net neutrality: UNDERSTAND IT DAMNIT

[alex.s]

why don't people understand this? it's not complicated. it is NOT netflix trying to get preferential treatment. it is ISPs trying to steal more money from us.

here is where it started:
1) netflix came around. netflix's business is entirely on the internet. they stream movies like youtube does. they had good success and no bandwidth issues.

2) comcast, one month about 2 years ago, decided they wanted to make a **** ton of money off netflix. so comcast decided they would make netflix go slow when it went through their infrastructure. comcasts' paying customers received degraded services compared to the day before they turned on throttling. for no real reason to the customer.

3) then comcast tells netflix that in order for comcast to stop intentionally throttling netflix to make it unwatchable, that netflix would have to pay extra for a "preferential fast lane". they intentionally made everything slow, so that they could create a small sub section that was faster.


consumers pay for their own bandwidth for connections to the internet. with the current setup on most ISPs, they are running at around a 97% profit margin and are not increasing infrastructure enough to meet demand. which causes congestions (congestions caused by their own lack of innovation) this is why google fiber has become such a big thing. because with a small amount of effort, google can do a job literally over 1000x better than a company dedicated to doing it.

everyone agrees that these days the internet has become an essential service in our day to day life. just like a telephone. so do you really think it is okay for a company that you pay money to provide a service, you think its okay for them to ransom your bandwidth to another company you also pay money to?

of course ****ing not.

but all these asshole pricks arguing against net neutrality try to say that it stifiles innovation by saying that you can't **** with other businesses?


i pay for bandwidth to the internet. net neutrality is a consumer protection against greedy ****ing isps

[liberpolly]

Errr... no. The recent Netflix vs. Comcast conflict has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Here's a somewhat long but very competent write-up:

http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-...et-neutrality/

The gist of it is: Netflix became so big it decided to be one of the backbones of internet. Backbones of internet have peering agreements between them, meaning they let each other traffic through, since streams in and out are about even. When it's not even, they pay the difference. Netflix has almost no "in" traffic and a lot of "out" traffic, but doesn't want to pay the difference.

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with peering agreements between backbones, it's about traffic to the end user.

[liberpolly]

Netflix has similar scuffle with Verison, with same outcome:

http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/06/net...-everyone-win/

[csmith12]

I am against it for one reason and one reason only. The gov. wants a hand in it.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by csmith12

I am against it for one reason and one reason only. The gov. wants a hand in it.

The government gives me a license to drive. Ergo - I must hate motorcycles.

[csmith12]

Originally Posted by Alex

The government gives me a license to drive. Ergo - I must hate motorcycles.

lol, not quite there good sir...

The free market usually can work this kinda stuff out all on it's own. If the service starts to suck, customers can go somewhere else for the service. ie they can only sell what is making them $$. No money = business change. If the business gets too large and starts taking over things, the gov. already has monopoly laws that can be enforced. But I guess it's ok to keep making up new ways to take money or imprison people for their actions.

And I also know that not everyone has options to move to a different provider, because I am one of them. Unless I want to use my "unlimited" data plan that is capped at 10gigs.

On the principle of ethics, the major backbones worth together. They shouldn't allow any one service to dominate the bandwidth. They should be doing this on their own, not because the gov. told them too. But alas.... again, follow the $$.

[Alex]

If you haven't already, read the CNET piece. It's not perfect, but it's definitely worth taking onboard.

The concept of net neutrality doesn't imply more regulation, or less regulation. It's not a big government vs. the little guy issue. Even once people agree on the concept of net neutrality as an appropriate goal, agreeing on the mechanisms to get there (individual, corporate, governmental) is anything but simple.

[CynicalC]

Originally Posted by csmith12

lol, not quite there good sir...

The free market usually can work this kinda stuff out all on it's own. If the service starts to suck, customers can go somewhere else for the service. ie they can only sell what is making them $$. No money = business change. If the business gets too large and starts taking over things, the gov. already has monopoly laws that can be enforced. But I guess it's ok to keep making up new ways to take money or imprison people for their actions.

And I also know that not everyone has options to move to a different provider, because I am one of them. Unless I want to use my "unlimited" data plan that is capped at 10gigs.

On the principle of ethics, the major backbones worth together. They shouldn't allow any one service to dominate the bandwidth. They should be doing this on their own, not because the gov. told them too. But alas.... again, follow the $$.

You have a very skewed perception of reality if you are actually trying to apply free market theory to the world you live in. Do you think that's a real thing?

[csmith12]

Originally Posted by CynicalC

You have a very skewed perception of reality if you are actually trying to apply free market theory to the world you live in. Do you think that's a real thing?

