6 ms·

> ISPs trying to charge to (de)prioritize packets I'm still not getting it. Isn't this like saying restaurants are charging to provide more flavorful, healthie

by webXL 12y ago

> ISPs trying to charge to (de)prioritize packets I'm still not getting it. Isn't this like saying restaurants are charging to provide more flavorful, healthier food? The cost burden may appear to fall on the suppliers in the ISP case, but they just pass that onto the consumer, just like the price you see next to the menu item. Problem 1 only appears to be a problem because of problem 2. It's a competition issue. Are we really closer to solving problem 2 now? How so?

Golf_Hotel_Mike 12y ago
But there already is legislation in place to deal with problem 2. Antitrust law exists and has been successfully used in the past. If the political will is created it could be used just as well against the ISP duopoly. Problem 1 on the other hand is a brand new problem that is peculiar to the medium of the internet. Unless the legal framework for it is laid down as early as possible, the service will always be vulnerable to political agendas. Simply put, net neutrality legislation is essential for the future of the internet, while shitty competition is a temporary problem that can be solved. We're already seeing progress (albeit very minor progress) in solving problem 2. The entry of Google Fiber in the market is more significant than most people realize, because it shows that companies that rely on efficient internet service for their revenue are willing to expand into ISP roles in order to ensure reach to customers. Who's to say that Apple, a massive corporation with deep pockets that lives and breathes user experience, won't invest in ensuring that their customers have the best experience with the internet possible? Call me optimistic, but I don't think the ISP duopoly in is going to last forever. The stakes are just too high for other large companies to not enter into the field. Eventually, I believe we'll see a bunch of walled gardens ISPs instead of the current duopoly, with Apple, Google and maybe even someone like Facebook acting as ISPs for their own subset of customers. When that does happen, we need to make sure that the playing field for all websites stays level and independent of economic or political interests. Strict net neutrality laws are exactly what we need in a situation like that.
belorn 12y ago
Restaurants can't prioritize white customers over black customers. They can't provide more flavorful, healthier food for white customers only, while giving rotten, old, bad food to black customers while charging the same price. ISP's can however charge a higher price for faster speeds, same as a restaurant can charge a higher price for more flavorful and healthier food. competition solve problems when every actor acts rational, and everyone competes fairly with the same moral and ethical values. As soon one of those two assumptions are wrong, competition stops to solve problems in the market.
- webXL 12y ago
  Your discrimination example is a straw man. Not applicable. I'm talking about the menu a restaurant puts together based on the deals and choice they get from suppliers. One supplier may undercut the other. The restaurant may sign a long term deal with a supplier that isn't beneficial to the patrons. Competition is a check on that scenario, just as it is with any market where there is at least a handful of non-colluding sellers. It's not rational to charge suppliers for priority? It's totally rational. They want more of your pipe. Ignoring the popular notions of fairness and "packet equality", why shouldn't they get charged more? Competes fairly? How about just legally? A rule violation is a rule violation and should be settled in the justice system. The beauty of competition is that companies would rather undercut/offer a superior product over the competitors rather than waste time in court (or jail). You just need several competitors to keep them honest. It's a sufficient quantity of options, not the heavy-hand of the state, that ensures consumers are protected. If anti-discrimination laws were repealed, do you honestly believe minorities and women would have their dining and golfing options cut by 50%? I bet it wouldn't even be 5%. And I bet white males would have their options cut by the same number. Popular opinion and competition help solve that particular market problem. Law definitely helps, but the assumption that competition only works when "everyone competes fairly with the same moral and ethical values" is flat out false. On the whole, the profit motive is much stronger than any superficial biases. Finding talented workers who share the exact same superficial biases, and not having someone like Jesse Jackson leading picket lines outside your business would both be damn near impossible.
  - vcarl 12y ago
    I think an apt analogy would be if GFS[0] opened a chain of restaurants and started restricting deliveries to other restaurants, unless those restaurants paid an extra fee that the GFS restaurants weren't subject to. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Food_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Food_Service
    - webXL 12y ago
      Again, they could only do that if they had monopolistic control of the market. That would be a symptom of problem 2.

by webXL 12y ago

Golf_Hotel_Mike 12y ago

But there already is legislation in place to deal with problem 2. Antitrust law exists and has been successfully used in the past. If the political will is created it could be used just as well against the ISP duopoly. Problem 1 on the other hand is a brand new problem that is peculiar to the medium of the internet. Unless the legal framework for it is laid down as early as possible, the service will always be vulnerable to political agendas. Simply put, net neutrality legislation is essential for the future of the internet, while shitty competition is a temporary problem that can be solved. We're already seeing progress (albeit very minor progress) in solving problem 2. The entry of Google Fiber in the market is more significant than most people realize, because it shows that companies that rely on efficient internet service for their revenue are willing to expand into ISP roles in order to ensure reach to customers. Who's to say that Apple, a massive corporation with deep pockets that lives and breathes user experience, won't invest in ensuring that their customers have the best experience with the internet possible? Call me optimistic, but I don't think the ISP duopoly in is going to last forever. The stakes are just too high for other large companies to not enter into the field. Eventually, I believe we'll see a bunch of walled gardens ISPs instead of the current duopoly, with Apple, Google and maybe even someone like Facebook acting as ISPs for their own subset of customers. When that does happen, we need to make sure that the playing field for all websites stays level and independent of economic or political interests. Strict net neutrality laws are exactly what we need in a situation like that.

belorn 12y ago

Restaurants can't prioritize white customers over black customers. They can't provide more flavorful, healthier food for white customers only, while giving rotten, old, bad food to black customers while charging the same price. ISP's can however charge a higher price for faster speeds, same as a restaurant can charge a higher price for more flavorful and healthier food. competition solve problems when every actor acts rational, and everyone competes fairly with the same moral and ethical values. As soon one of those two assumptions are wrong, competition stops to solve problems in the market.

webXL 12y ago
Your discrimination example is a straw man. Not applicable. I'm talking about the menu a restaurant puts together based on the deals and choice they get from suppliers. One supplier may undercut the other. The restaurant may sign a long term deal with a supplier that isn't beneficial to the patrons. Competition is a check on that scenario, just as it is with any market where there is at least a handful of non-colluding sellers. It's not rational to charge suppliers for priority? It's totally rational. They want more of your pipe. Ignoring the popular notions of fairness and "packet equality", why shouldn't they get charged more? Competes fairly? How about just legally? A rule violation is a rule violation and should be settled in the justice system. The beauty of competition is that companies would rather undercut/offer a superior product over the competitors rather than waste time in court (or jail). You just need several competitors to keep them honest. It's a sufficient quantity of options, not the heavy-hand of the state, that ensures consumers are protected. If anti-discrimination laws were repealed, do you honestly believe minorities and women would have their dining and golfing options cut by 50%? I bet it wouldn't even be 5%. And I bet white males would have their options cut by the same number. Popular opinion and competition help solve that particular market problem. Law definitely helps, but the assumption that competition only works when "everyone competes fairly with the same moral and ethical values" is flat out false. On the whole, the profit motive is much stronger than any superficial biases. Finding talented workers who share the exact same superficial biases, and not having someone like Jesse Jackson leading picket lines outside your business would both be damn near impossible.
- vcarl 12y ago
  I think an apt analogy would be if GFS[0] opened a chain of restaurants and started restricting deliveries to other restaurants, unless those restaurants paid an extra fee that the GFS restaurants weren't subject to. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Food_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Food_Service
  - webXL 12y ago
    Again, they could only do that if they had monopolistic control of the market. That would be a symptom of problem 2.