Thanks, I never knew that Netflix caches content locally to ensure effective delivery of its services.
I'm assuming (and I could be wrong) that Netflix provides this service free to ISPs. It would seem that this is used to ensure that Netflix traffic is more effectively delivered to consumers than other online video sources. Wouldn't that give Netflix a huge advantage over other content providers?
If Netflix coordinates with ISPs to ensure that Netflix traffic is more effectively delivered, how does that not violate the tenet of net neutrality which states that all traffic should be treated equally?
After all if a rich company like Netflix can afford to place appliances which cache its content to ensure the QoS delivered to its subscribers, doesn't this put other sites which cannot afford to do this at a disadvantage? And by extension, is this not just another means of providing high quality access to some sites while others suffer?
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I get it that if I'm paying for Internet access, I shouldn't have to pay my ISP more to access certain sites. I'm still not sold that the site itself, like Netflix, that consumes a significant portion of overall backbone bandwidth shouldn't have to pay something extra to support building out the backbone, but that's different discussion.
How does the zero rate dynamic change if the consumer doesn't have to pay for internet access? I'm referring to Zuckerberg's Internet.org plan to provide free access to Facebook and a few other sites by paying the data charges.
What does net neutrality have to do with zero rating? It sounds like zero rating is the same as watching free TV off the airwaves. A customer only has access to what is broadcast for free (a very limited set of channels) but if I want to pay more I can purchase access to other channels like HBO.
If some corporation wants to pay for my data to access their web content, how is that any different from a TV station paying for my access to their content? How does this violate the tenants of net neutrality?
Is any site that charges for its content violating net neutrality, since I can't access it (it's blocked to me) unless I pay for it. How is that different from paying a network provider to access a site, especially if the site is paying for my data to access the site.
I understand that it puts smaller new sites at a disadvantage since they won't be able to afford to pay for users' data to access their sites, but if they offer great content why wouldn't consumers pay to access it (like folks do for HBO today)?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
I read the FCC's plan and yes I typo'd the number of pages.
If you read the plan and used information in the plan to refute my points it might be more effective. Why is it that those on the left seem to resort to attach mode rather than discussing the issues? Your comments seem more designed to shutdown debate rather than discuss the issues.
"You haven't even understood what net neutrality actually is"
I like the definition on the ACLU web site. I thought it was fairly concise and accurate. If you'd like to read it and tell me where it deviates from reality, I'm open to that.
In order to understand my objection to what the FCC is doing to implement net neutrality, you'll need to research what Title II actually gives the government the power to do. While Title II may appear to be the only legal basis that the FCC could use to justify its authority to implement net neutrality, it probably won't hold up in court. There are currently seven lawsuits challenging the new rules. If one of these succeeds (like Verizon's challenge to the Open Internet Order did in 2014) we may end up worse off in the long run.
So what's wrong with using Title II to regulate the Internet rather than anti-trust law? Here is an example as published in The Hill (comments of the policy counsel for the New America's Open Technology Institute in an article arguing for using Title II to regulate the Internet rather than anti-trust law).
Net neutrality is a pro-competition ideal, but competition alone cannot fully protect the values of Internet openness and freedom. A net neutrality regime that relies solely on antitrust analysis would be narrowly focused on pricing harms, such as those found in cartels and monopolies. Such a legal theory may prevent some paid prioritization schemes, but it cannot address the non-economic goals of net neutrality such as free speech, political participation and viewpoint diversity. The FCC is empowered to protect this broader array of social benefits.
That's what a non-partisan (left leaning?) group believes the government will now have the power to do under Title II. It's the non-economic goals that are troubling. Interested in the government deciding on what constitutes "viewpoint diversity"? I guess that's okay as long as its not your viewpoint that's being suppressed in the name of "diversity".
What needs to happen? Congress needs to pass a bi-partisan bill that addresses the issue once and for all. Of course while a bill that limits the FCC's power in this area to just enforcing net neutrality could pass congress, I doubt Obama would ever sign it. What we're facing now are years of court battles and the fact that if a republican is elected president in 2016 a new FCC could easily undo the current FCC's rulings.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
All I can say is read the plan, it's available on the FCC web site and there's a link to it in one of my earlier posts.
Using Title II to regulate the Internet is blatant government overreach. The FCC goes to great pains to say that they won't exercise all the regulatory power that Title II implies, but there is no guarantee that they (or another group of FCC commissioners) won't in the future.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
You really don't understand what regulating the Internet using Title II means do you?
