The Net Neutrality Thread

[HoughMade]

...if only there were some way to shop for competing ISPs......

Someone really ought to look into that.

 

[jamil]

As I've said, I really haven't been well in tune with this issue. It's just not piqued my interest as much as other political issues out there until recently. But I'm getting more interested and I'm learning more about it. And the more I learn about it, the less I think the net neutrality we had is a sufficient solution.

As far as Comcast throttling Netflix, that's mostly a red herring. Throttling a high bandwidth content provider is a supply and demand issue which already has a market solution which Netflix and Comcast almost resolved. The problem is described by NN proponents as an evil corporate bully thumping on poor, defenseless Netflix. But that was more like an issue of paying for the bandwidth you use.

Netflix eventually agreed to pay a fee for using a third party peer farm to add the infrastructure necessary to handle their heavy bandwidth. That's the way the market should work, and that sort of solved it before 2015, except Comcast WAS an evil corporate bully. Maybe.

Comcast was reported to have again been caught throttling Netflix AFTER Netflix started paying the fees. And if that's true--it's not clear that it is true--solving the issue of breaching a contract is no more an issue of net neutrality than gun violence is an issue of gun control. Take them to court. Sue them for not delivering what you're paying them to deliver.

One thing that is clear to me, the weeping and gnashing of teeth isn't as justified as people tell me. It's not as simple as has been said. Comcast throttled Netflix: that part is true. Net Neutrality swooped in to save the day: Um, no. Not really.

So there's a legitimate reason to throttle content providers. If delivering reliable service for a high volume content provider costs the delivery service more, it's fair to charge the content provider more. It's like Amazon demanding that UPS not charge them higher shipping fees during peek times, when it costs UPS more for overtime and resources to keep up with Amazon's higher demand. If net neutrality is indeed about fairness, then it should not care about those kinds of arrangements. The analog difference between delivering packages and delivering internet service is that Amazon can go with other shippers or go direct if they want to. So the better solution would be destroying the monopoly relationship ISPs have with consumers.

A reason that isn't so legitimate to throttle content providers: say Comcast offers its own streaming service and throttles Netflix to give Netflix subscribers the perception that Netflix's quality of service is much worse than Comcast's streaming service. That's one area that Net Neutrality would be useful to help resolve. But enabling competition would be even more effective for the entire market.

If we're honest about it, we try to piece together the truth, regardless of the solution our ideology prescribes. What I've pieced together so far seems to be the pro-net neutrality side building a narrative that the net neutrality is the only moral side--it's the liberty and justice for all versus the evil corporations. The other side builds the narrative that it's the free market versus unwieldy regulation. In reality it's a mixture of both. There is a bully corporation aspect to this. There is a legitimate reason to expect supply and demand to influence price structures.

What's frustrating about trying to figure out a position on net neutrality is that no one tells the full story. Everyone is biased. They tell the story in a way that makes the other side look worse. I don't see the "free" internet ending. I also don't see net neutrality OR ENDING IT as a real solution. I see mostly tribal solutions being offered. And smear campaigns from both sides blaming the other.

C'mon. Just destroy the monopolistic hold companies have on regions so that anyone can lease lines from anyone. Competition will fix the problem.

 

[jamil]

It's almost like Netflix should cost more because it's using more bandwidth.

...if only there were some way to shop for competing ISPs......

Someone really ought to look into that.

Instead of all the neckbeards pining for big government regs to save them from evil corporations, maybe if they protested for eliminating regional monopolies we could shop for ISPs who aren't bullies.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

As I've said, I really haven't been well in tune with this issue. It's just not piqued my interest as much as other political issues out there until recently. But I'm getting more interested and I'm learning more about it. And the more I learn about it, the less I think the net neutrality we had is a sufficient solution.

As far as Comcast throttling Netflix, that's mostly a red herring. Throttling a high bandwidth content provider is a supply and demand issue which already has a market solution which Netflix and Comcast almost resolved. The problem is described by NN proponents as an evil corporate bully thumping on poor, defenseless Netflix. But that was more like an issue of paying for the bandwidth you use.

Netflix eventually agreed to pay a fee for using a third party peer farm to add the infrastructure necessary to handle their heavy bandwidth. That's the way the market should work, and that sort of solved it before 2015, except Comcast WAS an evil corporate bully. Maybe.

Comcast was reported to have again been caught throttling Netflix AFTER Netflix started paying the fees. And if that's true--it's not clear that it is true--solving the issue of breaching a contract is no more an issue of net neutrality than gun violence is an issue of gun control. Take them to court. Sue them for not delivering what you're paying them to deliver.

