2 ms·

> Arguing against legislation for legislation sake begs the question that all legislation is bad by default. > The distance makes no difference to the Internet

> Arguing against legislation for legislation sake begs the question that all legislation is bad by default. > The distance makes no difference to the Internet. I'm not sure how much better to explain how the Internet works but you do keep inventing new ideas to support the idea of an ISP charging a specific domain but it has no basis in how the internet works. I feel you are attacking me personally. It is true I am libertarian and opposed to many federal laws, but not all. There are many that are appropriate. I know how ethernet and tcp/ip works. I have read RFCs on domain names, DNS, etc. From physics, it is not true that distance doesn't matter. I am not arguing about how the internet business models are structured today, but about they should be structured. I am ``inventing'' reasons that are logical, to refute them and convince me, please read my model (isp0...isp n) again and say which part is illogical without reaching for how the current ISP monopolies work. The idea that all data is equal is false. It depends on where its coming from and by what path. You may say that this would not be NN discrimination, but the mere fact that we are talking past each on this example suggests it would be super complicated if not impossible to enforce NN correctly. It will become yet another part of the legal framework which helps keep monopoly ISPs in control. > One could argue that monopoly concentration in providing the Internet is a natural physical consequence of the world. There is only so much right of way, so much wireless spectrum, etc. I support federal level, FCC auctioning of spectrum. And you further make my case, the ``natural'' physical monopoly size for wired ISPs is the city or regional government entity. Thus regulation should be at that level. This is a big power grab for the feds to regulate our communications at what should be a local level.

wvenable 9y ago
The most frightening to me, is your assertion above: "And ISPs should have the right to use their position to get payment agreements". What I take this to mean is use their monopoly position to extort data from larger Internet companies. This appears to be what you are arguing for and I don't understand why any Internet consumer, such as yourself, would support such a position. > The idea that all data is equal is false. It depends on where its coming from and by what path. There is some truth to this but an ISP's only concern is it's immediate connections. It has connections to other peers (and it's own clients) and it has a certain capacity to each of those connections. That's it. Imagine you have two scenarios, one is content is generated in ISP1. So the data travels from ISP1 to ISP0. The second scenario is that the content is generated 10 routers away. The data is copied from ISP10 to ISP9 to ISP8 and so on till it gets to ISP1. It's then copied from ISP1 to ISP0. There is no difference between this data and the data generated by ISP1 in the first scenario as far as ISP0 is concerned. If the data packets did not have addresses there would actually be no way of telling the difference. To put another way, if you request content from something 3 hops away or 15 hops way -- it doesn't cost your ISP any more money to deliver it. The cost of the Internet as a whole is born by the entire network. Why does ISP0 need to charge by domain? Where does that fit in anywhere in this system? ISP0 and domain1 could come to an agreement to move servers into ISP0's network to improve latency and decrease traffic and that is perfectly reasonable. But charging domains for simply putting data on the Internet somewhere else makes no sense -- it's pure abuse of monopoly. > It will become yet another part of the legal framework which helps keep monopoly ISPs in control. It's meant to keep monopoly ISPs from abusing their monopoly position. It even helps smaller ISPs as a neutral network allows anyone to provide service and receive service fairly without having to have financial agreements with larger services. I'd like to hear the opposing argument to this, if you have one. I don't want to attack you personally but you make the above statement as if it were fact without any argument. Simply that it's regulation so it must be bad. If net neutrality helped large monopoly ISPs they wouldn't be fighting so hard to get rid of it. As for regulating this on the federal level, the Internet is a global system. The idea that regional governments should be enacting rules that will affect large and small companies around the world seems a bit crazy. You already have individual states imposing streaming media taxes. So yes, in some states you can be taxed for Netflix but not taxed for an online game. Giving ISPs their own power to enact these taxes seems like madness to me.
- benlorenzetti 9y ago
  > The most frightening to me, is your assertion above: "And ISPs should have the right to use their position to get payment agreements". What I take this to mean is use their monopoly position to extort data from larger Internet companies. This appears to be what you are arguing for and I don't understand why any Internet consumer, such as yourself, would support such a position. This is a right every enterprise in a market has. And we have been having this good discussion so I know that we agree that ISPs are naturally a monopoly and need to be regulated or gov owned to prevent abuse. I'm just opposed to NN because I think that the appropriate regulatory/ownership level is the municipality, township, etc. federal regulation in this space risks future curtailment of free speech. And as a internet constomer, why are you opposed to google or Netflix paying more and having your bill be less? (If your ISO were locally regulated and had an interest in providing the content you want) > There is some truth to this but an ISP's only concern is it's immediate connections... Exactly, it only has a business relationship with its neighbor ISPs. But if the server is in ISP1's network, as opposed to passing through ISP1s network from a further series of hops, then it is probably cheaper for ISP1 to serve data from its region than the cost of the data associated with its arrangement with ISP2 plus the costs of routing it through its own network. If you were to fight for a world of smaller ISPs with less power, then for that system to function ISP1 would have to be able to charge more for that domain, and then you would probably want city 0 to be allowed to negotiate with that domain directly for the privledge of having access when it is more expensive. Again I want ISPs regulated or municipalized. I am just an Internet customer and a citizen. No Comcast stock or whatever. I don't see why Chattanooga's city ISP shouldn't be able to try and shift some cost from its citizens to large data domains without fearing a lawsuit in that negotiation. We have open standards, it's not like the Internet would cease to function if the federal goverment doesn't enforce that ISPs use tcp/ip. And I would argue it would be less madness to have local ISPs negotiate with a few big companies than to have them track traffic and share routing data with every other municipality or private/state backbone company who may be on the routing paths. Less "collusive" too. Regardless of which way is more difficult, we as a free people should be always trying to reduce the federal government's interaction with enterprises that disseminate information. We shouldn't fight for net neutrality on all battlefields. Only on the level of civic organization that owns the public right of ways, i.e. the size of the natural monopoly.