I've read a good piece of the FCC document and while the FCC is careful to point out that they have no intention of taking control of the Internet, increasing taxes, and regulating pricing, Title II gives them that power. If allowed to stand, it is a broad expansion of government power. And just because the current FCC says they won't do something, doesn't mean that it won't change its mind later or that a future FCC won't.
It looks like a lot more than 8 pages, of course there's quite a few pages dedicated to saying how the FCC will not implement pieces of Title II (at least until they change their minds or they can "envision" a different path). The power over the Internet the FCC is assuming is very broad and goes way beyond just Net Neutrality.
How would you know what the new rules are designed to do? Have you seen the 332 page proposal? Unless you're an FCC commissioner, I'm betting you haven't.
If the new rules simply said "When we send or receive data over the Internet, companies must transfer that data from one end of the network to the other. Period. No analysis, no manipulation, of that traffic allowed"
I'd be for that, but it doesn't take 332 pages to say that. According to one of the FCC commissioners who has seen the proposed rules, they give the government unprecedented power over every aspect of the Internet. If that doesn't scare you at least a little bit, then you have too much faith in the government.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
Okay, You've got a point, I should have said Obama's approach to Net Neutrality is government overreach. According to Ajit Pai, one of the FCC commissioners who has seen the 232 page plan for implementing Net Neutrality:
“It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world.”
Net Neutrality in principle is a great idea, but the way it's being implemented by the current administration gives the government too much control. The Internet has benefited from relatively light government regulation since its inception, Obama's approach to Net Neutrality is a fundamental break from this approach.
I'm not anti-government, I'm for limited government. Which, I believe, is what the founders were aiming for.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
From what I'm reading, your under the delusion that government regulation will fix all. Interestingly enough, it's the free market that yields benefits to consumers, not government. Unfettered government regulation leads to the situation that led to this discussion - that government over regulation and crony capitalism lead to the destruction of the free market. Rather than address anti-competitive behavior with limited government regulation, you think that all would be just fine if the government controlled everything.
But, you also seems to be the kind of moron who won't consider what the corporations have actually achieved for you in a positive way, so you are almost certainly blind to half of what they actually do. You seems particularly vulnerable to any facts once the 'c' word is mentioned, let alone being open to the bad things governments have been historically responsible for once the free market is suppressed through over regulation.
Okay, I just paraphrased your argument to make a point. Perhaps you can now see how arrogant your argument sounds.
But I hope you can see my point. Your mistrust of corporations blinds you to the benefits of the free market. Yes, we need limited government regulation to ensure a free market - no conservative I know of would argue for no government whatsoever (that's anarchy not conservatism). We already have laws on the books to address monopolies, we don't need to bring the Internet under regulations written for the telephone monopolies of the 1930's. Net neutrality is government overreach - not designed to ensure a free market but to bring the Internet, which has flourished because of limited government regulation, under government control.
It seems strange and sad to me that those that claim to champion freedom, appear now to be begging to put others in chains.
So you're effectively arguing that it's easier to punish an abusive government than an abusive corporation.
Power should be in the hands of the people, not the government or the rich and powerful. I can "vote" much more effectively with my dollars to punish a corporation than I can at the ballot box to punish a government.
Government power is not with the elected officials, it lies with bureaucrats that were never elected. Very tough to bring down bureaucrats, witness the IRS scandal.
I think 'we the people' do a much better job fighting corporate corruption than we ever have fighting government corruption.
A corporation that provides bad service and charges prices that are too high will eventually fall. Much harder to dislodge regulations that stifles competition and impose unreasonable tariffs.
There never has been nor will there ever be government without corruption. Power corrupts. The founders understood that when they designed a limited federal government. The fewer limits we set on government power, the more corrupt it becomes.
I guess I'm spoiled because I have Charter internet service and not Comcast. I've had both Charter and AT&T in the past. With AT&T I paid for 18Mb/s and was lucky to ever get over 12Mb/s. With Charter when I paid for 10Mb/s, I usually got as high as 20Mb/s. Recently I was just upgraded, at no charge, from 30Mb/s to 100Mb/s and I usually can get as high as 110Mb/s. If AT&T was my only choice for Internet service, then I could see your point - poor service with no incentive to improve. But competition has driven Charter to consistently exceed my expectations (as least for Internet service - Charter's cable TV service can't hold a candle to Uverse).
The reason I'm against net neutrality is because I'm serviced by a provider that takes great care of me and if they ever make me unhappy - I can switch to another provider. I don't see the government making things better for folks that like their current Internet service.
