4 ms·

Imagine the following conversation: Carrier: "You're making money by having access to our customers. You should pay us." Facebook/Youtube/whoever: "You're mak

Imagine the following conversation: Carrier: "You're making money by having access to our customers. You should pay us." Facebook/Youtube/whoever: "You're making money by selling access to our service. You should pay us." [awkward slap-fighting ensues] Seriously, is either of these more true than the other? And if so, is it the other party's fault? I can't see how it's productive to argue about it, tangle it up in financial bargaining, and complicate everything for the users. Carriers and services should focus on doing what they do best and charging a fair price for it, not trying to cast a symbiotic relationship as a parasitic one.

sudont 16y ago
I really think the only solution to this is to classify the internet as a utility, a big dumb pipe. Users need to buy their access and bandwidth, services need to buy access and bandwidth. Simple. The regulation of utilities is to prevent the type of profiteering American ISPs are heading to.
- logic 16y ago
  Who buys the access and bandwidth between service providers? Can you clearly differentiate between a service provider, a content provider, and a user? Steadfastly insisting a nuanced problem is "simple" is a quick way to get poorly-informed legislation.
  - sudont 16y ago
    Why would you use old types for a complete reorganization? Steadfastly insisting complexity is a quick way to obscure the issue.
JoachimSchipper 16y ago
Think more "hey, Ballmer, wouldn't it be nice if Bing enjoyed lower network latency [than Google]? We can make it happen, for a small fee". And the telecoms making out like bandits in the ensuing fight. This can be stopped if Google, Facebook et al. don't "defect", or if a sufficiently strong conglomerate of services blacklists any carrier who tries, but if even Google isn't willing to seriously fight for (mobile) net neutrality, why would anyone else?

sudont 16y ago

I really think the only solution to this is to classify the internet as a utility, a big dumb pipe. Users need to buy their access and bandwidth, services need to buy access and bandwidth. Simple. The regulation of utilities is to prevent the type of profiteering American ISPs are heading to.

logic 16y ago
Who buys the access and bandwidth between service providers? Can you clearly differentiate between a service provider, a content provider, and a user? Steadfastly insisting a nuanced problem is "simple" is a quick way to get poorly-informed legislation.
- sudont 16y ago
  Why would you use old types for a complete reorganization? Steadfastly insisting complexity is a quick way to obscure the issue.

JoachimSchipper 16y ago

Think more "hey, Ballmer, wouldn't it be nice if Bing enjoyed lower network latency [than Google]? We can make it happen, for a small fee". And the telecoms making out like bandits in the ensuing fight. This can be stopped if Google, Facebook et al. don't "defect", or if a sufficiently strong conglomerate of services blacklists any carrier who tries, but if even Google isn't willing to seriously fight for (mobile) net neutrality, why would anyone else?