Author Topic: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load  (Read 5171 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #60 on: December 15, 2017, 09:42:39 AM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18054
  • Tommy Points: 2431
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Ive done some more reading on this and my conclusion seems to be that the majority of the benefits of repealing net-neutrality only exist in a fantasy-land where there is way more competition among ISPs than actually exists.

That said, I do not think the sky is falling.

Presumably, states will pass their own versions of net neutrality in the near future. Furthermore, the public will be hyper-aware of this for the next few years and any company risks some really bad publicity if they start ****ing customers over.

Hopefully, the fear of bad publicity forces company to only use their new freedom in the way it was intended(or at least the way it was presented). Charge services like Netflix premiums in order to receive priority service and use use the extra profits to improve the product.

Iím kind of expecting ESPN to exact revenge on Simmons and have a site like, The Ringer, relegated to the slow lanes.  That would force most of the viewing public back to their page for reasonably viewable sports content.   

I really donít think weíll see anything get faster ó quite the opposite in fact. 

Anything outside mainstream will become brutally slow.  And with such an impatient society, itíll likely have similar effects as censorship, ie, waiting forever for a controversial website to load...

But hey why not bend the entire nation over backwards so the very richest Americans can have a few more advantages afforded to them?

Yeah a lot of criticism has suggested we'll have to pay extra for Facebook or Netflix, but seems more likely the opposite - the big established players will cut favorable deals for themselves and be folded into the basic price, like Netflix did with Comcast a few years back. It's competitors and innovators who will likely get screwed. I'm more concerned about calcification than having to pay more for the major sites.

But the rhetoric that nothing will change is comical; the telecoms didn't spend tens of millions lobbying for this against major public opposition for no reason.


Big TPs to saltlover and mmmmmm for the thoughtful detailed posts, it's been a while since I've learned much from one of these threads.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #61 on: December 15, 2017, 10:01:56 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9898
  • Tommy Points: 1094
Here's the one issue I have with Net Neutrality that I have a hard time getting past: if I am an ISP and your business wants to use my infrastructure to get your content to customers, content mind you that may very well be competing against content I am also providing, why should I have to allow this, and furthermore why should I not be able to control the speed at which I deliver your competing content?

I either own the mode of transmission or I don't. And if I do how can the government fairly tell me what content I should or should not have to allow to be delivered via my transmission infrastructure, and the speed at which I do.

If your company doesn't like the deal or service that I offer you to use my transmission infrastructure, build your own.

This all just seems like a matter where the public has basically determined their wants are somehow more important than fair business practice. Maybe I misinterpreting it all, and some the technical stuff I still don't understand, but I feel like I've got the basic premise nailed down.


Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #62 on: December 15, 2017, 10:29:30 AM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3908
  • Tommy Points: 707
Here's the one issue I have with Net Neutrality that I have a hard time getting past: if I am an ISP and your business wants to use my infrastructure to get your content to customers, content mind you that may very well be competing against content I am also providing, why should I have to allow this, and furthermore why should I not be able to control the speed at which I deliver your competing content?

I either own the mode of transmission or I don't. And if I do how can the government fairly tell me what content I should or should not have to allow to be delivered via my transmission infrastructure, and the speed at which I do.

If your company doesn't like the deal or service that I offer you to use my transmission infrastructure, build your own.

This all just seems like a matter where the public has basically determined their wants are somehow more important than fair business practice. Maybe I misinterpreting it all, and some the technical stuff I still don't understand, but I feel like I've got the basic premise nailed down.


I think a lot of it has to then do with completely ignoring how much PUBLIC investment went into the development of internet technologies, etc, with no return except for the PUBLIC good and benefit of having open internet access.

It is a common thread in American business rhetoric: businesses innovate on the back of public research and knowledge, then end up with the patent and disproportionate profits, and cry "unfair" at any sense of regulation. Similar to the "self-made" myths of individual success that utterly ignores how many public taken-for-granted benefits helped you get to where you are.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #63 on: December 15, 2017, 10:33:41 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33888
  • Tommy Points: -27912
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .

