Obama ruins the internet

Francesca R said:
The proponents of net neutrality in the US wish to ban traffic management and force the market to be one sided.
Click to expand...

Yup! This is something that we, the consumer, the voters, and the owners of the land the utility companies use want. We want to pick which sites we use. We don't want our selections limited by the monopoly (or duopoly at best) ISPs. In the same vein, we also want our car manufacturer's to be neutral. I suppose you could could claim "innovation!" if car manufacturer's could prevent our vehicles from turning into the parking lots of stores that haven't paid an extortion "vehicle prioritization fee", but it would still be the same obvious b.s to us.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
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?
Click to expand...
Their concern is what will the business environment be after they invest billions? What kind of return on the investment can they expect in that environment? Is it worthwhile to make the investment? etc
 
Upchurch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nope, doesn't solve the problem. Verizon could simply formalize the previously informal arrangement: peering ports will only be provided within a certain volume of reciprocal provision. The terms are now identical for all connecting networks, but because Netflix traffic is one-way, there would be basically no return provision of peering ports, and Verizon would be free to not offer it in return.

Again, you fail to understand that everything Verizon did (and didn't do) can be decided upon on the basis of total traffic volume alone, with no regard for the client or the content of data. And ISP's must be able to manage network capacity on the basis of total traffic.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Their concern is what will the business environment be after they invest billions? What kind of return on the investment can they expect in that environment? Is it worthwhile to make the investment? etc
Click to expand...

Which is the same as it was before. All they can't do under network neutrality is extort extra money out of groups like Netflix.
 
Ziggurat said:
Nope, doesn't solve the problem. Verizon could simply formalize the previously informal arrangement: peering ports will only be provided within a certain volume of reciprocal provision. The terms are now identical for all connecting networks, but because Netflix traffic is one-way, there would be basically no return provision of peering ports, and Verizon would be free to not offer it in return.
Click to expand...
Even if they did formalize it, it would still have to be content neutral and effect all clients in that tier uniformly. They couldn't single out clients like that.

So, tell me: What would solve the problem?
 
Upchurch said:
Even if they did formalize it, it would still have to be content neutral and effect all clients in that tier uniformly. They couldn't single out clients like that.
Click to expand...

I just told you exactly how they could accomplish that in a content-neutral uniform manner. Netflix's own rather unique one-way traffic demands make it possible for a content-neutral rule to select them and only them.

Just like government regulations can be tailored in a way that, despite nominally applying to everyone, still manage to affect only one company.

So, tell me: What would solve the problem?
Click to expand...

Netflix already solved the problem. You just don't like the solution.

You have not formed a compelling argument for why I must choose a side in a dispute between two large companies, rather than letting them sort it out themselves. You have appealed to hypotheticals about what might happen to small companies, but this dispute arose specifically because Netflix is not small.
 
Belz... said:
Isn't "net neutrality" a set of rules ? What's the difference ?
Click to expand...
Not if it is voluntary. In one post Upchurch claimed to be indifferent about whether it was achieved through regulations or some other way.

Of course if that means Upchurch would be happy with NN being voluntary and not compulsory, then I wouldn't disagree. But I don't think so.
 
Belz... said:
No, it doesn't, unless the person in question hears your complaints and thinks "oh, it would be in my best interest to act on them."
Click to expand...

Which frequently happens.

Irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It's completely relevant. The lack of direct ISP competition in many markets was the reason that Comcast and Verizon had so much leverage against Netflix. And that conflict has been held up in this threat as the exemplar of what's currently wrong with the internet, and why something needs to change. But net neutrality doesn't help with that.
 
Ziggurat said:
Which frequently happens.



It's completely relevant. The lack of direct ISP competition in many markets was the reason that Comcast and Verizon had so much leverage against Netflix. And that conflict has been held up in this threat as the exemplar of what's currently wrong with the internet, and why something needs to change. But net neutrality doesn't help with that.
Click to expand...

So how do we implement Francesca's ban on ISP's owning local service networks, thus providing competition? Would that be the solution you want as well?
 
ponderingturtle said:
So how do we implement Francesca's ban on ISP's owning local service networks,
Click to expand...
Actually it isn't a ban on ownership. The line company in the UK, Openreach, is owned by BT which also is an ISP. But Openreach is not allowed to give priority to BT.

But the net neutrality discussioin would be about BT managing the traffic of content makers over the line capacity it rents and re-sells. And it is allowed to do that. (It doesn't though).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom