4 ms·

The centralization of the web is what worries me. I suppose non-neutral net can contribute to that, but even with a neutral net we've seen extraordinary central

The centralization of the web is what worries me. I suppose non-neutral net can contribute to that, but even with a neutral net we've seen extraordinary centralization around a few major sites. Will neutrality really save us?

matt4077 9y ago
It might not be enough to create exactly the net you want. But yes, net neutrality is strictly better for decentralisation than the alternative. That is because neutrality creates a (somewhat) level playing field. Without it, Facebook could, theoretically, pay Comcast to slow down a new competitor that is just emerging. I say "theoretically", because such an action, if taken overtly, would probably still run afoul of competition law. But there will be other, more subtle, ways to achieve similar results. I would expect the result to be worse for data-heavy and latency-sensitive applications, as well as anything using a non-standard protocol (i. e. peer-to-peer networking etc). It's possible, although not certain, that current service levels might remain accessible for new startups. But any future improvements would be tied to signing contracts with any provider whose customers any new startup would want to reach. Prices will tend to be exactly the value of these customers to the startup, minus one cent–or as close to that as can be measured.
- manquer 9y ago
  They don't need to _slow_ anyone down. They just need to be faster or better connected with the end users with lesser connection drops etc. This all the major players already do with their private networks and CDNs and servers at a global PoPs. No startup without serious muscle can compete with that . In the same vine major players also built and own dedicated DCs , hardware and networking equipment and locate it all over the world, new players can't compete possibly with that anyway. There has never been any level playing field, New players are nimble and more risk friendly and do not have the baggage of existing users , older players have resource advantage and may need to choose between cannibalizing current users for new areas of growth or avoiding the segment all together.
  - rhino369 9y ago
    Netflix especially gets a free "fast lane" at my isps with their Open Connect server. They basically get small ISPs to host, for free, a Netflix only CDN in the ISP's datacenter. That isn't neutral. It is pure favoritism based on Netflix being the 800lbs gorilla.
  - bshacklett 9y ago
    Could you elaborate? It's very easy for a startup, or even a single person to get a CDN distribution up and running with global points of presence, though I don't have much knowledge of the private networks you refer to.
    - manquer 9y ago
      The depth and number of pops that Google and Facebook have is way better, commerical cdns give you some foothold but are not in the same league at all. For example every small isp all over the world will most likely have YouTube caching servers running on their infra likely for free because letting Google do that saves them considerable upstream bandwidth both isp and google benefit, whereas you and I pay .10 to .20 per GB for CDN
zouhair 9y ago
The web is already centralized, most people get their news from Facebook and Twitter.

matt4077 9y ago

It might not be enough to create exactly the net you want. But yes, net neutrality is strictly better for decentralisation than the alternative. That is because neutrality creates a (somewhat) level playing field. Without it, Facebook could, theoretically, pay Comcast to slow down a new competitor that is just emerging. I say "theoretically", because such an action, if taken overtly, would probably still run afoul of competition law. But there will be other, more subtle, ways to achieve similar results. I would expect the result to be worse for data-heavy and latency-sensitive applications, as well as anything using a non-standard protocol (i. e. peer-to-peer networking etc). It's possible, although not certain, that current service levels might remain accessible for new startups. But any future improvements would be tied to signing contracts with any provider whose customers any new startup would want to reach. Prices will tend to be exactly the value of these customers to the startup, minus one cent–or as close to that as can be measured.

manquer 9y ago
They don't need to _slow_ anyone down. They just need to be faster or better connected with the end users with lesser connection drops etc. This all the major players already do with their private networks and CDNs and servers at a global PoPs. No startup without serious muscle can compete with that . In the same vine major players also built and own dedicated DCs , hardware and networking equipment and locate it all over the world, new players can't compete possibly with that anyway. There has never been any level playing field, New players are nimble and more risk friendly and do not have the baggage of existing users , older players have resource advantage and may need to choose between cannibalizing current users for new areas of growth or avoiding the segment all together.
- rhino369 9y ago
  Netflix especially gets a free "fast lane" at my isps with their Open Connect server. They basically get small ISPs to host, for free, a Netflix only CDN in the ISP's datacenter. That isn't neutral. It is pure favoritism based on Netflix being the 800lbs gorilla.
- bshacklett 9y ago
  Could you elaborate? It's very easy for a startup, or even a single person to get a CDN distribution up and running with global points of presence, though I don't have much knowledge of the private networks you refer to.
  - manquer 9y ago
    The depth and number of pops that Google and Facebook have is way better, commerical cdns give you some foothold but are not in the same league at all. For example every small isp all over the world will most likely have YouTube caching servers running on their infra likely for free because letting Google do that saves them considerable upstream bandwidth both isp and google benefit, whereas you and I pay .10 to .20 per GB for CDN

zouhair 9y ago

The web is already centralized, most people get their news from Facebook and Twitter.