4 ms·

Refusing to add capacity is not the same as blocking. If I don't sell my car to you, I'm not depriving you of transportation. If I don't upgrade my car, I am no

by webXL 12y ago

Refusing to add capacity is not the same as blocking. If I don't sell my car to you, I'm not depriving you of transportation. If I don't upgrade my car, I am not blocking the company making the upgrade that you want to buy along with my car.

atonse 12y ago
Ehh no. It's more like you've sold me a car that says it'll go 100 mph (ISPs selling me 85mbit internet), but when I drive in certain parts of town, the car won't go faster than 10 mph. (netflix streams, which require < 5 mbit sometimes degrade, even though speed tests show full speed).
- webXL 12y ago
  Did they promise that you would always be able to drive 100mph? Does any product marketer promise or infer that you will be able use 100% of the capabilities all the time and forever, even those outside it's control like congestion and other environmental factors (e.g. lack of gas or proper maintenance)? That kind of naive thinking is why we have endless fine-print and thousands of greedy class action attorneys. Look, I hate huge corporations that don't have to compete because of government protections, but calling a non-expansion of bandwidth to a third-party "blocking" is abusing the term. The goal should be to break up these monopolies while respecting property rights. That is critical for would-be ISPs and other innovation.
  - wtallis 12y ago
    Verizon sells their service to their customers under the terms of providing a "best effort" to reach the advertised speeds. Fulfilling a promise of "best effort" does not require attaining the advertised speeds to every endpoint, but it does require some effort. Given that Level 3 has offered to pay all of the equipment and labor costs of upgrading the peering connection, and Verizon has stated that their network is not congested internally, what Verizon is refusing to do is literally the smallest possible non-zero effort that they could make towards alleviating the congestion. Nobody is calling for anything that would fail to be "respecting property rights". Verizon is not fulfilling their obligations to their own customers; that needs to be corrected. Changing the regulatory landscape to remove the perverse incentives that have led to Verizon's misbehavior is a bigger and separate project.
  - atonse 12y ago
    Look, in this situation, we aren't getting slower speeds because of some upstream issue that's out of Verizon's control. We're getting the limited speed because of actions due to throttling by Verizon themselves, the people that promised those speeds. I even understand if I am able to get 50mbps out of the 85mbps. But we're talking about 2mbps streams that are suffering. I even understand if it's outside their control. I'm not unreasonable. But it's in their control, and caused by them, so yes, this situation is unique.

by webXL 12y ago

atonse 12y ago

Ehh no. It's more like you've sold me a car that says it'll go 100 mph (ISPs selling me 85mbit internet), but when I drive in certain parts of town, the car won't go faster than 10 mph. (netflix streams, which require < 5 mbit sometimes degrade, even though speed tests show full speed).

webXL 12y ago
Did they promise that you would always be able to drive 100mph? Does any product marketer promise or infer that you will be able use 100% of the capabilities all the time and forever, even those outside it's control like congestion and other environmental factors (e.g. lack of gas or proper maintenance)? That kind of naive thinking is why we have endless fine-print and thousands of greedy class action attorneys. Look, I hate huge corporations that don't have to compete because of government protections, but calling a non-expansion of bandwidth to a third-party "blocking" is abusing the term. The goal should be to break up these monopolies while respecting property rights. That is critical for would-be ISPs and other innovation.
- wtallis 12y ago
  Verizon sells their service to their customers under the terms of providing a "best effort" to reach the advertised speeds. Fulfilling a promise of "best effort" does not require attaining the advertised speeds to every endpoint, but it does require some effort. Given that Level 3 has offered to pay all of the equipment and labor costs of upgrading the peering connection, and Verizon has stated that their network is not congested internally, what Verizon is refusing to do is literally the smallest possible non-zero effort that they could make towards alleviating the congestion. Nobody is calling for anything that would fail to be "respecting property rights". Verizon is not fulfilling their obligations to their own customers; that needs to be corrected. Changing the regulatory landscape to remove the perverse incentives that have led to Verizon's misbehavior is a bigger and separate project.
- atonse 12y ago
  Look, in this situation, we aren't getting slower speeds because of some upstream issue that's out of Verizon's control. We're getting the limited speed because of actions due to throttling by Verizon themselves, the people that promised those speeds. I even understand if I am able to get 50mbps out of the 85mbps. But we're talking about 2mbps streams that are suffering. I even understand if it's outside their control. I'm not unreasonable. But it's in their control, and caused by them, so yes, this situation is unique.