4 ms·

What would stop ISPs from turning the Internet to Cable if Net Neutrality is removed?

by zouhair 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
BoorishBears 9y ago
Other than common sense? Targeted policy?
- veidr 9y ago
  > Targeted policy? Hmm, good idea. Let's see... maybe we could have a policy something like If you are one of the few companies providing Internet service, and are protected by various laws and regulations that limit who may provide such service to end users, then you must not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. How about something like that? That way, we could promote neutrality with regard to people's network access.
  - BoorishBears 9y ago
    I don't have a problem with zero rating, the policy you describe prohibits it. I identify with the fundamental concept that "it's all just bits streaming" and that it could "stifle competition". But to me both are an oversimplification. "It's all just bits" except sometimes it's 100 megabytes of video a second and sometimes it's a 100kb HN post and delivering those things satisfactorily does not take the same levels of resources. There was a time when I think that analogy was satisfactory, and I think we've left that time. And it definitely could stifle startups trying to become the next Google... except I get the feeling zero rating won't be why the next Google doesn't form between patents issues, Google just buying them outright, Google having better response times because of peering, and a million other issues (replace Google with any tech incumbent as wanted) To me this entire issue is a red herring, the real issue is a lack of ISP competition. That's why we're even willing to entertain the idea of our ISPs turning the internet into cable packages instead of realizing that with real competition no ISP would have the slightest inclination to do something so blatantly anti-user.
    - veidr 9y ago
      You are right that it's an oversimplification. And you are right that real competition between Internet providers would solve the problem, better than net neutrality regulations do. However, the most important point is that we have net neutrality rules right now. The chance of somehow achieving meaningful competition between Internet providers in the United States is vanishingly, infinitesimally small. The actual conversation isn't "net neutrality vs. competition", it's "oligopoly with some restrictions imposed on their behavior vs. unfettered oligopoly".
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      > "It's all just bits" except sometimes it's 100 megabytes of video a second and sometimes it's a 100kb HN post and delivering those things satisfactorily does not take the same levels of resources. Don't strawman. "It's all just bits" is talking about the resources needed per bit.
      - BoorishBears 9y ago
        It's not a strawman, the amount of resources X required to deliver at least Y bits per second is not a linear relationship.
        Dylan16807 9y ago
        Doesn't the non-linearity work against the argument for zero-rating? The big fat video costs significantly less per bit to deliver. Besides, net neutrality is 100% compatible with charging different prices for different connection speeds. Just make a free 1mbps tier and don't discriminate between HN posts and low-end video.
- nkozyra 9y ago
  > common sense? Common sense says that, as a corporation, if I have a regional monopoly on internet access I should exploit that to the point that maximizes profitability.
  - BoorishBears 9y ago
    >I should exploit that to the point that maximizes profitability. And not take overly egregious actions that would force a government intervention which would probably lead to actions that damage my monopoly and harm profitability.
    - memeCrasher 9y ago
      Or just bribe people in the government and have them appoint one of your lawyers to the governing body meant to regulate you. Why care how egregious your actions are when the government listens to you and your bags of money, and not the people you're fucking over?
      - BoorishBears 9y ago
        This is pretty much circular at this point. I’d say the risk/reward (no matter how much money can divert risk) is not great enough or we’d have already seen this happen pre-Open Internet
        zouhair 9y ago
        Ajit is literally an agent of the industry that is changing the rules to profit said industry and when it is done he will quit and move back to the private sector.

What would stop ISPs from turning the Internet to Cable if Net Neutrality is removed?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

BoorishBears 9y ago

Other than common sense? Targeted policy?

veidr 9y ago
> Targeted policy? Hmm, good idea. Let's see... maybe we could have a policy something like If you are one of the few companies providing Internet service, and are protected by various laws and regulations that limit who may provide such service to end users, then you must not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. How about something like that? That way, we could promote neutrality with regard to people's network access.
- BoorishBears 9y ago
  I don't have a problem with zero rating, the policy you describe prohibits it. I identify with the fundamental concept that "it's all just bits streaming" and that it could "stifle competition". But to me both are an oversimplification. "It's all just bits" except sometimes it's 100 megabytes of video a second and sometimes it's a 100kb HN post and delivering those things satisfactorily does not take the same levels of resources. There was a time when I think that analogy was satisfactory, and I think we've left that time. And it definitely could stifle startups trying to become the next Google... except I get the feeling zero rating won't be why the next Google doesn't form between patents issues, Google just buying them outright, Google having better response times because of peering, and a million other issues (replace Google with any tech incumbent as wanted) To me this entire issue is a red herring, the real issue is a lack of ISP competition. That's why we're even willing to entertain the idea of our ISPs turning the internet into cable packages instead of realizing that with real competition no ISP would have the slightest inclination to do something so blatantly anti-user.
  - veidr 9y ago
    You are right that it's an oversimplification. And you are right that real competition between Internet providers would solve the problem, better than net neutrality regulations do. However, the most important point is that we have net neutrality rules right now. The chance of somehow achieving meaningful competition between Internet providers in the United States is vanishingly, infinitesimally small. The actual conversation isn't "net neutrality vs. competition", it's "oligopoly with some restrictions imposed on their behavior vs. unfettered oligopoly".
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    > "It's all just bits" except sometimes it's 100 megabytes of video a second and sometimes it's a 100kb HN post and delivering those things satisfactorily does not take the same levels of resources. Don't strawman. "It's all just bits" is talking about the resources needed per bit.
    - BoorishBears 9y ago
      It's not a strawman, the amount of resources X required to deliver at least Y bits per second is not a linear relationship.
      - Dylan16807 9y ago
        Doesn't the non-linearity work against the argument for zero-rating? The big fat video costs significantly less per bit to deliver. Besides, net neutrality is 100% compatible with charging different prices for different connection speeds. Just make a free 1mbps tier and don't discriminate between HN posts and low-end video.
nkozyra 9y ago
> common sense? Common sense says that, as a corporation, if I have a regional monopoly on internet access I should exploit that to the point that maximizes profitability.
- BoorishBears 9y ago
  >I should exploit that to the point that maximizes profitability. And not take overly egregious actions that would force a government intervention which would probably lead to actions that damage my monopoly and harm profitability.
  - memeCrasher 9y ago
    Or just bribe people in the government and have them appoint one of your lawyers to the governing body meant to regulate you. Why care how egregious your actions are when the government listens to you and your bags of money, and not the people you're fucking over?
    - BoorishBears 9y ago
      This is pretty much circular at this point. I’d say the risk/reward (no matter how much money can divert risk) is not great enough or we’d have already seen this happen pre-Open Internet
      - zouhair 9y ago
        Ajit is literally an agent of the industry that is changing the rules to profit said industry and when it is done he will quit and move back to the private sector.