wvenable 9y ago

The most frightening to me, is your assertion above: "And ISPs should have the right to use their position to get payment agreements". What I take this to mean is use their monopoly position to extort data from larger Internet companies. This appears to be what you are arguing for and I don't understand why any Internet consumer, such as yourself, would support such a position. > The idea that all data is equal is false. It depends on where its coming from and by what path. There is some truth to this but an ISP's only concern is it's immediate connections. It has connections to other peers (and it's own clients) and it has a certain capacity to each of those connections. That's it. Imagine you have two scenarios, one is content is generated in ISP1. So the data travels from ISP1 to ISP0. The second scenario is that the content is generated 10 routers away. The data is copied from ISP10 to ISP9 to ISP8 and so on till it gets to ISP1. It's then copied from ISP1 to ISP0. There is no difference between this data and the data generated by ISP1 in the first scenario as far as ISP0 is concerned. If the data packets did not have addresses there would actually be no way of telling the difference. To put another way, if you request content from something 3 hops away or 15 hops way -- it doesn't cost your ISP any more money to deliver it. The cost of the Internet as a whole is born by the entire network. Why does ISP0 need to charge by domain? Where does that fit in anywhere in this system? ISP0 and domain1 could come to an agreement to move servers into ISP0's network to improve latency and decrease traffic and that is perfectly reasonable. But charging domains for simply putting data on the Internet somewhere else makes no sense -- it's pure abuse of monopoly. > It will become yet another part of the legal framework which helps keep monopoly ISPs in control. It's meant to keep monopoly ISPs from abusing their monopoly position. It even helps smaller ISPs as a neutral network allows anyone to provide service and receive service fairly without having to have financial agreements with larger services. I'd like to hear the opposing argument to this, if you have one. I don't want to attack you personally but you make the above statement as if it were fact without any argument. Simply that it's regulation so it must be bad. If net neutrality helped large monopoly ISPs they wouldn't be fighting so hard to get rid of it. As for regulating this on the federal level, the Internet is a global system. The idea that regional governments should be enacting rules that will affect large and small companies around the world seems a bit crazy. You already have individual states imposing streaming media taxes. So yes, in some states you can be taxed for Netflix but not taxed for an online game. Giving ISPs their own power to enact these taxes seems like madness to me.

benlorenzetti 9y ago
> The most frightening to me, is your assertion above: "And ISPs should have the right to use their position to get payment agreements". What I take this to mean is use their monopoly position to extort data from larger Internet companies. This appears to be what you are arguing for and I don't understand why any Internet consumer, such as yourself, would support such a position. This is a right every enterprise in a market has. And we have been having this good discussion so I know that we agree that ISPs are naturally a monopoly and need to be regulated or gov owned to prevent abuse. I'm just opposed to NN because I think that the appropriate regulatory/ownership level is the municipality, township, etc. federal regulation in this space risks future curtailment of free speech. And as a internet constomer, why are you opposed to google or Netflix paying more and having your bill be less? (If your ISO were locally regulated and had an interest in providing the content you want) > There is some truth to this but an ISP's only concern is it's immediate connections... Exactly, it only has a business relationship with its neighbor ISPs. But if the server is in ISP1's network, as opposed to passing through ISP1s network from a further series of hops, then it is probably cheaper for ISP1 to serve data from its region than the cost of the data associated with its arrangement with ISP2 plus the costs of routing it through its own network. If you were to fight for a world of smaller ISPs with less power, then for that system to function ISP1 would have to be able to charge more for that domain, and then you would probably want city 0 to be allowed to negotiate with that domain directly for the privledge of having access when it is more expensive. Again I want ISPs regulated or municipalized. I am just an Internet customer and a citizen. No Comcast stock or whatever. I don't see why Chattanooga's city ISP shouldn't be able to try and shift some cost from its citizens to large data domains without fearing a lawsuit in that negotiation. We have open standards, it's not like the Internet would cease to function if the federal goverment doesn't enforce that ISPs use tcp/ip. And I would argue it would be less madness to have local ISPs negotiate with a few big companies than to have them track traffic and share routing data with every other municipality or private/state backbone company who may be on the routing paths. Less "collusive" too. Regardless of which way is more difficult, we as a free people should be always trying to reduce the federal government's interaction with enterprises that disseminate information. We shouldn't fight for net neutrality on all battlefields. Only on the level of civic organization that owns the public right of ways, i.e. the size of the natural monopoly.