8 ms·

Net neutrality makes internet more expensive for everybody so Torrent and Netflix users can be subsidized. It looks right, but it is WRONG to "defend" it using

Net neutrality makes internet more expensive for everybody so Torrent and Netflix users can be subsidized. It looks right, but it is WRONG to "defend" it using law and force.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deanCommie 9y ago
Netflix pays it's bills like everyone else. Net Neutrality means that if you were to start a compelling competitor to Netflix, as long as your technology was sound enough, and you could keep up with the bandwidth bills, you would be able to offer the service to your customers without any subjective political negotiation with ISPs and entrenched market leaders.
- weberc2 9y ago
  This isn't a very good argument, since Comcast (or whoever) wants to charge Netflix more--a challenger wouldn't have to pay the Netflix premium. Maybe in some hypothetical scenario ISPs would charge incumbents less, but the real-world scenario is the opposite.
  - bsurmanski 9y ago
    Not if Netflix makes a special exclusivity deal. You can bet that some businesses will make as many deals as possible to keep down the competition, if it's legal.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      Yes, this would be the hypothetical scenario which is the opposite of the current scenario that everyone is so concerned about.
  - Qwertious 9y ago
    The thing is, Netflix is the analogous Netflix competitor, since Comcast owns competitors to Netflix, which it could deliberately provide an advantage to if NN were removed.
RangerScience 9y ago
I want to downvote you because of how intensely I disagree with everything you're saying, but you're saying it nicely so I won't. Instead - The major concern about losing NN is that instead of just paying for volume of data, I'll also be required to pay based on type and/or source of that data, and that the entities providing the data will also be required to pay based on type and/or destination. Do you think this concern is not valid? Why? Do you think this concern and there is a better way to address it? What? If defending it using law is wrong, what would be a right way to defend it? And if "free market" is part of you answer, can you talk about the handling of last-mile connections? Finally, I just straight up don't understand what you mean by "defend it using... force". Can you explain?
- fiatjaf 9y ago
  Thank you for not downvoting me. Free market would be part of my answer if I had one. I'm not well-informed enough to say much, but imagine you have a local link in a small rural town that only support some absolute number of packets or whatever: if you have one big consumer that is eating the major part of that every day, making the others miserable, isn't it reasonable to limit that consumer's bandwidth somehow? Then if some law is enacted to prevent you from limiting that consumer, then you'll either make the lives of the others miserable or you'll be forced to spend more on your link and luckily pass the cost down to all your consumers. Right? Please correct me if I'm assuming things wrong (I'm likely doing it). > The major concern about losing NN is that instead of just paying for volume of data, I'll also be required to pay based on type and/or source of that data, and that the entities providing the data will also be required to pay based on type and/or destination. I don't understand what is the problem of that. In every other situation of life you pay for the "type" of the thing you're consuming. When you go to a restaurant you don't pay for volume of food, but for the types of food you're asking. There are indeed restaurants where you pay for mass of food, but you don't have all the expensive options available. I can see a world where you would have to pay a little more for Netflix and a little less for sshing to your VPS.
  - steego 9y ago
    I apologize for calling your opinion vapid in my other post. Thank you for taking the time to articulate your ideas in this post. I too am a proponent for free markets, but I have to point out that the telecommunications industry could care less about free market principles. For the last hundred years telcos have consistently lobbied the federal government for regulations that lock out competition. They pretend regulation prevents them from performing as well as they could, but the last thing they want is a minimally regulated market with a low barrier to entry. The only reason we're even having this conversation is because there was a small window of opportunity in the 90's to pass smart Telco laws that both regulated and deregulated divergent aspects of the industry. First, because the incumbent telcos enjoyed monopolies for nearly 50 years, they were obligated to lease parts of their networks to resellers like local ISPs. Had this not happened, the larger telcos and service providers could have choked the early Internet and giving us networks like AOL/MSN instead. If you truly believe in the virtue of free markets, you need to understand that powerful politically connected companies do not and they can be some of the biggest opponents of free markets while they pretend they are.
jnordwick 9y ago
Upvoted because we need more diversity of opinion here.
- hristov 9y ago
  If we need diversity of opinion, perhaps you could up-vote someone that believes that the earth is flat or black is white. There are out there some readily determinable facts, and it is perfectly fine for all of our opinions to be the same as it concerns those facts. For example, almost everyone on earth will be of the opinion that fire is hotter than ice. Do we all suffer from group think? If someone believes that fire is cool, is he a brilliant free thinker, or just a moron that is about to get his hand burned? It is well known and readily verifiable that net neutrality as defined by the previous FCC rules and as defined by the EFF allows for providers to charge more for people using more data. So no net neutrality would not require anyone to subsidize heavy data users.
  - r00fus 9y ago
