Skip to main content

View Diary: FCC moves forward with rule gutting net neutrality (176 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  very interesting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    duhban

    I liked this part especially:

    That meant Comcast was trying to charge users to connect to the Internet and charge data centers to connect to users—a doubly profitable solution. The companies have since struck a cost-sharing deal, the finer details of which are spelled out in secretive peering agreements.
    So in 2010, Comcast charged Level 3 for access to its users and charged its users for access to Level 3. And the internet and everything we know and love was destroyed.

    Oh wait. No. Nothing happened. Nobody noticed except Level 3 and Comcast and the internet continued on pretty much the same as it used to be.

    This is how business works. TANSTAAFL. You want your internet connection to be faster, more reliable and carry more data? You want to watch "ultra high-def" streaming on three tvs and your PC at the same time? Someone needs to build that network out.

    Simply put, non-neutral behavior isn’t only a matter of the relationship between ISPs, websites, and users.
    Yup. "Net neutrality" is far more complicated than that (and a lot more nebulous a concept than many here seem to think). The internet is not going to fall apart, the world is not going to collapse because the FCC allows ISPs to "peer" directly with content providers.
    •  TANSTAAFL is libertatian code (3+ / 0-)

      for "we have to put up with the gross inefficiencies of unregulated capitalism".

      No, we don't. The ISPs are showing exactly why the Internet must be a public good -- like the interstate highway system.

      We want more Internet capacity, we build it as a nation -- and we own it as a nation.

      American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

      by atana on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:51:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm speaking in libertarian code! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban

        This is what you said:

        We want more Internet capacity, we build it as a nation -- and we own it as a nation.
        And here's the post I wrote that started this thread:
        I'm fine with reclassifying them as common carrier, but that would have to come hand-in-hand with federal, state, and local investments in network infrastructure.
        So we're saying the same thing. No one is going to build the network of the future for free. We can (and should) build that network with tax dollars, but if Congress wont, and the ISPs wont, then who will?
    •  Free lunch? WTF? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybersaur
      This is how business works. TANSTAAFL. You want your internet connection to be faster, more reliable and carry more data? You want to watch "ultra high-def" streaming on three tvs and your PC at the same time? Someone needs to build that network out.
      I already pay for the bandwidth I use... twice over. Once for home broadband access and again for bandwidth on the remote virtual server that houses my email/website/VPN/etc. I already pay more money and get less service than almost anywhere else in the 'civilized' world. The telcos are rent-seeking here, period.
      •  you may have a legitimate beef (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban

        the ISPs may well be rent seeking, though the evidence is mostly circumstantial at this point.

        I already pay more money and get less service than almost anywhere else in the 'civilized' world.
        You might pay more, but I think you probably get about the same service. There are places with higher speeds, but if you've got Comcast, you're in the ballpark. We do pay more in the United States (probably not as much as you think), but I think that strongly reflects our costs of living and the amount of public investment that went into building internet infrastructure (along with a number of smaller considerations, like population density, and municipal regulations).

        Would you pay more to wire up the next town over? What about to connect a rural town in another state with only 100 people? Would you pay more to keep your service the same while your ISP adds customers?

        I think the answer for most people is "no".

        •  I checked (0+ / 0-)

          I'm losing to friends/family overseas in price or bandwidth or both. And telcos in many other places are faster to put new techs into production. Germany might have G.fast as early as next year for example. At any rate, none of this changes the fact that I'm already paying for what I use in 'both' directions.

          The next town over is wired. Rural communities are wired. There's even dark fiber in the ground. Why in heck should I pay my ISP more to add extremely profitable customers? That makes no sense. They should be working for their margins.

          Consumers and service providers haven't been 'getting away' with anything under defacto neutrality. That's a self-serving telco lobby frame. None of these objections has anything to do with the actual issue of neutrality.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site