Did any of that happen prior to 2015?

People keep saying this, but it completely ignores a lot of things, and is really a bit of a straw man.

First off, telecom is the field Iíve been working in the past half-decade, specifically in economics dealing with both regulations and mergers.  When Iím not thinking about the Celtics, this is what Iím thinking about.  I know more about this than I do the NBA salary cap.

The first 15-20 years of the commercial internet (depending when youíd like to say the Internet was born) operated largely under the 2015 regulations the FCC codified, but voluntarily.  In the mid-2000s, some ISPs looked into creating various pricing regimes and/or blocked content without any notification.  BitTorrent was a major target.  The excuse was that many of the files being downloaded were pirated.  While that may have been true, certainly not all were, it wasnít even clear that a majority was, and the content was universally blocked, as ISPís tried to slow down peak users.  VOIP was another major target, as companies that provided both phone and internet service didnít want to allow voice competition.  Comcast settled for millions of dollars for blocking BitTorrent.  Smaller providers also made settlements for blocking VOIP.  So when people say that companies will outright block websites without any notice, theyíre saying that because it already happened.  VOIP is quickly becoming the leading way to provide voice telephony ó itís significantly cheaper than the expensive equipment required for traditional switched telephony.  VOIP might never have happened if providers had successfully blocked it in the mid-2000s.  When people say that getting rid of net neutrality might stifle innovation, theyíre saying it because thatís exactly what would have happened with VOIP.

Anyway, the (Bush) FCC worked with NCTA to create some Net Neutrality rules as a result of some of the above actions.  They also sought to codify it for companies when they came before the FCC mergers.  When Bell South bought AT&T (and kept AT&Tís name), they had to abide by net neutrality rules until 2012 as a condition for approval.  When they bought Direct TV in 2015, they again agreed to abide by many of the regulations for several more years.  When Comcast bought NBC, they agreed to the same conditions for several years (which conveniently expire next year).  So has Comcast tried to do a lot of the stuff that Net Neutrality prevented?  For the most part, not recently, but thatís due to the fact they were prevented from doing so by another mechanism that is shortly expiring.  The same goes for AT&T to a lesser extent.

Meanwhile, the FCC tried to create Net Neutrality rules.  They twice tried to do so ó both times they lost in Court.  The second time was a hullabaloo.  The FCC had worked with the telecom industry to pass regulations that everyone could be happy with.  Several months after the regulations went into effect, Verizon got cold feet and sued.  The telecom lobby was at least as mad at Verizon as the FCC was, because everyone knew that new rules could be worse if Verizon won, which is what happened in earl 2014.  The Court said that the FCC needed to reclassify ISPs so that they could be regulated under Title II, which is a lot more stringent.  Ultimately thatís what happened in 2015, and was reversed today.

During the interregnum period of net neutrality (from 2014-2015) Netflix entered into an agreement with Comcast for paid prioritization.  Thereís no reason to expect these deals wonít occur in the future, which ultimately will lead to higher prices for consumers.

Anyway, the point is that regulation wasnít initially needed because the industry policed itself.  Then a few companies started to cheat a bit, and so regulation was needed.  The companies that cheated generally had their activities stopped by the FCC in the course of other proceedings (Verizon has had to abide by some of the Bush era net neutrality rules which were attached to the spectrum licenses they won in 2008, a restriction which ends next year also), so we havenít fully seen what unfettered companies can do.  The other point is that many/most Americans canít switch.  Between 50-75% (depending on the study) of households have one high-speed broadband provider.  This lack of choice is precisely why regulation is needed, because market forces canít correct it.

Finally, the 2015 rules pretty much kept in place the rules that most companies had been operating under, and codified them.  The internet is an incredibly large portion of the economy, and the FCC adjust voted to change the rules without any economic analysis to support them and say what would happen.  Iíve talked with a couple FCC economsits off the record, and theyíre upset and embarrassed at the final product, as they werenít allowed to even design a model to see if this would hurt or help the economy.

