3 ms·

(My own views align closely with http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/we-dont-need-net-neutrality-we-need-competition/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/

by ikeboy 10y ago

(My own views align closely with http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/we-dont-need-net-neutrality-we-need-competition/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/we-dont-need-net-... and http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-13/forget-net-neutrality-what-americans-need-is-net-competition http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-13/forget-net...) Do you have any evidence that cable companies wanted to charge for preferential treatment for traffic? I've seen that claim repeated a lot but never with evidence.

throwaway_exer 10y ago
> Do you have any evidence that cable companies wanted to charge for preferential treatment Did you read your own links? Netflix is being charged to pass bandwidth to residential customers because of a structural lack of competition.
Spooky23 10y ago
Netflix is the canonical example. A few years ago YouTube got similar treatment on Time Warner -- they funneled everything to a YouTube point of presence on the TWC network that was over saturated. You could modify DNS and use and alternate URL and watch 1080p video with no lag. Verizon also started limiting aggregate Netflix traffic. Through conincidence, it happened to start happening when they launched a video service.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  What happened with netflix wasn't covered under net neutrality anyway (as the links above point out), and they weren't being charged for prioritization, nor were they discriminated against.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    This isn't a net neutrality discussion. It's about monopolistic behavior.
    - ikeboy 10y ago
      I responded to a comment saying "It's exactly like what cable companies would like to do by subverting net neutrality, give preferential treatment to the traffic that profits them most."