Wireless Carriers Begin Using Differentiation to Throttle Youtube and Netflix

[Deleted member 93354]

But ISP's would never do that. Show me where they throttle traffic selectively. Then the FTC will handle it if they ever did.

Dumb asses.

 

[jamesgalb]

Good luck trying to get wireless carriers to abide by those laws you just posted. They are way too broad and not specific to this industry enough. Not even close really.

Those laws are intentionally broad, so they can apply to a wide variety of commerce and trade. That is not something that makes them difficult to enforce across markets, it is something that makes them easy to enforce across markets.

This is exactly why prior abuses have ended up on court, and why the sky never fell prior to 2015.

And lets make something VERY clear. NN was not meant to protect the individual consumers. NN was meant to protect the internet giants like YouTube and NetFlix, who use the vast majority of the bandwidth of the internet.... Perhaps is those highly profitable cooperate mammoths "paid their fair share" (a popular sentiment among NN supporters), then the burden of the expense wouldnt be laid entirely on the individual consumers of the internet. It may also help the little guys become more competitive with these massive monopolies.... So lets drop the notion that NN was there to protect the consumers and little guys, because it most certainly was not.

 

[Lenard]

A lot of people in this forum should be feeling very embarrassed right now.
Even the thickest should realize this is why net neutrality should be in place.

Did you think the companies wouldn't do this?
Morons.

It is good that they are doing this. This is responsible behavior.

Also, Do you think calling people morons is persuasive?

 

[1Nocturnal101]

In this respect, Americans get dikked over, We pay more for phone and Internet services as compared to other countries and get less from the comparable services, I could see if we were actually #1 in the world to update and maintain the infrastructure, but we are far from it, so the price hikes aren't warranted.

 

[jamesgalb]

Well the thought process is that if you pay for X speed then you get that speed across all websites and apps. In the article it says that when you connect to Netflix you're stuck at 1.77 mbps and when your doing things not throttled then you're 6+mbps. In a net neutrality world you would get what you pay for as far as speed goes and it wouldn't matter what you are doing.

Of course the real world is different so get ready to pay more or experience rolling blackouts like AT&T is doing which is perfectly fine to me.

You, as the consumer, were already paying for the services that the large mammoth corporations were using and not paying for.

Where do you think the cost of those service was falling? Do you think the ISPs were just eating the losses for years? Why do you think your individual internet and connectivity service have become vastly more expensive over the last decade? The ENTIRETY of the service costs fall on the consumers, because the content providers using the service have weaseled out of it for years.

The naivety of some people blows my mind...

 

[jamesgalb]

In this respect, Americans get dikked over, We pay more for phone and Internet services as compared to other countries and get less from the comparable services, I could see if we were actually #1 in the world to update and maintain the infrastructure, but we are far from it, so the price hikes aren't warranted.

We pay the most because the entirety of the costs of our internet fall on the consumers... Because service providers like YouTube and NetFlix dont pay for any of it while using the vast majority of it.

How are you not understanding this?

My god...

 

[katanaD]

Because service providers like YouTube and NetFlix dont pay for any of it

 

[jamesgalb]

I guess you are unfamiliar with CDNs, settlement free peering, and the abuses.

 

[jamesgalb]

I should not have used the terminology, but I do feel this way. Allowing business to further exploit a market with little consumer choice is almost always a moronic ideal to support. This article is proof at least in some part of this.

A moronic person is not necessarily an ignorant person, so my statement could easily be interpreted as insulting to actual morons (not just ignoramus').

You pay more for your internet service because the costs of those services fall nearly ENTIRELY on the consumer. The costs fall nearly ENTIRELY on the consumer because content providers like NetFlix and YouTube game the system and dont pay for their fair share.

What you are asking for literally damages the consumer with higher costs, as well as prevents smaller competition in these markets from being competitive with the big mammoths.

You are completely ignorant to the logistics and even the laws behind the issues in which you argue, yet are so quick to call other morons.... Maybe educate yourself and do a bit of reflecting before quickly judging others and getting hostile.

 

[NickJames]

Those laws are intentionally broad, so they can apply to a wide variety of commerce and trade. That is not something that makes them difficult to enforce across markets, it is something that makes them easy to enforce across markets.

