4 ms·

> rich get preferential treatment It's comments like these that make me not like net neutrality. There is no way you are going to stop people who spend more m

> rich get preferential treatment It's comments like these that make me not like net neutrality. There is no way you are going to stop people who spend more money from being able to enjoy better Internet connections. On the other hand, ISPs ought to be stopped, in general, from discriminating against traffic based on a) their desire to sell their own service that competes with it, or b) who you are connecting to.

smtddr 13y ago
I'm not sure I see a difference between your position and the position of the person you're replying. What you're saying is basically how I translated zem's comment in my mind. When he said "rich", I assumed the rich people who own the ISPs(or are friends of the owners) altering QoS for different sites/services. Or maybe I'm projecting my own thoughts onto zem's comment.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  >When he said "rich", I assumed the rich people who own the ISPs Your interpretation is ... strange. The big telecoms are publicly owned. So those "rich people who own the ISPs" are shareholders? I'm pretty sure zem referred to "rich" and "poor" consumers of internet services. Not telecoms, not corporations.
  - zem 13y ago
    actually, i was referring to producers - consumers are mostly affected by net neutrality due to what they do and do not get access to (as gated by the isps). however, with net neutrality thrown out of the door netflix can afford to pay for "up bandwidth", but e.g. a small competitor would be pushed out of the market.
atmosx 13y ago
> It's comments like these that make me not like net neutrality. There is no way you are going to stop people who spend more money from being able to enjoy better Internet connections. Agreed, so there's no need to give them more ways to enhance their advantage. They are too far ahead already. Because that's what is all about...
Daniel_Newby 13y ago
Why should ISP 's be stopped from discriminating? A company that blocked Google would find its competitor's saturation bombing ads for "Google compatible" Internet service. Followed by the tort lawyers saturation bombing ads for class action lawsuits alleging breach of contract and tortious interference in contracts.
- zem 13y ago
  right, but a company who blocked a startup competing with google would face next to no backlash, while (if they were big enough) severely disadvantaging said startup. heck, it doesn't take blocking - what if google loaded in 0.05 seconds and duckduckgo loaded in 1 second? i'm pretty sure that would push most of the users google's way.
  - jackgavigan 13y ago
    This, right here, is the real danger - that relinquishing net neutrality will end up stifling competition and, thus, innovation. You can't prioritise some packets without disadvantaging others. Unless the rules were crafted very, very carefully (and, let's face it, do we really think that would happen), I could easily envisage major connectivity providers auctioning off a handful of "prime video streamer" slots to companies like YouTube and Netflix, leaving other companies' services unusable. And that's just what I can imagine - the unintended consequences that I can't imagine are potentially far, far worse. We got from 14.4k dial-up to multi-megabit always-on broadband (both fixed-line AND mobile) without compromising on net neutrality. The potential disadvantages far outweigh the claimed advantages.
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  What competitor?

smtddr 13y ago

I'm not sure I see a difference between your position and the position of the person you're replying. What you're saying is basically how I translated zem's comment in my mind. When he said "rich", I assumed the rich people who own the ISPs(or are friends of the owners) altering QoS for different sites/services. Or maybe I'm projecting my own thoughts onto zem's comment.

macspoofing 13y ago
>When he said "rich", I assumed the rich people who own the ISPs Your interpretation is ... strange. The big telecoms are publicly owned. So those "rich people who own the ISPs" are shareholders? I'm pretty sure zem referred to "rich" and "poor" consumers of internet services. Not telecoms, not corporations.
- zem 13y ago
  actually, i was referring to producers - consumers are mostly affected by net neutrality due to what they do and do not get access to (as gated by the isps). however, with net neutrality thrown out of the door netflix can afford to pay for "up bandwidth", but e.g. a small competitor would be pushed out of the market.

atmosx 13y ago

> It's comments like these that make me not like net neutrality. There is no way you are going to stop people who spend more money from being able to enjoy better Internet connections. Agreed, so there's no need to give them more ways to enhance their advantage. They are too far ahead already. Because that's what is all about...

Daniel_Newby 13y ago

Why should ISP 's be stopped from discriminating? A company that blocked Google would find its competitor's saturation bombing ads for "Google compatible" Internet service. Followed by the tort lawyers saturation bombing ads for class action lawsuits alleging breach of contract and tortious interference in contracts.

zem 13y ago
right, but a company who blocked a startup competing with google would face next to no backlash, while (if they were big enough) severely disadvantaging said startup. heck, it doesn't take blocking - what if google loaded in 0.05 seconds and duckduckgo loaded in 1 second? i'm pretty sure that would push most of the users google's way.
- jackgavigan 13y ago
  This, right here, is the real danger - that relinquishing net neutrality will end up stifling competition and, thus, innovation. You can't prioritise some packets without disadvantaging others. Unless the rules were crafted very, very carefully (and, let's face it, do we really think that would happen), I could easily envisage major connectivity providers auctioning off a handful of "prime video streamer" slots to companies like YouTube and Netflix, leaving other companies' services unusable. And that's just what I can imagine - the unintended consequences that I can't imagine are potentially far, far worse. We got from 14.4k dial-up to multi-megabit always-on broadband (both fixed-line AND mobile) without compromising on net neutrality. The potential disadvantages far outweigh the claimed advantages.
CamperBob2 13y ago
What competitor?