4 ms·

The issue of Net Neutrality is consistently misrepresented. ISPs are not trying to extort the little guys (who have no money), they want to throttle YouTube and

by JDDunn9 12y ago

The issue of Net Neutrality is consistently misrepresented. ISPs are not trying to extort the little guys (who have no money), they want to throttle YouTube and Netflix. The giant corporations have convinced average people to join their cause so they don't have to pay for their bandwidth hogs (which does cost ISPs more money than small sites).

jpwagner 12y ago
Sure, but that means a small site needs more money to become widespread. This will force earlier decisions to raise revenue. Whether it be desperate attempts at ad-based revenue, premature fundraising, or hurting adoption by asking for paying customers, it all amounts to stifling innovation.
- JDDunn9 12y ago
  This is the misinformation mentioned. Small sites won't pay until they reach the size of YouTube/Netflix.
widdershins 12y ago
No, they want to charge YouTube and Netflix for not throttling them. That makes a big difference. How can the ISPs make that kind of deal without throttling everyone else? Otherwise there's no incentive for YouTube etc. to pay.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > No, they want to charge YouTube and Netflix for not throttling them. That makes a big difference. How can the ISPs make that kind of deal without throttling everyone else? By selectively throttling YouTube and Netflix.
protomyth 12y ago
Why are there customers getting an internet connection other than "YouTube and Netflix"? The reason they and other services are "bandwidth hogs" is because they are popular and people want them. Those bytes just don't show up at customer's computers without the request.
dublinben 12y ago
Everyone is already paying for the bandwidth they use, on both ends. ISP subscribers pay their monthly subscription fee to get however much bandwidth they're allowed. Content providers pay their (quite substantial) fees to CDN and transit providers for the bandwidth they use. Nobody is getting a free ride here.
- JDDunn9 12y ago
  Every business tries to maximize profits and minimize costs. Google has certainly done their fair share of exploiting people (e.g. knowingly selling ads for scams, stealing content from Yelp, etc.) for profit, so it's hard to feel bad for them now that they are getting squeezed.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> ISPs are not trying to extort the little guys (who have no money), they want to throttle YouTube and Netflix. Right. They only want to impose tolls and kill competitors that have already spent the money to develop a market and show how to serve it, so that they can use the tolls to capture the profits, throttle the incumbent, and use the proceeds to deliver their own implementation. So it won't necessary be bad for "little guys" directly, except insofar as it kills competition in any market with lots of money in it (including ones that the little guys may be customers of), limiting customer (consumer or business) choice, and limiting the ability of little guys to ever become big without themselves getting killed by tolls so that the dominant broadband providers can steal their market.
pessimizer 12y ago
The "bandwidth hogs" are more commonly called customers, and they pay for their internet service.
SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
>The issue of Net Neutrality is consistently misrepresented. This is not only not true, but the problem is typically understated. I'm paying for the bandwidth to my house. I pay extra to get a higher bandwidth capacity, in fact. Under absolutely no circumstances is it OK for my ISP to throttle YouTube or Netflix or any other site just because it's popular. They are double-dipping, it's that simple. I've already paid them for a pipe (allegedly) of a certain size. If I want to watch YouTube, then give me the bits at the rate that fit in the pipe I paid for. If I want to watch SomeOtherVideoStreamingSite, then I want it to stream to the limits of the pipe I'm paying for, whether or not SomeOtherVideoStreamingSite has coughed up extortion money. In markets where there are one or two ISPs available, if all available ISPs are engaging in this extortion, then my experience is degraded any time my ISP hasn't extracted its shakedown money from the site I want to visit. And that is abuse of a monopoly position, plain and simple.
- JDDunn9 12y ago
  I agree it's unfair to the customer, but the message is still being twisted to serve corporate interests. ISPs have been throttling bittorrent for a while now and no one was making a fuss about net neutrality then...
  - SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
    If the corporate interests align with my interests, I'm fine with them standing up for my rights by accident, as it were. I'd like to see a world with no BitTorrent throttling too, but given that I don't watch BitTorrent video in real time (or even use it for the most part), it's harder for me to get worked up about that. Don't get me wrong: I support the concept of complete net neutrality. It's just harder to achieve a political goal when only a small minority of people are affected.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 12y ago
    Loads of people make a fuss about bittorrent throttling, you know. Spend 5 minutes on Google backing up points before you make them.

by JDDunn9 12y ago

jpwagner 12y ago

Sure, but that means a small site needs more money to become widespread. This will force earlier decisions to raise revenue. Whether it be desperate attempts at ad-based revenue, premature fundraising, or hurting adoption by asking for paying customers, it all amounts to stifling innovation.