This is exactly why prior abuses have ended up on court, and why the sky never fell prior to 2015.

And lets make something VERY clear. NN was not meant to protect the individual consumers. NN was meant to protect the internet giants like YouTube and NetFlix, who use the vast majority of the bandwidth of the internet.... Perhaps is those highly profitable cooperate mammoths "paid their fair share" (a popular sentiment among NN supporters), then the burden of the expense wouldnt be laid entirely on the individual consumers of the internet. It may also help the little guys become more competitive with these massive monopolies.... So lets drop the notion that NN was there to protect the consumers and little guys, because it most certainly was not.

Ah yes, the series of tubes philosophy. I forgot that ISP's weren't paid a hefty amount by the government to expand their infrastructure, oh wait..

 

[jamesgalb]

Ah yes, the series of tubes philosophy. I forgot that ISP's weren't paid a hefty amount by the government to expand their infrastructure, oh wait..

What does that have to do with YouTube/NetFlix not paying for the services they use, and those costs being forwarded along to the consumers...?

 

[Master_shake_]

This is terrible, but not really related to the overturning of Net Neutrality rules.

The Obama era net neutrality rules - from what I remember - never applied to wireless carriers, only to ground based ISP's. And even then, they had one big gaping omission which made them ineffective. They didn't apply to the borders between networks or peering sites. This is how both Verizon and Comcast extorted Netflix back in 2016, by making their streams slow to a crawl. They just sabotaged the route between their network and the network Netflix was on.

Granted, I understand why Wheelers FCC crafted the rules in this way. The peering site dilemma is a very difficult one to regulate.

i remember when we had this dance.

https://hardforum.com/threads/portu...net-neutrality.1947010/page-3#post-1043297270



memories....

 

[Master_shake_]

We pay the most because the entirety of the costs of our internet fall on the consumers... Because service providers like YouTube and NetFlix dont pay for any of it while using the vast majority of it.

How are you not understanding this?

My god...

do you know how the internet works?

everyone needs an ISP; google, amazon, microsoft, yahoo, pornhub.

it doesn't matter who you are you have to pay for a connection in some way.

 

[Wierdo]

I guess this means I can watch high quality Netflix and Youtube here in Cali - I got at least 2-3 ISPs to choose from in my area - but not people in West Virginia where options are limited, meaning slow Comcrap speeds at double the prices, and now with Throttle and Selective xxxGB Cap features, yay!

NN to me seems to be an attempt to help the rust belt keep up by tying the ISPs hands to prevent this kind of monopoly abuse, but if there was actual competition then it would not be needed to begin with.

Shame we got neither in the states, so for now the belt will have to continue to party like it's 1999.

In a perfect world the FCC could mandate line sharing like other markets have successfully done - and what we're done in the past when DSL was king, had a phone book full of ISPs to choose from.

Wouldn't that be sweet... yeah good luck with all that lobby cash flying around lol.

 

[Fabel]

Netflix, YouTube... pay for their connection and are not spamming to the world. it's me using my paid connection who is asking them to give me something.
If no one connects to them and ask for some content, they don't use any bandwidth at all.

The only difference If I connect to my uncle at the other side of the world and download some content, or I connect to YouTube is that my uncle does not have a dim.

So why have Netflix or YouTube pay again for something I and they are already paying? This is just ISPs greed, going for the deep pockets to milk some more.

Netflix and YouTube are not using most of the ISPs bandwidth, it is that most of their clients who already paid for the service go to Netflix and YouTube. ISPs are pissed off because they can't benefit more from that.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

So-called "net-neutrality" did not apply to wireless carriers. So, I've asked this a millions times now. We don't have 'net netrality' regulations, can someone point out just a couple of examples of the negative effects of this? Wasn't this supposed to be the end of the 'free internet'? Was someone exaggerating with their hysterics over this?

It will eventually have this effect. It not going to happen overnight though. It's more of a slow motion demise. ISP's and wireless carriers are easing things in slowly, as that gets less protest and political activism.

Last thing they want is for people to suddenly en masse contact their elected officials and demand a net neutrality law, so they slowly nibble around the edges, hoping that people just don't notice as their internet freedoms slowly erode.

We are already seeing some of this, like in this example with wireless carriers. This one doesn't affect me, as I never watch video on the go, but who knows, the next one might.

