Net neutrality non-neutrality
-
@maciejasjmj
(as a separate reply so I don't edit the last post to death)Also, as seen by the airline industry, people wouldn't care about the distinction in the two service tiers anyway, they would always pay for the $15 circuit and demand the $25 level of service for it. Not to mention that trying to advertise the difference would be very difficult at best - less than 1% of an ISP's customer base even knows what "jitter" is, and even that 1% wouldn't care that their Netflix or online gaming needed it. The ISP would just wind up with everyone on the $25 tier up in arms on Reddit because they're getting charged more for "the same service", since the evil cable company is upset with them for canceling their cable service.
-
@kian said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
You can no longer rely just on supply/demand curves, you need to get actor expectations into the mix.
Yes, but really no one knows what the supply demand curves look like except possibly in hindsight. They're useful abstractions for talking about stuff more than they are useful for making predictions.
Disclaimer: I have no idea any more why we're talking about this here and I CBA to walk up the chain of replies to find out.
-
@boomzilla as seen preparing to traverse a reply chain:
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Disclaimer: I have no idea any more why we're talking about this here and I CBA to walk up the chain of replies to find out.
@anotherusername replied to a seven month old post of mine, and I could either refloat the argument or do my job.
-
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
they're getting charged more for "the same service",
So make the more expensive service not the same. Instead of just a QoS improvement, which the typical customer won't understand, make it a little faster, too. Now it's clearly not "the same," even is the speed isn't the main difference.
-
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
The reality is, within current market expectations, the only way an ISP is going to be able to charge those discriminatory rates based on the requirements of the traffic is to actually shape traffic per service.
Then maybe that's a problem that needs solving, instead of dumping the baby with the bathwater. Especially since traffic shaping as proposed does not seem to solve the problem you're describing - in your scenario the idiots trying to run an enterprise-grade network on a residential connection are actually going to have their way, at the cost of the poor schmuck who wants to watch Netflix and can't because his entire pipe is filled with VPNed traffic, which gets higher priority.
Also, as seen by the airline industry, people wouldn't care about the distinction in the two service tiers anyway, they would always pay for the $15 circuit and demand the $25 level of service for it. Not to mention that trying to advertise the difference would be very difficult at best - less than 1% of an ISP's customer base even knows what "jitter" is, and even that 1% wouldn't care that their Netflix or online gaming needed it.
The only one the ISPs have to blame are their own marketing departments for marketing peak speed and peak speed only. It's dumb and at some point it becomes a meaningless metric - a point that the ISPs are starting to approach.
The ISP would just wind up with everyone on the $25 tier up in arms on Reddit because they're getting charged more for "the same service", since the evil cable company is upset with them for canceling their cable service.
But the result of the NN repeal would be enabling the evil companies to actually, explicitly charge more for the "same service" because they're upset about cancelling cable? How would the ISP saying "you have to pay more for a better quality link" be worse than the ISP saying "you have to pay more for Netflix"? Both end up with you paying more, but the first one has an advantage of being fair.
-
@ben_lubar said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla I think we need a tag system instead of a voting system. Attach arbitrary tags to posts, agree with arbitrary tags to increase the number next to them, tag shows all users who agreed with it.
Plus, would you rather have a badge that says "I got ten up arrows!" or a badge that says "I got ten TDEMSYRs and a Breast Programming!"
-
@maciejasjmj said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
raise the prices
Raise the prices on everything, or just on the new flavor of soda? The way NN is being enforced currently, it's the former, not the latter.
limit the free refills
Limit the free refills on everything, or just on the new flavor of soda? The way NN... etc.
limit the refill on that particular soda
Now that's actually fair.
Also, from a follow-up comment to that article I posted:
Your POWER FEED is overcommitted. So is your WATER TAP. Both "promise" you what cannot be delivered; you have a 200A power tap, but you AND ALL YOUR NEIGHBORS cannot draw 200A. Yet the UTILITY COMPANY sold you 200A of service.
If you and ALL YOUR NEIGHBORS all open all your water taps in the house at once you will have pressure COLLAPSE. Yet a few of you can do it. But not all at once.
