Net Neutrality

[gerntz]

Another thing: Why should isps be required to give equal treatment to the the likes of Facebook & Twitter who censor the info they stream? Seems the isps have an obligation to assure all views are heard & not selected by potentially biased info providers. I.e., why shouldn't isps have the right if not the obligation to censor censored info?

 

[explanade]

You want ISPs to censor some content?

 

[Texas Proud]

Wow.... kinda got off track IMO...

Here is the problem that I see...

I pay someone to provide me with internet service (call it a pipe)... and I pay them for a range of speed (how big the pipe is).... it should not be a concern of theirs what I want to send down that pipe....

But they want to slow down something if they do not get paid enough from a provider (Netflix or some other streaming service).... but Netflix should not be involved with this since I am paying for that pipe... do not give me a smaller pipe than I paid for whatever reason...


Now, to get around this problem they can say once I reach a certain amount of data through the pipe they will charge me more.... that is fair... but taking money from Netflix or Facebook or anybody else to slow down the competition or slow down everybody else that is using that pipe so I can get something faster is not what I want...

 

[Texas Proud]

Buu... you seem to be using semantics to make a point that I think is not valid...

Sure, the local gvmt let someone have a franchise.... but for people that are there it is a monopoly.... IOW, if I can ONLY get that one service that service is a monopoly in my eyes...

 

[explanade]

Wow.... kinda got off track IMO...

Here is the problem that I see...

I pay someone to provide me with internet service (call it a pipe)... and I pay them for a range of speed (how big the pipe is).... it should not be a concern of theirs what I want to send down that pipe....

But they want to slow down something if they do not get paid enough from a provider (Netflix or some other streaming service).... but Netflix should not be involved with this since I am paying for that pipe... do not give me a smaller pipe than I paid for whatever reason...


Now, to get around this problem they can say once I reach a certain amount of data through the pipe they will charge me more.... that is fair... but taking money from Netflix or Facebook or anybody else to slow down the competition or slow down everybody else that is using that pipe so I can get something faster is not what I want...

The ISPs just don't want to provide the dumb pipes because that's at the bottom of the value chain.

If someone is making a lot of money on their network, they want a piece of it. They saw Netflix stock price shoot way up while Netflix took up a lot of their bandwidth.

So a company like Comcast started buying media companies like NBC/Universal, so that they would own some of the content that goes through their pipes.

So even if people cut the cord, they'd have to pay to get that content through means other than cable TV such as streaming.

Of course, AT&T is trying to do the same by acquiring Time-Warner (owns CNN, HBO, etc.) but the DOJ is suing to block this acquisition.

 

[easysurfer]

Knew I should have kept one of these .

Might be faster old fashioned way once speed gets throttled down in the future.

 

[Curmudgeon]

The ISPs just don't want to provide the dumb pipes because that's at the bottom of the value chain.

If someone is making a lot of money on their network, they want a piece of it. They saw Netflix stock price shoot way up while Netflix took up a lot of their bandwidth.

"Their" bandwidth? Everything that Netflix used is bandwidth that their customers already paid them for. If they want more money, they can always charge the customers more. That's how a free market should work.

 

[explanade]

Well they're always working on charging the customers more.

 

[Texas Proud]

The ISPs just don't want to provide the dumb pipes because that's at the bottom of the value chain.

If someone is making a lot of money on their network, they want a piece of it. They saw Netflix stock price shoot way up while Netflix took up a lot of their bandwidth.

So a company like Comcast started buying media companies like NBC/Universal, so that they would own some of the content that goes through their pipes.

So even if people cut the cord, they'd have to pay to get that content through means other than cable TV such as streaming.

Of course, AT&T is trying to do the same by acquiring Time-Warner (owns CNN, HBO, etc.) but the DOJ is suing to block this acquisition.

Then do not get into that business.... and I am paying them to deliver me data at a constant speed, whatever data that I want... I am not paying them to give their media higher priority than some other media...