We also saw it in 2014 when Verizon and Comcast both extorted Netflix into paying them to host their servers by effectively throttling them by intentionally allowing congestion at their peering sites to Cogent's network.

Here is a more comprehensive list courtesy of Free Press:

MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

NETWORK-WIDE: Throughout 2013 and early 2014, people across the country experienced slower speeds when trying to connect to certain kinds of websites and applications. Many complained about underperforming streaming video from sites like Netflix. Others had trouble connecting to video-conference sites and making voice calls over the internet.

The common denominator for all of these problems, unbeknownst to users at the time, was their ISPs’ failure to provide enough capacity for this traffic to make it on to their networks in the first place. In other words, the problem was not congestion on the broadband lines coming into homes and businesses, but at the “interconnection” point where the traffic users’ request from other parts of the internet first comes into the ISPs’ networks.

An Open Technology Institute investigation that drew on the Measurement Lab’s data analysis found these slowdowns were the result of “intentional policies by some of the nation’s largest communications companies, which led to significant, months-long degradation of a consumer product for millions of people.” Major broadband providers, including AT&T, Time Warner Cable and Verizon, deliberately limited the capacity at these interconnection points, effectively throttling the delivery of content to thousands of U.S. businesses and residential customers across the country.

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments



And these are the ones we know about. This is not an imagined problem. ISP's are actively seeking to financially leverage this ability. leverage

 

[cageymaru]

You, as the consumer, were already paying for the services that the large mammoth corporations were using and not paying for.

Where do you think the cost of those service was falling? Do you think the ISPs were just eating the losses for years? Why do you think your individual internet and connectivity service have become vastly more expensive over the last decade? The ENTIRETY of the service costs fall on the consumers, because the content providers using the service have weaseled out of it for years.

The naivety of some people blows my mind...

So I have taken 2 insults from you and I blew them off. Keep going and you're going to need forum neutrality rules...

 

[Hatriot]

Ah yes, the series of tubes philosophy. I forgot that ISP's weren't paid a hefty amount by the government to expand their infrastructure, oh wait..

So sick of hearing this. My guess is that you have little to ZERO direct knowledge of the ISP industry outside of whatever progressive conspiracy theories you read from Reddit, Anandtech, and all the other garbage sites. I work for an ISP and we receive never received anything from your mama gubment. In fact we are constantly having to pay off local and state municipalities who want to hold up expansion with permitting red tape until they make it painful enough to get their "cut".

 

[cageymaru]

So sick of hearing this. My guess is that you have little to ZERO direct knowledge of the ISP industry outside of whatever progressive conspiracy theories you read from Reddit, Anandtech, and all the other garbage sites. I work for an ISP and we receive never received anything from your mama gubment. In fact we are constantly having to pay off local and state municipalities who want to hold up expansion with permitting red tape until they make it painful enough to get their "cut".

Some do though. I was talking with the Embarq (Centurylink) techs and they were upset because my area has received tons of federal funds to bring broadband into the area and yet nothing has been done. Well what Embarq did was run fiber to the elementary school and then told everyone that they can't get broadband. So the area is listed as broadband connected, but you can't even get dialup in the area as the phone lines are too rotten and old to support that.

Yes, they still receive yearly funding to expand to coverage and absolutely zero work has been accomplished.

 

[harbingerofdoom]

Wow, you guys must have an antiquated phone network, and dinosaurs running them.

QFT

 

[TeeJayHoward]

US telecom companies are instrumental in defining the characteristics of wireless communications across the planet. AT&T, VZW, etc... All members of the 5G consortium. Each company spend billions every year on infrastructure upgrades. Yes, billions. With a "B". ($7B per year for VZW alone!) It's not all going into the CEO's new yacht. Most of the country is covered with tech that's only a few years old. Aside from the predatory consumer practices, US cellular networks are a pretty good example of big business done right.

Let's say you've got 1000 people in an area with 1 cell tower. 100 of them want to watch NetFlix. 500 of them want to make phone calls. 400 of them want to browse the web. Without traffic shaping, 800-900 of the people would have cruddy service. With traffic shaping, 100 of them have "acceptable" service. What alternatives are there? You can't add another tower (it wouldn't increase speeds, just coverage) or bandwidth (problem's with radio, not the hardlines). Traffic shaping is a legitimate solution to a technical problem. It offers the biggest benefit to the most users with the least detriment to the fewest. It also offers advantages, such as the ability to turn off traffic shaping for first responders during emergencies. (Provided they train their support staff correctly...)