All in all, today was a travesty, and there will be real consequences.  Maybe not immediately, since several of the big players are prevented from doing much in the next year, but they are coming.

Thanks for the interesting post.

Regarding prior lawsuits, what was the cause of action? Does the FCC decision eliminate such lawsuits?


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #64 on: December 15, 2017, 11:21:52 AM »

Offline chicagoceltic

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 600
  • Tommy Points: 79
Here's the one issue I have with Net Neutrality that I have a hard time getting past: if I am an ISP and your business wants to use my infrastructure to get your content to customers, content mind you that may very well be competing against content I am also providing, why should I have to allow this, and furthermore why should I not be able to control the speed at which I deliver your competing content?

I either own the mode of transmission or I don't. And if I do how can the government fairly tell me what content I should or should not have to allow to be delivered via my transmission infrastructure, and the speed at which I do.

If your company doesn't like the deal or service that I offer you to use my transmission infrastructure, build your own.

This all just seems like a matter where the public has basically determined their wants are somehow more important than fair business practice. Maybe I misinterpreting it all, and some the technical stuff I still don't understand, but I feel like I've got the basic premise nailed down.
Part of the problem is is that it is just the couple of big players who own the bulk of the infrastructure that all ISPs use.  All other ISPs are using that infrastructure so those few big guys will dictate to everyone else how it is used and what is throttled etc... .  Not to mention that a good portion of mney that was spent on the infrastructure was public money.
Pub Draft

Sam N Ella's

At the Bar: The Most Interesting Man in the World
At the Door:  Hugh Hefner
On Stage:  O.A.R., Louis C.K., EDGAR! Special Drinks:  Irish Car Bomb, Martinis On Tap: Lite, Beamish, 3 Floyds Seasonal, Chimay Grand Reserve, Spotted Cow

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #65 on: December 15, 2017, 12:23:23 PM »

Offline bdm860

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3984
  • Tommy Points: 1758
The non-competitive market move is the ISP adding their own streaming services (instead of something, say, original) and then wanting the ability to arbitrarily wall off competition by throttling that bandwidth.


Yeah a lot of criticism has suggested we'll have to pay extra for Facebook or Netflix, but seems more likely the opposite - the big established players will cut favorable deals for themselves and be folded into the basic price, like Netflix did with Comcast a few years back. It's competitors and innovators who will likely get screwed. I'm more concerned about calcification than having to pay more for the major sites.

But the rhetoric that nothing will change is comical; the telecoms didn't spend tens of millions lobbying for this against major public opposition for no reason.

Along these points, here's something I struggle with that maybe my fellow CBers can help me out with.

So the consensus is the Net Neutrality repeal is really being pushed by the telecom industry, if Comcast, Verizon, etc. didn't want this to happen, then it wouldn't be happening, right?

With that being said, why is that the telecom industry has more influence than Google, Netflix, Facebook, Amazon, etc., who I believe have all come out for net neutrality.  Pretty much just Google 740b market cap), Facebook (522b market cap), and Amazon (567b market cap) combined are bigger than the entire telecom industry (1.6t market cap), and definitely bigger than any individual player (AT&T 234b market cap, Verizon 214b market cap, Comcast (183b market cap).

So are the big online companies really just paying lip service to us here?  They say they're for net neutrality, but are really happy it was repealed because it puts a huge moat between them and their competition?  Perhaps Netflix is the only major player that sees potential direct competition from the ISPs?  I would think Google, Facebook, etc. could out lobby the telecom industry if they wanted to.  So why does the telecom industry have more power than these other companies?
« Last Edit: December 15, 2017, 02:44:35 PM by bdm860 »

After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #66 on: December 15, 2017, 12:42:01 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18054
  • Tommy Points: 2431
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
The non-competitive market move is the ISP adding their own streaming services (instead of something, say, original) and then wanting the ability to arbitrarily wall off competition by throttling that bandwidth.