Sure, they can buy the media side to reap the rewards, but I still think their pipeline business is a commodity... kinda like for my electricity now... there is one company that provides all of the lines and gets paid by all users for the price of those lines no matter which company they buy electricity from... but I have a choice of who I want to get my electricity from.... AND the company that provides the lines also sells electricity... but they do not get to block my electricity and keep their customers on if for some reason there is a problem in the grid....

I am for NN....

 

[bUU]

Buu... you seem to be using semantics to make a point that I think is not valid...

Which is exactly what someone would say if they wanted the benefits of net neutrality for themselves and didn't like the points made that work against that.

Sure, the local gvmt let someone have a franchise.... but for people that are there it is a monopoly.... IOW, if I can ONLY get that one service that service is a monopoly in my eyes...

Who is using semantics? "Monopoly in your eyes"? (Answer: You.) There is no such thing as "a monopoly in one person's eyes". Monopoly is a word with a definition and its meaning drives understanding when the word is used. So you're basically attempting to misuse a word to make your personal preference sound more important than it is. That's a problem that I've been highlighting in this thread. The word "monopoly" refers to providers with dominance in a market, not in within someone's own personal world.

And with regard to the rest, the fact is that there is a difference between essentials and non-essentials with regard to how society controls distribution of those things. It is something that is only challenged in a tangential way, as you have here, because it is so universally accepted that the difference is significant and vital to society. If you don't agree then say it very plainly that you think that there should be nothing society does to address how those less fortunate gain access to the basic essentials of life (because of that was the point I was making that you are objecting to). Let's not hide the discussion in euphemism.

The reality is that calls for net neutrality would be stronger if the benefits were in terms of affording access to basic essentials rather than affording access to luxuries and other non-essentials. That is something that can be demonstrated to be in the best interest of society overall, rather than just in the best interest of some consumers of high-end services.

... I am paying them to deliver me data at a constant speed, whatever data that I want... I am not paying them to give their media higher priority than some other media...

If you don't like the service being offered by a certain supplier then don't subscribe to it and find a supplier who will give you what you want the way you want it given to you. If there are no suppliers willing to provide what you want the way you want it then learn to live without. That's the way the free market works. If you don't like the free market then work to get rid of the free market from the bottom up rather than complaining about one small little aspect of the free market that happens to be your pet peeve. We all have our own pet peeves and no one person's pet peeve should get special treatment.

Most importantly, don't seek to retain the benefits of the free market for yourself while seeking to withhold them from companies that you do business with. That's the aspect of these complaints that is most mind-blowing to me: the (attempt to justify use of state offices in the interest of) unchecked opportunism without any sense of balance.

 

[kcowan]

I am for NN....

Me too! And I think the bandwidth providers are charging everyone for capacity that they do not use. Have you ever paid for a toll road only to find traffic is tied up? That is what these internet toll highways are struggling with. If all their customer used all their subscribed bandwidth at once, the speed would drop to a crawl. And their customers would complain about throttling.

 

[bUU]

If all their customer used all their subscribed bandwidth at once, the speed would drop to a crawl. And their customers would complain about throttling.

You've really hit on something there: The underlying lack of understanding by many consumers. Of course, throttling refers to intentional slowing of an Internet service to implement a QoS policy, not the natural slowing of an Internet service due to the service reaching its capacity. However, as you said, consumers would mistakenly presume that it is something that their service provider is "doing to them" that should not be "done to them" rather than just a normal, to-be-expected reflection of maxing out a shared resource, in the context of the terms and conditions that express mass-market Internet service performance in terms such as "Actual speeds vary and are not guaranteed."

 

[USGrant1962]

Well if people cut the cord, then why do they still want the isp provider who also provides the cord? seems they want their cake & eat it too.

In common usage "cut the cord" refers to cable TV service. Internet service is a different product that many cable companies (and others) started offering more than a decade ago. I don't understand your comment. It is like you are saying if you don't want to buy a Mac, why do you want an iPhone?

 

[gerntz]

You want ISPs to censor some content?

I don't want them transmitting information/news censored by the choice of the content provider. Do you? Would you want a water pipe transmitting polluted water? What about electric lines transmitting the wrong voltage?

