6 ms·

> It's unlikely popular and profitable services will be hindered by the lack of net neutrality. Huh? Did you forget already that both Verizon and Comcast throt

> It's unlikely popular and profitable services will be hindered by the lack of net neutrality. Huh? Did you forget already that both Verizon and Comcast throttled services like Netflix? They both argued they should get a cut if they were going to carry the traffic to their customers. Now they're getting exactly what they wanted. 1. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/07/verizon-wireless-apparently-throttles-streaming-video-to-10mbps https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/07/veriz... 2. https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/ https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-com...

sbov 9y ago
Except Netflix doesn't care about net neutrality anymore - Reed Hastings claims they are now big and popular enough for it not to matter for them: https://www.cnet.com/news/net-neutrality-netflix-reed-hastings/ https://www.cnet.com/news/net-neutrality-netflix-reed-hastin...
- ajross 9y ago
  The point was to reply to a contention that "popular services will not be affected" with a counter example. Popular services certainly could have been squeezed by ISP, and in fact they were in the past, very notably. So sure: Netflix maybe might not due to size and popularity. The next great thing will be, for sure.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Except Netflix doesn't care about net neutrality anymore Yes, they do: https://twitter.com/netflix/status/933042368156123136 https://twitter.com/netflix/status/933042368156123136
  - jhasse 9y ago
    That's just a tweet. On the other hand they partnered with Telekom (most popular ISP in Germany) for a service called "StreamOn". With that you can stream Netflix (and other partnered streaming sites) without affecting your monthly data cap.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      So? Desires about what the legal context should be and business was strategy given what the legal context is are separate issues.
      - jhasse 9y ago
        German government regulation agency (Bundesnetzargentur) and the EU have their doubts that StreamOn is legal even in the current context. So by participating they are setting a statement. It's like a vegetarian eating meat from factory farming every day.
- chrischen 9y ago
  Or he's subtly pointing out that Netflix wouldn't have been started if it wasn't for net neutrality. > It's an issue that would have been more important to "the Netflix of 10 years ago," he said.
mediocrejoker 9y ago
What is the actual reason they shouldn't? This is a highly politicized topic but it's hard to find rational discussion. If I built a network I would expect to be able to charge whatever I wanted to whomever I wanted in exchange for the use of my network. Is the answer that taxpayers helped fund the network so now feel they deserve not to pay twice? How much of the current internet infrastructure is paid for by taxpayers vs private corporations? Any good sources you'd suggest reading on the pros and cons of each side of the argument?
- shanusmagnus 9y ago
  1) Do you think it would be okay for a hardware store to price a shovel differently depending on what the customer wanted to dig? 2) The telcos never seem to reflect on the fact that the only reason people want broadband at all is because there are services that they want to access. So just by existing they're already getting their cut. It would be just as reasonable for Amazon and Netflix to ask Comcast for a cut of their revenue, since they're providing these attractive services that Comcast isn't paying a dime to provide.
  - mediocrejoker 9y ago
    I think hardware stores are maybe not the best comparison because if a hardware store was doing that then it would be pretty easy for a competitor to open a hardware store across the street and undercut the first on shovels and steal all the business. I think this might be a better solution than a law that specifically mandates the price at which a hardware store can sell shovels, since I think that law would only address a very specific problem caused by a larger underlying issue. I think the shovel case at least, when the market can sort something out then it's "better" to let it do so. For Amazon/Netflix, at least on the surface, I would say that the ISP and the content provider can ask for whatever they want and whether or not they get it will be a function of how much each one needs the other. Perhaps ironically a very similar system to how internet peering currently works (the little guy pays the bigger guy for transit).
    - NegativeLatency 9y ago
woodrowbarlow 9y ago
the big companies will happily pay. for their money they are getting a promise that any potential competitor will have to climb over a wall before entering the ring. the big companies just don't want to be the _only_ ones paying.

sbov 9y ago

Except Netflix doesn't care about net neutrality anymore - Reed Hastings claims they are now big and popular enough for it not to matter for them: https://www.cnet.com/news/net-neutrality-netflix-reed-hastings/ https://www.cnet.com/news/net-neutrality-netflix-reed-hastin...

ajross 9y ago
The point was to reply to a contention that "popular services will not be affected" with a counter example. Popular services certainly could have been squeezed by ISP, and in fact they were in the past, very notably. So sure: Netflix maybe might not due to size and popularity. The next great thing will be, for sure.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Except Netflix doesn't care about net neutrality anymore Yes, they do: https://twitter.com/netflix/status/933042368156123136 https://twitter.com/netflix/status/933042368156123136
- jhasse 9y ago
  That's just a tweet. On the other hand they partnered with Telekom (most popular ISP in Germany) for a service called "StreamOn". With that you can stream Netflix (and other partnered streaming sites) without affecting your monthly data cap.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    So? Desires about what the legal context should be and business was strategy given what the legal context is are separate issues.
    - jhasse 9y ago
      German government regulation agency (Bundesnetzargentur) and the EU have their doubts that StreamOn is legal even in the current context. So by participating they are setting a statement. It's like a vegetarian eating meat from factory farming every day.
chrischen 9y ago
Or he's subtly pointing out that Netflix wouldn't have been started if it wasn't for net neutrality. > It's an issue that would have been more important to "the Netflix of 10 years ago," he said.

mediocrejoker 9y ago

What is the actual reason they shouldn't? This is a highly politicized topic but it's hard to find rational discussion. If I built a network I would expect to be able to charge whatever I wanted to whomever I wanted in exchange for the use of my network. Is the answer that taxpayers helped fund the network so now feel they deserve not to pay twice? How much of the current internet infrastructure is paid for by taxpayers vs private corporations? Any good sources you'd suggest reading on the pros and cons of each side of the argument?

shanusmagnus 9y ago
1) Do you think it would be okay for a hardware store to price a shovel differently depending on what the customer wanted to dig? 2) The telcos never seem to reflect on the fact that the only reason people want broadband at all is because there are services that they want to access. So just by existing they're already getting their cut. It would be just as reasonable for Amazon and Netflix to ask Comcast for a cut of their revenue, since they're providing these attractive services that Comcast isn't paying a dime to provide.
- mediocrejoker 9y ago
  I think hardware stores are maybe not the best comparison because if a hardware store was doing that then it would be pretty easy for a competitor to open a hardware store across the street and undercut the first on shovels and steal all the business. I think this might be a better solution than a law that specifically mandates the price at which a hardware store can sell shovels, since I think that law would only address a very specific problem caused by a larger underlying issue. I think the shovel case at least, when the market can sort something out then it's "better" to let it do so. For Amazon/Netflix, at least on the surface, I would say that the ISP and the content provider can ask for whatever they want and whether or not they get it will be a function of how much each one needs the other. Perhaps ironically a very similar system to how internet peering currently works (the little guy pays the bigger guy for transit).
  - NegativeLatency 9y ago

woodrowbarlow 9y ago

the big companies will happily pay. for their money they are getting a promise that any potential competitor will have to climb over a wall before entering the ring. the big companies just don't want to be the _only_ ones paying.