3 ms·

One challenge with "net neutrality" is everyone has their own working definition. My bro is the head tech guy for a cable company. He opposes "net neutrality".

One challenge with "net neutrality" is everyone has their own working definition. My bro is the head tech guy for a cable company. He opposes "net neutrality". For B2B reasons. For him, it's about interconnect fees and fairness. Something like they build the pipes and someone, let's say TikTok, hogs all the bandwidth without paying their fair share. I have no idea if my bro's narrative makes any sense. My bro also believes The Flintstones is a documentary (creationist). So I usually just smile and nod along when he starts to rant about something. Whereas my understanding is closer to what you've stated; net neutrality is a B2C policy issue. Whatever the case, my bro and myself, with our very different understandings and priorities, have no overlap in our positions.

amaranth 4y ago
TikTok is paying their ISP, that's who you'd look at to fund upgrades to the interconnect. Wanting to charge TikTok or the users of TikTok is just looking for a way to double dip. Or, more likely, a way for them to deprioritize YouTube TV so their own streaming live TV service looks better.
travisjungroth 4y ago
> let's say TikTok, hogs all the bandwidth without paying their fair share. I’m biased in that I work at a company that uses a lot of bandwidth. My opinions are my own. Companies like TikTok pay their fair share. They pay their provider to take their bytes. Their provider pays one of the “big pipe” companies and passes the bytes along. Then they pass it along and charge your bro’s company. Then your bro’s company passes it along and chargers the consumer. This is oversimplified, but it’s the general flow. What your bro wants to do is skip the line. It’s not enough to charge consumers, he wants to charge the companies, or the consumers more depending on the company. It’s like UPS opening up your package, seeing there are Nikes in there and wanting to charge either you or Nike extra. You’re already paying for delivery.
- orlp 4y ago
  It's all smoke and mirrors. The real problem is that ISPs sell the very same thing to multiple people for full price, and when things break because multiple people want to use the thing they paid for at the same time they blame you for taking more than your 'fair share'. That is the disconnect. In their mind you are 'sharing' with all the other people that bought the same thing, whereas you believe you were the only one that bought what they said they would sell you, like any other purchase works.
  - specialist 4y ago
    Thanks y'all. The "B2B anti net neutrality" (my phrase) position didn't make any sense to me. But what do I know? I imagine lobbyists buffaloing your average elected representative. It's a compelling story. Even if it's untrue.

amaranth 4y ago

TikTok is paying their ISP, that's who you'd look at to fund upgrades to the interconnect. Wanting to charge TikTok or the users of TikTok is just looking for a way to double dip. Or, more likely, a way for them to deprioritize YouTube TV so their own streaming live TV service looks better.

travisjungroth 4y ago

> let's say TikTok, hogs all the bandwidth without paying their fair share. I’m biased in that I work at a company that uses a lot of bandwidth. My opinions are my own. Companies like TikTok pay their fair share. They pay their provider to take their bytes. Their provider pays one of the “big pipe” companies and passes the bytes along. Then they pass it along and charge your bro’s company. Then your bro’s company passes it along and chargers the consumer. This is oversimplified, but it’s the general flow. What your bro wants to do is skip the line. It’s not enough to charge consumers, he wants to charge the companies, or the consumers more depending on the company. It’s like UPS opening up your package, seeing there are Nikes in there and wanting to charge either you or Nike extra. You’re already paying for delivery.

orlp 4y ago
It's all smoke and mirrors. The real problem is that ISPs sell the very same thing to multiple people for full price, and when things break because multiple people want to use the thing they paid for at the same time they blame you for taking more than your 'fair share'. That is the disconnect. In their mind you are 'sharing' with all the other people that bought the same thing, whereas you believe you were the only one that bought what they said they would sell you, like any other purchase works.
- specialist 4y ago
  Thanks y'all. The "B2B anti net neutrality" (my phrase) position didn't make any sense to me. But what do I know? I imagine lobbyists buffaloing your average elected representative. It's a compelling story. Even if it's untrue.