6 ms·

By freedom, I assume you are a big supporter of the "Restoring Internet Freedom Order" and can't wait until you can choose to add the YouTube or Netflix package

by fyfy18 8y ago

By freedom, I assume you are a big supporter of the "Restoring Internet Freedom Order" and can't wait until you can choose to add the YouTube or Netflix packages to your internet connection for $20/mo each.

greggyb 8y ago
The sort of freedom referred to has nothing to do with a zero-price. It has to do with the ability of two consenting adults (or we can say "willing parties" if you want) to enter into a transaction to exchange goods or services, or proxies (like dollars). The opposite of such a freedom is not that one party chooses to charge for some of its services, but that one party is prevented from offering such a service.
- tastroder 8y ago
  You mean like... Netflix being prevented from streaming through your ISP (the only one available in your area mind) because Google paid it more to prefer YouTube traffic? The things Americans will frame as freedom of choice will continue to baffle me I guess.
  - q12we34rt5 8y ago
    >You mean like... Netflix being prevented from streaming through your ISP (the only one available in your area mind) because Google paid it more to prefer YouTube traffic? You mean a thing that has literally never happened anywhere in the US? > The things Americans will frame as freedom of choice will continue to baffle me I guess. I understand that you are frustrated with what is happening with this new legislation but it doesn't help you to make up smug fantasies about America just to make yourself feel better. Your energy would be better spent on your own knitting and maybe this kind of thing wouldn't happen.
    - Tade0 8y ago
      You mean a thing that has literally never happened anywhere in the US? This specifically may not have happened, but these things certainly did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17284597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17284597
  - greggyb 8y ago
    Sure, I'll bite. Is Netflix "prevented" or "not preferred". Let's pick our battle before we fight it. But there is some useful grounding here. I use the term consenting adults, but perhaps we should refer to "legal entities". I think it is fair to start from a place where legal entities are allowed to enter into agreements with one another. You are a legal entity. I am a legal entity. Netflix is a legal entity. Google is a legal entity. EI is a legal entity. (I have given the hypothetical ISP in your post a name, Evil ISP.) There's my starting point. Would you like to continue a discussion about this? Please feel free to let me know if you disagree with anything above, and we can start there.
    - tastroder 8y ago
      Apologies if that came out as snarky like the other commenter suggested. It's really a genuine question about that point of view there. >Is Netflix "prevented" or "not preferred". Let's pick our battle before we fight it. See, in my mind these two are, legalese aside, absolutely identical for the consumer. Legalese included I absolutely realize they are the same, why wouldn't they? It's just contracts between legal entities. From the view of a society with states that govern and can, where it benefits or would otherwise hurt society, restrict what entities can put in their contracts I'd say that there are plenty of cases to be made for such restrictions (e.g. worker protections, access to elementary resources, ...). I'm kind of hoping here that we have some common ground there. I feel like our point of disagreement is whether or not governments should be involved in the case of ISPs, right? My point there would be that if one legal entity (consumer) does not have a wide range of choice (ISP), there hardly is any choice to be had and one party can pretty much dictate the terms of their agreement (and a bunch of other arguments for net neutrality others formulated way better). This might really boil down to the question if we personally attribute some societal value to ISPs being a neutral player or pure infrastructure provider I'm afraid. edit: formatting
      - greggyb 8y ago
        No worries. It's the internet. I was hardly snark free, either. So, I have a couple priors. One of these priors is that it is, in general, a good thing to place as few restrictions on actors in society as possible. Not anarchy. Not mindlessly. Just as a general rule of thumb. Something that doesn't need justification on its own, but rather needs a case to be made to go against. Another of these is that, in general, laws and regulations have costs. Enforcement carries cost. Also, we forego the things that are regulated against - rarely are these things pure evil. Sure, there are exceptions. Genocide is pure evil (though there is much room for compassion for those coerced into participating). This gets us down a rabbit hole quickly. So, in general entities should be able to make deals. And adding to legislation that exists is costly (as in "bears cost"). The situation you describe sounds a lot like a monopoly. The nightmare scenario presented in net neutrality is typically "Netflix is blocked because Google paid more to let Youtube through". I think this is categorically different than "Netflix is now more expensive than Youtube is". Especially because the latter sentence is already true. We can disagree here. The case is one of actual blocking. E.g. Google makes some exclusive deal with Comcast, where