4 ms·

> Irrelevant, you already pay Netflix and your ISP. What did I pay my ISP for? I can pay for cable television. I can pay extra for HBO, or not. I can only get

> Irrelevant, you already pay Netflix and your ISP. What did I pay my ISP for? I can pay for cable television. I can pay extra for HBO, or not. I can only get NFL Sunday Ticket on DirecTV. Where is the outrage? Why is the coax that comes into my house and hooked up to my cable box less deserving of outrage than the coax that comes into my house and connects to my modem?

icebraining 8y ago
I can pay extra for HBO Exactly! You pay for HBO, like you already pay for Netflix. You don't pay a surcharge to be allowed to pay for HBO.
- greggyb 8y ago
  I can pay Comcast $30 for "basic cable". This brings every piece of equipment and signal into my home necessary to watch any programming that Comcast has to offer. There are no technical limitations, but there is some flag in Comcast's system that indicates I am only allowed to watch the channels included in basic cable. If I want, I can call them up and add the HBO package. With no technical improvement, simply an update to my customer record, I can near-instantly see this content. I cannot purchase cable HBO without paying for basic cable. I have to pay my cable provider a premium for the privilege of paying them for HBO. I could, of course make a contract directly with HBO and stream, though that is theNetflix scenario. I have a dumb wire coming into my house. Depending on the deal I make with my cable provider, I can have different content available by using that wire. My internet is a dumb wire coming into my house. I can make a deal with my ISP to have certain things possible on that wire. I have a customer record. They block certain ports. E.g. I cannot run an email server using my connection. If I purchase a business package, they will update my customer record to indicate such and I get a static IP and can now send email. They are allowed to do this. Both of the above are about dealing with a single entity. So all of these prices are bundled into one payment to one entity. I can purchase or lease content. One way to do this is Netflix. Another would be to purchase media, e.g. a Blu-ray disc. They are mere providers of content. If I want to consume the content I need to purchase a compatible platform. If I lease content from Netflix I need basically any computer and an internet connection. If I purchase a Blu-ray, I need to buy a player of some sort. When I purchase my Blu-ray player, there are license fees baked in there to various patent-holders for the privilege of decoding that disc. It's all bundled up into one price, though, for fees and hardware. The purchase of a Blu-ray player is a completely different transaction with a completely different entity than the creator of the disc. The hardware manufacturer is under no obligation to sell me a player, but they do. They are also under no obligation to make their hardware support multiple formats. Despite this it was very easy to find a VHS-DVD player for a while there. I don't think anyone offers Blu-ray and laserdisc. When I lease my internet connection, that is a different transaction with my ISP, a different entity than the content provider (Netflix). The ISP is under no obligation to offer me a contract to serve all content equally to me, though that has been a common contract for a long time. Among the actors A, B, and C, there is no obligation on C when A and B make an agreement. There is no obligation and should be none on my ISP when I make a deal with Netflix. Similarly there is no obligation between Netflix and me when I make a deal with the ISP. And similarly with the purchased content and the hardware manufacturer. If my ISP (who, as a matter of fact IS my cable provider) charges me like my cable provider, that does not seem terribly unreasonable from a business relationship perspective. All that said, another element of argumentation is that different content providers may subsidize their content. This is, of course, already the case. Netflix gives ISPs streaming boxes for free to optimize