So who was "intentionally deceptive"? You CAN have 50Mbps -- just not all at the same time, all the time.
-
@anotherusername said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@ben_lubar said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla I think we need a tag system instead of a voting system. Attach arbitrary tags to posts, agree with arbitrary tags to increase the number next to them, tag shows all users who agreed with it.
Plus, would you rather have a badge that says "I got ten up arrows!" or a badge that says "I got ten TDEMSYRs and a Breast Programming!"
-
@kian said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Disclaimer: I have no idea any more why we're talking about this here and I CBA to walk up the chain of replies to find out.
@anotherusername replied to a seven month old post of mine, and I could either refloat the argument or do my job.
Ah, yes. I'm getting a lot of necrolikes from him.
-
@lolwhat said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Now that's actually fair.
But it's not what people want, they'd rather pay $3 or $4 for a refill instead of $2 but be able to choose the soda freely. And it's not really fair because there's nothing different about that new soda except that people like it a little too much. Moderately unfair to the customers who expect the refills to be equal, and very unfair to the soda supplier who can meet the demand with their supply, but the middleman's lousy practices are cutting into their business.
-
@maciejasjmj said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
And it's not really fair because there's nothing different about that new soda except that people like it a little too much.
This sentence does not compute.
-
@lolwhat And we're back to "someone should be in jail":
Second, AS SOON AS YOU START LOCKING UP THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE FALSE CLAIMS LIKE ****ING TESLA, LIKE ****ING SPAMAZON, LIKE ****ING FACE****ER, LIKE ****ING GOOGLE, THEN you can talk to me about people making claims WITHOUT proper language to delineate the REAL limits of same. But only when you have JAILED OR EXECUTED all of the billionaires who have done this REPEATEDLY and with wild abandon, because if you DON'T do that first then NOBODY who has LESS resource can put all those facts in front of you AND REMAIN IN BUSINESS.
-
@antiquarian
I would like Karl more and be more likely to link him, in the cases where it seemed like he had actual technical knowledge to provide, if he didn't constantly wind up stampeding around with a lynching rope.Well, that and the fact that before he started going symbolically dark, he was a major staple on RT (one of the Kremlin's propoganda arms).
-
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
if he didn't constantly wind up stampeding around with a lynching rope
... because nobody would pay attention back when he was more "civil" and believed people might actually do something to end the scams.
he was a major staple on RT
... because, with very few exceptions, no one in the MSM would give him the time of day, since he would actually speak truth to power. Better a "propaganda outlet" than no outlet.
-
@lolwhat said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
So, to sum up:
"I'm an ISP. I build a network where I promise everyone 10 Mb/s. I only have the capacity to deliver 2 Mb/s to them, though. This is all well and good because no one actually needs more than 2 Mb/s, right up until someone goes and invents streaming at 5 Mb/s, and suddenly everyone wants it and my network is overloaded, tanking performance for everyone because I didn't actually build the infrastructure to deliver on my promises.
"I now have three choices: I can charge the streaming service for inciting my customers to actually use the bandwidth they were promised without me being able to deliver. I could charge the customer on a metered basis, but this would be really expensive and customers don't want it because they are already being charged what they agreed to for the service they agreed to, which I can't deliver. Or charge everyone more, which isn't fair to the people who aren't using the streaming service! Even though the problem is that everyone is using some streaming service these days.Or I could just take the huge profits I've been running for years by charging high prices for capacity I can't deliver and employing virtually nobody in customer service, and build out the capacity I've been fraudulently selling to customers without being able to deliver.Shut up, that's the option I want to conveniently ignore!
"Net Neutrality forces option #3 on everyone, which I want to reiterate is completely inequitable even though the whole point of the problem is that everyone is using streaming these days, because hand-wave hand-wave hand-wave. Also, health insurance stuff that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which I will carefully insinuate is related to Obamacare even though I'm talking about something completely different.
"Therefore, Net Neutrality = bad."Yeah, sure. It's still the best option we have available.
-
@antiquarian said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Can someone ELI5 a couple of things?
- Since we didn't have net neutrality before 2015, and none of the things NN proponents are saying will happen actually happened before 2015, what changed in 2 years that makes those things more likely now?