 

[NickJames]

So sick of hearing this. My guess is that you have little to ZERO direct knowledge of the ISP industry outside of whatever progressive conspiracy theories you read from Reddit, Anandtech, and all the other garbage sites. I work for an ISP and we receive never received anything from your mama gubment. In fact we are constantly having to pay off local and state municipalities who want to hold up expansion with permitting red tape until they make it painful enough to get their "cut".

https://www.fcc.gov/general/connect-america-fund-caf

As an example, AT&T accepted $500M in federal funding just to establish a basic infrastructure of 10mbps (a number that is already starting to become obsolete) in rural areas, a project that I doubt will ever be completed. How about the fact that ISP's also hold most state established utilities hostage against competing ISP's? The reason for all the red tape is because they love to cross that line repeatedly thus more regulation exists to prevent them from becoming the disgusting monopoly that they are.

What does that have to do with YouTube/NetFlix not paying for the services they use, and those costs being forwarded along to the consumers...?

It has more to do with the fact that it should be the ISP's job to expand bandwidth across the nation and not stifle it with bullshit limits and throttling.

 

[spintroniX]

So for all those arguing that the phone carriers and ISPs are greedy corporate oligarchs, and therefore we need a centralized government bureaucracy regulating the internet, I have the following questions:

1) to what extent is that bureaucracy accountable to either voters or consumers?
2) To what extent is there overlap between corporate and government employees?
3) Is greed a phenomenon experienced purely by corporations, and the FCC is totally immune?

 

[raz-0]

A lot of people in this forum should be feeling very embarrassed right now.
Even the thickest should realize this is why net neutrality should be in place.

Did you think the companies wouldn't do this?
Morons.

I hope you are trolling and not jsut stupid.

1) The net neutrality rules that were repealed were not binding on mobile broadband.
2) As proof of such, t-mobile at least has been doing this for YEARS. Prior to the change to the rgularions.
3) Every mobile carrier spells this out explicitly in their terms. Even making it into voice over mentions in tv commercials for some.

It's almost as if someone with an agenda was trying to take something that was never part of the issue, and trying to piss off ignorant people pretending they discovered some secret deception.

The deception is that you were fucking oblivious and didn't pay attention previously.

Alternately the deception was they moved form capped plans to ones described as "unlimited" and the same low information people screamed FUCK YEAH UNLIMITED!!!! without reading any of the fine print and found out they might in fact be more limited than they previously were in some ways.

But I'm sure that nobody involved is trying to imply Trump stole your netflix or anything.

 

[NickJames]

So for all those arguing that the phone carriers and ISPs are greedy corporate oligarchs, and therefore we need a centralized government bureaucracy regulating the internet, I have the following questions:

1) to what extent is that bureaucracy accountable to either voters or consumers?
2) To what extent is there overlap between corporate and government employees?
3) Is greed a phenomenon experienced purely by corporations, and the FCC is totally immune?

No one is saying the system is perfect, obviously everything has been corrupted to the point that the Onion doesn't even seem like satire anymore but I am hopeful for future generations.

 

[1_rick]

I think it is awesome! I think giving poor unfortunate folks a choice to receive "rolling blackouts" is great! Sign me up!

I mean, accepting cheaper service at the risk of interruptions is a tradeoff some people are willing to make, and it's not a new thing, nor limited to this. 20 years ago I was contracting at an Bell Labs facility and several times a summer, we had what were called "load shed" days. In exchange for a lower overall electricity rate, at times of high demand due to weather, we would have to cut back our usage. That meant the AC was shut off, some overhead lights were turned off, etc., to avoid blackouts.

(I'm talking about only cases where the consumer knows what he's getting into up front, here.)

 

[jamesgalb]

It has more to do with the fact that it should be the ISP's job to expand bandwidth across the nation and not stifle it with bullshit limits and throttling.

Maybe Google and NetFlix and others should pay for their fair share of usage, so the burden doesnt fall entirely on the shoulders of the consumers and tax payers....?

