Obama ruins the internet

Upchurch said:
Yeah, that's a publicity stunt, not a genuine concern. But it's a pretty good publicity stunt that will allow Wheeler to wring his hands and "compromise" by giving the ISPs everything they want in the name of "improving infrastructure".
Click to expand...

No worries. Some start-up will install the fiber, undercut AT&T, and all will be well.
 
Francesca R said:
I was not particularly trying to, I will settle for the argument that it is a better solution than NN.
Click to expand...

I would prefer it in addition to network neutrality, I don't have faith that the market will provide a neutral network by magic just because people want one.
Of course, other countries have done it, so you will appreciate that Americans saying "Can't happen here!" sometimes gets taken with a pinch of salt from outside. Universal health insurance could "never happen in America" either, right? Until it did (well, kinda, the naysayers had something of a point)
Click to expand...

Other countries don't let people die from treatable illnesses because to do so would be socialist. I will admit we are a special kind of stupid, but that doesn't change anything of what is or is not attainable in the existing political climate of the US. And it hasn't happened in the US yet, despite what the detractors say Obamacare isn't that. We still happily let people die for not buying their own health insurance despite pulling down 9k a year, even knowing they have congenital heart conditions.
And regulatory powers to require de-merging, and then impose utility-like service requirements on line operators are not really, really, in a different ball park to the proposed NN stuff anyway. Unless it is the spinning off of a new company which you think the US, uniquely, can never do.
Click to expand...

See the special kind of stupid.
 
marplots said:
No worries. Some start-up will install the fiber, undercut AT&T, and all will be well.
Click to expand...
I would love that to be true and it might be if Google counts as a start-up.

Ultimately, though, I feel ATT is making an empty threat. It's just political theater to give Wheeler a plausible excuse to further neuter network neutrality.
 
Upchurch said:
Yeah, that's a publicity stunt, not a genuine concern.
Click to expand...
It's a threat strategy in which the bundled infrastructure owner / telecom operator has bargaining power, which it would not have under the model that "could never be practically implemented in the US", but is elsewhere.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So what do you actually propose to give the consumer effective choice? Or just say suck it up to them?
Click to expand...

Nope, I never said anyone should suck up anything. But I'm very much in favor of actually understanding what the problem is, and it seems certain parties here are rather averse to that concept. There are always multiple ways one could address a problem, with various pros and cons to alternative approaches, but if you don't understand the problem you're trying to solve, it's pretty much guaranteed that your "solution" is going to suck.

One aspect of understanding the problem is that traffic discrimination isn't what happened in the Netflix/Comcast/Verizon dispute. That was a problem of total network capacity at certain choke points. Net neutrality doesn't address that. In fact, I'm not sure how you really can address that by government fiat, and nobody has really attempted to explain. Do you really want the government to be micromanaging the deployment of new network infrastructure? I'm sure some people do, but again, that's not net neutrality, that's something else, and there have been no plans put forth beyond "don't allow it" (with "it" never being defined) to actually accomplish it.
 
Upchurch said:
That's exactly the point. It wasn't covered under the FCC's network neutrality rules at that time. It's the kind of loophole ISPs are lobbying for to get around genuine network neutrality. That's what needs to be fixed.
Click to expand...

One wonders what you believe "genuine" network neutrality to be. Please, tell us. Tell us what rules, specifically, you would like to have in place that would prevent Netflix's conflict with Comcast and Verizon.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I would prefer it in addition to network neutrality, I don't have faith that the market will provide a neutral network by magic just because people want one.
Click to expand...
I don't think ISPs would necessarily provide a neutral network (no access tiering) either. Unlike you I see no good reason why that should be compulsory and good reasons why it should not.
 
Ziggurat said:
Nope, I never said anyone should suck up anything. But I'm very much in favor of actually understanding what the problem is, and it seems certain parties here are rather averse to that concept. There are always multiple ways one could address a problem, with various pros and cons to alternative approaches, but if you don't understand the problem you're trying to solve, it's pretty much guaranteed that your "solution" is going to suck.

One aspect of understanding the problem is that traffic discrimination isn't what happened in the Netflix/Comcast/Verizon dispute. That was a problem of total network capacity at certain choke points. Net neutrality doesn't address that. In fact, I'm not sure how you really can address that by government fiat, and nobody has really attempted to explain. Do you really want the government to be micromanaging the deployment of new network infrastructure? I'm sure some people do, but again, that's not net neutrality, that's something else, and there have been no plans put forth beyond "don't allow it" (with "it" never being defined) to actually accomplish it.
Click to expand...

So you don't have any actual proposition you are advancing then.
 
Francesca R said:
I don't think ISPs would necessarily provide a neutral network (no access tiering) either. Unlike you I see no good reason why that should be compulsory and good reasons why it should not.
Click to expand...

So you are fine with your ISP deciding which websites you can effectively use and which you can not. Because that isn't a good reason.

You are assuming a very specific model of how the infrastructure will be managed first then going on about how that makes other issues unnecessary.

So are the Swiss and Germans wrong for structuring their health care system in a different manner than the UK, or might there be multiple effective ways to get to a reasonable end point?
 
Ziggurat said:
One wonders what you believe "genuine" network neutrality to be. Please, tell us. Tell us what rules, specifically, you would like to have in place that would prevent Netflix's conflict with Comcast and Verizon.
Click to expand...
INAL, but ISPs should provide identical service, per tier, regardless of the client or the kind of data being sent. In Verizon's case, they specifically withheld services they normally would have provided because of the client involved.

Remember this?

quadraginta said:
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?
Verizon-Level3-640x219.jpg

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?
Click to expand...
 
Upchurch said:
Yeah, that's a publicity stunt, not a genuine concern. But it's a pretty good publicity stunt that will allow Wheeler to wring his hands and "compromise" by giving the ISPs everything they want in the name of "improving infrastructure".
Click to expand...
Yes it is a publicity stunt (much like I lean toward thinking president Obama's statement was) but there is also truth to their concerns.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Yes it is a publicity stunt (much like I lean toward thinking president Obama's statement was) but there is also truth to their concerns.
Click to expand...

What concerns? Whether they'll be able to successfully do business as they had been or whether they'll get business they way they want to?
 
ponderingturtle said:
So you are fine with your ISP deciding which websites you can effectively use and which you can not.
Click to expand...
I am fine with traffic management (fast/slow lanes) and the market for net content to be two-sided. So are most of the European regulators (not all of them). So is the OECD.

The proponents of net neutrality in the US wish to ban traffic management and force the market to be one sided.

But the reason why most people who want that want it, is because of feared market abuse power caused by inadequate competition and "last mile line operation" that is bundled with communication services/content provision.
 
Unabogie said:
Because the little startup in the free market faerie tale that offers better movies than Netflix at half the cost will never be able to pay this ransom. Hence, innovation and competition are stifled by Comcast, who wants Netflix and StartupMovies.com to just go away so you'll buy their OnDemand services.
Click to expand...

And Netflix will probably increase their prices to compensate, as well. So in the end you pay the ISP to allow you to do something you could do in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom