3 ms·

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

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.
    - lovehashbrowns 9y ago
      > However, as multiple household members increasingly consume video streaming services music streaming, and online games, the adequate broadband speed bar has been raised. To understand just how slow 3 Mbps is, it takes about 2.25 hours to download a 6 gigabyte movie. The same movie would only take 16 minutes to download at 25 Mbps The FCC later increased their definition: https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-definition-broadband-25mbps https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-defin... We both know 3 Mbps isn't enough these days, and it hasn't been enough for many years. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/comcast-says-its-too-expensive-to-compete-against-other-cable-companies/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/comca... The previous PDF I linked, from their FCC filing, discusses the reasons why they don't compete with each other. Sorry, I'm still stuck at work.
      - treis 9y ago
        Ok, I'm still not sure what your point is here. Even if we use a higher limit my statement that most Americans have at least two companies to choose from is accurate.
        lovehashbrowns 9y ago
        37% is not most, though. And the choice is still between two shitty companies, usually. Right now I have either Time Warner, I think Comcast (haven't checked but probably), and Google Fiber. That, to me, is still not ideal. As I said in my previous comment, the ideal would be two additional options for me: a smaller, regional-based ISP, and a municipal ISP. Prior to Google Fiber, there was no fiber at all here. I had to pay Time Warner $90 for 1/10th of what I get with Google right now. Just two companies is not ideal because, as we have seen before, Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon don't compete enough to improve their infrastructure. We've seen that just Google Fiber alone is enough to get the current ISPs to drop their prices, improve speeds, and get Fiber going: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/04/google-fiber-plans-expansion-then-twc-makes-speeds-six-times-faster/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/04/googl... But that's not enough. Google Fiber isn't ever going to spread enough to become widely available, and I think they stopped altogether, didn't they? Maybe if Google Fiber was planning to roll out everywhere in the US, I'd be more okay with letting NN go but at this point, it's too risky IMO. And I just want to make it clear that the ideal scenario is for competition to determine ISP policies and behavior, not legislation. But we're not getting competition any time soon, so I see legislation as a last resort.

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.
  - lovehashbrowns 9y ago
    > However, as multiple household members increasingly consume video streaming services music streaming, and online games, the adequate broadband speed bar has been raised. To understand just how slow 3 Mbps is, it takes about 2.25 hours to download a 6 gigabyte movie. The same movie would only take 16 minutes to download at 25 Mbps The FCC later increased their definition: https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-definition-broadband-25mbps https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-defin... We both know 3 Mbps isn't enough these days, and it hasn't been enough for many years. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/comcast-says-its-too-expensive-to-compete-against-other-cable-companies/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/comca... The previous PDF I linked, from their FCC filing, discusses the reasons why they don't compete with each other. Sorry, I'm still stuck at work.
    - treis 9y ago
      Ok, I'm still not sure what your point is here. Even if we use a higher limit my statement that most Americans have at least two companies to choose from is accurate.
      - lovehashbrowns 9y ago
        37% is not most, though. And the choice is still between two shitty companies, usually. Right now I have either Time Warner, I think Comcast (haven't checked but probably), and Google Fiber. That, to me, is still not ideal. As I said in my previous comment, the ideal would be two additional options for me: a smaller, regional-based ISP, and a municipal ISP. Prior to Google Fiber, there was no fiber at all here. I had to pay Time Warner $90 for 1/10th of what I get with Google right now. Just two companies is not ideal because, as we have seen before, Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon don't compete enough to improve their infrastructure. We've seen that just Google Fiber alone is enough to get the current ISPs to drop their prices, improve speeds, and get Fiber going: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/04/google-fiber-plans-expansion-then-twc-makes-speeds-six-times-faster/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/04/googl... But that's not enough. Google Fiber isn't ever going to spread enough to become widely available, and I think they stopped altogether, didn't they? Maybe if Google Fiber was planning to roll out everywhere in the US, I'd be more okay with letting NN go but at this point, it's too risky IMO. And I just want to make it clear that the ideal scenario is for competition to determine ISP policies and behavior, not legislation. But we're not getting competition any time soon, so I see legislation as a last resort.