4 ms·

>> Take for instance SpaceX and Google's variations of widespread air-based internet. If the throughput for these systems starts to become an issue would it be

by SCHiM 9y ago

>> Take for instance SpaceX and Google's variations of widespread air-based internet. If the throughput for these systems starts to become an issue would it be so unreasonable for them to throttle or block sites consuming disproportionate resources? No this is not appropriate. Sites do not 'consume' resources, users do. Let the market do it's normal job of supply and demand. If millions of users want to match netflix at the same time and the network cannot supply that, then raise the prize and invest in more infrastructure as any company with a demand surplus would. Markets _work_ in such situations, there's room for competitors, investments, increased profit margins and all those other good things. There is little information asymmetry: either netflix works when you want to chill or it doesn't. People _will_ vote with their money. Protecting a company from a demand surplus?? MADNESS! Instead of nitpicking further on this flawed example instead turn your argument against itself. Why create rules of which you _know_ (as you yourself mention) that they are going to be abused, only to later 'deal' (take more 'campaign' money) with them. There is a very clear conflict of interest between ISPs that are also content creators and their content creating competitors. I too ascribe to the notion that, whatever the legal code might say, companies are not people. They should not be able to abuse the rights that people have to achieve their business agenda. Their customers' bytes on their switches are not 'speech'. They should be dumb pipes, selling access to their dumb pipes and compete with other designers or dumb pipe networks, and that should be it.

kodablah 9y ago
> Let the market do it's normal job of supply and demand. I agree with your point in general, but careful with this argument as it can favor those wanting to remove rules instead of add them. When it's phrased as "what if there is market demand for a cheaper internet package for lower-byte-producing sites or specialized-cheaper sites only?" You might say "Whoa, wait, I didn't mean let the market do its normal job of supply and demand, I meant require X regardless of demand." Of course we can all agree that the market can't do its job anyways if a new ISP can't be easily built to satisfy consumer demand requirements.
- shkkmo 9y ago
  Just because there is demand for something, doesn't mean it should be legal. Anyone claiming otherwise is deliberately trying to deceive you or themselves (or truly believes in human trafficking should be legal). Saying that the market can effectively limit demand for something that was a limited supply (air waves) is VERY different from saying that anything that there is market demand for is good for society or the economy as a whole and should be allowed.
- bo1024 9y ago
  It's a very important argument for NN though. One of the biggest problems with removing NN is that it will stifle competition by allowing pipes to interfere with normal market forces of supply/demand for the flow. I admit that it requires actually thinking for a moment to see how regulation in this case can actually promote competition, and you'll have trouble getting many politicians to admit that or even understand it (when, as someone or other said, their paychecks depend on not understanding it).
Spivak 9y ago
> No this is not appropriate. Sites do not 'consume' resources, users do. You're drawing an arbitrary distinction between push and pull. Nexflix uses resources by sending content in the same way I use resources by uploading a file. Internet communication is a two way street. Far more resources are used when you talk to Netflix than when you talk to the NYT and someone's paying for them. Users don't think it should be them so why not the other end? > raise the price and invest in more infrastructure as any company with a demand surplus would Right, so they'll charge extra if you want to use Netflix and use the profits to fund that network. Err... "We charge an additional fee to access sustained video content as that puts a large strain on our network and reduces the quality of service for your neighbors." You could charge everyone more across the board but but that's unfair to people who aren't streaming. > There is a very clear conflict of interest between ISPs that are also content creators and their content creating competitors. Perfect, so fix the conflict of intersts and there's no need for NN. If my network oeprator is using QoS I can be reasonably sure it's to provide the best service to everyone. > They should be dumb pipes. Not possible. Cross-network traffic is inherantly political and even without that benevolent network operators still need to have policies to mediate allocation of a shared resource. Unless you're paying for a dedicated line between your source and target your traffic is being governed by some set of policies.
- shkkmo 9y ago
  >> No this is not appropriate. Sites do not 'consume' resources, users do. >You're drawing an arbitrary distinction between push and pull. Nexflix uses resources by sending content in the same way I use resources by uploading a file. Internet communication is a two way street. You both seem to be laboring under a misunderstanding. Both Netflix and the customer are consuming resources and paying for them. Netflix pays for it's access and usage of the network, and so does the customer. Their networks have peering agreements to pass the data between networks. The question isn't if both should be paying, but if either one should have to pay more depending on where in the network the other one is or on the 'flavor' of the packets that are being sent. Net neutrality is supposed to protect Netflix from having to Pay Comcast for access to Comcast customers (in addition to what they pay for their network access), and it protects customers from having to pay Comcast for access to Netflix (in addition to what they pay for their network access). > You could charge everyone more across the board but but that's unfair to people who aren't streaming. Or you charge people for the capacity they use and charge more during peak times. This protects the problem without allowing the granting the current oligopolies massive market distorting power. > Perfect, so fix the conflict of intersts and there's no need for NN. Ok, fix those conflicts of interest first, then we can consider taking a look at crafting exceptions to the laws that protect us from. The current effort isn't to make exceptions for QoS, the current effort is the repeal of the framework that allows ANY legal protection for Net Neutrality. > Not possible. Cross-network traffic is inherantly political and even without that benevolent network operators still need to have policies to mediate allocation of a shared resource. In what way is it not possible to create fair rules for who pays to build connections between networks and to mandate fair treatment in the creation of peering agreements between networks? Perhaps perfect fairness is not possible but you are saying that we shouldn't even be allowed to try.