One thing that is clear to me, the weeping and gnashing of teeth isn't as justified as people tell me. It's not as simple as has been said. Comcast throttled Netflix: that part is true. Net Neutrality swooped in to save the day: Um, no. Not really.

So there's a legitimate reason to throttle content providers. If delivering reliable service for a high volume content provider costs the delivery service more, it's fair to charge the content provider more. It's like Amazon demanding that UPS not charge them higher shipping fees during peek times, when it costs UPS more for overtime and resources to keep up with Amazon's higher demand. If net neutrality is indeed about fairness, then it should not care about those kinds of arrangements. The analog difference between delivering packages and delivering internet service is that Amazon can go with other shippers or go direct if they want to. So the better solution would be destroying the monopoly relationship ISPs have with consumers.

A reason that isn't so legitimate to throttle content providers: say Comcast offers its own streaming service and throttles Netflix to give Netflix subscribers the perception that Netflix's quality of service is much worse than Comcast's streaming service. That's one area that Net Neutrality would be useful to help resolve. But enabling competition would be even more effective for the entire market.

If we're honest about it, we try to piece together the truth, regardless of the solution our ideology prescribes. What I've pieced together so far seems to be the pro-net neutrality side building a narrative that the net neutrality is the only moral side--it's the liberty and justice for all versus the evil corporations. The other side builds the narrative that it's the free market versus unwieldy regulation. In reality it's a mixture of both. There is a bully corporation aspect to this. There is a legitimate reason to expect supply and demand to influence price structures.

What's frustrating about trying to figure out a position on net neutrality is that no one tells the full story. Everyone is biased. They tell the story in a way that makes the other side look worse. I don't see the "free" internet ending. I also don't see net neutrality OR ENDING IT as a real solution. I see mostly tribal solutions being offered. And smear campaigns from both sides blaming the other.

C'mon. Just destroy the monopolistic hold companies have on regions so that anyone can lease lines from anyone. Competition will fix the problem.

But capitalism sucks. We need a government solution.

 

[jamil]

But capitalism sucks. We need a government solution.

Well. First. Congratulations for reading all that. Well. Maybe you only read the last line.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well. First. Congratulations for reading all that. Well. Maybe you only read the last line.

Oh I read the whole thing. As with any large, complex, issue it's often difficult to boil the problem down to a single cause and cure.

Generally, more competition results in lower prices, more choice, and higher quality products and services for the customer. Governmen Regulation tends to pick winners and losers and stifles innovation and choice. Whatever results in the former over the latter is what we should be striving for and generally, I think ending the euphemistically named net neutrality is a correct step in the right direction. It's not the last step needed though.

 

[bwframe]

This was pretty tough to figure out. Looking at whose taking what side and why explains things better.

 

[KLB]

Instead of all the neckbeards pining for big government regs to save them from evil corporations, maybe if they protested for eliminating regional monopolies we could shop for ISPs who aren't bullies.

Eliminating the monopolies is a good idea, but I don't know that it would fix anything anytime soon.

Having fiber run in areas would help a lot. The older cable infrastructure is much less conducive to leasing by other companies.

 

[actaeon277]

Everyone should have the pocket version of the Bill Of Rights for quick reference purposes.
If I had a dime for every idiot that remarked they have the right to something I could buy something cool.

https://usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html
The argument was that the Constitution did not give the new federal government the ability to restrict inherent rights, so no list of those rights was necessary. Others worried that if the rights were listed, they would invariably forget some and the list would ever be incomplete. Finally, the argument was that the states each had their own constitutions, too, and that rights were best protected at a state level.

The bill of rights does not list ALL of our rights. Some worried that by making a bill of rights, that some people would come to believe that.

But, I can see some people do not even understand what a "Right" is.
They want the "right" to healthcare. They already do have that right. But they have to pay.
They want the "right" to housing. They already have that right. But they have to pay.

The problem is, now everyone thinks "right" means "free". Cause that's what they want.

 

[churchmouse]

https://usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html
The argument was that the Constitution did not give the new federal government the ability to restrict inherent rights, so no list of those rights was necessary. Others worried that if the rights were listed, they would invariably forget some and the list would ever be incomplete. Finally, the argument was that the states each had their own constitutions, too, and that rights were best protected at a state level.

The bill of rights does not list ALL of our rights. Some worried that by making a bill of rights, that some people would come to believe that.

But, I can see some people do not even understand what a "Right" is.
They want the "right" to healthcare. They already do have that right. But they have to pay.
They want the "right" to housing. They already have that right. But they have to pay.