    In addition, constantly re-discussing the same points weakens the signal-to-noise ratio.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    > It is well known and readily verifiable that net neutrality as defined by the previous FCC rules and as defined by the EFF allows for providers to charge more for people using more data. So no net neutrality would not require anyone to subsidize heavy data users. You're being patronizing. Why do you assume that the OP is referencing this point in his "diversity of opinion" quote? A charitable interpretation would be "the subject of whether or not NN is a social good is a subjective matter, and we need more diversity of opinion on this topic".
    - hristov 9y ago
      That is the only point the grandparent made.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
rhizome 9y ago
There is no basis for your contention that "internet" would be cheaper without NN.
- weberc2 9y ago
  Given that reduced upstream costs typically translate into reduced downstream costs, and that regulation typically increases downstream costs, I think the onus is on NN-proponents to prove why the reverse is true.
  - uw_rob 9y ago
    How would you respond to the fact that A lot of ISPs have local monopolies and they have 0 incentive to pass on any savings they materialize to customers? Also, many ISPs are also media companies, and sabotaging internet based entertainment is beneficial to them?
    - weberc2 9y ago
      I think we should prohibit monopolies. Anyway the incentive isn't zero, we needn't exaggerate. ISPs aren't the only company to participate in multiple markets, I don't see why we should be more concerned about them than Amazon.
  - dpark 9y ago
    > regulation typically increases downstream costs This is a common claim that is rarely supported with data. Why does enforcing net neutrality increase downstream costs? If you mean that it shifts costs (you pay more for Netflix because they have to pay Comcast for fair service), then sure. I don't see any evidence that net neutrality actually changes the underlying cost of net service, though. There's a great counterpoint to your claim in the USPS. Their prices are regulated by congress. Those prices are pushed down artificially to the point that it's slowly bankrupting the USPS. So service is definitely cheaper than it would be without regulation. (Send a letter via FedEx and see what the free market charges for this service.)
    - 9y ago
steego 9y ago
I upvoted this vapid opinion because I think it needs to be addressed rather than censored by lazy thinkers. Making the Internet more expensive today so we can accommodate high traffic use is a smart long term strategy. The first incentive ISPs should have is to be able to provide a high level of service for bandwidth demanding applications. Over time these costs will drop as the bandwidth naturally expands because networking technology is subject to similar price/performance trends we see with transistors. Here's the point: At some future point in time, torrent and video traffic will be negligible faction of the total amount of bandwidth available. It's better we get there sooner rather than later, right? So what do you think is the fastest way to get there? Do you want to incentive the mono/duopoly ISPs to nickle and dime over limited service, or do you want to incentive them to compete with each other to provide the best service that connects everybody to the whole internet? We're going to get to the point where bandwidth is incredibly cheap and available soon enough. The question is are you really going to give up a common carrier network because you falsely believe it's going to get you here marginally faster? If you believe that, you have no sense of history of the telecommunications industry. They've already pulled the "let me abuse my monopoly status and I'll give you better service" scam time and time again.
- dpark 9y ago
  > Here's the point: At some future point in time, torrent and video traffic will be negligible faction of the total amount of bandwidth available. What will be taking the rest of the bandwidth? It certainly won't be idle or it won't get built out at all.
  - steego 9y ago
    That's a very good point and even better pointed question! Part of the value of the network is how much bandwidth one can use in a month. The other part is simply the convenience of being able to send/receive lots of data in short bursts. I'd argue most people don't need to consume lots of data to appreciate 1 Gb connection when it's available. I think you'll find most people are willing to pay a premium for convenience and optionality, even when they don't use it. Now, if they're not using more total bandwidth, then your point stands. If the network is idle, it's more than likely not to get built out at all, but I'm not sure that rule applies to last mile networks.
sbov 9y ago
Net Neutrality doesn't say ISPs can't charge customers for data usage. Which is what my answer would be: charge customers for data usage. Some ISPs do this if you go beyond a certain amount per month. But if a tiny portion of users are hogging a massive amount of bandwidth (as is oftentimes claimed), it seems like an ISP could make a killing by offering cheaper bandwidth but charging for data usage, which would drive these high bandwidth users to other ISPs, which means you can provide your remaining users on average better bandwidth for a lower price.
- ghaff 9y ago
  I'm guessing that Netflix and video generally have somewhat democratized high data usage. At least they've probably shifted it from torrenting to hours and hours a day of video and music streaming. Haven't seen a breakdown recently though.
gech 9y ago
How many upvotes did this receive?
- fiatjaf 9y ago
  The score is at -4 now.
gech 9y ago
How many upvotes did this receive?
nickthemagicman 9y ago
Could you explain yourself better? You make assumptions with no evidence.
mstodd 9y ago
Regardless of the outcome, gaining that outcome through legislation (force) is immoral. It's sad that these days the default for a group to get what they want is to use a third party with guns.

