> Correct me if I'm wrong, but would Net Neutrality effectively subsidize high bandwidth providers, such as Netflix & torrent providers, presumably creating latency across the network?
Yeah, this is wrong. Netflix is already paying it's ISP, and both sides of a BitTorrent connection are paying theirs.
Someone like Comcast wanting to charge Netflix just because too many of Comcast's customers are requesting Netflix traffic is ridiculous. Comcast already got paid... by their customers.
And I would argue that that is good. It creates an incentive for Netflix to invest into encoding, compressing and developing new tech in general. It also provides openings for competing platforms with better technology.
Take that away, and we could have a race to 8K@120fps or whatever with the whole internet as losers.
> Someone like Comcast wanting to charge Netflix just because too many of Comcast's customers are requesting Netflix traffic is ridiculous. Comcast already got paid... by their customers.
I don't have a preference who gets paid what in this situation as both are multi-billion dollar companies. Netflix serves as a middleman in a big machine as does Comcast. I have to care about my direct interests instead of spending energy on a crusade on behalf of a big tech company with the liability of the cost & making sure that the legislation does have any unintended consequences. Knowing politicians & lobbyists, there are always unintended consequences to any piece of legislation.
From what I'm seeing, the argument for NN is moot, heavy-handed, & rife with unintended consequences; Unless you can provide information about how somebody like me is adversely affected by something that only NN legislation would solve, why should somebody like me support NN when there are many alternatives that would be better for me? With NN, Comcast, Verizon, etc. are only going to capture the regulators to crack down on their competition (e.g. independent ISPs).
Focusing on providing better competition for underserved markets, included distributed networks & community wifi, would probably be more effective at keeping the quality of ISP market high. Improving distributed tech & removing (or rendering obsolete) legislation that limit competition to 1-2 ISPs in a region would also truly be beneficial. I also care about distributed systems. Is there something that regulation would do that the free market would not?
I'm a wee bit tired of NN being an oxygen-sucking rallying cry wedge issue that does not solve the root issues that affect me personally, but instead could be another regulatory tool to crack down on independent providers & distributed platforms.
NN is another of a long list of schemes to crack down on independent providers to capture yet another set of markets by the govt, lawyers, technocrats, etc. I wouldn't put it past Comcast to act as the heel in this charade.
> I don't have a preference who gets paid what in this situation as both are multi-billion dollar companies.
They pass that on to the consumer. It's Comacst trying to indirectly charge their customr twice for not using Comcast's streaming platform.
You should care because it's your money.
As far as the rest of your comment is concerned,maybe you can point at what exactly would be the costs in complying with net neutrality? Complying simply takes inaction and isn't a burden on smaller ISPs.
> They pass that on to the consumer. It's Comacst trying to indirectly charge their customr twice for not using Comcast's streaming platform.
I can also opt out of Netflix but I have to use an ISP. I'd rather go for a larger ISP market & stimulate more competition, with solutions such as small ISPs, municipal ISPs, & distributed networks.
The costs of NN are in the regulation, the extra laws that will include pork & more funding for government agencies. Also the ISP market used by everybody shrinks while the large content companies get a subsidy for flooding the commons, incentivizing these large content companies to grow even larger.
With the development of distributing computing, distributed networks, & open source/free software, there are new solutions on the table today that were not available a few years ago. I'd rather go with a bottom up effort to make the state of the art & my life better than top down legislation that only creates more government, more expenses, & does not benefit me.
> I can also opt out of Netflix but I have to use an ISP. I'd rather go for a larger ISP market & more competition.
It's not mutually exclusive. And I'll throw out there that the days of the most competition in the ISP space, the days of dial up, had these same provisions on the books. Since it was based on phone lines, the last mile providers were all full Title II Common Carriers, with these same provisions.
And what specific laws and regulations were a burden? Net neutrality existed already as rules on the books before being removed by Pai's FCC. I always here vague "think of the burden", but no one can point to the actual burden except in vague, propagandistic terms deeper than name dropping "regulation".
> It's not mutually exclusive. And I'll throw out there that the days of the most competition in the ISP space, the days of dial up, had these same provisions on the books. Since it was based on phone lines, the last mile providers were all full Title II Common Carriers, with these same provisions.
Yet since regulation was introduced, the ISP market became consolidated. This is yet another example of an unintended consequence of regulation. Proving compliance has costs that the smaller ISPs are less able to afford than the large ISPs.
> but no one can point to the actual burden except in vague, propagandistic terms deeper than name dropping "regulation".
I encourage you to re-read my previous posts & pay attention to what I'm saying, instead of replying with formulaic propaganda. I point out many of the burdens, effects on the market, opportunity costs, effects on distributed computing, regulatory capture, regulatory pork, compliance costs, etc. I can go to the EFF website to read your arguments. The contexts have changed. The burden of proof is on you since you want more laws.
> Yet since regulation was introduced, the ISP market became consolidated.
Which regulation, when?
> > but no one can point to the actual burden except in vague, propagandistic terms deeper than name dropping "regulation".
> I encourage you to re-read my previous posts & pay attention to what I'm saying, instead of replying with formulaic propaganda.
Did you just reply with "no u" essentially?
> I point out many of the burdens, effects on the market, opportunity costs, effects on distributed computing, regulatory capture, regulatory pork, compliance costs, etc. I can go to the EFF website to read your arguments. The contexts have changed. The burden of proof is on you since you want more laws.
You're the one asserting that specific regulations are burdensome. I can't be expected to prove a negative; you should name the regulation that is burdensome.
Yeah, this is wrong. Netflix is already paying it's ISP, and both sides of a BitTorrent connection are paying theirs.
Someone like Comcast wanting to charge Netflix just because too many of Comcast's customers are requesting Netflix traffic is ridiculous. Comcast already got paid... by their customers.