4 ms·

Because I pay my ISP to serve the content I want, not the content they want.

grandalf 9y ago
> not the content they want This is FUD. Any ISP that decided to break the internet is going to fail. All they'd do is offer other services as alternatives to the big dollar ones like YouTube. A last mile ISP does two core things. It arbitrages bandwidth for residential usage patterns and it deals with the last mile communications link. Net Neutrality forces a very specific arbitrage strategy on ISPs that severely limits profitability and removes the incentive for last-mile innovation.
- hobs 9y ago
  ISPs regularly break the internet, see blank domain redirecting to advertising, various MITM attacks, working with advertisers to sell your data, ignoring best practices to enable DDOSing, the list goes on. There is little to no choice, so there is little to no market force occurring so arguing that "any ISP that does X" when you might have 1 other choice who might just as bad doesn't really work.
- learc83 9y ago
  >All they'd do is offer other services as alternatives to the big dollar ones like YouTube. And they'd put data caps on competiting services, while allowing unlimited streaming of their own (we've already seen them do this). In markets with 1 or 2 viable ISPs, what is your solution?
  - grandalf 9y ago
    > In markets with 1 or 2 viable ISPs, what is your solution? I watch about 1 hour of Youtube per month and about 5 hours of Netflix. Why should I subsidize people who watch 5 hours each day? Let's not pretend bandwidth is not a scarce resource. ISPs have to pay for upstream bandwidth. If they can affordably colocate systems to serve specific content at a fraction of the cost by eliminating upstream costs, why shouldn't they?
    - learc83 9y ago
      Because in your world the eventual outcome is that nearly all (commercial) content providers would be owned by ISPs. Last mile infrastructure is a natural monopoly, and unless you do something to force companies to share it, they won't. There are various ways to do this. What's your preference?
      - grandalf 9y ago
        I don't think last mile is a natural monopoly anymore due to wireless options.
        learc83 9y ago
        Wireless isn't a viable option for video streaming, downloading large files, gaming etc... They all throttle you past 20GB or so, they aren't nearly fast enough, latency is terrible, and they suffer huge congestion problems. But let's assume you think that wireless is currently good enough to replace cable and DSL for your needs. Switch half of the population over to wireless. I guarantee you it won't be good enough then. Satisfaction ratings for Comcast are atrocious--if wireless was a viable option, everyone would already be using it at home.
- manigandham 9y ago
  > Any ISP that decided to break the internet is going to fail When there is a lack of competition then they don't fail and continue to become worse as people have no choice. We don't need "innovation" for last-mile connectivity, cheap affordable access is all people want and the math works out fine. The problem is political with governmental regulations that make it incredibly difficult to get access to customers to serve them in the first place, and these blocking efforts are usually lobbied for and funded by the very ISPs that have no competition.

> not the content they want This is FUD. Any ISP that decided to break the internet is going to fail. All they'd do is offer other services as alternatives to the big dollar ones like YouTube. A last mile ISP does two core things. It arbitrages bandwidth for residential usage patterns and it deals with the last mile communications link. Net Neutrality forces a very specific arbitrage strategy on ISPs that severely limits profitability and removes the incentive for last-mile innovation.

hobs 9y ago
ISPs regularly break the internet, see blank domain redirecting to advertising, various MITM attacks, working with advertisers to sell your data, ignoring best practices to enable DDOSing, the list goes on. There is little to no choice, so there is little to no market force occurring so arguing that "any ISP that does X" when you might have 1 other choice who might just as bad doesn't really work.
learc83 9y ago
>All they'd do is offer other services as alternatives to the big dollar ones like YouTube. And they'd put data caps on competiting services, while allowing unlimited streaming of their own (we've already seen them do this). In markets with 1 or 2 viable ISPs, what is your solution?
- grandalf 9y ago
  > In markets with 1 or 2 viable ISPs, what is your solution? I watch about 1 hour of Youtube per month and about 5 hours of Netflix. Why should I subsidize people who watch 5 hours each day? Let's not pretend bandwidth is not a scarce resource. ISPs have to pay for upstream bandwidth. If they can affordably colocate systems to serve specific content at a fraction of the cost by eliminating upstream costs, why shouldn't they?
  - learc83 9y ago
    Because in your world the eventual outcome is that nearly all (commercial) content providers would be owned by ISPs. Last mile infrastructure is a natural monopoly, and unless you do something to force companies to share it, they won't. There are various ways to do this. What's your preference?
    - grandalf 9y ago
      I don't think last mile is a natural monopoly anymore due to wireless options.
      - learc83 9y ago
        Wireless isn't a viable option for video streaming, downloading large files, gaming etc... They all throttle you past 20GB or so, they aren't nearly fast enough, latency is terrible, and they suffer huge congestion problems. But let's assume you think that wireless is currently good enough to replace cable and DSL for your needs. Switch half of the population over to wireless. I guarantee you it won't be good enough then. Satisfaction ratings for Comcast are atrocious--if wireless was a viable option, everyone would already be using it at home.
manigandham 9y ago
> Any ISP that decided to break the internet is going to fail When there is a lack of competition then they don't fail and continue to become worse as people have no choice. We don't need "innovation" for last-mile connectivity, cheap affordable access is all people want and the math works out fine. The problem is political with governmental regulations that make it incredibly difficult to get access to customers to serve them in the first place, and these blocking efforts are usually lobbied for and funded by the very ISPs that have no competition.