Net Neutrality

[Epoetker]

That, in itself, means nothing -- do you really think he ran his ISP for reasons other than self-interest?

The early 90s was a more trusting time, and the post-Cold War managerial rot had started but hadn't yet diffused through all levels of business at that time. People actually kept qualified technical writers on staff who could write manuals that non-techies could follow along with, the NSA hadn't yet inserted itself at all levels of society, and Gaming was Good. To run an ISP could have been all self-interest, or perhaps at least partially an interest independent of the self.

[Irate Canadian]

What precisely is wrong with this?

It will lead to things like this:
net-neutrality.jpg

The problem with a system like this is that the Telcoms become richer, and get around the fact of upgrading their infrastructure by pushing the cost to the web sites. This can be seen in the case of Netflix vs. the Telcoms. Netflix was willing to spend money for free for placing infrastructure in I.S.P data centers so that the Neflix streams would not crush the I.S.P's connection to the Internet. However, I.S.P's were unwilling to do so because they wanted money from Netflix to do so, even though they were willing to pay either CDN's to pay for the connection between I.S.P's and Netflix servers, or give them free hardware which would allow them to control usage of Netflix media.

[Irate Canadian]

The bias of one who actually ran his own ISP, yes. I am, after all, a believer in neither equality nor neutrality, but I do have an aversion to monopoly, and especially an aversion to the pretense of equality and neutrality under a law that will effectively protect existing monopolies, whether their name is Time Warner Cable or Facebook. That cutesy video was nothing but the large companies putting out blatantly obvious propaganda about THE EVIL ISPS PASSING EVIL JUDGMENTS ON YOUR PERFECTLY CUTE AND INNOCENT TRAFFIC, whereas in reality, the reason those software companies have been profitable has been by leveraging the lack of regulation and oversight on capacity, in much the same way they leverage the lack of regulation in the Third World, or on immigration. The ISPs are the dumb fall guys who can go along with this only because they already have the local monopolies.

Mark Zuckerberg is not a good guy, and anything he or his sockpuppet company wants should be immediately suspect. The people who run Netflix are not good people. Getting stuff for free or reduced rates is appreciated but should not be expected, nor subsidized by the government when it starts going back up in cost.

These things could be true, however net neutrality is a issue that affects more companies other then Facebook and Netflix.

[Irate Canadian]

And if that site is called "Netflix" or "Facebook", they'll use that YOU CAN'T STOP MY GLORIOUSLY AD-FILLED SIGNAL , BIGOTS attitude to do exactly what the article said irrespective of the connection that people pay for, meaning that any non-established ISP competition that doesn't have the massive data capacity when starting out will have to have either generally slow internet to serve the Facebookers and Netflixers or get off the market. It's in exactly the same spirit of ladder-pulling regulation that kills the smallest businesses in the crib for the most niggling legal violations, and means that the 'different packages with different speeds' are going to be offered only by established ISP monopolies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable, not startups who can actually afford to offer cheap packages as long as they restrict the major brands from their traffic listings.

But given how most people don't actually know how the Internet works, or who's sponsoring "Net Neutrality", I expect it to pass handily. But remember that all-encompassing laws can only be rigorously enforced by all-encompassing monopoly power, and do you really want to grant that to Facebook?

Have you heard about CDN's?

[Paprika]

It will lead to things like this:

The problem with a system like this is that the Telcoms become richer, and get around the fact of upgrading their infrastructure by pushing the cost to the web sites. This can be seen in the case of Netflix vs. the Telcoms.

So what? You're only telling me what will happen, and not why it is wrong. This isn't a case where you can expect a common moral principle to be shared (eg rape is wrong).

What's wrong with one group of companies getting richer to the detriment of another?

[Irate Canadian]

Sen. Ted Cruz is not in favour of it...

[Paprika]

IC: Mind replying to my post?

[Sparko]

I have a practical question: when programs such as AdBlock block ads from loading, they do reduce the data being downloaded on the user end, right?

since the programs run on the user end (as a browser add-on) I don't think they reduce the data being sent to you, I think they just keep it from showing up in your browser. But it would really depend on how they do it. If they can actually prevent a link from downloading an ad, then it would save you some data.

[Irate Canadian]

since the programs run on the user end (as a browser add-on) I don't think they reduce the data being sent to you, I think they just keep it from showing up in your browser. But it would really depend on how they do it. If they can actually prevent a link from downloading an ad, then it would save you some data.

I believe the DNS requests for the ad are still sent to your P.C, but Ad-Block hides the image using CSS trickery.

[Irate Canadian]

So what? You're only telling me what will happen, and not why it is wrong. This isn't a case where you can expect a common moral principle to be shared (eg rape is wrong).

What's wrong with one group of companies getting richer to the detriment of another?

There's nothing wrong with this fact in most circumstances. It actually usually benefits the end-user because of competition between companies. However, if Net Neutrality gets repealed, it causes a increase in cost for the end user, because traffic can be treated unequally, and the end-users forced to pay premiums over their current costs in order to get reasonable access to sites.

[Paprika]

There's nothing wrong with this fact in most circumstances. It actually usually benefits the end-user because of competition between companies. However, if Net Neutrality gets repealed, it causes a increase in cost for the end user, because traffic can be treated unequally, and the end-users forced to pay premiums over their current costs in order to get reasonable access to sites.

So you object to paying more, and would want laws passed so you don't have to spend more money?

[Irate Canadian]

So you object to paying more, and would want laws passed so you don't have to spend more money?

I wouldn't mind paying more, if we could actually get decent costs for Internet. The problem is Net Neutrality will cause monopolies to form up, and hence the end-user and the producer pay more.

[Paprika]

The problem is Net Neutrality will cause monopolies to form up

I don't understand this bit. Isn't there already a small number of suppliers of internet access?

[Cow Poke]

I don't understand this bit. Isn't there already a small number of suppliers of internet access?

It's the small numbers of MAJOR carriers, and they tend to gobble up any successful smaller players.

[Paprika]

It's the small numbers of MAJOR carriers, and they tend to gobble up any successful smaller players.

Thanks for the confirmation; I wasn't sure about the conditions in your country. But if that is the case, how does non-Net Neutrality create a more monopolistic situation than currently exists?