3 ms·

You're asserting something without offering any evidence for it - I would like you to explain why people should believe you.

by ikeboy 9y ago

shmerl 9y ago
Comcast opposed NN before. What other evidence do you need? They never hid the fact. They violated it multiple times, from BitTorrent throttling, to data caps, zero rating and interconnection shenanigans, and they clearly benefit from not letting strong NN protections be in place. So when they suddenly come out in support of something they call NN, if you don't see foul play, then you simply didn't pay any attention.
- ikeboy 9y ago
  You mention 4 things, but only one is a NN violation and it was from a decade ago.
  - shmerl 9y ago
    All of these are NN violations, or related to it. The goal of Comcast in violating NN is not just abstract violation of it, their goal is harming competition, and giving themselves an unfair advantage. The core of the problem is that besides owning the physical network, they are also media company. So their direct competitors are video services for instance. Comcast try to raise the price of those services for users (and thus pushing them to use Comcast's own ones instead), by combining usage of data caps (which have no technical need and are purely fleecing / anti-competitive tool) in combination with zero rating, i.e. excluding their own services from data caps. Users have to pay extra to avoid data caps. That basically taxes users who prefer their competitors. Another method they use is interconnection starvation. That simply degrades the quality of competing services, again pushing users to use Comcast's ones. NN is relevant here (in addition to regular anti-trust of course), because Comcast are giving preferential treatment to their own traffic, while punishing competitors with data caps and bad interconnection. So, we established that Comcast clearly violate principles of NN, and can't be interested in the least in codifying proper NN law.
    - ikeboy 9y ago
      This is an extremely disingenuous argument. First you point out that data caps have no technical need. Something else that isn't required technically: charging for service. Would you say that the fact they charge to use their services means they're anti competitive? Zero rating was not included in the 2015 Order that was repealed - it was always legal.
      - shmerl 9y ago
        What I find disingenuous, are attempts to whitewash abusive monopolistic behavior like data caps or claims that zero rating is not violating net neutrality.

You're asserting something without offering any evidence for it - I would like you to explain why people should believe you.

by ikeboy 9y ago

You're asserting something without offering any evidence for it - I would like you to explain why people should believe you.

shmerl 9y ago

Comcast opposed NN before. What other evidence do you need? They never hid the fact. They violated it multiple times, from BitTorrent throttling, to data caps, zero rating and interconnection shenanigans, and they clearly benefit from not letting strong NN protections be in place. So when they suddenly come out in support of something they call NN, if you don't see foul play, then you simply didn't pay any attention.

ikeboy 9y ago
You mention 4 things, but only one is a NN violation and it was from a decade ago.
- shmerl 9y ago
  All of these are NN violations, or related to it. The goal of Comcast in violating NN is not just abstract violation of it, their goal is harming competition, and giving themselves an unfair advantage. The core of the problem is that besides owning the physical network, they are also media company. So their direct competitors are video services for instance. Comcast try to raise the price of those services for users (and thus pushing them to use Comcast's own ones instead), by combining usage of data caps (which have no technical need and are purely fleecing / anti-competitive tool) in combination with zero rating, i.e. excluding their own services from data caps. Users have to pay extra to avoid data caps. That basically taxes users who prefer their competitors. Another method they use is interconnection starvation. That simply degrades the quality of competing services, again pushing users to use Comcast's ones. NN is relevant here (in addition to regular anti-trust of course), because Comcast are giving preferential treatment to their own traffic, while punishing competitors with data caps and bad interconnection. So, we established that Comcast clearly violate principles of NN, and can't be interested in the least in codifying proper NN law.
  - ikeboy 9y ago
    This is an extremely disingenuous argument. First you point out that data caps have no technical need. Something else that isn't required technically: charging for service. Would you say that the fact they charge to use their services means they're anti competitive? Zero rating was not included in the 2015 Order that was repealed - it was always legal.
    - shmerl 9y ago
      What I find disingenuous, are attempts to whitewash abusive monopolistic behavior like data caps or claims that zero rating is not violating net neutrality.