4 ms·

LOL that's not what's going to happen here. You're right Google and Netflix et al will cut a deal with the major US ISPs to get their traffic delivered, they h

LOL that's not what's going to happen here. You're right Google and Netflix et al will cut a deal with the major US ISPs to get their traffic delivered, they have the money to do so. But innovation... the next up and coming netflix (or any other data heavy service) isn't going to have a good time. Start-ups can't afford to pay for the same as rich incumbants, so they have no chance. Why would a US ISP agree to carry a data heavy service without recompense now, when they can charge incumbants with deep pockets for the same bandwidth. This seems very likely to hurt innovation , not help it.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
The mistaken concept that startups would have to pay "for the same" seems to hinge on not understanding that bandwidth cost is relative to bandwidth use. Nobody else even sits on the same order of magnitude as Google and Netflix: These are the only two companies who will need to pay extra. (Combined, Google and Netflix together account for up to 70-80% of all US Internet traffic.) If anyone else was ever to be charged extra, comparatively, it would be ridiculously minimal in comparison.
- munk-a 9y ago
  You are working on an assumption that any charges would be based off of usage in a logical manner. In reality Netflix might offer to pay a little more to comcast if comcast is willing to up the costs on their competitors, or other such arrangement. The problem with removing NN is that we're inviting oli/monolopy forming to occur, which the free market cannot deal with.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Title II actually exempts telecoms from FTC regulation. Rather than pushing for special-cased laws to mandate how the Internet is operated (which bans a lot of things I don't think are justifiable to actually ban), we should be pushing for a reawakening of antitrust enforcement. Anticompetitive behavior is already illegal, and the tools already exist, in law, to deal with it. Let's get the FTC back in the business of busting up monopolies and fining anticompetitive behavior, regardless of what industry they are. Anticompetitive behavior is a problem that exists well beyond just telecoms, and getting back into trustbusting would do wonders across the board for consumers. Google, one of net neutrality's principal backers, obviously is not fond of this approach.
- tzs 9y ago
  You appear to be overlooking that the ISP's customers already pay the ISP for bandwidth. I pay Comcast for 1 TB/month. Why should Comcast be allowed to say that I cannot use some of my 1 TB/month on Netflix and Google unless Netflix and Google (who are NOT customers of Comcast) pay Comcast?
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    I'm certainly not 'overlooking' it. I just don't find it particularly compelling of an argument. A business can certainly charge on both the downstream and upstream ends of their own network if they so choose. As long as they aren't operating in an anticompetitive fashion, of course. And while Google is much less public about their special peering agreements and CDN setups, Netflix is pretty public, so let's talk about Netflix Open Connect. Netflix Open Connect boxes are hosted "at no charge to the ISP" at various ISPs, as if it's a charitable offering. https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ But essentially, Open Connect boxes are colocated. If anyone but Netflix were to ask for free colocation, they'd get laughed right out of the room. A startup trying to compete with Netflix could never get what Netflix gets for free. Net neutrality effectively removes Comcast's negotiating power to demand Netflix pays for the service, because things like throttling their peering traffic isn't allowed. The irony is, in this instance, net neutrality is actually granting Netflix an exclusive advantage (by the nature of their size and customer demand for them) that smaller players can't hope to match. Once again, net neutrality regulations help big monopolies and hurt smaller players.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Isn't this kind of arbitrary? You frame it as "paying twice". What about the framing that you're normally "paying half"? If Comcast had Google's margins, we could argue that they're pricing unfairly. But Alphabet has 2-3x Comcast's profit margins. I feel about this argument the way I feel about militancy over airline baggage handling fees. Sure: it's obnoxious. But the airlines used to bake that directly into the fare. I'm not saying Comcast should hold other video services for ransom; I'm just pointing out an oddity of the argument you're using.
    - 9y ago
- raesene9 9y ago
  Nope that's not a mistaken understanding on my part at all. Obviously you pay for what you use. but say a start-up starts blowing up and in the way of things isn't making money yet (as many early stage start-ups don't) If their niche happens to be a bandwidth heavy one the ISPs can and probably will start levying charges on them as they grow, which the start-up will be in a poor position to pay. and that doesn't even touch on the possibly anti-competitive aspect. Say an ISP has a competing service, do you really think they won't try to throttle start-ups in that area using bandwidth charging? Given that US ISPs already have a record of doing exactly that.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    First of all, Google and Netflix together are around 80% of all bandwidth use. The amount of cost on them is so insurmountably higher, by the time anyone could ever rival their bills, they would be in a better position to pay it. And it doesn't have to touch on the anti-competitive aspect: The FCC is not an antitrust regulator. The FTC is. And revoking Title II places ISPs back under the FTC's purview. Anticompetitive behavior should be addressed by the agency charged with ensuring competition.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