Net neutrality makes internet more expensive for everybody so Torrent and Netflix users can be subsidized. It looks right, but it is WRONG to "defend" it using law and force.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deanCommie 9y ago

Netflix pays it's bills like everyone else. Net Neutrality means that if you were to start a compelling competitor to Netflix, as long as your technology was sound enough, and you could keep up with the bandwidth bills, you would be able to offer the service to your customers without any subjective political negotiation with ISPs and entrenched market leaders.

weberc2 9y ago
This isn't a very good argument, since Comcast (or whoever) wants to charge Netflix more--a challenger wouldn't have to pay the Netflix premium. Maybe in some hypothetical scenario ISPs would charge incumbents less, but the real-world scenario is the opposite.
- bsurmanski 9y ago
  Not if Netflix makes a special exclusivity deal. You can bet that some businesses will make as many deals as possible to keep down the competition, if it's legal.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    Yes, this would be the hypothetical scenario which is the opposite of the current scenario that everyone is so concerned about.
- Qwertious 9y ago
  The thing is, Netflix is the analogous Netflix competitor, since Comcast owns competitors to Netflix, which it could deliberately provide an advantage to if NN were removed.

RangerScience 9y ago

I want to downvote you because of how intensely I disagree with everything you're saying, but you're saying it nicely so I won't. Instead - The major concern about losing NN is that instead of just paying for volume of data, I'll also be required to pay based on type and/or source of that data, and that the entities providing the data will also be required to pay based on type and/or destination. Do you think this concern is not valid? Why? Do you think this concern and there is a better way to address it? What? If defending it using law is wrong, what would be a right way to defend it? And if "free market" is part of you answer, can you talk about the handling of last-mile connections? Finally, I just straight up don't understand what you mean by "defend it using... force". Can you explain?

fiatjaf 9y ago
Thank you for not downvoting me. Free market would be part of my answer if I had one. I'm not well-informed enough to say much, but imagine you have a local link in a small rural town that only support some absolute number of packets or whatever: if you have one big consumer that is eating the major part of that every day, making the others miserable, isn't it reasonable to limit that consumer's bandwidth somehow? Then if some law is enacted to prevent you from limiting that consumer, then you'll either make the lives of the others miserable or you'll be forced to spend more on your link and luckily pass the cost down to all your consumers. Right? Please correct me if I'm assuming things wrong (I'm likely doing it). > The major concern about losing NN is that instead of just paying for volume of data, I'll also be required to pay based on type and/or source of that data, and that the entities providing the data will also be required to pay based on type and/or destination. I don't understand what is the problem of that. In every other situation of life you pay for the "type" of the thing you're consuming. When you go to a restaurant you don't pay for volume of food, but for the types of food you're asking. There are indeed restaurants where you pay for mass of food, but you don't have all the expensive options available. I can see a world where you would have to pay a little more for Netflix and a little less for sshing to your VPS.
- steego 9y ago
  I apologize for calling your opinion vapid in my other post. Thank you for taking the time to articulate your ideas in this post. I too am a proponent for free markets, but I have to point out that the telecommunications industry could care less about free market principles. For the last hundred years telcos have consistently lobbied the federal government for regulations that lock out competition. They pretend regulation prevents them from performing as well as they could, but the last thing they want is a minimally regulated market with a low barrier to entry. The only reason we're even having this conversation is because there was a small window of opportunity in the 90's to pass smart Telco laws that both regulated and deregulated divergent aspects of the industry. First, because the incumbent telcos enjoyed monopolies for nearly 50 years, they were obligated to lease parts of their networks to resellers like local ISPs. Had this not happened, the larger telcos and service providers could have choked the early Internet and giving us networks like AOL/MSN instead. If you truly believe in the virtue of free markets, you need to understand that powerful politically connected companies do not and they can be some of the biggest opponents of free markets while they pretend they are.

jnordwick 9y ago

Upvoted because we need more diversity of opinion here.

hristov 9y ago
If we need diversity of opinion, perhaps you could up-vote someone that believes that the earth is flat or black is white. There are out there some readily determinable facts, and it is perfectly fine for all of our opinions to be the same as it concerns those facts. For example, almost everyone on earth will be of the opinion that fire is hotter than ice. Do we all suffer from group think? If someone believes that fire is cool, is he a brilliant free thinker, or just a moron that is about to get his hand burned? It is well known and readily verifiable that net neutrality as defined by the previous FCC rules and as defined by the EFF allows for providers to charge more for people using more data. So no net neutrality would not require anyone to subsidize heavy data users.
- r00fus 9y ago
  In addition, constantly re-discussing the same points weakens the signal-to-noise ratio.
- weberc2 9y ago
  > It is well known and readily verifiable that net neutrality as defined by the previous FCC rules and as defined by the EFF allows for providers to charge more for people using more data. So no net neutrality would not require anyone to subsidize heavy data users. You're being patronizing. Why do you assume that the OP is referencing this point in his "diversity of opinion" quote? A charitable interpretation would be "the subject of whether or not NN is a social good is a subjective matter, and we need more diversity of opinion on this topic".
  - hristov 9y ago
    That is the only point the grandparent made.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago

rhizome 9y ago

There is no basis for your contention that "internet" would be cheaper without NN.