I know, nothing about the net neutrality will force me to change service providers, of course we've all heard something similar before as in "if you like your current healthcare insurance you can keep it". Ask any one of the millions of people who had to switch carriers how that promise worked out. It's true that more people have health insurance now, which is a good thing, but the cost to the majority of folks who liked their current provider before Obamacare has been high. I'm paying more for worse coverage. Hate to see that happen with the Internet just so folks can watch Netflix without paying a bit more for it to cover the enormous amount of backbone bandwidth it consumes.
Yes, we've heard this before. Liberals are smarter than the rest of us and liberals in government are smarter than everybody. If only we turned everything over to the government, we'd have paradise on earth.
Not all government is bad, but limited government is best.
Amen! I've been posting similar comments to largely deaf Tech Dirt ears. Many Tech Dirt articles point out how inept and corrupt government officials are, but on net neutrality they seem to believe that, in this case, government interference will be a good thing.
On the post: Telco Trade Group USTelecom 'Supports' FCC Neutrality Rules, Just Not The FCC Actually Being Able To Enforce Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is zero rating a bad thing?
I'm assuming (and I could be wrong) that Netflix provides this service free to ISPs. It would seem that this is used to ensure that Netflix traffic is more effectively delivered to consumers than other online video sources. Wouldn't that give Netflix a huge advantage over other content providers?
If Netflix coordinates with ISPs to ensure that Netflix traffic is more effectively delivered, how does that not violate the tenet of net neutrality which states that all traffic should be treated equally?
After all if a rich company like Netflix can afford to place appliances which cache its content to ensure the QoS delivered to its subscribers, doesn't this put other sites which cannot afford to do this at a disadvantage? And by extension, is this not just another means of providing high quality access to some sites while others suffer?
On the post: Telco Trade Group USTelecom 'Supports' FCC Neutrality Rules, Just Not The FCC Actually Being Able To Enforce Them
Re: Re: Why is zero rating a bad thing?
How does the zero rate dynamic change if the consumer doesn't have to pay for internet access? I'm referring to Zuckerberg's Internet.org plan to provide free access to Facebook and a few other sites by paying the data charges.
On the post: Telco Trade Group USTelecom 'Supports' FCC Neutrality Rules, Just Not The FCC Actually Being Able To Enforce Them
Why is zero rating a bad thing?
If some corporation wants to pay for my data to access their web content, how is that any different from a TV station paying for my access to their content? How does this violate the tenants of net neutrality?
Is any site that charges for its content violating net neutrality, since I can't access it (it's blocked to me) unless I pay for it. How is that different from paying a network provider to access a site, especially if the site is paying for my data to access the site.
I understand that it puts smaller new sites at a disadvantage since they won't be able to afford to pay for users' data to access their sites, but if they offer great content why wouldn't consumers pay to access it (like folks do for HBO today)?
On the post: Presidential Hopeful Carly Fiorina Displays Astounding Ignorance In Slamming Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
If you read the plan and used information in the plan to refute my points it might be more effective. Why is it that those on the left seem to resort to attach mode rather than discussing the issues? Your comments seem more designed to shutdown debate rather than discuss the issues.
"You haven't even understood what net neutrality actually is"
I like the definition on the ACLU web site. I thought it was fairly concise and accurate. If you'd like to read it and tell me where it deviates from reality, I'm open to that.
In order to understand my objection to what the FCC is doing to implement net neutrality, you'll need to research what Title II actually gives the government the power to do. While Title II may appear to be the only legal basis that the FCC could use to justify its authority to implement net neutrality, it probably won't hold up in court. There are currently seven lawsuits challenging the new rules. If one of these succeeds (like Verizon's challenge to the Open Internet Order did in 2014) we may end up worse off in the long run.
So what's wrong with using Title II to regulate the Internet rather than anti-trust law? Here is an example as published in The Hill (comments of the policy counsel for the New America's Open Technology Institute in an article arguing for using Title II to regulate the Internet rather than anti-trust law).
Net neutrality is a pro-competition ideal, but competition alone cannot fully protect the values of Internet openness and freedom. A net neutrality regime that relies solely on antitrust analysis would be narrowly focused on pricing harms, such as those found in cartels and monopolies. Such a legal theory may prevent some paid prioritization schemes, but it cannot address the non-economic goals of net neutrality such as free speech, political participation and viewpoint diversity. The FCC is empowered to protect this broader array of social benefits.
That's what a non-partisan (left leaning?) group believes the government will now have the power to do under Title II. It's the non-economic goals that are troubling. Interested in the government deciding on what constitutes "viewpoint diversity"? I guess that's okay as long as its not your viewpoint that's being suppressed in the name of "diversity".
