4 ms·

>> Even without the Title II rules, the FCC still has the very legal power you object to; it is simply choosing not to exercise that power. The law as it is cur

>> Even without the Title II rules, the FCC still has the very legal power you object to; it is simply choosing not to exercise that power. The law as it is currently written allows the FCC to change the classification of ISPs back to Title II by following the same process used by Pai to reclassify ISPs under Title I. The courts found that the FCC had acted appropriately and within their power when ISPs were reclassified as Title II services. If you think that power is not something the FCC has then the burden is on you to change the law (good luck). Exercising the legal power I object to is something I object to. It is on me to object and bring up my opinions in the forum in which this is being debated. >>"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" >> That has nothing to do with net neutrality. How can an ISP get Netflix to pay it, or lean on Netflix to install new servers in their network, if it is illegal to use their own bargaining position? >>"The main argument for net neutrality is they are monopolies so we should beat them up" >>No, the argument is that the utility of the Internet to society as a whole is maximized by neutrality and that the benefits far outweigh the cost of possibly lower ISP profits. It makes no difference if net neutrality is achieved by a regulation or by a competitive market, but for the vast majority of Americans there is no competitive market for ISPs. If you think a competitive ISP market is better than regulating a specific outcome, you need to have some proposal for setting up that market -- for example, re-instating the line-sharing requirements that gave rise to a competitive DSL market in the late 90s (a market which completely disappeared when those requirements were rescinded). So we agree that, 1) ISPs are monopolies, 2) monopolies find ways to abuse their power, 3) regulation could help achieve net neutrality. However, I do not agree that the current "net neutrality" situation is so bad so as to require a stopgap fix and I definitely do not think the federal government should be the level of government doing the fixing.

wtallis 8y ago
> How can an ISP get Netflix to pay it, or lean on Netflix to install new servers in their network, if it is illegal to use their own bargaining position? ISPs don't have to lean on Netflix to install CDN nodes within the ISP's network. If Netflix finds that it's cheaper for them to do so rather than buy transit to the last-mile ISPs from Netflix's existing ISPs, then Netflix will come to those ISP's offering money and begging for the rack space. If, on the other hand, it turns out that Netflix doesn't need the low latency that CDN nodes afford and that they can more cheaply obtain the necessary bandwidth indirectly through Level3, etc., then the last-mile ISPs should not be empowered to distort that market outcome.
- benlorenzetti 8y ago
  So lets say the ISP does not have a business relationship with either Netflix (because its illegal under net-neutrality) or with Netflix's existing ISPs because there are others in between. But the path used to route movie packets is expensive. How does the ISP lean on Netflix to pay for its part of their operating costs?
  - wtallis 8y ago
    > How does the ISP lean on Netflix to pay for its part of their operating costs? They don't. It's purely your accounting fiction that is attributing those costs to Netflix instead of to the ISP's customers who are using Netflix. If streaming video increases the ISP's operating costs, they can simply increase prices, preferably through a fair metered usage model that can address all of the video streaming usage costs together, instead of just the Netflix costs.
    - benlorenzetti 8y ago
      So if data from company A costs the ISP more that the same quantity of data from company B to get a hold of, how ultimately should this cost be passed on? Separate metering for end users? Targeted agreements with large hosts? Same metering for all, screw those who are frugal with packets.
      - wtallis 8y ago
        > So if data from company A costs the ISP more that the same quantity of data from company B to get a hold of, Expand that hypothetical a bit more, so that we can determine if the situation you're asking about is one that ever happens in the real world. Are you asking about traffic imbalances at peering points? If so, the agreements in those cases are between ISPs and do not include end users like Netflix as a party to the negotiations or payments. The primary purpose of an ISP is to ensure that their subscribers don't have to worry about whose lines their packets might travel on to get to their destination.

wtallis 8y ago

> How can an ISP get Netflix to pay it, or lean on Netflix to install new servers in their network, if it is illegal to use their own bargaining position? ISPs don't have to lean on Netflix to install CDN nodes within the ISP's network. If Netflix finds that it's cheaper for them to do so rather than buy transit to the last-mile ISPs from Netflix's existing ISPs, then Netflix will come to those ISP's offering money and begging for the rack space. If, on the other hand, it turns out that Netflix doesn't need the low latency that CDN nodes afford and that they can more cheaply obtain the necessary bandwidth indirectly through Level3, etc., then the last-mile ISPs should not be empowered to distort that market outcome.

benlorenzetti 8y ago
So lets say the ISP does not have a business relationship with either Netflix (because its illegal under net-neutrality) or with Netflix's existing ISPs because there are others in between. But the path used to route movie packets is expensive. How does the ISP lean on Netflix to pay for its part of their operating costs?
- wtallis 8y ago
  > How does the ISP lean on Netflix to pay for its part of their operating costs? They don't. It's purely your accounting fiction that is attributing those costs to Netflix instead of to the ISP's customers who are using Netflix. If streaming video increases the ISP's operating costs, they can simply increase prices, preferably through a fair metered usage model that can address all of the video streaming usage costs together, instead of just the Netflix costs.
  - benlorenzetti 8y ago
    So if data from company A costs the ISP more that the same quantity of data from company B to get a hold of, how ultimately should this cost be passed on? Separate metering for end users? Targeted agreements with large hosts? Same metering for all, screw those who are frugal with packets.
    - wtallis 8y ago
      > So if data from company A costs the ISP more that the same quantity of data from company B to get a hold of, Expand that hypothetical a bit more, so that we can determine if the situation you're asking about is one that ever happens in the real world. Are you asking about traffic imbalances at peering points? If so, the agreements in those cases are between ISPs and do not include end users like Netflix as a party to the negotiations or payments. The primary purpose of an ISP is to ensure that their subscribers don't have to worry about whose lines their packets might travel on to get to their destination.