6 ms·
The usual and expected hatchet job from a main stream media stalwart. Neglecting the fact the fact digging up the ground to place cable, which is what the cus
by vfclists 12y ago
The usual and expected hatchet job from a main stream media stalwart.
Neglecting the fact the fact digging up the ground to place cable, which is what the customer is actually paying for is entirely different from wiring up interconnects at core exchanges, which costs virtually nothing in comparison.
The customer pays the last mile provider to go fetch with the understanding that what they pay covers everything the provider is supposed to go fetch with some profit added on. Then the provider goes to stiff the content provider for a share of their income, or else throttles the content provider which is essentially robbing the customer of a service they've already paid for.
Why can't the NY Times put it this plainly and simply?
- wavefunction 12y agoMaybe they have visions of a NYTimes "news channel" added to your internet service that you pay for and receive whether you want it or not. Greed or ignorance are generally my first guesses when trying to analyze what appears to be propaganda.
- vfclists 12y agoIt is mostly greed. If it is ignorance it is usually an editorial decision. I mean, you can't have idealistic and conscientious writers influencing public opinion against Big Co if you need their ad spending, can you?
- rayiner 12y agoI don't think your average customer assumes anything about what their service payment covers. I bet most think it just covers the wire into their house. Would the perceived regulatory need go away if cable companies made clear: "we reserve the right to charge the sources of data you download, not withstanding the service charges for your connection." I mean, its like Hulu Plus. The fact they charge a fee doesn't preclude them from charging advertisers to market to you.
- majormajor 12y agoDoes net neutrality fix this issue? If Comcast wants the extra money they're trying to get from Netflix/Level 3/etc, but is politically prohibited from doing so, then can't they still just raise end-user's prices? That would look worse from a Comcast PR perspective, but with no competition—which lets them get away with letting the quality of service degrade—does that really matter? This (especially in terms of Netflix vs Comcast) seems like a massive distraction from the underlying competition issue. A distraction Comcast is probably happy to have.
- pessimizer 12y ago>If Comcast wants the extra money they're trying to get from Netflix/Level 3/etc, but is politically prohibited from doing so, then can't they still just raise end-user's prices? Of course they can, and will. That wouldn't divide the internet into fast lanes and slow lanes, though, and would be transparent.
- majormajor 12y agoThe follow-up becomes: is it better if more of the cost for bandwidth-intensive services is passed on to every consumer, or just to consumers of those services? I don't know where I fall on that one.
- vfclists 12y agoWhat are these costs? Are the bottlenecks at the junction between the ISP and the customer, or at the junction between the ISP and the content provider? Did Comcast have purchase and install new equipment to boost Netflix speeds, or did they just flip a switch on already existing equipment to open some throttles?
- majormajor 12y agoPresumably someone had to pay something to set up a direct interconnect between Netflix and Comcast to bypass the delivery networks that were used before. But more generally, I'd refer you back to my original post in this thread, about the costs coming from Comcast's lack of viable competition in most markets. Without fixing that issue, the cost is going to be what the consumer will bear instead of what the market will bear, net neutrality regulations or not.