The problem is, now everyone thinks "right" means "free". Cause that's what they want.

Pretty much nails it.

 

[BugI02]

I want unlimited 4K 3D streaming! No, I don't want to pay more!

I'm not sure how much 4k Netflix is streaming, but I find it intriguing that, according to my reading, most every cable provider has dropped broadcast from 1080 to 720 for the bandwidth gain despite customer agitation

Perhaps they don't have a limitless ability to accommodate Netflix Neutrality after all

 

[BugI02]

Since everything isn’t equal, NN imposes perhaps an unrealistic market constraint. But one realistic market constraint I like ablut it is preventing your ISP from ratcheting your streeming service which happens to compete with theirs. There are better fixes than NN for that though.

To me this is much more of an issue than an ISP throttling Netflix or wanting compensation from Netflix to not do so.

Wanting compensation for a service using a large portion of your network is understandable to me. Customers can be adversely affected by the congestion caused by other customers streaming.

On the other hand, throttling a service to make your service more desirable seems pretty low. Seems like it would be short lived if customers didn't go for it though.

It's not a perfect analogy, I know; but will a real airline (DL, AA, UA) accept your cut rate airline (SW,JBlue) ticket for travel? No

Could they? Yes, but they have elected not to unnecessarily support their competition. They are moving to make their own product more attractive, esp. to the business traveler. Not unfair, just competition

 

[BugI02]

[snip] ... Comcast was reported to have again been caught throttling Netflix AFTER Netflix started paying the fees. And if that's true--it's not clear that it is true--solving the issue of breaching a contract is no more an issue of net neutrality than gun violence is an issue of gun control. Take them to court. Sue them for not delivering what you're paying them to deliver.

Look into this more closely, jamil. The throttling in that instance was very subtle and only detected by very technologically sophisticated individuals who went looking for it. In my mind it amounted more to peaking than throttling. I am unaware of any regular subscribers who were even aware of it until it was pointed out to them. It was certainly not directly noticeable by the average consumer

 

[jamil]

Look into this more closely, jamil. The throttling in that instance was very subtle and only detected by very technologically sophisticated individuals who went looking for it. In my mind it amounted more to peaking than throttling. I am unaware of any regular subscribers who were even aware of it until it was pointed out to them. It was certainly not directly noticeable by the average consumer

I did not look to verify. It’s not important to prove if they did or didn’t. Point is, if they breached the deal they made with Netflix, there is already a remedy for that.

 

[jamil]

It's not a perfect analogy, I know; but will a real airline (DL, AA, UA) accept your cut rate airline (SW,JBlue) ticket for travel? No

Could they? Yes, but they have elected not to unnecessarily support their competition. They are moving to make their own product more attractive, esp. to the business traveler. Not unfair, just competition

That’s not even a fair analogy. If there was competition I would not have a problem with Comcast throttling a competing service. But because they are allowed a monopoly over entire regions, that requires some different rules.

 

[KLB]

That’s not even a fair analogy. If there was competition I would not have a problem with Comcast throttling a competing service. But because they are allowed a monopoly over entire regions, that requires some different rules.

You know that isn't actually correct. They are allowed a monopoly for providing cable service, not for providing Internet access. In metro areas there are probably multiple choices for ISPs. Competitors may be slower or viewed as inferior, but they are out there.

 

[jamil]

You know that isn't actually correct. They are allowed a monopoly for providing cable service, not for providing Internet access. In metro areas there are probably multiple choices for ISPs. Competitors may be slower or viewed as inferior, but they are out there.

That's effectively a distinction without a difference. A very large number of people don't have much choice other than to go with the one big ISP. 50 million homes only have one Cable/fiber provider. And 100 million only have a choice between one or more of the big 3. For much of the nation they divvy up regions. Internet service providers are not very competitive. And they're certainly not competitive as airlines, enough that there's a fitting analog between ISPs and airlines.

I would not expect an airline or any business in a free and open market to facilitate their competition. But the ISP space is not a free and open market.

 

[KLB]

I'm one of those that has no choice. A side affect of living away from town. I also don't have really high speeds available to me.

 

[jamil]

I'm one of those that has no choice. A side affect of living away from town. I also don't have really high speeds available to me.

I have no choice. I’m stuck with Spectrum (formerly time/warner). However, I will say Spectrum has been better than Time/Warner as far as performance. They recently upgraded infrastructure in my area and it’s been good. I strongly suspect that Google Fiber coming to town has a lot to do with that.

 

[KLB]

You don't have any DSL available? No wireless services?

I only have a PTP wireless service available. It is OK, but maxes out at under 10Mb. File transfers can take a long time.