 

[explanade]

Not exactly precise analogies.

Do you want them to block porn or certain political sites?

I think most people would prefer to make those choices themselves.

 

[kgtest]

Aren't we already seeing this with contract re-negotiations where all of a sudden "CBS" and all the associated content will get dropped from a "dish" service, or Amazon Video has the content I want but Netflix does not.

I think in either model, which will be more ineffective, then effective, the consumer will drive the demand, and therefore the price. If we all need our netflix crack, well netflix crack will get expensive and so will the service. If we all need our Call of Duty gaming crack, then all of a sudden Steam gets expensive... creating opportunities for competitors to try their hand at the service game. If you don't have a large cable across the pacific, and people in the pacific want service, well you have to pay to lease that large cable. I do find it hard to believe that this will be more positive than negative. Its my understanding the high usage folks do pay one way or another.

The real problem is internet accessibility, not control over those that can access it.

 

[meierlde]

Aren't we already seeing this with contract re-negotiations where all of a sudden "CBS" and all the associated content will get dropped from a "dish" service, or Amazon Video has the content I want but Netflix does not.

I think in either model, which will be more ineffective, then effective, the consumer will drive the demand, and therefore the price. If we all need our netflix crack, well netflix crack will get expensive and so will the service. If we all need our Call of Duty gaming crack, then all of a sudden Steam gets expensive... creating opportunities for competitors to try their hand at the service game. If you don't have a large cable across the pacific, and people in the pacific want service, well you have to pay to lease that large cable. I do find it hard to believe that this will be more positive than negative. Its my understanding the high usage folks do pay one way or another.

The real problem is internet accessibility, not control over those that can access it.

The disputes over payments to content providers from satellite and cable operators to carry the signal, have been going on for a long time.

 

[bUU]

Would you want a water pipe transmitting polluted water?

Don't go there; that analogy can be readily twisted to support the opposite of what you want: Water utilities filter out from the water they provide whatever they consider pollutants. The analog would be ISPs filtering out whatever they consider pollutants.

Not exactly precise analogies.

There is no such thing as a "precise analogy". If it were precise, it wouldn't be an analogy. The point of analogy is to draw a parallel, not an equivalency.

Do you want them to block porn or certain political sites? I think most people would prefer to make those choices themselves.

Precisely. And this really underscores how pointless it is to try to prove anything by analogy. Things are different. Trying to say something about A because you can say something similar about B is a logical fallacy.

 

[Texas Proud]

Which is exactly what someone would say if they wanted the benefits of net neutrality for themselves and didn't like the points made that work against that.

Who is using semantics? "Monopoly in your eyes"? (Answer: You.) There is no such thing as "a monopoly in one person's eyes". Monopoly is a word with a definition and its meaning drives understanding when the word is used. So you're basically attempting to misuse a word to make your personal preference sound more important than it is. That's a problem that I've been highlighting in this thread. The word "monopoly" refers to providers with dominance in a market, not in within someone's own personal world.

OK... the definition of monopoly (just so we can be clear)... from dictionary.com

1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.


2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
​

SOOO, it seems that your semantics are wrong... it IS a monopoly based on the definition... #2 is exactly the definition of what we were talking about...

 

[bUU]

OK... the definition of monopoly (just so we can be clear)... from dictionary.com...

1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.


2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
​

SOOO, it seems that your semantics are wrong... it IS a monopoly based on the definition... #2 is exactly the definition of what we were talking about...

Actually, your semantics are wrong and mine are correct. I cannot account for why you don't understand that after you read what you posted and after you read what I posted.

I fear that this is just going to be something that you're going to be upset about continually, since how the marketplace is going to affect you is going to be governed by my understanding rather than yours. Again: There is no such thing as a monopoly in your eyes. A monopoly exists when a supplier has market power, not when you personally feel that they are the only viable supplier of something for your needs.

 

[sengsational]

The ISPs just don't want to provide the dumb pipes because that's at the bottom of the value chain.

That's exactly it.