Yeah a lot of criticism has suggested we'll have to pay extra for Facebook or Netflix, but seems more likely the opposite - the big established players will cut favorable deals for themselves and be folded into the basic price, like Netflix did with Comcast a few years back. It's competitors and innovators who will likely get screwed. I'm more concerned about calcification than having to pay more for the major sites.

But the rhetoric that nothing will change is comical; the telecoms didn't spend tens of millions lobbying for this against major public opposition for no reason.

Along these points, here's something I struggle with that maybe my fellow CBers can help me out with.

So the consensus is the Net Neutrality repeal is really being pushed by the telecom industry, if Comcast, Verizon, etc. didn't want this to happen, then it wouldn't be happening, right?

With that being said, why is that the telecom industry has more influence than Google, Netflix, Facebook, Amazon, etc., who I believe have all come out for net neutrality.  Pretty much just Google 740b market cap), Facebook (522b market cap), and Amazon (567b market cap) combined are bigger than the entire telecom industry (1.6b market cap), and definitely bigger than any individual player (AT&T 234b market cap, Verizon 214b market cap, Comcast (183b market cap).

So are the big online companies really just paying lip service to us here?  They say they're for net neutrality, but are really happy it was repealed because it puts a huge moat between them and their competition?  Perhaps Netflix is the only major player that sees potential direct competition from the ISPs?  I would think Google, Facebook, etc. could out lobby the telecom industry if they wanted to.  So why does the telecom industry have more power than these other companies?

It's speculative but I think they're more philosophically than financially opposed. It's hard to imagine an ISP successfully cutting off Google or Facebook. Netflix seems more directly opposed because their business is streaming, which is more competitive and more of a developing market, and they've had ISPs throttle them in the past.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #67 on: December 15, 2017, 12:59:59 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3167
  • Tommy Points: 484
The non-competitive market move is the ISP adding their own streaming services (instead of something, say, original) and then wanting the ability to arbitrarily wall off competition by throttling that bandwidth.


Yeah a lot of criticism has suggested we'll have to pay extra for Facebook or Netflix, but seems more likely the opposite - the big established players will cut favorable deals for themselves and be folded into the basic price, like Netflix did with Comcast a few years back. It's competitors and innovators who will likely get screwed. I'm more concerned about calcification than having to pay more for the major sites.

But the rhetoric that nothing will change is comical; the telecoms didn't spend tens of millions lobbying for this against major public opposition for no reason.

Along these points, here's something I struggle with that maybe my fellow CBers can help me out with.

So the consensus is the Net Neutrality repeal is really being pushed by the telecom industry, if Comcast, Verizon, etc. didn't want this to happen, then it wouldn't be happening, right?

With that being said, why is that the telecom industry has more influence than Google, Netflix, Facebook, Amazon, etc., who I believe have all come out for net neutrality.  Pretty much just Google 740b market cap), Facebook (522b market cap), and Amazon (567b market cap) combined are bigger than the entire telecom industry (1.6b market cap), and definitely bigger than any individual player (AT&T 234b market cap, Verizon 214b market cap, Comcast (183b market cap).

So are the big online companies really just paying lip service to us here?  They say they're for net neutrality, but are really happy it was repealed because it puts a huge moat between them and their competition?  Perhaps Netflix is the only major player that sees potential direct competition from the ISPs?  I would think Google, Facebook, etc. could out lobby the telecom industry if they wanted to.  So why does the telecom industry have more power than these other companies?

Companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and such are all in competition with each other for streaming content.   With Net Neutrality, they get a level playing field on which to compete.

Without the Net Neutrality rules in place, they have to live in fear that one or more of their competitors will cut a favorable deal with ISPS like Comcast, Charter, Verizon, etc.   This will lead to all of them having to pay up for 'advantageous' contracts with the ISPs.   But that 'advantage' is just about having your packets put in the highest priority queues.  And the total bandwidth isn't changing just because more packets all are tagged at 'top priority'.   If all the big content providers are tagged at the same, "top" priority, they won't really have any 'advantage' over the other guys.  They will just be paying more $$ for the same share of the bandwidth they already get.

