3 ms·

> For example, I don't see how Netflix paying Comcast to zero-rate Netflix traffic is fundamentally different from Amazon contracting with mail carriers to subs

by croon 9y ago

> For example, I don't see how Netflix paying Comcast to zero-rate Netflix traffic is fundamentally different from Amazon contracting with mail carriers to subsidize the cost of shipping for Amazon purchases Two things: 1) Net neutrality is about not slowing down transit of all other packages (that don't get paid extra for) 2) Your comparison is flawed. Comcast isn't the mail carrier, Comcast is the (only) road. If Amazon makes a deal with a CDN (if they didn't have their own) or any other middle-man service on the net, that isn't an issue, nor related to net neutrality at all.

paulddraper 9y ago
(1) Sure. Pay more for mail and it goes faster. Amazon helps gets that increase in speed subsidized. (2) Generally incorrect.
- croon 9y ago
  1) First off, the comparison like I said is flawed, but just to play ball: Other peoples mail doesn't get slowed by you paying for premium shipping. 2) Do you care to expand on that with reasoning or logic?
  - paulddraper 9y ago
    (1) They most certainly are slowed down. Mail services have limited bandwidth (e.g. Christmas), and higher priority package can and do displace low priority ones. (2) Usually ISPs don't have a monopoly.
    - croon 9y ago
      1) Which is either where the comparison gets accurate to bandwidth without net neutrality, or breaks as a comparison with net neutrality, because then it's FIFO regardless of which service/delivery network. 2) When you say usually, do you mean globally or in the US where we're discussing net neutrality? Because there most certainly usually is a local monopoly.
      - paulddraper 9y ago
        There most certainly is not. 100% of all developed US census blocks have at least two broadband providers. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344499A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344499A1.p...
        croon 9y ago
        > There most certainly is not. > 100% of all developed US census blocks have at least two broadband providers. That's false going by your own source. Broadband requires 25Mbps/3Mbps [1] (even if I personally think even that's low), and 58% percent of developed census blocks lack choice there, of which 21% can't even get it. The truth remains that if you want broadband, you're in a majority of cases locked to a local monopoly. This is what net neutrality fixes. Until local monopolies can be dealt with at least. [1] https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2015-broadband-progress-report https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progr...
        paulddraper 9y ago
        Hm, looks like the definition of high speed internet changed in 2015. (Since we need all that bandwidth to download crap ads.) In any case, most census districts with high-speed internet have multiple providers.
        croon 9y ago
        > In any case, most census districts with high-speed internet have multiple providers. Nice cherry picking. So screw those other 37% that live under ISP monopolies? Are you still denying that local monopolies is a real problem?
        ryanwaggoner 9y ago
        They should have updated the speeds considered "broadband" but by definition, you'll always have a portion of the population lagging behind any standard that's defined as "what 80% of the population had access to"

by croon 9y ago

paulddraper 9y ago

(1) Sure. Pay more for mail and it goes faster. Amazon helps gets that increase in speed subsidized. (2) Generally incorrect.

croon 9y ago
1) First off, the comparison like I said is flawed, but just to play ball: Other peoples mail doesn't get slowed by you paying for premium shipping. 2) Do you care to expand on that with reasoning or logic?
- paulddraper 9y ago
  (1) They most certainly are slowed down. Mail services have limited bandwidth (e.g. Christmas), and higher priority package can and do displace low priority ones. (2) Usually ISPs don't have a monopoly.
  - croon 9y ago
    1) Which is either where the comparison gets accurate to bandwidth without net neutrality, or breaks as a comparison with net neutrality, because then it's FIFO regardless of which service/delivery network. 2) When you say usually, do you mean globally or in the US where we're discussing net neutrality? Because there most certainly usually is a local monopoly.
    - paulddraper 9y ago
      There most certainly is not. 100% of all developed US census blocks have at least two broadband providers. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344499A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344499A1.p...
      - croon 9y ago
        > There most certainly is not. > 100% of all developed US census blocks have at least two broadband providers. That's false going by your own source. Broadband requires 25Mbps/3Mbps [1] (even if I personally think even that's low), and 58% percent of developed census blocks lack choice there, of which 21% can't even get it. The truth remains that if you want broadband, you're in a majority of cases locked to a local monopoly. This is what net neutrality fixes. Until local monopolies can be dealt with at least. [1] https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2015-broadband-progress-report https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progr...
        paulddraper 9y ago
        Hm, looks like the definition of high speed internet changed in 2015. (Since we need all that bandwidth to download crap ads.) In any case, most census districts with high-speed internet have multiple providers.
        croon 9y ago
        > In any case, most census districts with high-speed internet have multiple providers. Nice cherry picking. So screw those other 37% that live under ISP monopolies? Are you still denying that local monopolies is a real problem?
        ryanwaggoner 9y ago
        They should have updated the speeds considered "broadband" but by definition, you'll always have a portion of the population lagging behind any standard that's defined as "what 80% of the population had access to"