Comcast does not allow traffic from other streaming video suppliers. This is clearly anticompetitive, and we already have regulation to address it. Comcast and Google would both be blatantly in violation of anti-trust regulations and could be prosecuted. We don't need net neutrality to prevent this. Indeed, there are cases of wholesale blocking of this sort in the past that were dealt with by the FCC without formal net neutrality legislation in place. E.g. Vonage got blocked by an ISP that offered landlines; ISP got smacked. So as I see it, we're left with the case of differential pricing. So it seems to me that net neutrality addresses two primary concerns: true anticompetitive behavior and differential pricing. In the case where services are priced differentially, but all are available, I honestly see very little difference to cable TV. And there seems no inherent reason that all traffic should carry the same price, as it is not the case that all traffic costs the same to an ISP. So what might cause differential pricing? Sure, Google could pay Comcast to discount its services, but that's just a transfer. If Google pays Comcast to make it easier to get to us, well we're making that up to Google somehow. They're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Either we're paying with data and ad impressions, or it's baked into the subscription price. If Google enters a contract with Comcast which has Comcast charge extra for Netflix traffic for no other reason than Netflix competes with Youtube, then we're back in an anticompetitive scenario and don't need net neutrality. But it is reasonable that different traffic costs differently. If Comcast is offering its own streaming service, they can serve that entirely on their own network - no need to use any peering agreements or pay for bandwidth beyond their own infrastructure. If Youtube or Netflix comes from outside of Comcast's network (not always the case - Netflix subsidizes its traffic by offering streaming appliances to ISPs), then that traffic IS more expensive than Comcast's own content. This seems entirely reasonable to price differentially. Ultimately, I would like net neutrality, and would personally benefit from it. Or rather, I would personally have my current state prevented from being negatively impacted, since net neutrality is largely the status quo. I do not fail to see this. But it is an argument that doesn't hold water with me (I am not saying this is your argument, simply that it is a common one). So, I think we may be at a bit of an ideological impasse. If I interpret your response correctly, one of your priors is roughly "if we see an area where we think we can improve things through legislation/regulation, we should". My priors lead me to look askance at new regulation/legislation. I don't see why we need net neutrality, only why we might want it. For me, "need" is the threshold for legislation, not "want". Let me know if I'm off on what I suggested as the two primary issues addressed, or if you have questions on where I'm coming from, or if I seem to be off on interpreting your stance.
czardoz 8y ago
Absolutely. No one is entitled to free content, what's wrong with paying for Netflix/YouTube?
- icebraining 8y ago
  Netflix is already paid.. fyfy18 is talking about paying your ISP for the privilege of accessing Netflix.
  - greggyb 8y ago
    I paid for my car. I still have to pay for gas on a regular basis. I still have to pay tolls on many roads and highways. I paid for a CD once, a long time ago. I still had to pay for electricity for the stereo. And that damn greedy electric company chose to charge me more for listening to it when I wanted to. Sure, I could have played my music from midnight to 6am, to take advantage of my evil utility's lower rates at night, but I chose to listen during the day. That utility was really evil, too. I wanted to install an electrically powered utility in my old house. It was a dryer. But they made me go out and find some third party to "prepare my electrical network" for the product I had already purchased. I had to find an electrician to come and install a 240V circuit in my house. I already pay for electricity, but they couldn't even be arsed to come fix my wiring for me. Don't get me wrong. I love net neutrality. But I don't think my preferences should be enforced upon the entire population. I also hate fishing. I don't care for tripe. But I also don't try to enforce that preference on others. My mother barely uses the internet at her home, but she pays the same price I do. I am a very high bandwidth user. I definitely free-ride on the average user who consumes less bandwidth. It's not fair. I should pay more. But I don't.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      I paid for a CD once, a long time ago. I still had to pay for electricity for the stereo. (...) Irrelevant, you already pay Netflix and your ISP. A better analogy would be: I paid for a stereo, but now I have to pay for listening to it because it's a Sony, whereas I wouldn't if it was a Philips. My mother barely uses the internet at her home, but she pays the same price I do. I am a very high bandwidth user. I definitely free-ride on the average user who consumes less bandwidth. It's not fair. I should pay more. But I don't. Also irrelevant, Net Neutrality doesn't in any way prevent ISPs from charging for the bandwidth you consume. If they don't, it's their decision. It only prevents them from charging more depending on where the bits go.

