7 ms·

This argument doesn’t make any sense. The isps would just deprioritize the zero tier traffic so you couldn’t use it effectively. It’s only faster because of how

by tbrock 9y ago

This argument doesn’t make any sense. The isps would just deprioritize the zero tier traffic so you couldn’t use it effectively. It’s only faster because of how things work today. Nobody would care about being able to watch Netflix via zero tier if it’s faster to watch without it (which the isps would most certainly ensure). I also think it’s nieve to assume that large tech companies want neutrality. Sure, companies publicly say that they are for it but if they could pay to prevent new competitors (without the same capital resources) from challenging them it’s my hunch that they’d gladly do so. They aren’t on our side.

himom 9y ago
What are you smoking? Google (YouTube), Netflix, Facebook, etc. wants access to as many eyeballs (and their bandwidth) as possible. Having either them or their eyeballs having to pay for access eats into their profits.
- edoceo 9y ago
  Pay-for-access would allow Google et al to keep your eyeballs, while blocking competitors who want your eyeballs.
- putlake 9y ago
  tbrock is right. When you're an established entrenched player like Google or Facebook, paying ISPs for distribution is a small price to pay for a moat that makes it extremely difficult for new companies to come in and disrupt you. Netflix is still interested in net neutrality because they are not as dominant and because they will face competition from ISPs who are also content providers now. Comcast owns NBC Universal. In fact, this loss of net neutrality would have been less dangerous if ISPs were just pipes trying to make more money rather than also being content companies.
  - notyourday 9y ago
    > When you're an established entrenched player like Google or Facebook, paying ISPs for distribution is a small price to pay for a moat that makes it extremely difficult for new companies to come in and disrupt you. See Netflix and VZ PNIs saga a few years ago for proof. > Netflix is still interested in net neutrality because they are not as dominant and because they will face competition from ISPs who are also content providers now. Comcast owns NBC Universal. No, Netflix is not interested in NN - see it paying for VZ transit to just VZ, i.e. buying access. Long time ago, in a galaxy far away there was a CTO ran company that fought for NN well before it was fashionable. The company's name was AboveNet and CTO's name was Dave Rand. The company carried a large percentage of the Internet traffic at the time and he would still play hardball with the likes of Sprint, DT, UUNET/MCI worldcom etc. From that point on not a single company that claimed or currently claims to be supporter of NN has not even tried to put its money where its mouth is. [Edit: after the downvotes ] Really? Google is your friend. http://time.com/2838570/verizon-netflix-feud-streaming-speeds/ http://time.com/2838570/verizon-netflix-feud-streaming-speed... https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netflix-packets-being-dropped-every-day-because-verizon-wants-more-money/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netfl... http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/netflix-agrees-to-pay-verizon-for-direct-connections-1201166187/ http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/netflix-agrees-to-pay-v... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140718/06533327927/level3-proves-that-verizon-is-absolutely-to-blame-netflix-congestion-using-verizons-own-data.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140718/06533327927/level... [Another edit: since some people would point that they called it peering ] Paying transit rates to access only routes originated by the AS group of VZ is not peering - it is transit.
- username223 9y ago
  Google, Netflix, etc. have leverage in a negotiation with Comcast: if Comcast tries to shake them down, they can say "no," then advertise that Comcast subscribers can't use Google, Netflix, etc., and people will leave Comcast in droves. Joe's Random Video Streaming Service has absolutely no leverage against Comcast, so Comcast can charge JRVSS whatever it wants, creating a nice moat for Google, Netflix, etc.
  - pivo 9y ago
    > people will leave Comcast in droves At least those with a choice, which I'm guessing isn't the majority of people. Comcast pays my building to ensure that no other ISPs are allowed in the building. That's very common, at least where I am.
    - agumonkey 9y ago
      Is this a special case in law or just known bribery or .. even plain normal ? ps: the NN FCC thing got me curious, how much the web would be different if we had to pay. Even a small fee for things like google.
      - prophesi 9y ago
        It's pretty normal. My town has its own ISP. But they're not allowed to provide service outside certain zones, because Comcast already provides service there. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2016/mar/15/house-committee-kills-compromise-epb-broadband-expansion-underserved-areas-hamilton-bradley-counties/355438/ http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2016/mar/15/h...
        metastew 9y ago
        How is that free market or even capitalism?
        zentiggr 9y ago
frozenport 9y ago
Google doesn't want Comcast doing its job.