The mistaken concept that startups would have to pay "for the same" seems to hinge on not understanding that bandwidth cost is relative to bandwidth use. Nobody else even sits on the same order of magnitude as Google and Netflix: These are the only two companies who will need to pay extra. (Combined, Google and Netflix together account for up to 70-80% of all US Internet traffic.) If anyone else was ever to be charged extra, comparatively, it would be ridiculously minimal in comparison.

munk-a 9y ago
You are working on an assumption that any charges would be based off of usage in a logical manner. In reality Netflix might offer to pay a little more to comcast if comcast is willing to up the costs on their competitors, or other such arrangement. The problem with removing NN is that we're inviting oli/monolopy forming to occur, which the free market cannot deal with.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Title II actually exempts telecoms from FTC regulation. Rather than pushing for special-cased laws to mandate how the Internet is operated (which bans a lot of things I don't think are justifiable to actually ban), we should be pushing for a reawakening of antitrust enforcement. Anticompetitive behavior is already illegal, and the tools already exist, in law, to deal with it. Let's get the FTC back in the business of busting up monopolies and fining anticompetitive behavior, regardless of what industry they are. Anticompetitive behavior is a problem that exists well beyond just telecoms, and getting back into trustbusting would do wonders across the board for consumers. Google, one of net neutrality's principal backers, obviously is not fond of this approach.
tzs 9y ago
You appear to be overlooking that the ISP's customers already pay the ISP for bandwidth. I pay Comcast for 1 TB/month. Why should Comcast be allowed to say that I cannot use some of my 1 TB/month on Netflix and Google unless Netflix and Google (who are NOT customers of Comcast) pay Comcast?
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  I'm certainly not 'overlooking' it. I just don't find it particularly compelling of an argument. A business can certainly charge on both the downstream and upstream ends of their own network if they so choose. As long as they aren't operating in an anticompetitive fashion, of course. And while Google is much less public about their special peering agreements and CDN setups, Netflix is pretty public, so let's talk about Netflix Open Connect. Netflix Open Connect boxes are hosted "at no charge to the ISP" at various ISPs, as if it's a charitable offering. https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ But essentially, Open Connect boxes are colocated. If anyone but Netflix were to ask for free colocation, they'd get laughed right out of the room. A startup trying to compete with Netflix could never get what Netflix gets for free. Net neutrality effectively removes Comcast's negotiating power to demand Netflix pays for the service, because things like throttling their peering traffic isn't allowed. The irony is, in this instance, net neutrality is actually granting Netflix an exclusive advantage (by the nature of their size and customer demand for them) that smaller players can't hope to match. Once again, net neutrality regulations help big monopolies and hurt smaller players.
- tptacek 9y ago
  Isn't this kind of arbitrary? You frame it as "paying twice". What about the framing that you're normally "paying half"? If Comcast had Google's margins, we could argue that they're pricing unfairly. But Alphabet has 2-3x Comcast's profit margins. I feel about this argument the way I feel about militancy over airline baggage handling fees. Sure: it's obnoxious. But the airlines used to bake that directly into the fare. I'm not saying Comcast should hold other video services for ransom; I'm just pointing out an oddity of the argument you're using.
  - 9y ago
raesene9 9y ago
Nope that's not a mistaken understanding on my part at all. Obviously you pay for what you use. but say a start-up starts blowing up and in the way of things isn't making money yet (as many early stage start-ups don't) If their niche happens to be a bandwidth heavy one the ISPs can and probably will start levying charges on them as they grow, which the start-up will be in a poor position to pay. and that doesn't even touch on the possibly anti-competitive aspect. Say an ISP has a competing service, do you really think they won't try to throttle start-ups in that area using bandwidth charging? Given that US ISPs already have a record of doing exactly that.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  First of all, Google and Netflix together are around 80% of all bandwidth use. The amount of cost on them is so insurmountably higher, by the time anyone could ever rival their bills, they would be in a better position to pay it. And it doesn't have to touch on the anti-competitive aspect: The FCC is not an antitrust regulator. The FTC is. And revoking Title II places ISPs back under the FTC's purview. Anticompetitive behavior should be addressed by the agency charged with ensuring competition.