delivery of content. A subsidy doesn't have to give cash. I'm sure Google has similar boxes for Youtube content. Now, what of the nightmare scenario? This is where one content provider pays an ISP to not host anyone else's content. Netflix pays Comcast to not support Youtube. This is different than Netflix paying Comcast on behalf of its customers (it already does in the form of its streaming boxes, which reduce load on Comcast's network - that is very much a direct subsidy). Netflix shouldering a cost on behalf of its customers is just a transfer, we would pay for that in the Netflix subscription (and we do! We pay Netflix. Netflix sends boxes to ISP for "free"? No we pay for those streaming boxes which by definition are a subsidy to Comcast). That's fine. Netflix paying Comcast to block a competitor's content? That's different. And if we need to deal with it, we can. Anticompetitive behavior is already something that we have legislation in place to prevent. And we can use that infrastructure in the case that one actor in the market is distorting it. As we did when Intel made exclusive deals with OEMs to block AMD out of deals. As we did when Microsoft bundled IE for free. As has happened in many other cases. Now, all that said, I like net neutrality. Actually, I freaking love it. I want it very badly. It is a good thing for me. I benefit from it. But me wanting something is an insufficient threshold for me to support it as a policy. I would love to pay no taxes for instance. I would be better off if most people were not allowed to drive (so long as I get to be one of the lucky few). I would be better off if a lot of things happened, and vanishingly few of those things are good policy. Now, before the strawman cometh, my argument is this: "I want" or "I receive a specific benefit" is a poor justification on its own for a policy. Similarly "Two of us want" or "two of us receive a specific benefit" is a bad justification. This holds for very large N (certainly more than half of the population - see the case of 51% enslaving 49%). I am not saying that net neutrality is the same as me paying no taxes, or the other items I mentioned. My argument is this: Agreements between party A and party B should not be expected to impose arbitrary obligations on party C. Net neutrality says exactly that: "Because I paid Netflix for a service, Comcast is required to enter into a contract with me to deliver that network traffic to my home" I would be mighty miffed if Comcast forbade me from watching Netflix. Still doesn't mean that I have the right to impose that obligation upon them.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Of course, that "nightmare scenario" is exactly what happens; since Comcast, like every major ISP, is also a huge content producer and distributor - including with their cable service, and with Xfinity On Demand, which is a direct competitor to Netflix - they are distorting the market by charging for access to other services, just like MS did by bundling IE. So you can make an hypothetical argument using a spherical ISP that doesn't follow net neutrality and also doesn't own a content distribution service, but in practice the two can't be separated.
    - greggyb 8y ago
      Where is the nightmare? Before formal net neutrality laws were enacted and since repeal, the vast majority of ISP contracts are unlimited and unmetered. There are instances of violations, and these have pretty much uniformly been handled by the FTC anyway. Again, noncompetitive behavior is covered under existing legislation. But "no extra for Netflix because I like Netflix" is not an argument that carries weight. Charging extra for something that incurs cost is not anticompetitive. Comcast can distribute its own content for much cheaper if everything stays on its backbones and doesn't require peering with other networks. Why the hell shouldn't they be allowed to offer their product for cheaper? Why are existing laws and regulations protecting competition insufficient? Especially in light of FCC rulings that punish anticompetitive behavior even in the absence of formal net neutrality laws.