by tbrock 9y ago

himom 9y ago

What are you smoking? Google (YouTube), Netflix, Facebook, etc. wants access to as many eyeballs (and their bandwidth) as possible. Having either them or their eyeballs having to pay for access eats into their profits.

edoceo 9y ago
Pay-for-access would allow Google et al to keep your eyeballs, while blocking competitors who want your eyeballs.
putlake 9y ago
tbrock is right. When you're an established entrenched player like Google or Facebook, paying ISPs for distribution is a small price to pay for a moat that makes it extremely difficult for new companies to come in and disrupt you. Netflix is still interested in net neutrality because they are not as dominant and because they will face competition from ISPs who are also content providers now. Comcast owns NBC Universal. In fact, this loss of net neutrality would have been less dangerous if ISPs were just pipes trying to make more money rather than also being content companies.
- notyourday 9y ago
  > When you're an established entrenched player like Google or Facebook, paying ISPs for distribution is a small price to pay for a moat that makes it extremely difficult for new companies to come in and disrupt you. See Netflix and VZ PNIs saga a few years ago for proof. > Netflix is still interested in net neutrality because they are not as dominant and because they will face competition from ISPs who are also content providers now. Comcast owns NBC Universal. No, Netflix is not interested in NN - see it paying for VZ transit to just VZ, i.e. buying access. Long time ago, in a galaxy far away there was a CTO ran company that fought for NN well before it was fashionable. The company's name was AboveNet and CTO's name was Dave Rand. The company carried a large percentage of the Internet traffic at the time and he would still play hardball with the likes of Sprint, DT, UUNET/MCI worldcom etc. From that point on not a single company that claimed or currently claims to be supporter of NN has not even tried to put its money where its mouth is. [Edit: after the downvotes ] Really? Google is your friend. http://time.com/2838570/verizon-netflix-feud-streaming-speeds/ http://time.com/2838570/verizon-netflix-feud-streaming-speed... https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netflix-packets-being-dropped-every-day-because-verizon-wants-more-money/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netfl... http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/netflix-agrees-to-pay-verizon-for-direct-connections-1201166187/ http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/netflix-agrees-to-pay-v... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140718/06533327927/level3-proves-that-verizon-is-absolutely-to-blame-netflix-congestion-using-verizons-own-data.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140718/06533327927/level... [Another edit: since some people would point that they called it peering ] Paying transit rates to access only routes originated by the AS group of VZ is not peering - it is transit.
username223 9y ago
Google, Netflix, etc. have leverage in a negotiation with Comcast: if Comcast tries to shake them down, they can say "no," then advertise that Comcast subscribers can't use Google, Netflix, etc., and people will leave Comcast in droves. Joe's Random Video Streaming Service has absolutely no leverage against Comcast, so Comcast can charge JRVSS whatever it wants, creating a nice moat for Google, Netflix, etc.
- pivo 9y ago
  > people will leave Comcast in droves At least those with a choice, which I'm guessing isn't the majority of people. Comcast pays my building to ensure that no other ISPs are allowed in the building. That's very common, at least where I am.
  - agumonkey 9y ago
    Is this a special case in law or just known bribery or .. even plain normal ? ps: the NN FCC thing got me curious, how much the web would be different if we had to pay. Even a small fee for things like google.
    - prophesi 9y ago
      It's pretty normal. My town has its own ISP. But they're not allowed to provide service outside certain zones, because Comcast already provides service there. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2016/mar/15/house-committee-kills-compromise-epb-broadband-expansion-underserved-areas-hamilton-bradley-counties/355438/ http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2016/mar/15/h...
      - metastew 9y ago
        How is that free market or even capitalism?
        zentiggr 9y ago

frozenport 9y ago

Google doesn't want Comcast doing its job.