5 ms·
>>So those cases for users are essentially a monopoly anyway, even if formally they have "choices". This- I get. You made assertions without qualifications.
by droopybuns 12y ago
>>So those cases for users are essentially a monopoly anyway, even if formally they have "choices".
This- I get.
You made assertions without qualifications. I don't know where AT&T is the dominant ISP vs Comcast vs Centurylink. My point is not to be acerbic. It's to say that ISP service delivery is EXPENSIVE. You have to make major investments. Those investments are based on assumptions. If a regulator comes in and unwinds those assumptions, OF COURSE YOU ARE GOING TO SUE. No rational business owner would do otherwise.
The better option would be to incentivize competition, but nobody wants to address how expensive space on telephone poles is. So now we're going to kill the golden goose so everyone can get their netflix & youtube videos.
- shmerl 12y agoInvestments are working just fine with Title II as practice shows. And if assumption of the investors is monopoly, they deserve to lose big deal. It's their own fault. > The better option would be to incentivize competition Here I agree fully, but how exactly would you do that without causing ire of the same monopolists who hate competition? For example you could force unbundling, i.e. require to give access to the network to competitors. Some countries do that (France I think) and quite successfully. But do you think AT&T and Co. will like that? They'll start screaming ten times as much as they do now because of Title II.
- droopybuns 12y ago>>But do you think AT&T and Co. will like that? No, I don't, but I'm not an AT&T apologist. It's networking I care about. >>but how exactly would you do that without causing ire of the same monopolists who hate competition? Fuck the carriers who are fighting against competition. My concern is that in 2030, we're going to live with regulations that were established in 2015. Do you remember what the Internet was like in 2000? Do any of the rules that would have made sense then apply now? IoT, M2X, etc. are changing how everything works. I don't want a bandwidth hogging technology like video to overwhelm innovation in machine learning based m2x spaces. I want video to work- but I also don't think we're done innovating.
- nitrogen 12y agoDo any of the rules that would have made sense then apply now? Yeah. Rule 0: deliver the packets. Optional: reorder packets according to customer QoS, but never without customer request.
- maxlybbert 12y agoDoesn't net neutrality make it impossible for the customer to pay extra for QoS? Or have I been following the debate with incorrect definitions?
- droopybuns 12y agoThis is my understanding. Chairman Wheeler stated: "These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization[...]"
- nitrogen 12y agoI guess ISPs will have to give QoS support to their customers for free, then.
- droopybuns 12y agoTHEN THEY'RE PRIORITIZING TRAFFIC. This is a subsidy to netflix and youtube. Gamers, Teleworkers, et.al. lose. Pre-roll ads are the big winners.
- shmerl 12y agoIf you want improvement you need to regulate monopoly to prevent its abuses, I see no other way.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> My concern is that in 2030, we're going to live with regulations that were established in 2015. In the areas that the FCC regulates, it regularly makes updates to those regulations more often than every 15 years. (This would be more reasonable of a concern if highly-detailed rules were being written into statute law.)
- wtallis 12y agoIncentivizing competition almost certainly cannot be the best solution given that last-mile connectivity is a natural monopoly. It would take a lot of regulatory overhead to overcome the cost of digging three or four trenches to every house instead of just one.
- icebraining 12y agoDoes it really? Seems to work fine in many other countries.