141–150 of 415 posts
My question is: How can something be a human right if you need to pay for it? Because as of today you still need to pay an ISP for internet access.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's right. It will be a major shift of power from Google/Facebook/Amazon to the ISPs. Comcast could charge Google or Facebook extortionate prices to keep their websites fast. Theoretically there would be nothing stopping Comcast from completely blocking a website. Cable vs TV channel negotiations periodically end up with blackouts for the channels.
Google and Facebook now run networks larger than most major ISPs -- among the largest on the planet. Demand for Youtube and FB are so high and ubiquitous that pretty much any ISP will immediately cave in. Comcast is the most disliked company in the USA. Guess what happens when G runs a banner under each search or Youtube video mentioning that performance is bad because Comcast is blocking things, here's Brian Roberts…
The ISP filters the banner before it reaches the customer, and replaces it with their own message (or just advertising from someone who has paid the ISP.)
Because of the massive amount of consolidation over the last few years, the death of Net Neutrality would be the best competitive moat imaginable for Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. While all their CEOs will make faint noises in favor of Net Neutrality, SV outspends Wall Street 2:1 on lobbying[1], the goal of which is to cement monopoly status, not to make the world a better place. Most of it goes to Republicans. Thin…
Depends on the company. Sometimes most of it goes to democrats: Google for ex - https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00428623 Microsoft also almost 2x to dems - https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000115&l...
Note that I'm talking about money from companies (most to Republicans) not the individuals that work for them (most to Democrats).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's right. It will be a major shift of power from Google/Facebook/Amazon to the ISPs. Comcast could charge Google or Facebook extortionate prices to keep their websites fast. Theoretically there would be nothing stopping Comcast from completely blocking a website. Cable vs TV channel negotiations periodically end up with blackouts for the channels.
> Comcast could charge Google or Facebook extortionate prices They can pay. Start-ups, hobbyists, and non-profits can't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
meanwhile $ISP has created a competing website that runs fine. It wouldn't be good for Google, but this seems as likely as an ISP beating SpaceX to the moon. It's hard enough to get an ISP to provide internet service most of the time.
Virgin Galactic ain't out yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on the company. Sometimes most of it goes to democrats: Google for ex - https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00428623 Microsoft also almost 2x to dems - https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000115&l...
Appropriate that I'm responding to "throwaway399": your perspective that monopoly support is partisan lacks an appropriate level of nuance.
While I like the Internet being open, I don't like "net neutrality" extremism. 1) While I dislike monopoly carrier antics, I'm even more unhappy about the idea of government bureaucrats dictating network engineering standards to carriers and ISPs. If you build a network with caches/content servers close to users, and expensive backhaul back to your network core, you can offer essentially unlimited traffic to users hi…
What do you mean by extremism? I view net neutrality as the requirement to treat all bits equally regardless of source, which is kind of a binary one. I think as long as we are talking about the hardware infrastructure, (2) is a fundamental problem that cannot be fixed by adding competition, because it shares some common features with utilities like water, electricity, etc (making me believe internet access ought to…
There are some interesting ways to increase competition, including: 1) New access methods (WISPs, etc.) 2) Letting providers pick types of customers (multi-tenant buildings, for instance) 3) Dropping universal coverage requirements at some level of granularity -- maybe a provider only serves new neighborhoods, or some smaller lot size neighborhoods, or richer neighborhoods more likely to buy service. 4) Shared trenching/pole access, possibly in the form of bulk-running infrastructure a few times per year? 5) Shared physical infrastructure in some areas -- maybe local or single-purpose utility owned, like fiber in the ground going to neighborhood locations with Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory colo for provider equipment, or optical cross-connects?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google and Facebook now run networks larger than most major ISPs -- among the largest on the planet. Demand for Youtube and FB are so high and ubiquitous that pretty much any ISP will immediately cave in. Comcast is the most disliked company in the USA. Guess what happens when G runs a banner under each search or Youtube video mentioning that performance is bad because Comcast is blocking things, here's Brian Roberts…
Demand for Youtube and FB are so high and ubiquitous that pretty much any ISP will immediately cave in. Yep, Comcast better be careful lest I leave them for the 6mbps competitors I have as options in the backwater community I live in called Berkeley, CA. I utterly fucking loathe Comcast, and yet they get thousands of my dollars because of an unspoken of oligopoly among ISPs that has grown out of the tacit agreement t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and no. I think it's entirely reasonable for ISPs to innovate, play with zero-rating, etc. I just think it should be done neutrally: if an ISP wants to zero-rate, they should publish a rate schedule that applies to anyone who wants to participate. If an ISP wants to try other novel services (QoS, whatever), I think the same principle should apply: make it fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory, and transparent. Ver…
I believe Verizon can zero rate their own services, and it's OK. I also believe that they should have to allow zero rating of any service, even a competitor's, if the service provider is willing to pay for their users' data using transparent, open pricing that is equally applied.
This does happen though. Electric companies, phone companies, etc all charge different rates based on who is using the service. Based off of different programs and income based subsidies who is using the service determines the cost paid. This also effects what producers sell to the low end of the spectrum. If electricity is substantially cheaper for lower income consumers, they will care less about paying for better energy efficiency. So you are technically paying a different rate based off what your appliances are.