by SCHiM 9y ago

kodablah 9y ago

> Let the market do it's normal job of supply and demand. I agree with your point in general, but careful with this argument as it can favor those wanting to remove rules instead of add them. When it's phrased as "what if there is market demand for a cheaper internet package for lower-byte-producing sites or specialized-cheaper sites only?" You might say "Whoa, wait, I didn't mean let the market do its normal job of supply and demand, I meant require X regardless of demand." Of course we can all agree that the market can't do its job anyways if a new ISP can't be easily built to satisfy consumer demand requirements.

shkkmo 9y ago
Just because there is demand for something, doesn't mean it should be legal. Anyone claiming otherwise is deliberately trying to deceive you or themselves (or truly believes in human trafficking should be legal). Saying that the market can effectively limit demand for something that was a limited supply (air waves) is VERY different from saying that anything that there is market demand for is good for society or the economy as a whole and should be allowed.
bo1024 9y ago
It's a very important argument for NN though. One of the biggest problems with removing NN is that it will stifle competition by allowing pipes to interfere with normal market forces of supply/demand for the flow. I admit that it requires actually thinking for a moment to see how regulation in this case can actually promote competition, and you'll have trouble getting many politicians to admit that or even understand it (when, as someone or other said, their paychecks depend on not understanding it).

Spivak 9y ago

> No this is not appropriate. Sites do not 'consume' resources, users do. You're drawing an arbitrary distinction between push and pull. Nexflix uses resources by sending content in the same way I use resources by uploading a file. Internet communication is a two way street. Far more resources are used when you talk to Netflix than when you talk to the NYT and someone's paying for them. Users don't think it should be them so why not the other end? > raise the price and invest in more infrastructure as any company with a demand surplus would Right, so they'll charge extra if you want to use Netflix and use the profits to fund that network. Err... "We charge an additional fee to access sustained video content as that puts a large strain on our network and reduces the quality of service for your neighbors." You could charge everyone more across the board but but that's unfair to people who aren't streaming. > There is a very clear conflict of interest between ISPs that are also content creators and their content creating competitors. Perfect, so fix the conflict of intersts and there's no need for NN. If my network oeprator is using QoS I can be reasonably sure it's to provide the best service to everyone. > They should be dumb pipes. Not possible. Cross-network traffic is inherantly political and even without that benevolent network operators still need to have policies to mediate allocation of a shared resource. Unless you're paying for a dedicated line between your source and target your traffic is being governed by some set of policies.

shkkmo 9y ago
>> No this is not appropriate. Sites do not 'consume' resources, users do. >You're drawing an arbitrary distinction between push and pull. Nexflix uses resources by sending content in the same way I use resources by uploading a file. Internet communication is a two way street. You both seem to be laboring under a misunderstanding. Both Netflix and the customer are consuming resources and paying for them. Netflix pays for it's access and usage of the network, and so does the customer. Their networks have peering agreements to pass the data between networks. The question isn't if both should be paying, but if either one should have to pay more depending on where in the network the other one is or on the 'flavor' of the packets that are being sent. Net neutrality is supposed to protect Netflix from having to Pay Comcast for access to Comcast customers (in addition to what they pay for their network access), and it protects customers from having to pay Comcast for access to Netflix (in addition to what they pay for their network access). > You could charge everyone more across the board but but that's unfair to people who aren't streaming. Or you charge people for the capacity they use and charge more during peak times. This protects the problem without allowing the granting the current oligopolies massive market distorting power. > Perfect, so fix the conflict of intersts and there's no need for NN. Ok, fix those conflicts of interest first, then we can consider taking a look at crafting exceptions to the laws that protect us from. The current effort isn't to make exceptions for QoS, the current effort is the repeal of the framework that allows ANY legal protection for Net Neutrality. > Not possible. Cross-network traffic is inherantly political and even without that benevolent network operators still need to have policies to mediate allocation of a shared resource. In what way is it not possible to create fair rules for who pays to build connections between networks and to mandate fair treatment in the creation of peering agreements between networks? Perhaps perfect fairness is not possible but you are saying that we shouldn't even be allowed to try.