- Since the proposed NN repeal is only of a US regulation, why do people think the whole world will be affected?
I refer you to this article for a historical treatment of the subject:
Ajit Pai's Big Lie
I want to start out this post by making a key point: I know that it’s become fashionable to launch into personal and ad hominem attacks on people we disagree with politically of late. We̵…
-
@kian said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I made the point to distinguish between sales tax and profit tax because the behavior of them is different. Notice how in the diagram you posted, it uses the example of a $1 per gallon tax. That's a sales tax, and as I said, that does shift the equilibrium price, and might even make something economically nonviable.
Oh great, then the business won't pay the tax using revenue it generated via sales. It'll just pluck it off the money tree where it gets its profits.
The money comes from the same place, regardless of what you call the tax.
-
@masonwheeler Based on the links I've been given, it looks like there's oversimplification going on from both sides.
-
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@maciejasjmj
When I worked at an ISP, if we tried to count the number of customers paying for our "residential grade" service who called in and complained that they were "relying on this connection to run a business", we could have taken off all of the socks in our system admin department and still run out of fingers and toes1. And every single one of those customers refused (with varying levels of vulgarity) to upgrade to the business grade service, and accused us of trying to charge them more for the same service as their neighbor. Eventually, we gave up on having residential and business service at different prices, and focused more on selling dedicated links and premium tier service contracts as a way to get value for the differential in service requirements.The reality is, within current market expectations, the only way an ISP is going to be able to charge those discriminatory rates based on the requirements of the traffic is to actually shape traffic per service.
1There were three of us, and the network had about 7000 customers in total. About 50 of the "residential" customers were on our shitlist for the described stunts, though another 10 or so did actually upgrade from residential to business and in some cases even higher/dedicated bandwidth circuits on our advice. But it literally didn't matter how many traffic graphs and other facts you presented; the ones who refused to upgrade on our first recommendation would refuse to upgrade no matter how many times they called in and had a one day wait (or more, in busy seasons, but we almost never were slow enough to do same day service calls for residential service) for a service call.
So literally less than 1% of your customers were doing this, therefore it's a massive problem ???
-
@kian said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Disclaimer: I have no idea any more why we're talking about this here and I CBA to walk up the chain of replies to find out.
@anotherusername replied to a seven month old post of mine, and I could either refloat the argument or do my job.
Yeah, I got increasingly tired of looking for a post where someone pointed out to you that you were ignoring the whole supply side of the equation, so I posted one.
Plus I've caught up now and didn't see any obvious
s, so yay.
-
@masonwheeler
Yes, because that 1% is 20% of our operational expense (between bandwidth, support calls, and regulatory headaches from dealing with the DMCA demand letters their internet usage generates). But if you just fire them, the problem is worse because they get loud everywhere, because they literally don’t have another option anyway.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
It's still the best option we have available.
I have a bridge you might be interested in...
-
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@masonwheeler
Yes, because that 1% is 20% of our operational expense (between bandwidth, support calls, and regulatory headaches from dealing with the DMCA demand letters their internet usage generates). But if you just fire them, the problem is worse because they get loud everywhere, because they literally don’t have another option anyway.:yawn:He knows about power laws, so if he'd bothered to think about this, he'd have already known about it.
-
@kian
Also, there's one thing that's missing from all of those wonderful supply/demand models. Opportunity cost.If the business(es) in question are entrepreneurships, opportunity cost is the alternative of @Polygeekery depositing all his money in the local bank and sleeping a little better at night because he has deposit insurance and a known rate of return, instead of wondering if his business is still going to be a going concern six months from now.
For "evil corporations", it's the risk that the company's lenders won't roll over the loan to a new one on the same terms, or that the stockholders will sell like crazy for another company that delivers more return (profits!) to the stockholders, creating a situation where a "corporate raider" comes in and replaces the managers that are causing the corporation to underperform its peers.
Basically, with the assumption of a competitive market (which underpins most of those wonderful economical diagrams), there will always be some providers whose profit margins are just barely above that break point where it'd be better for them to leave the market and go somewhere else (or they go bankrupt because they're no longer profitable enough to renew their loans). So once you introduce a profit tax, you drive those marginal companies out of the market and the supply curve shifts left (fewer producers = less goods supplied at any given price) and the equilibrium price rises as supply has contracted without a change in demand.