So that is why Google, Amazon, etc., did NOT want the net neutrality rules to be overturned.

This is a truly, epically bad ruling by the FCC.   Ajit Pai is awful.   Listening to him, he clearly has no real understanding of this technology and industry.   Totally unqualified to be heading the FCC.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.
#OneCitizenOneVote - True Election Reform:  Eliminate the anti-democratic Electoral College farce now.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #68 on: December 15, 2017, 01:05:26 PM »

Offline rondohondo

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10654
  • Tommy Points: 1081
Google, Facebook Twitter etc have already started demonotizing and banning conservative voices under the "net neutrality " Obama put into place......

Not to say I trust Verizon etc, but this at least brings us back to pre 2015 and allows a debate.

Trump is going to go after Google ,Facebook, Twitter for monopolies soon...
« Last Edit: December 15, 2017, 01:16:38 PM by rondohondo »

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #69 on: December 15, 2017, 01:44:25 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33888
  • Tommy Points: -27912
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
The non-competitive market move is the ISP adding their own streaming services (instead of something, say, original) and then wanting the ability to arbitrarily wall off competition by throttling that bandwidth.


Yeah a lot of criticism has suggested we'll have to pay extra for Facebook or Netflix, but seems more likely the opposite - the big established players will cut favorable deals for themselves and be folded into the basic price, like Netflix did with Comcast a few years back. It's competitors and innovators who will likely get screwed. I'm more concerned about calcification than having to pay more for the major sites.

But the rhetoric that nothing will change is comical; the telecoms didn't spend tens of millions lobbying for this against major public opposition for no reason.

Along these points, here's something I struggle with that maybe my fellow CBers can help me out with.

So the consensus is the Net Neutrality repeal is really being pushed by the telecom industry, if Comcast, Verizon, etc. didn't want this to happen, then it wouldn't be happening, right?

With that being said, why is that the telecom industry has more influence than Google, Netflix, Facebook, Amazon, etc., who I believe have all come out for net neutrality.  Pretty much just Google 740b market cap), Facebook (522b market cap), and Amazon (567b market cap) combined are bigger than the entire telecom industry (1.6b market cap), and definitely bigger than any individual player (AT&T 234b market cap, Verizon 214b market cap, Comcast (183b market cap).

So are the big online companies really just paying lip service to us here?  They say they're for net neutrality, but are really happy it was repealed because it puts a huge moat between them and their competition?  Perhaps Netflix is the only major player that sees potential direct competition from the ISPs?  I would think Google, Facebook, etc. could out lobby the telecom industry if they wanted to.  So why does the telecom industry have more power than these other companies?

Companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and such are all in competition with each other for streaming content.   With Net Neutrality, they get a level playing field on which to compete.

Without the Net Neutrality rules in place, they have to live in fear that one or more of their competitors will cut a favorable deal with ISPS like Comcast, Charter, Verizon, etc.   This will lead to all of them having to pay up for 'advantageous' contracts with the ISPs.   But that 'advantage' is just about having your packets put in the highest priority queues.  And the total bandwidth isn't changing just because more packets all are tagged at 'top priority'.   If all the big content providers are tagged at the same, "top" priority, they won't really have any 'advantage' over the other guys.  They will just be paying more $$ for the same share of the bandwidth they already get.

So that is why Google, Amazon, etc., did NOT want the net neutrality rules to be overturned.

This is a truly, epically bad ruling by the FCC.   Ajit Pai is awful.   Listening to him, he clearly has no real understanding of this technology and industry.   Totally unqualified to be heading the FCC.

Right, but this glosses over bdmís question. If money equals power, then why couldnít the most powerful companies defeat this, if they truly wanted to? The ďbig business winsĒ narrative doesnít make sense, when even bigger businesses were opposing this.



Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #70 on: December 15, 2017, 02:04:29 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33888
  • Tommy Points: -27912
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
So, for the experts: is this former FCC commissioner lying, or is most of what people are frightened by already illegal?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w_rBFaEbHzo

Saltlover mentioned multiple lawsuits before 2015 that protected consumers. Wonít those consumer protection laws still exist? 

As an aside, news anchors across all networks are the worst.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2017, 02:10:31 PM by Roy H. »


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #71 on: December 15, 2017, 03:54:49 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3167
  • Tommy Points: 484
The non-competitive market move is the ISP adding their own streaming services (instead of something, say, original) and then wanting the ability to arbitrarily wall off competition by throttling that bandwidth.


Yeah a lot of criticism has suggested we'll have to pay extra for Facebook or Netflix, but seems more likely the opposite - the big established players will cut favorable deals for themselves and be folded into the basic price, like Netflix did with Comcast a few years back. It's competitors and innovators who will likely get screwed. I'm more concerned about calcification than having to pay more for the major sites.

But the rhetoric that nothing will change is comical; the telecoms didn't spend tens of millions lobbying for this against major public opposition for no reason.

Along these points, here's something I struggle with that maybe my fellow CBers can help me out with.

So the consensus is the Net Neutrality repeal is really being pushed by the telecom industry, if Comcast, Verizon, etc. didn't want this to happen, then it wouldn't be happening, right?

With that being said, why is that the telecom industry has more influence than Google, Netflix, Facebook, Amazon, etc., who I believe have all come out for net neutrality.  Pretty much just Google 740b market cap), Facebook (522b market cap), and Amazon (567b market cap) combined are bigger than the entire telecom industry (1.6b market cap), and definitely bigger than any individual player (AT&T 234b market cap, Verizon 214b market cap, Comcast (183b market cap).

So are the big online companies really just paying lip service to us here?  They say they're for net neutrality, but are really happy it was repealed because it puts a huge moat between them and their competition?  Perhaps Netflix is the only major player that sees potential direct competition from the ISPs?  I would think Google, Facebook, etc. could out lobby the telecom industry if they wanted to.  So why does the telecom industry have more power than these other companies?

Companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and such are all in competition with each other for streaming content.   With Net Neutrality, they get a level playing field on which to compete.

Without the Net Neutrality rules in place, they have to live in fear that one or more of their competitors will cut a favorable deal with ISPS like Comcast, Charter, Verizon, etc.   This will lead to all of them having to pay up for 'advantageous' contracts with the ISPs.   But that 'advantage' is just about having your packets put in the highest priority queues.  And the total bandwidth isn't changing just because more packets all are tagged at 'top priority'.   If all the big content providers are tagged at the same, "top" priority, they won't really have any 'advantage' over the other guys.  They will just be paying more $$ for the same share of the bandwidth they already get.

So that is why Google, Amazon, etc., did NOT want the net neutrality rules to be overturned.

This is a truly, epically bad ruling by the FCC.   Ajit Pai is awful.   Listening to him, he clearly has no real understanding of this technology and industry.   Totally unqualified to be heading the FCC.

Right, but this glosses over bdmís question. If money equals power, then why couldnít the most powerful companies defeat this, if they truly wanted to? The ďbig business winsĒ narrative doesnít make sense, when even bigger businesses were opposing this.
I personally don't see this as a 'big business wins'.  I see this as 'ignorance about how the technology works wins'.  Or maybe 'misguided ideology wins'.

Framing this as 'big business wins' is not the correct way to frame this.   Because it was driven by a philosophical desire for 'deregulation for the sake of deregulation' without really understanding the purpose of the regulations.

I sat and listened to Pai's speech a week or two ago and it was very clear that he either is absurdly ignorant of the real history and technology involved here or he purposely lied about it.

What they ended up doing is consistent with the administrations overall knee-jerk zealotry regarding regulations:  (a) Regulation is bad.  (b) Obama regulations are really really bad.

