3 ms·

I'm pushing 40 and my mom was a lifelong GTE employee, and while I only vaguely remember pre-divestiture, I've heard all the stories - from both sides of the DM

I'm pushing 40 and my mom was a lifelong GTE employee, and while I only vaguely remember pre-divestiture, I've heard all the stories - from both sides of the DMARC. Even if they want to, I don't believe it's possible for ISPs to exact Ma Bell level control over their services, for a number of reasons - the main ones being that the landscape is not a monopoly, and that while consumers might not care about their mobile carrier throttling Spotify or Netflix, they won't stand for being served with a completely locked-down web across the board. That's just not going to happen. I know I represent a minority position inside tech - of not supporting Net Neutrality - but I would support it if there were an actual monopoly, or if ISPs were rendering sites and services completely inaccessible, which they are not. Until then, it's just a slippery slope imo.

wpietri 11y ago
There isn't a monopoly yet. And "that's just not going to happen" is at best an argument from ignorance (I don't how X could happen, ergo X is impossible), and at worst a statement of faith. If you're going to argue against a slippery slope, you have to say where the discontinuity is and why. Personally, I don't see one. Their used to be a vibrant ISP market. Now most Americans have at most two choices; many have just one. Comcast, the largest, is notoriously terrible along any axis you care to name: pricing, quality of service, reliability, customer service. There is no reason to think they won't get worse if they're allowed to. I don't think they'll leap to a locked-down web. They don't have to. If they get pricing control, they can just keep squeezing small players and suppressing competition. It doesn't even have to be on purpose; it's just the easy way for them to make money. Even without that control we're seeing a lot of consolidation into large players. With it, we'd see a lot more.
- brandonmenc 11y ago
  My "that's not going to happen" is an argument that it's imo nearly impossible that people will accept a highly restricted web. That's where I see the discontinuity - consumers will demand a relatively open web, monopoly or not. Your argument here is something I see often. The conversation starts with talking about all of this possible content restriction, then it shifts into a discussion about consolidating ISPs and stagnating quality - but I fail to see how Net Neutrality will provide more consumer choice re: quality of service. I think those are two different conversations. As a disclaimer, I prefer an internet like the one Net Neutrality proposes, but at the same time I believe there are a lot of good reasons to prioritize traffic differently - and that the leap to content restriction is a big one. Because, why aren't they doing it now? Maybe I'm being naive.
  - wpietri 11y ago
    Ok, fine, you don't see how it's possible. That's not an argument that it isn't possible, unless you also want to claim that you have a much stronger ability to predict the future than humans normally demonstrate. But one way it could happen: It doesn't start with people accepting a highly restricted web. Instead, people just get gradually comfortable with things dying off or merging (which happens all the time) and don't notice that new things don't crop up to replace them except when owned by companies large enough to successfully negotiate with the gatekeepers. For decades people have been happy with video being controlled by a small number of media conglomerates. For decades more they were happy with an oligopoly of 3 TV networks. As to the "why aren't they doing it now", they were. They did their best to squeeze Netflix to pay for access to consumers at the same time consumers were paying for access to Netflix. This has now changed thanks to tougher rulings: https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Cogent-CEO-Interconnection-Congestion-Has-Magically-Disappeared-135287 https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Cogent-CEO-Interconnecti... But they will certainly keep trying. It's a very easy path to revenue growth for them if they can get away with it. Plenty of money, and no need to do the hard work of finding new ways to deliver value. Plus the US right is partial to oligopoly and rentier capitalism.
    - brandonmenc 11y ago
      > Ok, fine, you don't see how it's possible. That's not an argument that it isn't possible Anything is possible. That's not an argument that everything likely. > For decades people have been happy with video being controlled by a small number of media conglomerates. For decades more they were happy with an oligopoly of 3 TV networks. And now, they are not happy with that. The trend is that people want and demand choice, and rolling it back in any significant way will make consumers push back. The genie is out of the bottle, as they say. Does the absence of Net Neutrality permit ISPs to charge on both ends of a Netflix stream? Yes. Does it inevitably result in me not being able to post a video of my band's new music? (the original argument) Highly doubtful.

wpietri 11y ago

There isn't a monopoly yet. And "that's just not going to happen" is at best an argument from ignorance (I don't how X could happen, ergo X is impossible), and at worst a statement of faith. If you're going to argue against a slippery slope, you have to say where the discontinuity is and why. Personally, I don't see one. Their used to be a vibrant ISP market. Now most Americans have at most two choices; many have just one. Comcast, the largest, is notoriously terrible along any axis you care to name: pricing, quality of service, reliability, customer service. There is no reason to think they won't get worse if they're allowed to. I don't think they'll leap to a locked-down web. They don't have to. If they get pricing control, they can just keep squeezing small players and suppressing competition. It doesn't even have to be on purpose; it's just the easy way for them to make money. Even without that control we're seeing a lot of consolidation into large players. With it, we'd see a lot more.

brandonmenc 11y ago
My "that's not going to happen" is an argument that it's imo nearly impossible that people will accept a highly restricted web. That's where I see the discontinuity - consumers will demand a relatively open web, monopoly or not. Your argument here is something I see often. The conversation starts with talking about all of this possible content restriction, then it shifts into a discussion about consolidating ISPs and stagnating quality - but I fail to see how Net Neutrality will provide more consumer choice re: quality of service. I think those are two different conversations. As a disclaimer, I prefer an internet like the one Net Neutrality proposes, but at the same time I believe there are a lot of good reasons to prioritize traffic differently - and that the leap to content restriction is a big one. Because, why aren't they doing it now? Maybe I'm being naive.
- wpietri 11y ago
  Ok, fine, you don't see how it's possible. That's not an argument that it isn't possible, unless you also want to claim that you have a much stronger ability to predict the future than humans normally demonstrate. But one way it could happen: It doesn't start with people accepting a highly restricted web. Instead, people just get gradually comfortable with things dying off or merging (which happens all the time) and don't notice that new things don't crop up to replace them except when owned by companies large enough to successfully negotiate with the gatekeepers. For decades people have been happy with video being controlled by a small number of media conglomerates. For decades more they were happy with an oligopoly of 3 TV networks. As to the "why aren't they doing it now", they were. They did their best to squeeze Netflix to pay for access to consumers at the same time consumers were paying for access to Netflix. This has now changed thanks to tougher rulings: https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Cogent-CEO-Interconnection-Congestion-Has-Magically-Disappeared-135287 https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Cogent-CEO-Interconnecti... But they will certainly keep trying. It's a very easy path to revenue growth for them if they can get away with it. Plenty of money, and no need to do the hard work of finding new ways to deliver value. Plus the US right is partial to oligopoly and rentier capitalism.
  - brandonmenc 11y ago
    > Ok, fine, you don't see how it's possible. That's not an argument that it isn't possible Anything is possible. That's not an argument that everything likely. > For decades people have been happy with video being controlled by a small number of media conglomerates. For decades more they were happy with an oligopoly of 3 TV networks. And now, they are not happy with that. The trend is that people want and demand choice, and rolling it back in any significant way will make consumers push back. The genie is out of the bottle, as they say. Does the absence of Net Neutrality permit ISPs to charge on both ends of a Netflix stream? Yes. Does it inevitably result in me not being able to post a video of my band's new music? (the original argument) Highly doubtful.