3 ms·

>> >> If two parties want to communicate with each other, why does it matters which side gets what percentage of the bill? It makes sense for the health of the

>> >> If two parties want to communicate with each other, why does it matters which side gets what percentage of the bill? It makes sense for the health of the network for big companies like Netflix to have business relationships with the ISPs to push the servers closer to the edges. >> ...the issue is that repealing NN enables an ISP to throttle Netflix for users who don't pay more for (for example) a 'Media' plan WITHOUT even needing to make a deal with Netflix. Monopolies then become a problem because certain areas of the US can only get connection with one ISP, so there is no room for them to choose a better option if their only available ISP starts charging through the roof for access to specific websites. These are essentially equivalent statements, no? On the one hand ISPs want Netflix to pay them, and on the other hand ISPs want Netflix to pay them. Again I want to reiterate, for me this is all about the 1st amendment to the Constitution. I would love for the telecom monopolies to get broken up.

wtallis 8y ago
> On the one hand ISPs want Netflix to pay them, and on the other hand ISPs want Netflix to pay them. Not at all. On the one hand, ISPs want Netflix to pay them because Netflix is a source of high traffic volume. On the other hand, ISPs want Netflix to pay them because Netflix is a competitor to their own video services, and Netflix happens to be a source of high traffic volume because it's a better video service for the money. Metered pricing isn't the evil we're trying to prevent, discriminatory pricing is the problem. If it's just metered pricing on the table, then the market will always choose the simpler option of the full bill being paid by the last-mile subscriber, rather than a needlessly complex system of trying to bill at both ends of the network.
- benlorenzetti 8y ago
  I still find the two statements equivalent if you ignore the positive and negative sounding spin. As you point out, the market will always choose the simpler option. How could an ISP have a business relationship with every server in the world, even those not physically being on its fiber? It can't its an explosion of complexity, so an ISP has to discriminate against a couple big, identifiable companies. If the pro net-neutrality position was something to break up the telecom monopolies, I'd be all for it.
  - wtallis 8y ago
    > so an ISP has to discriminate against a couple big, identifiable companies. No, they don't. They already have paying customers, and infrastructure to credit packets to those customers' quota/bill. There's no need to expend any effort tracking the other end of the connections, even if some targets are relatively easy to identify. They have everything they need to bill a responsible party for cost increases due to heavy traffic, without trying to single out (read: extort) companies like Netflix in a monopoly-abusing fashion.
    - benlorenzetti 8y ago
      Why do you think we have a right to interfere in the business and choose how they make money and administer the network? Because they are a monopoly? Then I agree we should break them up. Because they are a utility? Then I agree cities and states should regulate or own them. Federal Net Neutrality does none of these things. What about extremely bloated news sites that clearly spend no effort decreasing data size? Should end customers just pay for that lack of incentive?
      - wtallis 8y ago
        Why are you unwilling to accept any regulatory recourse to monopoly abuse aside from breaking up the monopolies? Last-mile ISPs are always a natural monopoly at the neighborhood level, regardless of whether they are part of a multi-state conglomerate or a local entity. The monopoly needs to be regulated no matter what the larger ownership structure is. Many local governments do not have the capital or technical capability to build, own or operate an ISP, and there are clear advantages to consolidating the ownership and administration of the network, provided that it is still subjected to effective regulation.
        benlorenzetti 8y ago
        So city/state ownership and state level regulation? Sounds good, no first amendment trouble there.

wtallis 8y ago

> On the one hand ISPs want Netflix to pay them, and on the other hand ISPs want Netflix to pay them. Not at all. On the one hand, ISPs want Netflix to pay them because Netflix is a source of high traffic volume. On the other hand, ISPs want Netflix to pay them because Netflix is a competitor to their own video services, and Netflix happens to be a source of high traffic volume because it's a better video service for the money. Metered pricing isn't the evil we're trying to prevent, discriminatory pricing is the problem. If it's just metered pricing on the table, then the market will always choose the simpler option of the full bill being paid by the last-mile subscriber, rather than a needlessly complex system of trying to bill at both ends of the network.

benlorenzetti 8y ago
I still find the two statements equivalent if you ignore the positive and negative sounding spin. As you point out, the market will always choose the simpler option. How could an ISP have a business relationship with every server in the world, even those not physically being on its fiber? It can't its an explosion of complexity, so an ISP has to discriminate against a couple big, identifiable companies. If the pro net-neutrality position was something to break up the telecom monopolies, I'd be all for it.
- wtallis 8y ago
  > so an ISP has to discriminate against a couple big, identifiable companies. No, they don't. They already have paying customers, and infrastructure to credit packets to those customers' quota/bill. There's no need to expend any effort tracking the other end of the connections, even if some targets are relatively easy to identify. They have everything they need to bill a responsible party for cost increases due to heavy traffic, without trying to single out (read: extort) companies like Netflix in a monopoly-abusing fashion.
  - benlorenzetti 8y ago
    Why do you think we have a right to interfere in the business and choose how they make money and administer the network? Because they are a monopoly? Then I agree we should break them up. Because they are a utility? Then I agree cities and states should regulate or own them. Federal Net Neutrality does none of these things. What about extremely bloated news sites that clearly spend no effort decreasing data size? Should end customers just pay for that lack of incentive?
    - wtallis 8y ago
      Why are you unwilling to accept any regulatory recourse to monopoly abuse aside from breaking up the monopolies? Last-mile ISPs are always a natural monopoly at the neighborhood level, regardless of whether they are part of a multi-state conglomerate or a local entity. The monopoly needs to be regulated no matter what the larger ownership structure is. Many local governments do not have the capital or technical capability to build, own or operate an ISP, and there are clear advantages to consolidating the ownership and administration of the network, provided that it is still subjected to effective regulation.
      - benlorenzetti 8y ago
        So city/state ownership and state level regulation? Sounds good, no first amendment trouble there.