5 ms·

Those issues are inherent to competition, not to the infrastructure. The ISPs shouldn't be deciding who gets to stay or go. Their infrastructure should be neutr

Those issues are inherent to competition, not to the infrastructure. The ISPs shouldn't be deciding who gets to stay or go. Their infrastructure should be neutral, just as water pipes don't care if they're going to my house or to a giant industrial corporation that has a stronghold over the steel industry. I think my example is bad. I'll try a slightly better one: My water pipes don't care if they go to my ABC brand dishwasher or another.

treis 9y ago
Why not? Why shouldn't the best usage of a limited resource be determined by who is willing to pay the most money? Does this extend to other industries? Should we force Fedex/UPS to ship at one speed only?
- lovehashbrowns 9y ago
  Because I don't want an ISP to decide how much to charge one service or the other, which ones should be blocked or not blocked, and which services to promote or not promote. They have a monopoly, and a conflict of interest when it comes to services they own (partly or whole). Plus, ISPs can and do charge similar to UPS/Fedex. If you want a higher level of service, faster speed, better hardware, etc. you can pay an ISP for a business package, fiber, etc. That's similar to UPS charging for Overnight Air, 2 day, etc. But UPS can't say "Oh you're Spotify, I'll charge you more to deliver your mail." And there's also the fact that UPS, Fedex, USPS, and DHL all compete with each other, whereas ISPs have literally agreed not to compete with each other and have set up regional monopolies.
  - treis 9y ago
    See this is the problem with the pro NN side. It's littered with factual inaccuracies and outright lies. ISPs, in the US at least, have not agreed to not compete with each other and there's no regional monopolies. The majority of the country has 2 or more broadband providers plus a plethora of wireless and satellite options.
    - lovehashbrowns 9y ago
      Oh! Here are some lies for you: https://www.cnbc.com/2014/05/28/cnbc-exclusive-cnbc-transcript-comcast-chairman-ceo-brian-roberts-speaks-with-cnbcs-squawk-on-the-street-today.html https://www.cnbc.com/2014/05/28/cnbc-exclusive-cnbc-transcri... > ROBERTS: FIRST OF ALL, BOTH IN VIDEO AND IN BROADBAND WE DON'T COMPETE WITH TIME WARNER. WE HAVE TO START WITH THAT VERY FUNDAMENTAL POINT. THEY'RE IN NY. WE'RE IN PHILADELPHIA. THEY'RE IN L.A., WE'RE IN SAN FRANCISCO. YOU CAN'T BUY A COMCAST IN NEW YORK, CAN'T BUY A TIME WARNER IN PHILADELPHIA. SO THERE'S NO REDUCTION IN COMPETITION. Is that by chance? I wonder. Here's a map of competition: https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadband-competition-looks-like-in-map-form/ https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadb... Here's the Department of Commerce's study on competition [PDF]: http://esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/competition-among-us-broadband-service-providers.pdf http://esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/competition-among-us-... > The typical person also has the option of choosing between three mobile broadband service providers at 10 Mbps. At even higher speeds, however, the number of providers drops off dramatically. For example, only 37 percent of the population had a choice of two or more providers at speeds of 25 Mbps or greater; only 9 percent had three or more choices. Moreover, four out of ten Americans did not live where very-high-speed broadband service – 100 Mbps or greater – is available. Of those with access to broadband at this speed level, only 8 percent had access to two or more providers; 1 percent had access to three or more. Only 3 percent of the population had 1 Gbps or greater available; none had two or more ISPs at that speed. And no, satellite and wireless do not count as competition in broadband. Sorry. Wireless is expensive, comes with very small data caps (unless you're lucky enough to be grandfathered into old data plans), and there are NN exceptions in wireless (e.g. TMobile). Satellite comes with low bandwidth, higher latency, and higher costs. Plus, according to the study, YOU'RE the one with inaccuracies. "For example, only 37 percent of the population had a choice of two or more providers at speeds of 25 Mbps or greater" 37% of the population is not a majority. If you have updated stats, please link them. The ideal here is to have 3+ for 98% of the country, with options such as: municipal broadband, Comcast, Google Fiber, and Grande/Sonic/other regional options.
      - treis 9y ago
        From your own cite: >At download speeds of 3 megabits per second (Mbps), which is the Federal Communications Commission’s current approximate standard for basic broadband service, 98 percent of the population had a choice of at least two mobile ISPs and 88 percent had two or more fixed ISPs available to them. And you're doubling down on nonsense. There's no regional agreements not to compete and your quote isn't any proof of it.
- Crespyl 9y ago
  > force Fedex/UPS to ship at one speed only? Certainly not. But we should prevent them from charging 10x the rate for Netflix discs and giving free shipping to Blockbuster.
  - treis 9y ago
    Why not? If Fedex wants to be stupid and charge Netflix exorbitant fees while giving stuff to Blockbuster for free why should we stop them?

treis 9y ago

Why not? Why shouldn't the best usage of a limited resource be determined by who is willing to pay the most money? Does this extend to other industries? Should we force Fedex/UPS to ship at one speed only?

lovehashbrowns 9y ago
Because I don't want an ISP to decide how much to charge one service or the other, which ones should be blocked or not blocked, and which services to promote or not promote. They have a monopoly, and a conflict of interest when it comes to services they own (partly or whole). Plus, ISPs can and do charge similar to UPS/Fedex. If you want a higher level of service, faster speed, better hardware, etc. you can pay an ISP for a business package, fiber, etc. That's similar to UPS charging for Overnight Air, 2 day, etc. But UPS can't say "Oh you're Spotify, I'll charge you more to deliver your mail." And there's also the fact that UPS, Fedex, USPS, and DHL all compete with each other, whereas ISPs have literally agreed not to compete with each other and have set up regional monopolies.
- treis 9y ago
  See this is the problem with the pro NN side. It's littered with factual inaccuracies and outright lies. ISPs, in the US at least, have not agreed to not compete with each other and there's no regional monopolies. The majority of the country has 2 or more broadband providers plus a plethora of wireless and satellite options.
  - lovehashbrowns 9y ago
    Oh! Here are some lies for you: https://www.cnbc.com/2014/05/28/cnbc-exclusive-cnbc-transcript-comcast-chairman-ceo-brian-roberts-speaks-with-cnbcs-squawk-on-the-street-today.html https://www.cnbc.com/2014/05/28/cnbc-exclusive-cnbc-transcri... > ROBERTS: FIRST OF ALL, BOTH IN VIDEO AND IN BROADBAND WE DON'T COMPETE WITH TIME WARNER. WE HAVE TO START WITH THAT VERY FUNDAMENTAL POINT. THEY'RE IN NY. WE'RE IN PHILADELPHIA. THEY'RE IN L.A., WE'RE IN SAN FRANCISCO. YOU CAN'T BUY A COMCAST IN NEW YORK, CAN'T BUY A TIME WARNER IN PHILADELPHIA. SO THERE'S NO REDUCTION IN COMPETITION. Is that by chance? I wonder. Here's a map of competition: https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadband-competition-looks-like-in-map-form/ https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadb... Here's the Department of Commerce's study on competition [PDF]: http://esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/competition-among-us-broadband-service-providers.pdf http://esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/competition-among-us-... > The typical person also has the option of choosing between three mobile broadband service providers at 10 Mbps. At even higher speeds, however, the number of providers drops off dramatically. For example, only 37 percent of the population had a choice of two or more providers at speeds of 25 Mbps or greater; only 9 percent had three or more choices. Moreover, four out of ten Americans did not live where very-high-speed broadband service – 100 Mbps or greater – is available. Of those with access to broadband at this speed level, only 8 percent had access to two or more providers; 1 percent had access to three or more. Only 3 percent of the population had 1 Gbps or greater available; none had two or more ISPs at that speed. And no, satellite and wireless do not count as competition in broadband. Sorry. Wireless is expensive, comes with very small data caps (unless you're lucky enough to be grandfathered into old data plans), and there are NN exceptions in wireless (e.g. TMobile). Satellite comes with low bandwidth, higher latency, and higher costs. Plus, according to the study, YOU'RE the one with inaccuracies. "For example, only 37 percent of the population had a choice of two or more providers at speeds of 25 Mbps or greater" 37% of the population is not a majority. If you have updated stats, please link them. The ideal here is to have 3+ for 98% of the country, with options such as: municipal broadband, Comcast, Google Fiber, and Grande/Sonic/other regional options.
    - treis 9y ago
      From your own cite: >At download speeds of 3 megabits per second (Mbps), which is the Federal Communications Commission’s current approximate standard for basic broadband service, 98 percent of the population had a choice of at least two mobile ISPs and 88 percent had two or more fixed ISPs available to them. And you're doubling down on nonsense. There's no regional agreements not to compete and your quote isn't any proof of it.
Crespyl 9y ago
> force Fedex/UPS to ship at one speed only? Certainly not. But we should prevent them from charging 10x the rate for Netflix discs and giving free shipping to Blockbuster.
- treis 9y ago
  Why not? If Fedex wants to be stupid and charge Netflix exorbitant fees while giving stuff to Blockbuster for free why should we stop them?