Cable companies were used to collecting money for both the pipe AND the content. Before video over the internet was a thing, cable companies were happy to offer Internet service...a new thing to charge for. But now the customers they've abused all these years (due to them having the only wire on their street), are taking the Internet pipe (still the only game in town), and disengaging from the content that the cable company offers. Instead, that revenue is going to NetFlix, Google, etc. And that's the rub. The old status quo, where the cable company can have high prices and poor customer service is gone, and they'd like it back.

If cable companies are permitted to pick and choose what they'll deliver to their customers and/or what speed certain things will be delivered, my prediction isn't that we'll get slammed with a NetFlix block overnight. It's going to be a death of 1000 cuts. First, they'll put data caps (which is fine), but not fine is saying that their own video services will be exempt from the caps. This way, they're giving complete freedom to NetFlix, but getting their foot in the video content door by giving themselves an advantage. That will only be the first step. There will be more insidious pricing after that. But you watch. NN will "lose", and let's watch for the first moves to grab video revenue.

 

[aja8888]

That's exactly it.

Cable companies were used to collecting money for both the pipe AND the content. Before video over the internet was a thing, cable companies were happy to offer Internet service...a new thing to charge for. But now the customers they've abused all these years (due to them having the only wire on their street), are taking the Internet pipe (still the only game in town), and disengaging from the content that the cable company offers. Instead, that revenue is going to NetFlix, Google, etc. And that's the rub. The old status quo, where the cable company can have high prices and poor customer service is gone, and they'd like it back.

If cable companies are permitted to pick and choose what they'll deliver to their customers and/or what speed certain things will be delivered, my prediction isn't that we'll get slammed with a NetFlix block overnight. It's going to be a death of 1000 cuts. First, they'll put data caps (which is fine), but not fine is saying that their own video services will be exempt from the caps. This way, they're giving complete freedom to NetFlix, but getting their foot in the video content door by giving themselves an advantage. That will only be the first step. There will be more insidious pricing after that. But you watch. NN will "lose", and let's watch for the first moves to grab video revenue.

Not only the above, but the absolutely horrid customer service will be back!

 

[explanade]

I think the horrible customer service is still around.

The cable TV companies and the cell phone carriers are among the most disliked companies to consumers.

 

[Texas Proud]

Actually, your semantics are wrong and mine are correct. I cannot account for why you don't understand that after you read what you posted and after you read what I posted.

I fear that this is just going to be something that you're going to be upset about continually, since how the marketplace is going to affect you is going to be governed by my understanding rather than yours. Again: There is no such thing as a monopoly in your eyes. A monopoly exists when a supplier has market power, not when you personally feel that they are the only viable supplier of something for your needs.

Wow... I put down the definition and it matches exactly with what happened... and what people were posting here as a monopoly which you challenged.... cable companies were given monopolies in certain areas... you called them 'franchises'.... it is not in my eyes, but the fact...

Now there is some competition in a lot of areas, but not all... and if there is no competition due to gvmt it is a monopoly by definition...

I am not upset, but just wonder where your world view comes from...

 

[bUU]

Wow... I put down the definition and it matches exactly with what happened...

No, it doesn't. That's the point. You want to think the words match your personal perspective as a justification for your criticism of how things are, but the reality is that things are the way they are because your interpretation of the definitions are incorrect.

and what people were posting here as a monopoly which you challenged.... cable companies were given monopolies in certain areas... you called them 'franchises'.... it is not in my eyes, but the fact...

No. It is that way in your eyes. The fact is that they are franchises. The fact is that franchising authorities choose between competitors in a competitive marketplace. I am sorry that there is no more effective way to help you understand this. Perhaps you need to contact your local franchising authority and make sure that you're at least an observer of the process next time it occurs. Perhaps seeing it with your own eyes will help you overcome this barrier.

I am not upset, but just wonder where your world view comes from...

From the reality of the situation which you are upset about. I have to sympathize with those who are looking at how things are as an example of how they're being victimized unfairly instead of the reality: That they are mistaken about legal foundation of the perspectives that they're expressing.