4 ms·

I agree Google is a definite global threat, but how are you so sure that ISPs won't begin charging for access to internet content like they do for cable content

I agree Google is a definite global threat, but how are you so sure that ISPs won't begin charging for access to internet content like they do for cable content?

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Well, first of all, bear in mind that cable content involves partnerships between the provider and the content. And even when T-Mobile offers it's Binge On-type services, that's through an agreement as well. The idea that an ISP could just arbitrarily block a given site without being paid a fee and without getting sued to oblivion is silly. Most of what Netflix and stuff is upset about is being asked to pay for specific peering agreements, which is, IMHO, perfectly fine. If Netflix wants optimized networking just for them, they may have to pay extra for it.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  >The idea that an ISP could just arbitrarily block a given site without being paid a fee and without getting sued to oblivion is silly. From the summary items listed here[1], NN explicitly bans blocking of websites. If NN is repealed, wouldn't that make it legal? And if it is legal, wouldn't that make any lawsuits against it frovolous? [1]https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/12/392544534/fcc-publishes-full-text-of-net-neutrality-rules https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/12/392544534...
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    The fact that an extraneous law is removed doesn't make everything explicitly banned by it legal. There's already a litany of laws regarding unfair and anticompetitive business practices which have been and will continue to be illegal. I find most net neutrality advocates seem to ignore this entirely. We have existing laws that, appropriately applied by regulations, already would prohibit an ISP from barring access to a competitor's content services.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      So it's a redundant fail safe then? Why remove a failsafe?

I agree Google is a definite global threat, but how are you so sure that ISPs won't begin charging for access to internet content like they do for cable content?

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Well, first of all, bear in mind that cable content involves partnerships between the provider and the content. And even when T-Mobile offers it's Binge On-type services, that's through an agreement as well. The idea that an ISP could just arbitrarily block a given site without being paid a fee and without getting sued to oblivion is silly. Most of what Netflix and stuff is upset about is being asked to pay for specific peering agreements, which is, IMHO, perfectly fine. If Netflix wants optimized networking just for them, they may have to pay extra for it.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>The idea that an ISP could just arbitrarily block a given site without being paid a fee and without getting sued to oblivion is silly. From the summary items listed here[1], NN explicitly bans blocking of websites. If NN is repealed, wouldn't that make it legal? And if it is legal, wouldn't that make any lawsuits against it frovolous? [1]https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/12/392544534/fcc-publishes-full-text-of-net-neutrality-rules https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/12/392544534...
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  The fact that an extraneous law is removed doesn't make everything explicitly banned by it legal. There's already a litany of laws regarding unfair and anticompetitive business practices which have been and will continue to be illegal. I find most net neutrality advocates seem to ignore this entirely. We have existing laws that, appropriately applied by regulations, already would prohibit an ISP from barring access to a competitor's content services.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    So it's a redundant fail safe then? Why remove a failsafe?