3 ms·

Here is my simple reasoning: (1) Large internet companies fight feverishly for net neutrality. (2) Based on past experience, it is inconceivable to me that they

Here is my simple reasoning: (1) Large internet companies fight feverishly for net neutrality. (2) Based on past experience, it is inconceivable to me that they would so feverishly fight for the end-users' benefit. (3) Therefore, they fight for the net neutrality because it very beneficial to them. I am guessing there is something inside Internet backbone data transfer that allows these companies to make tons of money/get large subsidies, provided that net neutrality is in place. I would love to understand that it is.

pmontra 3y ago
Or by the same logic: (1) Large ISP companies fight feverishly against net neutrality. (2) Based on past experience, it is inconceivable to me that they would so feverishly fight for the end-users' benefit. (3) Therefore, they fight against net neutrality because ending it is very beneficial to them. (4) If it's so beneficial to them, ending net neutrality is probably not so good for the end-users. Which one?
- g42gregory 3y ago
  I am not sure (2) works in this logic chain. The net neutrality is presented in the infospace as beneficial to the end-users. If ISPs fight against it, they would be fighting against the end-users' benefit. This is not so inconceivable, yes?
  - pmontra 3y ago
    If I remember well they were saying that the extra income from the internet companies would allow them to improve the network and that would benefit end users.
caust1c 3y ago
Last mile service providers were forced to serve traffic generated from any legitimate website. Any traffic induces load on their systems/infrastructure and happens disproportionately based on the service being consumed (e.g. Netflix early days, instagram). So the economic fight of Net Neutrality was based on bandwith-intensive services not paying for transit proportionate to their traffic volume (driven by consumers), and the maintenance cost being borne by the last-mile providers. Allegedly. The problem comes from the fact that last-mile providers are monopolies in just about every place in the USA, meaning that they can already charge whatever they want to the consumer for the bandwidth _they_ consume. ISPs shouldn't be allowed to charge both directions for the single link they own going to buildings. And we don't want every building to have thousands of wires going to it for every new telecommunication company in existance, which is why we have Title II of the Communications Act. By repealing net neutrality it allows last-mile providers (largely owned by major national media corporations) to unfairly compete against new technologies and media companies in the marketplace who's growth was fueled largely in part by requiring equal access to bandwidth.
- g42gregory 3y ago
  Very interesting. Sounds like a complicated issue with lots of trade-offs for various players. Certainly not the impression one might get by reading the news.

pmontra 3y ago

Or by the same logic: (1) Large ISP companies fight feverishly against net neutrality. (2) Based on past experience, it is inconceivable to me that they would so feverishly fight for the end-users' benefit. (3) Therefore, they fight against net neutrality because ending it is very beneficial to them. (4) If it's so beneficial to them, ending net neutrality is probably not so good for the end-users. Which one?

g42gregory 3y ago
I am not sure (2) works in this logic chain. The net neutrality is presented in the infospace as beneficial to the end-users. If ISPs fight against it, they would be fighting against the end-users' benefit. This is not so inconceivable, yes?
- pmontra 3y ago
  If I remember well they were saying that the extra income from the internet companies would allow them to improve the network and that would benefit end users.

caust1c 3y ago

Last mile service providers were forced to serve traffic generated from any legitimate website. Any traffic induces load on their systems/infrastructure and happens disproportionately based on the service being consumed (e.g. Netflix early days, instagram). So the economic fight of Net Neutrality was based on bandwith-intensive services not paying for transit proportionate to their traffic volume (driven by consumers), and the maintenance cost being borne by the last-mile providers. Allegedly. The problem comes from the fact that last-mile providers are monopolies in just about every place in the USA, meaning that they can already charge whatever they want to the consumer for the bandwidth _they_ consume. ISPs shouldn't be allowed to charge both directions for the single link they own going to buildings. And we don't want every building to have thousands of wires going to it for every new telecommunication company in existance, which is why we have Title II of the Communications Act. By repealing net neutrality it allows last-mile providers (largely owned by major national media corporations) to unfairly compete against new technologies and media companies in the marketplace who's growth was fueled largely in part by requiring equal access to bandwidth.

g42gregory 3y ago
Very interesting. Sounds like a complicated issue with lots of trade-offs for various players. Certainly not the impression one might get by reading the news.