by fyfy18 8y ago

greggyb 8y ago

The sort of freedom referred to has nothing to do with a zero-price. It has to do with the ability of two consenting adults (or we can say "willing parties" if you want) to enter into a transaction to exchange goods or services, or proxies (like dollars). The opposite of such a freedom is not that one party chooses to charge for some of its services, but that one party is prevented from offering such a service.

tastroder 8y ago
You mean like... Netflix being prevented from streaming through your ISP (the only one available in your area mind) because Google paid it more to prefer YouTube traffic? The things Americans will frame as freedom of choice will continue to baffle me I guess.
- q12we34rt5 8y ago
  >You mean like... Netflix being prevented from streaming through your ISP (the only one available in your area mind) because Google paid it more to prefer YouTube traffic? You mean a thing that has literally never happened anywhere in the US? > The things Americans will frame as freedom of choice will continue to baffle me I guess. I understand that you are frustrated with what is happening with this new legislation but it doesn't help you to make up smug fantasies about America just to make yourself feel better. Your energy would be better spent on your own knitting and maybe this kind of thing wouldn't happen.
  - Tade0 8y ago
    You mean a thing that has literally never happened anywhere in the US? This specifically may not have happened, but these things certainly did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17284597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17284597
- greggyb 8y ago
  Sure, I'll bite. Is Netflix "prevented" or "not preferred". Let's pick our battle before we fight it. But there is some useful grounding here. I use the term consenting adults, but perhaps we should refer to "legal entities". I think it is fair to start from a place where legal entities are allowed to enter into agreements with one another. You are a legal entity. I am a legal entity. Netflix is a legal entity. Google is a legal entity. EI is a legal entity. (I have given the hypothetical ISP in your post a name, Evil ISP.) There's my starting point. Would you like to continue a discussion about this? Please feel free to let me know if you disagree with anything above, and we can start there.
  - tastroder 8y ago
    Apologies if that came out as snarky like the other commenter suggested. It's really a genuine question about that point of view there. >Is Netflix "prevented" or "not preferred". Let's pick our battle before we fight it. See, in my mind these two are, legalese aside, absolutely identical for the consumer. Legalese included I absolutely realize they are the same, why wouldn't they? It's just contracts between legal entities. From the view of a society with states that govern and can, where it benefits or would otherwise hurt society, restrict what entities can put in their contracts I'd say that there are plenty of cases to be made for such restrictions (e.g. worker protections, access to elementary resources, ...). I'm kind of hoping here that we have some common ground there. I feel like our point of disagreement is whether or not governments should be involved in the case of ISPs, right? My point there would be that if one legal entity (consumer) does not have a wide range of choice (ISP), there hardly is any choice to be had and one party can pretty much dictate the terms of their agreement (and a bunch of other arguments for net neutrality others formulated way better). This might really boil down to the question if we personally attribute some societal value to ISPs being a neutral player or pure infrastructure provider I'm afraid. edit: formatting
    - greggyb 8y ago
      No worries. It's the internet. I was hardly snark free, either. So, I have a couple priors. One of these priors is that it is, in general, a good thing to place as few restrictions on actors in society as possible. Not anarchy. Not mindlessly. Just as a general rule of thumb. Something that doesn't need justification on its own, but rather needs a case to be made to go against. Another of these is that, in general, laws and regulations have costs. Enforcement carries cost. Also, we forego the things that are regulated against - rarely are these things pure evil. Sure, there are exceptions. Genocide is pure evil (though there is much room for compassion for those coerced into participating). This gets us down a rabbit hole quickly. So, in general entities should be able to make deals. And adding to legislation that exists is costly (as in "bears cost"). The situation you describe sounds a lot like a monopoly. The nightmare scenario presented in net neutrality is typically "Netflix is blocked because Google paid more to let Youtube through". I think this is categorically different than "Netflix is now more expensive than Youtube is". Especially because the latter sentence is already true. We can disagree here. The case is one of actual blocking. E.g. Google makes some exclusive deal with Comcast, where Comcast does not allow traffic from other streaming video suppliers. This is clearly anticompetitive, and we already have regulation to address it. Comcast and Google would both be blatantly in violation of anti-trust regulations and could be prosecuted. We don't need net neutrality to prevent this. Indeed, there are cases of wholesale blocking of this sort in the past that were dealt with by the FCC without formal net neutrality legislation in place. E.g. Vonage got blocked by an ISP that offered landlines; ISP got smacked. So as I see it, we're left with the case of differential pricing. So it seems to me that net neutrality addresses two primary concerns: true anticompetitive behavior and differential pricing. In the case where services are priced differentially, but all are available, I honestly see very little difference to cable TV. And there seems no inherent reason that all traffic should carry the same price, as it is not the case that all traffic costs the same to an ISP. So what might cause differential pricing? Sure, Google could pay Comcast to discount its services, but that's just a transfer. If Google pays Comcast to make it easier to get to us, well we're making that up to Google somehow. They're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Either we're paying with data and ad impressions, or it's baked into the subscription price. If Google enters a contract with Comcast which has Comcast charge extra for Netflix traffic for no other reason than Netflix competes with Youtube, then we're back in an anticompetitive scenario and don't need net neutrality. But it is reasonable that different traffic costs differently. If Comcast is offering its own streaming service, they can serve that entirely on their own network - no need to use any peering agreements or pay for bandwidth beyond their own infrastructure. If Youtube or Netflix comes from outside of Comcast's network (not always the case - Netflix subsidizes its traffic by offering streaming appliances to ISPs), then that traffic IS more expensive than Comcast's own content. This seems entirely reasonable to price differentially. Ultimately, I would like net neutrality, and would personally benefit from it. Or rather, I would personally have my current state prevented from being negatively impacted, since net neutrality is largely the status quo. I do not fail to see this. But it is an argument that doesn't hold water with me (I am not saying this is your argument, simply that it is a common one). So, I think we may be at a bit of an ideological impasse. If I interpret your response correctly, one of your priors is roughly "if we see an area where we think we can improve things through legislation/regulation, we should". My priors lead me to look askance at new regulation/legislation. I don't see why we need net neutrality, only why we might want it. For me, "need" is the threshold for legislation, not "want". Let me know if I'm off on what I suggested as the two primary issues addressed, or if you have questions on where I'm coming from, or if I seem to be off on interpreting your stance.