Why are we protecting Google and NetFlix simply because they have made threats to pass the costs onto the consumers? Isnt that extortion? From massively profitable companies playing victims...

 

[Deleted member 93354]

What does that have to do with YouTube/NetFlix not paying for the services they use, and those costs being forwarded along to the consumers...?

You PAID for that bandwidth. If Comcast or other ISP's cannot deliver, then they have oversold their services.

 

[spintroniX]

No one is saying the system is perfect, obviously everything has been corrupted to the point that the Onion doesn't even seem like satire anymore but I am hopeful for future generations.

Sure, but that doesn't really address my points.

People in here are crying out over "see this is what you get without NN" - yet they have a number of hard and implicit assumptions in that belief system.

IMO those assumptions, which I've called out in my original question, are completely unfounded. I'm waiting on someone to justify these assumptions in a satisfactory way.

I'm guessing I'll be waiting for the heat death of the universe.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Yes, it is up to you to decide how to use the bandwidth you pay for, but most of us here are not so stupid as to stream the 4K version of a video to devices that can barely do 1080. The general public, who makes up FAR more of the user base than the entirety of this user base however, is typically not so intelligent and will always pick the highest quality option even if it makes absolutely NO sense. And that needlessly wastes bandwidth. If limitations are placed so that the capabilities of the end user device are not exceeded for no gain, I have no issue. If they actually throttle the traffic so the video can;t play because the data stream is being interrupted - then I have a problem.

That assumea everyone uses their devices the same. What if you have a mobile device hooked up to a large 4k screen for some sort of movie night, where a ground based ISP is not available?

Now personally I find watching movies and TV on my phone to be silly. I just don't do it. My phone is my email/web device when I'm on the go. If I'm not on the go I'm using my desktop. Movies and TV get played on my HTPC. The truth - however - is that these clowns shouldn't be telling us how to use our service. If we are paying for it, we should be able to use it as we please.

Ideally the Netflix app should analyze he display resolution and DPI and select a max resolution and bitrate based on on that which cannot be overridden.

It's in their benefit too, since it costs them less if less bandwidth is utilized.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

Sure, but that doesn't really address my points.

People in here are crying out over "see this is what you get without NN" - yet they have a number of hard and implicit assumptions in that belief system.

IMO those assumptions, which I've called out in my original question, are completely unfounded. I'm waiting on someone to justify these assumptions in a satisfactory way.

I'm guessing I'll be waiting for the heat death of the universe.

Actually heat death is a myth. Even planets orbiting stars will have tectonic stresses which generate heat. Gravity keeps going even in heat death.

 

[jamesgalb]

You PAID for that bandwidth. If Comcast or other ISP's cannot deliver, then they have oversold their services.

You PAID for your share. Google and NetFlix should PAY for their share, which they didnt because of prior abuse and NN.

Thus you, the consumer, pay the entire cost of internet connectivity. If Google and NetFlix paid their share, then internet wouldnt be as expensive for you the consumer (and tax payer).

Why are you protecting Google and NetFlix? Because they have made threats to pass the costs onto the consumers? Isnt that extortion? From massively profitable companies playing victims...


That Face When: Google and NetFlix extort the general public by telling them that they will charge them more if ISPs charge them for their 'fair share' of usage, and the general public responds by saying "That sounds fair. We as consumers and tax payers should pay the entire cost of internet connectivity ourselves, so that we dont have to pay more".

 

[twonunpackmule]

Don't all these carriers make this obvious in all their unlimited plans?

verizons gounlimited says it streams at 480p, beyond and 720p, and above at 1080p. I'm pretty sure they had similar language months ago
ATT - unlimited & more = 480p unlimited & more premium = 1080p
t-mobile - one plan =480p, one plus =1080p
sprint - unlimited basic -480p, unlimited plus - 1080p, unlimited premium =fullhd.

Yes. They also tell you via a text when they plan to start throttling you. I was a high end user for a number of years. Would use 30gb monthly on a lite work month. So, getting throttled fucking sucked...but, I knew when it occurred, mostly. I also understood that my uses are the extreme end. Yes, I pay for unlimited, but not really "unlimited speeds." I would notice during certain hours they would throttle me after 1gb or more with the hour. If I waited an hour, I could do another 1gb before throttling. That last part wasn't clear but was something I picked up on through use.

