5 ms·

> also works the other way around: CAROL does not want to pay ALICE to have premium access. As others have mentioned there is no extra "premium" access needed

> also works the other way around: CAROL does not want to pay ALICE to have premium access. As others have mentioned there is no extra "premium" access needed. Netflix pays for their whole upstream, probably a bit extra for redundant uplinks etc. Customers pay for the entire downstream. Everyone in between just have to accept the bits and forward them within reasonable time (Netflix has some caching in the client so it shouldn't be to hard unless someone has oversold their capacity.) > Also, laughable that you call me a shill. I looked at your recent comment history and I agree. That said you really seem to defend an undefendable practice to the point where I understand where people get that idea from. So I'd rather guess you enjoy annoying people on the internet to see them get mad.

matz1 8y ago
The way I see it is net neutrality is very unfair to the isp. It creates unnecessary burden to the isp. Of course Isp will hate it and will fight for it as much as their can.
- deno 8y ago
  Those ISPs can only fight this “burden” by taking advantage of their unfair monopoly. If there was an actual free market competition there would be no need for net neutrality in the first place. BOB could just switch to using DAVE’s ISP service, who would be happy to connect him with CAROL’s AN without any throttling.
  - matz1 8y ago
    Its not the ISP fault if they are the monopoly.
    - deno 8y ago
      Wouldn’t you agree those ISPs are very well compensated for this “burden” by not having to compete?
    - IOT_Apprentice 8y ago
      IT is their fault when they block competition in the marketplace and try anything they can to prevent cities to open up the market to competition.
      - matz1 8y ago
        Its in their best interest to block/prevent competition.
        mmt 8y ago
        Just because an action is in their best interest does not absolve them from the fault of that action. Arguably, one can usually safely assume the opposite.
- reitanqild 8y ago
  What extra burden? They get paid by customer to deliver bits. The only extra burdens I see is the "burden" of 1) not double dipping and 2) not overselling their offerings.
  - matz1 8y ago
    > What extra burden? All the work to make sure it comply with net neutrality.
    - reitanqild 8y ago
      AFAIK in more than one case that has been the burden of: not taking extra steps to throttle Netflix, i.e. the burden of not double dipping. I think few people are arguing that Netflix should get special treatment, only that: * ISPs should treat all bits the same (unless I as the receiver has asked for something else). * ISPs should have enough capacity to serve their customers.
      - matz1 8y ago
        It maybe that case but regardless, net neutrality disadvantage to the isp. Of course they are not happy with it.
        reitanqild 8y ago
        I'd argue that - basic honesty (not pretending they don't get paid) - and not extorting money from other companies by keeping said customers hostage shouldn't be considered a disadvantage?
        notheguyouthink 8y ago
        While your statement of "of course they are not happy with it" is true, it's not a defense in my mind. The same could be said about any regulation that controls indefensible practices of companies. From oil companies, to fishing companies, to waste disposal to whatever, most companies from a purely technical viewpoint would be more than happy to get rid of regulations that control what and how they can do business. Yet, we have those regulations in place for a reason. In this case we simply ask that ISPs deliver the bits we paid for. I don't want Comcast treating my bits differently anymore than I want my mail carrier to hold my packages ransom because they seem important and I'd probably pay more for them. My mail carrier doesn't read my mail. Comcast shouldn't either.

matz1 8y ago

The way I see it is net neutrality is very unfair to the isp. It creates unnecessary burden to the isp. Of course Isp will hate it and will fight for it as much as their can.

deno 8y ago
Those ISPs can only fight this “burden” by taking advantage of their unfair monopoly. If there was an actual free market competition there would be no need for net neutrality in the first place. BOB could just switch to using DAVE’s ISP service, who would be happy to connect him with CAROL’s AN without any throttling.
- matz1 8y ago
  Its not the ISP fault if they are the monopoly.
  - deno 8y ago
    Wouldn’t you agree those ISPs are very well compensated for this “burden” by not having to compete?
  - IOT_Apprentice 8y ago
    IT is their fault when they block competition in the marketplace and try anything they can to prevent cities to open up the market to competition.
    - matz1 8y ago
      Its in their best interest to block/prevent competition.
      - mmt 8y ago
        Just because an action is in their best interest does not absolve them from the fault of that action. Arguably, one can usually safely assume the opposite.
reitanqild 8y ago
What extra burden? They get paid by customer to deliver bits. The only extra burdens I see is the "burden" of 1) not double dipping and 2) not overselling their offerings.
- matz1 8y ago
  > What extra burden? All the work to make sure it comply with net neutrality.
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    AFAIK in more than one case that has been the burden of: not taking extra steps to throttle Netflix, i.e. the burden of not double dipping. I think few people are arguing that Netflix should get special treatment, only that: * ISPs should treat all bits the same (unless I as the receiver has asked for something else). * ISPs should have enough capacity to serve their customers.
    - matz1 8y ago
      It maybe that case but regardless, net neutrality disadvantage to the isp. Of course they are not happy with it.
      - reitanqild 8y ago
        I'd argue that - basic honesty (not pretending they don't get paid) - and not extorting money from other companies by keeping said customers hostage shouldn't be considered a disadvantage?
      - notheguyouthink 8y ago
        While your statement of "of course they are not happy with it" is true, it's not a defense in my mind. The same could be said about any regulation that controls indefensible practices of companies. From oil companies, to fishing companies, to waste disposal to whatever, most companies from a purely technical viewpoint would be more than happy to get rid of regulations that control what and how they can do business. Yet, we have those regulations in place for a reason. In this case we simply ask that ISPs deliver the bits we paid for. I don't want Comcast treating my bits differently anymore than I want my mail carrier to hold my packages ransom because they seem important and I'd probably pay more for them. My mail carrier doesn't read my mail. Comcast shouldn't either.