-
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Basically, with the assumption of a competitive market
I'mma stop you right there. This is broadband we're talking about, for heaven's sake!
-
@masonwheeler
Not necessarily in the side conversation of profit taxes versus sales taxes :PAnd, until the FCC unilaterally redeclared broadband from 4/1Mbps to 25/3Mbps (which, in my opinion, was motivated more by political desire to be able to say "oh, there's no competition, this market needs regulated because it's a monopoly" than by any technical fact that indicates those numbers should be the minimum speeds of broadband), well over 80% of US residents had 2+ broadband providers, many of which even had 2+ broadband providers who had low latency (e.g. not satellite). But the 25/3 redefinition excludes a lot of technologies (ADSL, DOCSIS 2.0, fixed location WiFi that isn't the very latest generation) that still have a lot of service life for rural and semi-urban areas, and so now suddenly we have a "huge problem" that's in need of a government solution. And said solution just happens to increase the job security of the people who set that definition of what broadband is...
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Basically, with the assumption of a competitive market
I'mma stop you right there. This is broadband we're talking about, for heaven's sake!
No, it's the market for capital, which is certainly very competitive (even if sometimes rather dumb as all the ICOs or Tesla stock rallies demonstrate). To wit:
it'd be better for them to leave the market and go somewhere else
-
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
And, until the FCC unilaterally redeclared broadband from 4/1Mbps to 25/3Mbps (which, in my opinion, was motivated more by political desire to be able to say "oh, there's no competition, this market needs regulated because it's a monopoly" than by any technical fact that indicates those numbers should be the minimum speeds of broadband),
Yup. That's all it was. The fact that the Internet continues to evolve, that new technologies that are becoming increasingly mainstream are demanding those levels of service and won't work well on a 4 Mb/s connection, has nothing whatsoever to do with it. No sirree, it's all dirty politics and nothing else!
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
And, until the FCC unilaterally redeclared broadband from 4/1Mbps to 25/3Mbps (which, in my opinion, was motivated more by political desire to be able to say "oh, there's no competition, this market needs regulated because it's a monopoly" than by any technical fact that indicates those numbers should be the minimum speeds of broadband),
Yup. That's all it was. The fact that the Internet continues to evolve, that new technologies that are becoming increasingly mainstream are demanding those levels of service and won't work well on a 4 Mb/s connection, has nothing whatsoever to do with it. No sirree, it's all dirty politics and nothing else!
It's amusing to read here where you roll your eyes at exactly the sort of screed you love to post now that it opposes your pet conspiracy theories.
-
@boomzilla huh?
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla huh?
Yeah, that was my first reaction, too, because the self licking ice cream cone scenario described by @izzion should have been massive masonbait.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
self licking ice cream cone
You're making less and less sense with each post
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
self licking ice cream cone
You're making less and less sense with each post
Do you smell toast? It might be time to call 911.
-
@boomzilla You might want to call 911, or at least a doctor, at this point. I suspect you may be having a stroke...
-
@thecpuwizard said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
But it does constrain what/how they can implement these.
It means they can't throttle a destination from a end-user.
It doesn't mean they can't throttle their own users, of which Netflix has an ISP.
So, Netflix will still have to pay for faster speeds, but I won't have to pay for faster speeds from Netflix.
But this whole conversation started because an ISP was throttling netflix traffic from users because Netflix wouldn't pay for an upgrade the ISP needed to keep traffic fast for Netflix.
That said, there have been ISPs that throttled competitor service from their users.
For example, if Comcast throttled Netflix so people would prefer Comcast's streaming service and buy up plans from Comcast instead. (I don't know if that one was real, but I read a similar one).
I just like to keep people informed of what Title II means and what it doesn't mean.
Many pro-NN people think it means they won't have to pay for faster speeds online.
-
@anotherusername said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
The money comes from the same place, regardless of what you call the tax.
Yes, the money comes from revenue, but the point is that a sales tax is a fixed percentage of the revenue, before you know if you'll even have profits, and a profit tax is a variable percentage of your revenue, depending on what your costs are. This is a very important difference you don't seem to grasp, so I'll try to make it clearer.
