.

The fact that there are other ways to try and exploit the same monopoly doesn’t’ change anything. If anything this is an argument for expanding the scope of Net Neutrality.

Consumers PAY Comcast for bandwidth and internet access. Comcast restricting the access these people are paying for should be an immediate concern.

It's the limitation in physical capacity that Netflix ran up against, not any differential treatment in their traffic compared to any other traffic.

The evidence doesn’t seem to support your claim. Other traffic on Comcast’s network didn’t suffer the same slowdown; this includes Comcast’s own streaming service. If it were a physical limitation as you suggest all Comcast’s customers would have been impacted equally and this didn’t happen.

In any case the issue between Comcast and Netflix is that Netflix wants to run local caching servers that would reduce the traffic crossing Comcast’s network and reduce the burden this traffic can create on Comcasts network and Comcast wants to charge them for it.

 

[Belz...]

Then like I said--if you want NN feel free to select an ISP offering it.

And as I said, what if none of them do in my area ?

 

[Francesca R]

Several in mine do. And there are no net neutrality laws here. Like in yours. But there is competition here. Unlike in yours.

Points to competition being the primary issue more than it points to network neutrality regs being the primary issue. Might be a small sample. But you got a better one?

 

[Ziggurat]

The fact that there are other ways to try and exploit the same monopoly doesn’t’ change anything. If anything this is an argument for expanding the scope of Net Neutrality.

You still don't recognize the real problem, even though it's right under your nose. Net neutrality doesn't do anything about it. You can't just expand net neutrality to do so either, just like you can't expand net neutrality to cover securities fraud. You need a different approach.

Consumers PAY Comcast for bandwidth and internet access. Comcast restricting the access these people are paying for should be an immediate concern.

Still wrong. Comcast never restricted anything. What they did was refrain from expanding access.

The evidence doesn’t seem to support your claim. Other traffic on Comcast’s network didn’t suffer the same slowdown; this includes Comcast’s own streaming service.

Because it didn't come through the same path. It's a network, lomiller. Different parts of that network have different physical capacity and different loads. The path that Netflix traffic came through didn't have enough physical capacity. Comcast didn't restrict that capacity, they just didn't expand it even though Netflix traffic expanded. Traffic that did not come through the same part of the network did not experience delays. But it was still an issue of the physical capacity of that part of the network, and not an issue of any discrimination between different types of traffic.

In any case the issue between Comcast and Netflix is that Netflix wants to run local caching servers that would reduce the traffic crossing Comcast’s network and reduce the burden this traffic can create on Comcasts network and Comcast wants to charge them for it.

And? What's your point?

 

[Francesca R]

That’s how vertical monopolies work, they allow the monopoly [ . . . ] The fact that there are other ways to try and exploit the same monopoly [ . . . ]

Why are you--along with all other proponents of network neutrality laws for the US--using NN regulation (which does not prevent monopolies) to deal with a problem which according to your own words is brought about by monopolies?

Consumers PAY Comcast for bandwidth and internet access. Comcast restricting the access these people are paying for should be an immediate concern.

I don't think you have actually said why. At least, not why this should imply zero traffic management at all.

 

[Meed]

Oh, we're largely talking past one another about two separate issues.

Doesn't answer my question, but okay.

 

[Upchurch]

Doesn't answer my question, but okay.

Okay. Simply put: One side thinks that the network neutrality is unnecessary and that there isn't a problem. The other side thinks the only practical way of having network neutrality that the ISPs will respect is through regulation.

 

[Belz...]

Several in mine do. And there are no net neutrality laws here. Like in yours. But there is competition here. Unlike in yours.

You make a number of assumptions, here, since you do not know where I live. You also did not answer my question.

Points to competition being the primary issue more than it points to network neutrality regs being the primary issue.

Competition can also be a problem, since ISPs might try to block content from said competitors, or outright buy smaller ones. As explained earlier, communication is an area where near-monopolies are frequent. A blanket net neutrality regulation ensures the equality of information regardless of competition issues.

 

[Belz...]

Why are you--along with all other proponents of network neutrality laws for the US--using NN regulation (which does not prevent monopolies) to deal with a problem which according to your own words is brought about by monopolies?

Because competition does not solve the problem. As I said they are separate issues.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because competition does not solve the problem. As I said they are separate issues.

The problem is caused by monopolies, but you can't solve it by not having monopolies?

Not getting the logic here.

 

[lomiller]

Net neutrality doesn't do anything about it.

I disagree. Net Neutrality does limit the potential for abusing this monopoly.

Comcast never restricted anything. What they did was refrain from expanding access.

Wrong the capacity already existed; they were restricting access to it.

Because it didn't come through the same path. It's a network, lomiller. Different parts of that network have different physical capacity and different loads. The path that Netflix traffic came through didn't have enough physical capacity.

So you think Comcast had trouble with the data because it didn’t come in through their upstream link, but instead bypassed this and was available locally?
There isn’t any network anywhere that operates this way. The whole point of caching servers is that they reduce network load.

And? What's your point?

My point is that your claims there was some physical limit on Comcast’s capacity are flat out false.

 

[lomiller]

to deal with a problem which according to your own words is brought about by monopolies?

I didn’t say the problem was created by monopolies I said it’s something can be abused by a monopoly.

I don't think you have actually said why. At least, not why this should imply zero traffic management at all.

Traffic management and preferential treatment at the packet level are not the same thing.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wrong the capacity already existed; they were restricting access to it.

Nope. Comcast wasn't changing their network to enable it, but without those changes, no, the capacity wasn't there. It was somewhere else.

So you think Comcast had trouble with the data because it didn’t come in through their upstream link, but instead bypassed this and was available locally?
There isn’t any network anywhere that operates this way. The whole point of caching servers is that they reduce network load.

And how do you get the data from the local cache servers onto the Comcast network? Why, you need to set up a connection between the two.

Which Comcast is charging for.

That is very much the way commercial network providers operate.

 

[Ziggurat]

Traffic management and preferential treatment at the packet level are not the same thing.

Quite so.

But Verizon and Comcast did not engage in preferential treatment at the packet level.

 

[Francesca R]

You also did not answer my question.

Bottom of previous page. I am not answering it twice.

 

[Francesca R]

I didn’t say the problem was created by monopolies I said it’s something can be abused by a monopoly.

Sounds like (unnecessary) ISP content carrier monopolies are fine with you, the only remedy needed is telling them what to do with more regulation.

Is that your position?

 

[Spindrift]

Several in mine do. And there are no net neutrality laws here. Like in yours. But there is competition here. Unlike in yours.

Points to competition being the primary issue more than it points to network neutrality regs being the primary issue. Might be a small sample. But you got a better one?

Isn't part of the problem in the USA, geography? Population density in many places is not very high so unless you have a monopoly it's not worth going into an area. If you don't get everyone it isn't worth the investment. That's why county/local governments give exclusive rights to whomever. It was either that or nothing.