3 ms·

> I don't agree with what the ISP is doing, but I can rationalize how they think it makes sense. It only makes sense if they perceive no backlash for overreach

> I don't agree with what the ISP is doing, but I can rationalize how they think it makes sense. It only makes sense if they perceive no backlash for overreaching. We need to look closely at what they are currently doing. They're expanding zero rating on mobile, and also on broadband in some areas by claiming that their network is "proprietary technology" and not subject to such net neutrality laws. Meanwhile, municipalities are prevented from building their own networks to compete with regional broadband monopolies. It's internet-highway robbery.

Karrot_Kream 4y ago
I agree with your general point (a lack of competition is why they can get away with double-charging for traffic), though this feels like a theoretical concern as of yet. But you're conflating different ISPs with different types of anti-competitive behavior. Prioritizing non-streaming-service (e.g. throttling Netflix at prime time) packets could, for example, help a regional ISP stay competitive. That's different than the anti-competitive behavior the big ISPs engage in when they lobby governments/help pass laws which _block_ ISP competition in regions like Denver. Different issues with different effects.
- unityByFreedom 4y ago
  > this feels like a theoretical concern as of yet. This was Ajit Pai's argument. That we should regulate nothing until there's a problem. There are two problems with it, (1) It's already a problem. There have been documented examples of ISPs throttling, favoring their own partnered content. Also they are actively expanding or seeking to expand zero rating which is anti-competitive. (2) At the point you actually have a barren landscape in which competitors cannot grow, you've already sucked in a slew of investors on the idea that these monopolies' business models are sound. If the government steps in at that point, they risk being seen as the bad guy for destroying all that investment, which can have political consequences. We can avoid all that by acknowledging the existing problems, and encouraging competition among ISPs. There should be very few people advocating for monopolies, and we outnumber them. > Prioritizing non-streaming-service (e.g. throttling Netflix at prime time) packets could, for example, help a regional ISP stay competitive. That only helps Netflix and that ISP maintain their grip. It's only competitive if by competitive you mean stomping out any new ISP or content provider that is unable to make such agreements.
  - seanp2k2 4y ago
    Check out https://broadbandnow.com/report/dig-once-digital-divide/ https://broadbandnow.com/report/dig-once-digital-divide/ and read up about how PROW’s (public rights-of-ways) work. It’s why even in Silicon Valley in 2022 we’re paying Comcast and can’t get Google or even Verizon FTTH.
- d110af5ccf 4y ago
  > Prioritizing non-streaming-service (e.g. throttling Netflix at prime time) packets could, for example, help a regional ISP stay competitive. No. There are lots of things companies could theoretically do to be more competitive. That doesn't mean those things are good or should be legal. > That's different than the anti-competitive behavior the big ISPs engage in when ... Actually I think the two are tightly coupled. There's a Hetzner article linked to elsewhere in this comment section that does a good job of articulating it. https://web.archive.org/web/20170607120440/https://wiki.hetzner.de/index.php/Double_Paid_Traffic/en https://web.archive.org/web/20170607120440/https://wiki.hetz... > With a cost-neutral peering, each network operator pays for the expansion of its own network itself. Likewise, every network operator shall bear the costs of its own router interfaces at the connections between the networks (peering points). > Large content providers have a strong interest to reach the DSL customers of DPCs with the best possible performance, and therefore are looking for alternatives to congested interfaces between the carriers. These are found usually through direct connections of the major content suppliers to the respective DPCs. At this point, the DPC can use their market position, since as a result of congested interfaces no other carrier can reach the DSL customers of the respective DPCs with sufficient speed. Therefore, the DPC can set prices, free of competition, which interested content providers have to pay to achieve performant connctions to "its" DSL customers. So effectively ISPs are incentivized to neglect peerings that they aren't currently double dipping on in order to use their customers to coerce payment. Note that (unfortunately) DTAG was eventually successful in coercing Hetzner to pay for peering with them. They did this by abusing their customers. It's textbook monopolistic behavior.
  - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
    I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to steelman the argument properly and separate out two different issues. IMO there's room for the FTC to have an "unreasonable use" penalty but otherwise mandate net neutrality. It has to come from the FTC so we need to actually properly regulate telecoms.