JDDunn9 12y ago
This is the misinformation mentioned. Small sites won't pay until they reach the size of YouTube/Netflix.

widdershins 12y ago

No, they want to charge YouTube and Netflix for not throttling them. That makes a big difference. How can the ISPs make that kind of deal without throttling everyone else? Otherwise there's no incentive for YouTube etc. to pay.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> No, they want to charge YouTube and Netflix for not throttling them. That makes a big difference. How can the ISPs make that kind of deal without throttling everyone else? By selectively throttling YouTube and Netflix.

protomyth 12y ago

Why are there customers getting an internet connection other than "YouTube and Netflix"? The reason they and other services are "bandwidth hogs" is because they are popular and people want them. Those bytes just don't show up at customer's computers without the request.

dublinben 12y ago

Everyone is already paying for the bandwidth they use, on both ends. ISP subscribers pay their monthly subscription fee to get however much bandwidth they're allowed. Content providers pay their (quite substantial) fees to CDN and transit providers for the bandwidth they use. Nobody is getting a free ride here.

JDDunn9 12y ago
Every business tries to maximize profits and minimize costs. Google has certainly done their fair share of exploiting people (e.g. knowingly selling ads for scams, stealing content from Yelp, etc.) for profit, so it's hard to feel bad for them now that they are getting squeezed.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> ISPs are not trying to extort the little guys (who have no money), they want to throttle YouTube and Netflix. Right. They only want to impose tolls and kill competitors that have already spent the money to develop a market and show how to serve it, so that they can use the tolls to capture the profits, throttle the incumbent, and use the proceeds to deliver their own implementation. So it won't necessary be bad for "little guys" directly, except insofar as it kills competition in any market with lots of money in it (including ones that the little guys may be customers of), limiting customer (consumer or business) choice, and limiting the ability of little guys to ever become big without themselves getting killed by tolls so that the dominant broadband providers can steal their market.

pessimizer 12y ago

The "bandwidth hogs" are more commonly called customers, and they pay for their internet service.

SomeCallMeTim 12y ago

>The issue of Net Neutrality is consistently misrepresented. This is not only not true, but the problem is typically understated. I'm paying for the bandwidth to my house. I pay extra to get a higher bandwidth capacity, in fact. Under absolutely no circumstances is it OK for my ISP to throttle YouTube or Netflix or any other site just because it's popular. They are double-dipping, it's that simple. I've already paid them for a pipe (allegedly) of a certain size. If I want to watch YouTube, then give me the bits at the rate that fit in the pipe I paid for. If I want to watch SomeOtherVideoStreamingSite, then I want it to stream to the limits of the pipe I'm paying for, whether or not SomeOtherVideoStreamingSite has coughed up extortion money. In markets where there are one or two ISPs available, if all available ISPs are engaging in this extortion, then my experience is degraded any time my ISP hasn't extracted its shakedown money from the site I want to visit. And that is abuse of a monopoly position, plain and simple.

JDDunn9 12y ago
I agree it's unfair to the customer, but the message is still being twisted to serve corporate interests. ISPs have been throttling bittorrent for a while now and no one was making a fuss about net neutrality then...
- SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
  If the corporate interests align with my interests, I'm fine with them standing up for my rights by accident, as it were. I'd like to see a world with no BitTorrent throttling too, but given that I don't watch BitTorrent video in real time (or even use it for the most part), it's harder for me to get worked up about that. Don't get me wrong: I support the concept of complete net neutrality. It's just harder to achieve a political goal when only a small minority of people are affected.
- Sir_Cmpwn 12y ago
  Loads of people make a fuss about bittorrent throttling, you know. Spend 5 minutes on Google backing up points before you make them.