czardoz 8y ago

Absolutely. No one is entitled to free content, what's wrong with paying for Netflix/YouTube?

icebraining 8y ago
Netflix is already paid.. fyfy18 is talking about paying your ISP for the privilege of accessing Netflix.
- greggyb 8y ago
  I paid for my car. I still have to pay for gas on a regular basis. I still have to pay tolls on many roads and highways. I paid for a CD once, a long time ago. I still had to pay for electricity for the stereo. And that damn greedy electric company chose to charge me more for listening to it when I wanted to. Sure, I could have played my music from midnight to 6am, to take advantage of my evil utility's lower rates at night, but I chose to listen during the day. That utility was really evil, too. I wanted to install an electrically powered utility in my old house. It was a dryer. But they made me go out and find some third party to "prepare my electrical network" for the product I had already purchased. I had to find an electrician to come and install a 240V circuit in my house. I already pay for electricity, but they couldn't even be arsed to come fix my wiring for me. Don't get me wrong. I love net neutrality. But I don't think my preferences should be enforced upon the entire population. I also hate fishing. I don't care for tripe. But I also don't try to enforce that preference on others. My mother barely uses the internet at her home, but she pays the same price I do. I am a very high bandwidth user. I definitely free-ride on the average user who consumes less bandwidth. It's not fair. I should pay more. But I don't.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    I paid for a CD once, a long time ago. I still had to pay for electricity for the stereo. (...) Irrelevant, you already pay Netflix and your ISP. A better analogy would be: I paid for a stereo, but now I have to pay for listening to it because it's a Sony, whereas I wouldn't if it was a Philips. My mother barely uses the internet at her home, but she pays the same price I do. I am a very high bandwidth user. I definitely free-ride on the average user who consumes less bandwidth. It's not fair. I should pay more. But I don't. Also irrelevant, Net Neutrality doesn't in any way prevent ISPs from charging for the bandwidth you consume. If they don't, it's their decision. It only prevents them from charging more depending on where the bits go.