Karrot_Kream 4y ago

I agree with your general point (a lack of competition is why they can get away with double-charging for traffic), though this feels like a theoretical concern as of yet. But you're conflating different ISPs with different types of anti-competitive behavior. Prioritizing non-streaming-service (e.g. throttling Netflix at prime time) packets could, for example, help a regional ISP stay competitive. That's different than the anti-competitive behavior the big ISPs engage in when they lobby governments/help pass laws which _block_ ISP competition in regions like Denver. Different issues with different effects.

unityByFreedom 4y ago
> this feels like a theoretical concern as of yet. This was Ajit Pai's argument. That we should regulate nothing until there's a problem. There are two problems with it, (1) It's already a problem. There have been documented examples of ISPs throttling, favoring their own partnered content. Also they are actively expanding or seeking to expand zero rating which is anti-competitive. (2) At the point you actually have a barren landscape in which competitors cannot grow, you've already sucked in a slew of investors on the idea that these monopolies' business models are sound. If the government steps in at that point, they risk being seen as the bad guy for destroying all that investment, which can have political consequences. We can avoid all that by acknowledging the existing problems, and encouraging competition among ISPs. There should be very few people advocating for monopolies, and we outnumber them. > Prioritizing non-streaming-service (e.g. throttling Netflix at prime time) packets could, for example, help a regional ISP stay competitive. That only helps Netflix and that ISP maintain their grip. It's only competitive if by competitive you mean stomping out any new ISP or content provider that is unable to make such agreements.
- seanp2k2 4y ago
  Check out https://broadbandnow.com/report/dig-once-digital-divide/ https://broadbandnow.com/report/dig-once-digital-divide/ and read up about how PROW’s (public rights-of-ways) work. It’s why even in Silicon Valley in 2022 we’re paying Comcast and can’t get Google or even Verizon FTTH.
d110af5ccf 4y ago
> Prioritizing non-streaming-service (e.g. throttling Netflix at prime time) packets could, for example, help a regional ISP stay competitive. No. There are lots of things companies could theoretically do to be more competitive. That doesn't mean those things are good or should be legal. > That's different than the anti-competitive behavior the big ISPs engage in when ... Actually I think the two are tightly coupled. There's a Hetzner article linked to elsewhere in this comment section that does a good job of articulating it. https://web.archive.org/web/20170607120440/https://wiki.hetzner.de/index.php/Double_Paid_Traffic/en https://web.archive.org/web/20170607120440/https://wiki.hetz... > With a cost-neutral peering, each network operator pays for the expansion of its own network itself. Likewise, every network operator shall bear the costs of its own router interfaces at the connections between the networks (peering points). > Large content providers have a strong interest to reach the DSL customers of DPCs with the best possible performance, and therefore are looking for alternatives to congested interfaces between the carriers. These are found usually through direct connections of the major content suppliers to the respective DPCs. At this point, the DPC can use their market position, since as a result of congested interfaces no other carrier can reach the DSL customers of the respective DPCs with sufficient speed. Therefore, the DPC can set prices, free of competition, which interested content providers have to pay to achieve performant connctions to "its" DSL customers. So effectively ISPs are incentivized to neglect peerings that they aren't currently double dipping on in order to use their customers to coerce payment. Note that (unfortunately) DTAG was eventually successful in coercing Hetzner to pay for peering with them. They did this by abusing their customers. It's textbook monopolistic behavior.
- Karrot_Kream 4y ago
  I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to steelman the argument properly and separate out two different issues. IMO there's room for the FTC to have an "unreasonable use" penalty but otherwise mandate net neutrality. It has to come from the FTC so we need to actually properly regulate telecoms.