The answer, obviously, is more competition. These state approved carrier monopolies are not the answer.

 

[Retronym]

A lot of people in this forum should be feeling very embarrassed right now.
Even the thickest should realize this is why net neutrality should be in place.

Did you think the companies wouldn't do this?
Morons.

You want it in place to control prices.

It will be your industry next.

 

[Newbie_52]

You PAID for your share. Google and NetFlix should PAY for their share, which they didnt because of prior abuse and NN.

Thus you, the consumer, pay the entire cost of internet connectivity. If Google and NetFlix paid their share, then internet wouldnt be as expensive for you the consumer (and tax payer).

Why are you protecting Google and NetFlix? Because they have made threats to pass the costs onto the consumers? Isnt that extortion? From massively profitable companies playing victims...


That Face When: Google and NetFlix extort the general public by telling them that they will charge them more if ISPs charge them for their 'fair share' of usage, and the general public responds by saying "That sounds fair. We as consumers and tax payers should pay the entire cost of internet connectivity ourselves, so that we dont have to pay more".

So if Google and netflix etc gave ISP's tons of money for bandwidth, the ISP's would definitely lower our bills right?

 

[spintroniX]

Actually heat death is a myth. Even planets orbiting stars will have tectonic stresses which generate heat. Gravity keeps going even in heat death.

huh? I don't think heat death means what you think it means.

 

[TAP]

Those laws are intentionally broad, so they can apply to a wide variety of commerce and trade. That is not something that makes them difficult to enforce across markets, it is something that makes them easy to enforce across markets.

This is exactly why prior abuses have ended up on court, and why the sky never fell prior to 2015.

And lets make something VERY clear. NN was not meant to protect the individual consumers. NN was meant to protect the internet giants like YouTube and NetFlix, who use the vast majority of the bandwidth of the internet.... Perhaps is those highly profitable cooperate mammoths "paid their fair share" (a popular sentiment among NN supporters), then the burden of the expense wouldnt be laid entirely on the individual consumers of the internet. It may also help the little guys become more competitive with these massive monopolies.... So lets drop the notion that NN was there to protect the consumers and little guys, because it most certainly was not.

Do you know who the behemoths are on the other side? Verizon? ATT? !?! There is no way in hell a court would touch those wireless carriers or ISPs with those laws you listed.

Do electric companies throttle power for heavy usage devices like air conditioning, hot water, or stoves and demand more money from their manufacturers? Do water companies throttle water when you wash clothes, the car or shower? No no and no. They don't. They need to upgrade their pipes if they cant handle Netflix and YouTube. Or be subject to a free market which would force those ISP companies to actually have to work for consumer's hard earned money.

 

[jamesgalb]

So if Google and netflix etc gave ISP's tons of money for bandwidth, the ISP's would definitely lower our bills right?

The free market would eventually result in that, either by existing companies under cutting one another or by enabling competition to offer lower rates to break into markets that are over-charged.... So yes.

But I guess you would rather be extorted by Google and NetFlix as they hold price hike threats over your head as a way to get out of paying their fair share...

 

[jamesgalb]

Do you know who the behemoths are on the other side? Verizon? ATT? !?! There is no way in hell a court would touch those wireless carriers or ISPs with those laws you listed.

Do electric companies throttle power for heavy usage devices like air conditioning, hot water, or stoves and demand more money from their manufacturers? Do water companies throttle water when you wash clothes, the car or shower? No no and no. They don't. They need to upgrade their pipes if they cant handle Netflix and YouTube. Or be subject to a free market which would force those ISP companies to actually have to work for consumer's hard earned money.

Those laws I referenced have been taking on "behemoths" for a long time. The argument that they wouldnt be able to take on Verizon or ATT, when they have in the past, is asinine.

Electricity is not a two way street, so your analogy is failed. When you send a file to me, you are not exempt from uploading fees simply because I paid for download fees.... Google's and NetFlix's are not paying their fair share, and as a result the consumers and tax payers have been paying for both sides of the service for years. You would rather Google and NetFlix not pay for their share, because they are extorting you by telling you they will charge you for something that you are already paying for on the other end...

 

[Verado]

So you think you should pay extra to use a service that you pay for that uses a service that you pay for?

Wow