With a 10% sales tax, three businesses that have sales for $100 each pay $10 in taxes regardless of their costs. With a 10% profit tax, out of $100 in sales, a company with $0 in costs pays $10 (10% of revenue), a company with $50 worth of costs pays $5 (5% of revenue), and a company with $90 in costs pays $1 (1% of revenue). Notice how the sales tax depends only on revenue, while profit depends on revenue and costs. This is not a meaningless distinction, the different way to calculate it has consequences, such as a not changing, a priori in the simple model, the equilibrium price. The sales tax is much more disruptive, and you can see that even in a simple model that ignores a lot of detail it has an impact.
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Also, there's one thing that's missing from all of those wonderful supply/demand models. Opportunity cost.
Maybe, but on the other hand, every company is affected by taxes. You can't choose to move your money from a company that pays taxes to one that doesn't. The ROI of every company is equally affected by a profit tax. If you were making $10 on a $100 investment, a 10% profit tax eats $1 per $100, lowering your ROI from 10% to 9%. If you were making $10 on a $1000 investment, you pay $1 in tax and your ROI goes from 1% to 0.9%. Both ROIs were reduced by 10%, so every company remains equally attractive compared to each other. On the other hand, loans also see their returns lowered, as companies will take their reduced profitability into account when asking for money to expand their business. So parking the money in the bank to loan doesn't immediately become more attractive. The effects are subtle and depend on a lot of factors, which is my point. It's a lot less disruptive than a sales tax.
And in any case, the question is not "taxes or no taxes", if it was, with everything else remaining equal, obviously no taxes would be better. The question is what kind of taxes do you favor. If you are in favor of sales taxes over profit taxes, for example, you have a poor grasp of economics and math. Or maybe you favor monopolies and the concentration of capital over more competitive markets.
Regarding net neutrality, it doesn't seem like even the definition is clear, or what the laws allow and don't allow. Personally, I'd like the internet connection to work like an utility. Just give me the connection, charge me whatever I need to pay to have a certain quality of service and don't look inside my packets.
-
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
But this whole conversation started because an ISP was throttling netflix traffic from users because Netflix wouldn't pay for an upgrade the ISP needed to keep traffic fast for Netflix.
Once again, no it didn't. The concept of net neutrality as a thing that affirmatively needed to be protected from abusive telcos--as opposed to the old status quo of "that's the obvious way to run a network" that we used to have--had already been around for about a decade before the whole Comcast/Netflix shenanigans even began.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
But this whole conversation started because an ISP was throttling netflix traffic from users because Netflix wouldn't pay for an upgrade the ISP needed to keep traffic fast for Netflix.
Once again, no it didn't. The concept of net neutrality as a thing that affirmatively needed to be protected from abusive telcos--as opposed to the old status quo of "that's the obvious way to run a network" that we used to have--had already been around for about a decade before the whole Comcast/Netflix shenanigans even began.
The people that know about that, aren't confused about "speedlanes" language that the politicians are using.
-
@kian said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Personally, I'd like the internet connection to work like an utility. Just give me the connection, charge me whatever I need to pay to have a certain quality of service and don't look inside my packets.
Well, yes, and this seems to be the typical argument you get from people obsessed about Netflix and Comcast, but they ignore the complexities that go into making all of that happen, at which point a lot of their good sounding arguments about utilities break down.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@kian said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Personally, I'd like the internet connection to work like an utility. Just give me the connection, charge me whatever I need to pay to have a certain quality of service and don't look inside my packets.
Well, yes, and this seems to be the typical argument you get from people obsessed about Netflix and Comcast, but they ignore the complexities that go into making all of that happen, at which point a lot of their good sounding arguments about utilities break down.
The first obvious thing is that utilities work like this because you can load up a system and you can't tell the difference between one electron or another. Each measure of energy has the same value.
Data is different.
I'm not aware that radio is a utility.
Secondly, if Netflix truly is taking up the vast majority of the internet, wouldn't you want that kept under control as well? The arguments for NN have been pro-small-business, however, NN actually supports Netflix in driving out competitors, not the other way around.