weberc2 9y ago
Given that reduced upstream costs typically translate into reduced downstream costs, and that regulation typically increases downstream costs, I think the onus is on NN-proponents to prove why the reverse is true.
- uw_rob 9y ago
  How would you respond to the fact that A lot of ISPs have local monopolies and they have 0 incentive to pass on any savings they materialize to customers? Also, many ISPs are also media companies, and sabotaging internet based entertainment is beneficial to them?
  - weberc2 9y ago
    I think we should prohibit monopolies. Anyway the incentive isn't zero, we needn't exaggerate. ISPs aren't the only company to participate in multiple markets, I don't see why we should be more concerned about them than Amazon.
- dpark 9y ago
  > regulation typically increases downstream costs This is a common claim that is rarely supported with data. Why does enforcing net neutrality increase downstream costs? If you mean that it shifts costs (you pay more for Netflix because they have to pay Comcast for fair service), then sure. I don't see any evidence that net neutrality actually changes the underlying cost of net service, though. There's a great counterpoint to your claim in the USPS. Their prices are regulated by congress. Those prices are pushed down artificially to the point that it's slowly bankrupting the USPS. So service is definitely cheaper than it would be without regulation. (Send a letter via FedEx and see what the free market charges for this service.)
  - 9y ago

steego 9y ago

I upvoted this vapid opinion because I think it needs to be addressed rather than censored by lazy thinkers. Making the Internet more expensive today so we can accommodate high traffic use is a smart long term strategy. The first incentive ISPs should have is to be able to provide a high level of service for bandwidth demanding applications. Over time these costs will drop as the bandwidth naturally expands because networking technology is subject to similar price/performance trends we see with transistors. Here's the point: At some future point in time, torrent and video traffic will be negligible faction of the total amount of bandwidth available. It's better we get there sooner rather than later, right? So what do you think is the fastest way to get there? Do you want to incentive the mono/duopoly ISPs to nickle and dime over limited service, or do you want to incentive them to compete with each other to provide the best service that connects everybody to the whole internet? We're going to get to the point where bandwidth is incredibly cheap and available soon enough. The question is are you really going to give up a common carrier network because you falsely believe it's going to get you here marginally faster? If you believe that, you have no sense of history of the telecommunications industry. They've already pulled the "let me abuse my monopoly status and I'll give you better service" scam time and time again.

dpark 9y ago
> Here's the point: At some future point in time, torrent and video traffic will be negligible faction of the total amount of bandwidth available. What will be taking the rest of the bandwidth? It certainly won't be idle or it won't get built out at all.
- steego 9y ago
  That's a very good point and even better pointed question! Part of the value of the network is how much bandwidth one can use in a month. The other part is simply the convenience of being able to send/receive lots of data in short bursts. I'd argue most people don't need to consume lots of data to appreciate 1 Gb connection when it's available. I think you'll find most people are willing to pay a premium for convenience and optionality, even when they don't use it. Now, if they're not using more total bandwidth, then your point stands. If the network is idle, it's more than likely not to get built out at all, but I'm not sure that rule applies to last mile networks.

sbov 9y ago

Net Neutrality doesn't say ISPs can't charge customers for data usage. Which is what my answer would be: charge customers for data usage. Some ISPs do this if you go beyond a certain amount per month. But if a tiny portion of users are hogging a massive amount of bandwidth (as is oftentimes claimed), it seems like an ISP could make a killing by offering cheaper bandwidth but charging for data usage, which would drive these high bandwidth users to other ISPs, which means you can provide your remaining users on average better bandwidth for a lower price.

ghaff 9y ago
I'm guessing that Netflix and video generally have somewhat democratized high data usage. At least they've probably shifted it from torrenting to hours and hours a day of video and music streaming. Haven't seen a breakdown recently though.

gech 9y ago

How many upvotes did this receive?

fiatjaf 9y ago
The score is at -4 now.

gech 9y ago

How many upvotes did this receive?

nickthemagicman 9y ago

Could you explain yourself better? You make assumptions with no evidence.

mstodd 9y ago

Regardless of the outcome, gaining that outcome through legislation (force) is immoral. It's sad that these days the default for a group to get what they want is to use a third party with guns.