Trump administration officials seem insanely driven by nothing but those two mantras. 
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.
#OneCitizenOneVote - True Election Reform:  Eliminate the anti-democratic Electoral College farce now.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #72 on: December 15, 2017, 04:03:21 PM »

Offline kraidstar

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1854
  • Tommy Points: 491
The non-competitive market move is the ISP adding their own streaming services (instead of something, say, original) and then wanting the ability to arbitrarily wall off competition by throttling that bandwidth.


Yeah a lot of criticism has suggested we'll have to pay extra for Facebook or Netflix, but seems more likely the opposite - the big established players will cut favorable deals for themselves and be folded into the basic price, like Netflix did with Comcast a few years back. It's competitors and innovators who will likely get screwed. I'm more concerned about calcification than having to pay more for the major sites.

But the rhetoric that nothing will change is comical; the telecoms didn't spend tens of millions lobbying for this against major public opposition for no reason.

Along these points, here's something I struggle with that maybe my fellow CBers can help me out with.

So the consensus is the Net Neutrality repeal is really being pushed by the telecom industry, if Comcast, Verizon, etc. didn't want this to happen, then it wouldn't be happening, right?

With that being said, why is that the telecom industry has more influence than Google, Netflix, Facebook, Amazon, etc., who I believe have all come out for net neutrality.  Pretty much just Google 740b market cap), Facebook (522b market cap), and Amazon (567b market cap) combined are bigger than the entire telecom industry (1.6b market cap), and definitely bigger than any individual player (AT&T 234b market cap, Verizon 214b market cap, Comcast (183b market cap).

So are the big online companies really just paying lip service to us here?  They say they're for net neutrality, but are really happy it was repealed because it puts a huge moat between them and their competition?  Perhaps Netflix is the only major player that sees potential direct competition from the ISPs?  I would think Google, Facebook, etc. could out lobby the telecom industry if they wanted to.  So why does the telecom industry have more power than these other companies?

Companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and such are all in competition with each other for streaming content.   With Net Neutrality, they get a level playing field on which to compete.

Without the Net Neutrality rules in place, they have to live in fear that one or more of their competitors will cut a favorable deal with ISPS like Comcast, Charter, Verizon, etc.   This will lead to all of them having to pay up for 'advantageous' contracts with the ISPs.   But that 'advantage' is just about having your packets put in the highest priority queues.  And the total bandwidth isn't changing just because more packets all are tagged at 'top priority'.   If all the big content providers are tagged at the same, "top" priority, they won't really have any 'advantage' over the other guys.  They will just be paying more $$ for the same share of the bandwidth they already get.

So that is why Google, Amazon, etc., did NOT want the net neutrality rules to be overturned.

This is a truly, epically bad ruling by the FCC.   Ajit Pai is awful.   Listening to him, he clearly has no real understanding of this technology and industry.   Totally unqualified to be heading the FCC.

Right, but this glosses over bdmís question. If money equals power, then why couldnít the most powerful companies defeat this, if they truly wanted to? The ďbig business winsĒ narrative doesnít make sense, when even bigger businesses were opposing this.

These mega-sites get a huge silver lining - the potential throttling and squashing of smaller competitors.

So while they might pay more in the short term, if they play ball with the big providers they might face fewer challengers in the long run.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #73 on: December 15, 2017, 04:08:57 PM »

Offline rondohondo

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10654
  • Tommy Points: 1081
So, for the experts: is this former FCC commissioner lying, or is most of what people are frightened by already illegal?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w_rBFaEbHzo

Saltlover mentioned multiple lawsuits before 2015 that protected consumers. Wonít those consumer protection laws still exist? 

As an aside, news anchors across all networks are the worst.

It's pretty hilarious how angry he was getting

*Cough* Operation mockingbird *cough *

# fakenews

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #74 on: December 15, 2017, 04:21:31 PM »

Offline incoherent

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1825
  • Tommy Points: 268
  • 7 + 11 = 18
Subway just made a deal with Comcast and now my sandwich shops website, menu, phone number and location canít be accessed online by Comcast users.  Comcast is the only option in my area so my business is effectively dead.

I hate all of you who support the repeal of this bill. It ruined my business.