Quite simply... no, and I assure my thinking goes way beyond that. But, I also don't want this thread to go the route of heavy debate that subject either.

You either support the principle of net neutrality or you don't. As of right now, if the government is leading this effort, I don't support it. They can't find their own arse because their heads are stuck up in there. You can't manage what you don't understand. And if a new law is written, it will have some amendment that has literally nothing to do with it to go along for the ride. I am sure it will be something like "we will authorize the drilling of 1000 meter holes in the ice shelf in Alaska".

[alex.s]

the problem with letting the market decide these things and letting people choose is that ISPs are actively lobbying laws that are passing that RESTRICT people like google from coming in and offering an alternative. it is by definition a monopoly that they are trying to protect by buying laws.

[csmith12]

Originally Posted by alex.s

ISPs are actively lobbying laws that are passing that RESTRICT people like google from coming in and offering an alternative. it is by definition a monopoly that they are trying to protect by buying laws.

"Buying laws" != Free market yo...

Unless I don't understand this fully, the only way to "neutralize" the net to redefine the internet as some form of public/gov. entity and remove the private aspect, or it becomes hypocritical or unethical.

Example: The gov. put in an order for billions and billions of bullets, creating a shortage. Supply and demand ya know, ie free market... Now there are limits on ME when I go to wal-mart to buy and the prices are sky high. So, if there should be net neutrality, then one could propose bullet neutrality on the same basic principals of a level playing field.

ie..
There is X amount of supply and no one can dominate that supply.
I can't sell at an above cost something I don't own.

Then there is talk of making it a "utility". lol You should remember the rolling blackouts. And since I work at home, doing web work.... a rolling blackout will not help me pay my bills.

[liberpolly]

Originally Posted by alex.s

the problem with letting the market decide these things and letting people choose is that ISPs are actively lobbying laws that are passing that RESTRICT people like google from coming in and offering an alternative. it is by definition a monopoly that they are trying to protect by buying laws.

And THAT should be opposed without introducing so called Net Neutrality which does nothing to prevent monopolies, but merely puts them under government regulation - worst of both worlds.

[liberpolly]

Originally Posted by Alex

The concept of net neutrality doesn't imply more regulation, or less regulation. It's not a big government vs. the little guy issue. Even once people agree on the concept of net neutrality as an appropriate goal, agreeing on the mechanisms to get there (individual, corporate, governmental) is anything but simple.

In theory, yes. In practice, the "Net Neutrality" became a rallying call for government intrusion into Internet. They are pissed that they don't get their cut of Internet business, and that Internet bypasses all their limits on free speech. So they came up with this "solution in search of the problem", and demagogue the hell out of it.

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by liberpolly

In theory, yes. In practice, the "Net Neutrality" became a rallying call for government intrusion into Internet. They are pissed that they don't get their cut of Internet business, and that Internet bypasses all their limits on free speech. So they came up with this "solution in search of the problem", and demagogue the hell out of it.

big fancy scary words that don't actually mean anything.

what is government intrusion into internet exactly? what are you scared the government will do by saying ISPs aren't allowed to throttle someone in order to extort money from them?

what exactly is their "cut" of the internet business in a net neutral ecosystem? nobody has introduced an internet tax.

please read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Tax_Freedom_Act

[Singh2jz]

So I guess there's more to net neutrality than I thought lol. I learned about it from the blackberry problem.

[liberpolly]

Originally Posted by alex.s

big fancy scary words that don't actually mean anything.

what is government intrusion into internet exactly? what are you scared the government will do by saying ISPs aren't allowed to throttle someone in order to extort money from them?

what exactly is their "cut" of the internet business in a net neutral ecosystem? nobody has introduced an internet tax.

It is not about "ISPs aren't allowed to throttle someone in order to extort money from them" - they haven't done it by now and are extremely unlikely to do so, ever. The proponents of Net Neutrality failed to provide even one example, and resort to dragging in irrelevant stuff like Netflix vs. Comcast/Verizon. One example! Can you give it? No you can't.

What it is about really, is government declaring ISP "utilities", which means putting them under regulatory microscope. Their cut will be, of course, regulatory fees, bribes to push or stop this or that particular regulation out of 1000s that you and me will have zero chance to understand, revolving door between regulators and lobbyist jobs, etc. etc. - exactly what government does today for the every industry it regulates.

The effect will be the rate of innovation on Internet will be exactly the same as in utilities like telephone or power companies - glacier.

[liberpolly]

Here's "father of internet" explaining why "net neutrality" is a bad idea:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01...ality_warning/