Web Giants Press Demands For Net Neutrality

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Now that it is abundantly clear that no one wants a fast lane for priority traffic or any other way for ISPs to gouge content providers, can we just move forward on this please?

Major U.S. web companies on Monday urged regulators to restrict the ability of Internet providers including mobile carriers to strike deals for faster delivery of some web traffic and planned a publicity campaign about the government's proposal. The Internet Association, which represents three dozen web companies such as Google Inc, Netflix Inc and Amazon.com Inc, made their case in a filing with the Federal Communications Commission, which plans to establish new so-called "net neutrality" rules.
Click to expand...
 
I'm in favor of a neutral Internet.

But lets think about it outside of the box. No one is regulating theme parks that have "fast pass" access which causes people who don't pay for the pass to have slower access to the attractions. Your only option is that you get to choose what theme park you want to visit.

When it comes to Internet, many of us do not have an option. It's like the electric company, you get who's in your area. So the idea that we're forced to use one company, and then they can legally restrict my traffic unless I pay additional fee's (Netflix is going to pass the cost down to me), makes me sick.

I think that classifying the Internet as a "Natural Monopoly" makes sense because it helps keep cost down by not having multiple vendors running service in the same locations, just like with electric or natural gas providers, but keeps the vendors honest by having certain regulations in place like having all traffic be neutral.
 
bigdogchris said:
I'm in favor of a neutral Internet.

But lets think about it outside of the box. No one is regulating theme parks that have "fast pass" access which causes people who don't pay for the pass to have slower access to the attractions. Your only option is that you get to choose what theme park you want to visit.

When it comes to Internet, many of us do not have an option. It's like the electric company, you get who's in your area. So the idea that we're forced to use one company, and then they can legally restrict my traffic unless I pay additional fee's (Netflix is going to pass the cost down to me), makes me sick.

I think that classifying the Internet as a "Natural Monopoly" makes sense because it helps keep cost down by not having multiple vendors running service in the same locations, just like with electric or natural gas providers, but keeps the vendors honest by having certain regulations in place like having all traffic be neutral.
Click to expand...

I think people are getting the consumer/content provider flip-flopped. The cable companies have a mechanism they employ, tiered pricing which never went away that throttles throughput and as a result,consumption. That covers the bandwidth consumption issue.

The problem is two fold. Imbuing a hiddened charge oncharge providers too who have to pass that cost to me. If they atleast feigned restructuring costs so that only my half of the data fetch got charged to me, but they haven't even tried. Its all revenue add in a business that is quite profitable.

The other problem is that charging providers allows them a mechanism to play favorites and/or kill competing technologies to their TV business especially. Then phone, Then e-mail, ad infinitum. Or like they do now they choke providers they don't want to compete with.
 
Doesn't really matter when the guy calling the shots has money coming in from the cable industry. I'm still unclear how that appointment could have been possible.
 
jpm100 said:
The other problem is that charging providers allows them a mechanism to play favorites and/or kill competing technologies to their TV business especially. Then phone, Then e-mail, ad infinitum. Or like they do now they choke providers they don't want to compete with.
Click to expand...

People are assuming there will be two speeds but they can make a lot more money operating the same way Google does with AdWords. They can play businesses off against each other quite easily.

"Hey Netflix, pay us $100k this month to not throttle your connections or $200k to be faster than YouTube."
 
I know I am in the minority but I actually like having pay for performance options ... we use it in many other non-internet offerings (Toll Roads, TSA Precheck, Global Entry, Sentri/Fast Pass, Airline seats, etc) ... as long as it is truly optional I wouldn't have a problem with paying for preferred or enhanced internet performance ... but I would prefer it being on the consumer side, not the service side ... I would pay Comcast/Verizon/Whoever an extra $5-10/month and they give me personally better streaming performance ... at the service side I think it would need to be more closely monitored to prevent anti-competitive aspects
 
kbrickley said:
I know I am in the minority but I actually like having pay for performance options ... we use it in many other non-internet offerings (Toll Roads, TSA Precheck, Global Entry, Sentri/Fast Pass, Airline seats, etc) ... as long as it is truly optional I wouldn't have a problem with paying for preferred or enhanced internet performance ... but I would prefer it being on the consumer side, not the service side ... I would pay Comcast/Verizon/Whoever an extra $5-10/month and they give me personally better streaming performance ... at the service side I think it would need to be more closely monitored to prevent anti-competitive aspects
Click to expand...

It's never going to be optional, not with the monopolies that have sprung up with city or regional franchise agreements.

That's the whole problem, give an inch, they take a light-year. This sort of scheme working relies on them (content providers, ISPs) saying "Hey, we could squeeze harder, but we're nice so we won't."

Since that mentality has as much chance of taking hold as I have of resurrecting dinosaurs with a paperclip and some glue, I wouldn't even let that model have a chance.
 
Sovereign said:
It's never going to be optional, not with the monopolies that have sprung up with city or regional franchise agreements.

That's the whole problem, give an inch, they take a light-year. This sort of scheme working relies on them (content providers, ISPs) saying "Hey, we could squeeze harder, but we're nice so we won't."

Since that mentality has as much chance of taking hold as I have of resurrecting dinosaurs with a paperclip and some glue, I wouldn't even let that model have a chance.
Click to expand...

I was just curious why people complain about the one but not the others ... I don't see too many folks whining about the government allowing expedited airport security (for the $80 fee to get Pre Check) or expedited immigration (for the $100 Global Entry fee or $50 Sentri fee) or enhanced seats on airplanes fees (exit rows, extra leg room, front of airplane, etc) ... it is trickier with the internet companies but it isn't a totally foreign concept (if it is applied at the consumer level rather than the service provider level)
 
All I know is I'm tired of watching NetFlix on my 75mbit FIOS connection at 250SD.
 
TechLarry said:
All I know is I'm tired of watching NetFlix on my 75mbit FIOS connection at 250SD.
Click to expand...

I'd call them and bitch about it.... every single time that you can't watch your video. I suggest *everyone* does this. Drive their support staff costs through the roof. Make them trip over dollars while trying to fleece Netflix for pennies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top