4 ms·

Given all of the proponents of net neutrality's wild ideas for what ISPs would do if net neutrality was abolished were completely and utterly wrong when the Tru

by 0xy 2y ago

Given all of the proponents of net neutrality's wild ideas for what ISPs would do if net neutrality was abolished were completely and utterly wrong when the Trump Administration ended net neutrality, what makes you think this new prediction is accurate? As an example, net neutrality proponents widely predicted that ISPs would begin offering 'bundles' (for example pay separately for social media sites, pay for video sites etc) [1]. None of it happened. It was just a lie. [1] https://blog.flashrouters.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Net-Neutrality-Packages-900x755.png https://blog.flashrouters.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Net... [1] https://i.huffpost.com/gen/1567010/original.jpg https://i.huffpost.com/gen/1567010/original.jpg

ParetoOptimal 2y ago
Is it not a huge regression that the power was given to ISPs to implement this at any time?
- 0xy 2y ago
  No, since that's how peering agreements are supposed to work. Generally speaking, two parties build a peering pipe between each other, let's say it's 100Gbps. All is good. Now, fast forward a few years and this peering line is reaching capacity. Who should pay? Should it be Party A who uses 70% of the capacity or Party B who uses 30% of the capacity? Net neutrality forces Party B to pay, which is totally against the spirit of the internet and these agreements. Net neutrality is nothing more than a corporate handout to freeloading cheapskates like Netflix who started this entire outrage because they refused to pay for peering upgrades (as their peering agreements mandate). Net neutrality literally shifted the cost of upgrading the pipes that were saturated as a direct result of Netflix traffic onto the ISPs, and therefore onto consumers. So customers who NEVER used Netflix are paying more. Strictly speaking, there's nothing stopping AT&T from hiking prices to $499/month in areas they have effective monopolies. They don't. Prices are reasonably competitive even there. You can't invent a doomsday scenario (the world is ending in 2012!) then when it doesn't come to pass you merely adjust the timeframe (the world is ending in 2030 for real this time!). That's what those arguments were, dishonest doomsday predictions which repeatedly failed to come to fruition.
sebstefan 2y ago
Who currently is not a "Proponent of net neutrality"? ISPs? I don't think I've ever met a real human who was against net neutrality. What good would even come from repelling it? You have one side saying terrible things can happen, and your argument for the other side is nothing more than "But it didn't happen... yet!" What's the upside?
- 0xy 2y ago
  Keeping peering/transit/bandwidth costs low by forcing heavy users (Netflix) to pay for what they use. Keeping ISP costs low by allowing ISPs to charge heavy bandwidth users for fatter pipes (which, by the way, is how peering agreements are supposed to work). Net neutrality was a lie pushed by Netflix at a time they didn't want to honor their peering agreements, which mandated that the party using disproportionate amounts of bandwidth on the pipe paid for the upgrade. All of the useful proponents of NN fell in line and lied about the doomsday should it be repealed, none of which remotely came to pass because it was a dishonest argument.
  - sebstefan 2y ago
    That's a free market perspective. It never works They'll extort some money from internet stakeholders and still keep the consumer prices high
afavour 2y ago
Maybe I'm being overly sensitive to this but a prediction that does not come true is not a "lie". It's just a prediction that turned out to be wrong. The first image you linked to literally says "this COULD be the internet without net neutrality". And it's correct, it's exactly the kind of thing net neutrality enables.
- 0xy 2y ago
  What was the basis for making the discredited prediction given it had literally never happened anywhere in the world? It was just invented, the "world is ending in 2012" of arguments.
  - afavour 2y ago
    > What was the basis for making the discredited prediction given That the change in regulation makes it possible when it was previous not possible. Your 2012 comparison doesn’t hold up. IMO that’s the most sensible way to approach something like this, anything else is a value judgment on what you think someone is going to do based on very little. What is now possible that previously was not? That’s the core question. If no one is going to do it, why would they push to change the regulation?

by 0xy 2y ago

ParetoOptimal 2y ago

Is it not a huge regression that the power was given to ISPs to implement this at any time?

0xy 2y ago
No, since that's how peering agreements are supposed to work. Generally speaking, two parties build a peering pipe between each other, let's say it's 100Gbps. All is good. Now, fast forward a few years and this peering line is reaching capacity. Who should pay? Should it be Party A who uses 70% of the capacity or Party B who uses 30% of the capacity? Net neutrality forces Party B to pay, which is totally against the spirit of the internet and these agreements. Net neutrality is nothing more than a corporate handout to freeloading cheapskates like Netflix who started this entire outrage because they refused to pay for peering upgrades (as their peering agreements mandate). Net neutrality literally shifted the cost of upgrading the pipes that were saturated as a direct result of Netflix traffic onto the ISPs, and therefore onto consumers. So customers who NEVER used Netflix are paying more. Strictly speaking, there's nothing stopping AT&T from hiking prices to $499/month in areas they have effective monopolies. They don't. Prices are reasonably competitive even there. You can't invent a doomsday scenario (the world is ending in 2012!) then when it doesn't come to pass you merely adjust the timeframe (the world is ending in 2030 for real this time!). That's what those arguments were, dishonest doomsday predictions which repeatedly failed to come to fruition.

sebstefan 2y ago

Who currently is not a "Proponent of net neutrality"? ISPs? I don't think I've ever met a real human who was against net neutrality. What good would even come from repelling it? You have one side saying terrible things can happen, and your argument for the other side is nothing more than "But it didn't happen... yet!" What's the upside?

0xy 2y ago
Keeping peering/transit/bandwidth costs low by forcing heavy users (Netflix) to pay for what they use. Keeping ISP costs low by allowing ISPs to charge heavy bandwidth users for fatter pipes (which, by the way, is how peering agreements are supposed to work). Net neutrality was a lie pushed by Netflix at a time they didn't want to honor their peering agreements, which mandated that the party using disproportionate amounts of bandwidth on the pipe paid for the upgrade. All of the useful proponents of NN fell in line and lied about the doomsday should it be repealed, none of which remotely came to pass because it was a dishonest argument.
- sebstefan 2y ago
  That's a free market perspective. It never works They'll extort some money from internet stakeholders and still keep the consumer prices high

afavour 2y ago

Maybe I'm being overly sensitive to this but a prediction that does not come true is not a "lie". It's just a prediction that turned out to be wrong. The first image you linked to literally says "this COULD be the internet without net neutrality". And it's correct, it's exactly the kind of thing net neutrality enables.

0xy 2y ago
What was the basis for making the discredited prediction given it had literally never happened anywhere in the world? It was just invented, the "world is ending in 2012" of arguments.
- afavour 2y ago
  > What was the basis for making the discredited prediction given That the change in regulation makes it possible when it was previous not possible. Your 2012 comparison doesn’t hold up. IMO that’s the most sensible way to approach something like this, anything else is a value judgment on what you think someone is going to do based on very little. What is now possible that previously was not? That’s the core question. If no one is going to do it, why would they push to change the regulation?