icebraining 8y ago

I can pay extra for HBO Exactly! You pay for HBO, like you already pay for Netflix. You don't pay a surcharge to be allowed to pay for HBO.

greggyb 8y ago
I can pay Comcast $30 for "basic cable". This brings every piece of equipment and signal into my home necessary to watch any programming that Comcast has to offer. There are no technical limitations, but there is some flag in Comcast's system that indicates I am only allowed to watch the channels included in basic cable. If I want, I can call them up and add the HBO package. With no technical improvement, simply an update to my customer record, I can near-instantly see this content. I cannot purchase cable HBO without paying for basic cable. I have to pay my cable provider a premium for the privilege of paying them for HBO. I could, of course make a contract directly with HBO and stream, though that is theNetflix scenario. I have a dumb wire coming into my house. Depending on the deal I make with my cable provider, I can have different content available by using that wire. My internet is a dumb wire coming into my house. I can make a deal with my ISP to have certain things possible on that wire. I have a customer record. They block certain ports. E.g. I cannot run an email server using my connection. If I purchase a business package, they will update my customer record to indicate such and I get a static IP and can now send email. They are allowed to do this. Both of the above are about dealing with a single entity. So all of these prices are bundled into one payment to one entity. I can purchase or lease content. One way to do this is Netflix. Another would be to purchase media, e.g. a Blu-ray disc. They are mere providers of content. If I want to consume the content I need to purchase a compatible platform. If I lease content from Netflix I need basically any computer and an internet connection. If I purchase a Blu-ray, I need to buy a player of some sort. When I purchase my Blu-ray player, there are license fees baked in there to various patent-holders for the privilege of decoding that disc. It's all bundled up into one price, though, for fees and hardware. The purchase of a Blu-ray player is a completely different transaction with a completely different entity than the creator of the disc. The hardware manufacturer is under no obligation to sell me a player, but they do. They are also under no obligation to make their hardware support multiple formats. Despite this it was very easy to find a VHS-DVD player for a while there. I don't think anyone offers Blu-ray and laserdisc. When I lease my internet connection, that is a different transaction with my ISP, a different entity than the content provider (Netflix). The ISP is under no obligation to offer me a contract to serve all content equally to me, though that has been a common contract for a long time. Among the actors A, B, and C, there is no obligation on C when A and B make an agreement. There is no obligation and should be none on my ISP when I make a deal with Netflix. Similarly there is no obligation between Netflix and me when I make a deal with the ISP. And similarly with the purchased content and the hardware manufacturer. If my ISP (who, as a matter of fact IS my cable provider) charges me like my cable provider, that does not seem terribly unreasonable from a business relationship perspective. All that said, another element of argumentation is that different content providers may subsidize their content. This is, of course, already the case. Netflix gives ISPs streaming boxes for free to optimize delivery of content. A subsidy doesn't have to give cash. I'm sure Google has similar boxes for Youtube content. Now, what of the nightmare scenario? This is where one content provider pays an ISP to not host anyone else's content. Netflix pays Comcast to not support Youtube. This is different than Netflix paying Comcast on behalf of its customers (it already does in the form of its streaming boxes, which reduce load on Comcast's network - that is very much a direct subsidy). Netflix shouldering a cost on behalf of its customers is just a transfer, we would pay for that in the Netflix subscription (and we do! We pay Netflix. Netflix sends boxes to ISP for "free"? No we pay for those streaming boxes which by definition are a subsidy to Comcast). That's fine. Netflix paying Comcast to block a competitor's content? That's different. And if we need to deal with it, we can. Anticompetitive behavior is already something that we have legislation in place to prevent. And we can use that infrastructure in the case that one actor in the market is distorting it. As we did when Intel made exclusive deals with OEMs to block AMD out of deals. As we did when Microsoft bundled IE for free. As has happened in many other cases. Now, all that said, I like net neutrality. Actually, I freaking love it. I want it very badly. It is a good thing for me. I benefit from it. But me wanting something is an insufficient threshold for me to support it as a policy. I would love to pay no taxes for instance. I would be better off if most people were not allowed to drive (so long as I get to be one of the lucky few). I would be better off if a lot of things happened, and vanishingly few of those things are good policy. Now, before the strawman cometh, my argument is this: "I want" or "I receive a specific benefit" is a poor justification on its own for a policy. Similarly "Two of us want" or "two of us receive a specific benefit" is a bad justification. This holds for very large N (certainly more than half of the population - see the case of 51% enslaving 49%). I am not saying that net neutrality is the same as me paying no taxes, or the other items I mentioned. My argument is this: Agreements between party A and party B should not be expected to impose arbitrary obligations on party C. Net neutrality says exactly that: "Because I paid Netflix for a service, Comcast is required to enter into a contract with me to deliver that network traffic to my home" I would be mighty miffed if Comcast forbade me from watching Netflix. Still doesn't mean that I have the right to impose that obligation upon them.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Of course, that "nightmare scenario" is exactly what happens; since Comcast, like every major ISP, is also a huge content producer and distributor - including with their cable service, and with Xfinity On Demand, which is a direct competitor to Netflix - they are distorting the market by charging for access to other services, just like MS did by bundling IE. So you can make an hypothetical argument using a spherical ISP that doesn't follow net neutrality and also doesn't own a content distribution service, but in practice the two can't be separated.
  - greggyb 8y ago
    Where is the nightmare? Before formal net neutrality laws were enacted and since repeal, the vast majority of ISP contracts are unlimited and unmetered. There are instances of violations, and these have pretty much uniformly been handled by the FTC anyway. Again, noncompetitive behavior is covered under existing legislation. But "no extra for Netflix because I like Netflix" is not an argument that carries weight. Charging extra for something that incurs cost is not anticompetitive. Comcast can distribute its own content for much cheaper if everything stays on its backbones and doesn't require peering with other networks. Why the hell shouldn't they be allowed to offer their product for cheaper? Why are existing laws and regulations protecting competition insufficient? Especially in light of FCC rulings that punish anticompetitive behavior even in the absence of formal net neutrality laws.