-
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
The arguments for NN have been pro-small-business, however, NN actually supports Netflix in driving out competitors, not the other way around.
Where in the world did you get an idea like that?
The pro-small-business argument is that something as big as Netflix, Amazon, or Google is big enough to afford to pay the tolls that ISPs want to impose, but some little startup that would be otherwise destined to eventually become the next Netflix, Amazon, or Google just doesn't have that sort of money, and so they get crowded out without net neutrality to protect them. And that's obviously true just on the face of it, so if you're going to claim the opposite, I'm gonna call "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" on this one.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
The pro-small-business argument is that something as big as Netflix, Amazon, or Google is big enough to afford to pay the tolls that ISPs want to impose, but some little startup that would be otherwise destined to eventually become the next Netflix, Amazon, or Google just doesn't have that sort of money, and so they get crowded out without net neutrality to protect them. And that's obviously true just on the face of it, so if you're going to claim the opposite, I'm gonna call "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" on this one.
It's obviously true once you've begged enough questions and waved enough hands that it's obvious that the market is going to collude to do all of that, sure.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
but they ignore the complexities that go into making all of that happen
Yes, I understand some people are against service tiers, data caps, throttling and the like. I don't mind those, as long as there's reasonably clear advertisement describing the conditions of service. Of course, I also know most people wouldn't understand the technical details well enough for it to matter too much. Which is why I say "reasonably clear advertisement" and not "technically correct advertisement".
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I'm not aware that radio is a utility.
No, but you also don't pay for it, so they can handle it however they want. I only have to decide whether I want to tune in to their frequency or not. I'm not aware of factors other than distance and terrain that affect radio signal quality. This has no relation at all to either utilities or ISPs.
NN actually supports Netflix in driving out competitors, not the other way around.
How do you figure? How does Netflix drive anyone out? It can't hog the network, since it doesn't own it. Under a data agnostic system, if there's not enough bandwidth, both Netflix and its competitors lose signal quality. In a not-data agnostic system, Netflix can pay for priority access and only small companies that can't afford to lose signal quality.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Where in the world did you get an idea like that?
Because it's not a binary system.
It's not a world of small businesses are ONLY helped/hurt by NN.
I'm not saying small businesses will hurt with NN and not without it. I'm saying that NN actually helps Netflix drive out small businesses by allowing them to take up an unlimited amount of the internet.
So, the argument that NN is needed to protect small business is not entirely valid.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
It's obviously true once you've begged enough questions and waved enough hands that it's obvious that the market is going to collude to do all of that, sure.
Oh, hey, I think I just found a picture of you:
https://wonderopolis.org/wp-content/uploads//2015/03/1425_3.jpg
There is no "going to" here. This is stuff that has been happening, and has been well-documented as an ongoing problem, for well over a decade now.
-
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I'm not saying small businesses will hurt with NN and not without it. I'm saying that NN actually helps Netflix drive out small businesses by allowing them to take up an unlimited amount of the internet.
First, how does NN do that, and second, how does the one lead to the other?
-
@kian said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
if there's not enough bandwidth, both Netflix and its competitors lose signal quality
Not if Netflix buys a faster speed from their own ISP, because they can afford to, and the smaller streamer can't.
I mean, when you buy your internet, I know you don't pay much attention to the upload speed side of the speed bracket.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I'm not saying small businesses will hurt with NN and not without it. I'm saying that NN actually helps Netflix drive out small businesses by allowing them to take up an unlimited amount of the internet.
First, how does NN do that, and second, how does the one lead to the other?
If the data is agnostic, there's no way to filter it and give smaller competitors an advantage, just as there's no way to filter it and give smaller competitors a disadvantage.
However, the larger competitor can buy a faster speed from their own ISP.
-
The point being that NN doesn't "help" small businesses. That's not really a valid point.
What it does is prevent me from having to pay my ISP to access incoming content.
The people hurt by not having NN have almost uniformly been other large businesses.
You think Comcast is going to keep a list of every streamer that pops up on the internet? You think Comcast is going to know about every VPN?
This is a battle between large businesses, and they're using small business as a pawn in the debate.
