3 ms·

Reasoning by analogy ( http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#really-say-that http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#really-say-that , "proof by analogy is fraud"

Reasoning by analogy ( http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#really-say-that http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#really-say-that , "proof by analogy is fraud"), I can't help but compare this to toll roads and roads that are free to drive on. I don't know anyone who likes toll roads or toll bridges, and I grew up in an area where they weren't common: I was a married adult before I actually saw a real toll booth. If the choice is between "toll road" and "non-toll road," then voters always choose a non-toll road. So toll roads are only ever built when the alternative is "no road." Clearly AT&T and others have the ability to abuse their power over the infrastructure in ways that aren't possible in the world of toll roads. But, fundamentally, why would AT&T upgrade the infrastructure if they can't guarantee they'll get a profit from the improvements? In other words, is the debate really between "net neutrality, with little or no infrastructure improvements" versus "no net neutrality, but the infrastructure gets upgraded regularly?" For the record: AT&T's current move is a simple strong arm tactic: they were willing to install fiber last month when they had no guarantee of an ability to collect a "toll" over it, the world hasn't changed so much that the project won't turn a profit. But I still think it's a useful question to ask: how do the companies providing infrastructure get paid, and why would they bother upgrading that infrastructure?

fernly 12y ago
Would it not be the case that if ATT ran fiber to my home, they would charge me a fee to connect to it? (And possibly an installation fee to plug it in, and a rental fee for a modem to connect to it, but set those aside.) The point is that each terminus of a fiber is a cash generator, just as each landline telephone connected to ATT's voice network is a cash generator. They would invest in "infrastructure" in order to ensure a long-term flow of small cash payments -- exactly as they did for telephones in the 1920s, just as electrical and gas utilities did in the 1890s.
- maxlybbert 12y ago
  They have some costs running and maintaining the system. Connection fees aren't enough, of course people pay monthy subscription fees. Again, I realize there are obvious ways to abuse its control of its network. I'm a big fan of net neutrality, I just want to know that we've considered what the world will look like down the road. And, really, I can see valid reasons to treat different traffic differently. If Netflix wants to send 2GB of data to a person, there is a deadline of how quickly that data should arrive for a good viewing experience. If somebody wants to deliver 2GB of data to an email server, they're probably OK if it takes a while. Then again, under the current system, there's no way to say what kind of latency or throughput data needs. The best AT&T can do is guess based on who the endpoints are.

fernly 12y ago

Would it not be the case that if ATT ran fiber to my home, they would charge me a fee to connect to it? (And possibly an installation fee to plug it in, and a rental fee for a modem to connect to it, but set those aside.) The point is that each terminus of a fiber is a cash generator, just as each landline telephone connected to ATT's voice network is a cash generator. They would invest in "infrastructure" in order to ensure a long-term flow of small cash payments -- exactly as they did for telephones in the 1920s, just as electrical and gas utilities did in the 1890s.

maxlybbert 12y ago
They have some costs running and maintaining the system. Connection fees aren't enough, of course people pay monthy subscription fees. Again, I realize there are obvious ways to abuse its control of its network. I'm a big fan of net neutrality, I just want to know that we've considered what the world will look like down the road. And, really, I can see valid reasons to treat different traffic differently. If Netflix wants to send 2GB of data to a person, there is a deadline of how quickly that data should arrive for a good viewing experience. If somebody wants to deliver 2GB of data to an email server, they're probably OK if it takes a while. Then again, under the current system, there's no way to say what kind of latency or throughput data needs. The best AT&T can do is guess based on who the endpoints are.