What needs to happen? Congress needs to pass a bi-partisan bill that addresses the issue once and for all. Of course while a bill that limits the FCC's power in this area to just enforcing net neutrality could pass congress, I doubt Obama would ever sign it. What we're facing now are years of court battles and the fact that if a republican is elected president in 2016 a new FCC could easily undo the current FCC's rulings.
On the post: Presidential Hopeful Carly Fiorina Displays Astounding Ignorance In Slamming Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
Using Title II to regulate the Internet is blatant government overreach. The FCC goes to great pains to say that they won't exercise all the regulatory power that Title II implies, but there is no guarantee that they (or another group of FCC commissioners) won't in the future.
On the post: Presidential Hopeful Carly Fiorina Displays Astounding Ignorance In Slamming Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
I've read a good piece of the FCC document and while the FCC is careful to point out that they have no intention of taking control of the Internet, increasing taxes, and regulating pricing, Title II gives them that power. If allowed to stand, it is a broad expansion of government power. And just because the current FCC says they won't do something, doesn't mean that it won't change its mind later or that a future FCC won't.
On the post: Presidential Hopeful Carly Fiorina Displays Astounding Ignorance In Slamming Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
It looks like a lot more than 8 pages, of course there's quite a few pages dedicated to saying how the FCC will not implement pieces of Title II (at least until they change their minds or they can "envision" a different path). The power over the Internet the FCC is assuming is very broad and goes way beyond just Net Neutrality.
On the post: Presidential Hopeful Carly Fiorina Displays Astounding Ignorance In Slamming Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
If the new rules simply said "When we send or receive data over the Internet, companies must transfer that data from one end of the network to the other. Period. No analysis, no manipulation, of that traffic allowed"
I'd be for that, but it doesn't take 332 pages to say that. According to one of the FCC commissioners who has seen the proposed rules, they give the government unprecedented power over every aspect of the Internet. If that doesn't scare you at least a little bit, then you have too much faith in the government.
On the post: Presidential Hopeful Carly Fiorina Displays Astounding Ignorance In Slamming Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
On the post: Presidential Hopeful Carly Fiorina Displays Astounding Ignorance In Slamming Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
“It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world.”
Net Neutrality in principle is a great idea, but the way it's being implemented by the current administration gives the government too much control. The Internet has benefited from relatively light government regulation since its inception, Obama's approach to Net Neutrality is a fundamental break from this approach.
I'm not anti-government, I'm for limited government. Which, I believe, is what the founders were aiming for.
On the post: Presidential Hopeful Carly Fiorina Displays Astounding Ignorance In Slamming Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
But, you also seems to be the kind of moron who won't consider what the corporations have actually achieved for you in a positive way, so you are almost certainly blind to half of what they actually do. You seems particularly vulnerable to any facts once the 'c' word is mentioned, let alone being open to the bad things governments have been historically responsible for once the free market is suppressed through over regulation.
Okay, I just paraphrased your argument to make a point. Perhaps you can now see how arrogant your argument sounds.
But I hope you can see my point. Your mistrust of corporations blinds you to the benefits of the free market. Yes, we need limited government regulation to ensure a free market - no conservative I know of would argue for no government whatsoever (that's anarchy not conservatism). We already have laws on the books to address monopolies, we don't need to bring the Internet under regulations written for the telephone monopolies of the 1930's. Net neutrality is government overreach - not designed to ensure a free market but to bring the Internet, which has flourished because of limited government regulation, under government control.
It seems strange and sad to me that those that claim to champion freedom, appear now to be begging to put others in chains.
On the post: Presidential Hopeful Carly Fiorina Displays Astounding Ignorance In Slamming Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
Power should be in the hands of the people, not the government or the rich and powerful. I can "vote" much more effectively with my dollars to punish a corporation than I can at the ballot box to punish a government.
Government power is not with the elected officials, it lies with bureaucrats that were never elected. Very tough to bring down bureaucrats, witness the IRS scandal.
I think 'we the people' do a much better job fighting corporate corruption than we ever have fighting government corruption.
A corporation that provides bad service and charges prices that are too high will eventually fall. Much harder to dislodge regulations that stifles competition and impose unreasonable tariffs.
On the post: Presidential Hopeful Carly Fiorina Displays Astounding Ignorance In Slamming Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
On the post: Presidential Hopeful Carly Fiorina Displays Astounding Ignorance In Slamming Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
That's a typical tactic which attempts to paint those who advocate for limited government as advocates for no government.
Government shouldn't regulate activities unless there is a compelling reason. I set that bar fairly high, sounds like you set a fairly low threshold.
On the post: Presidential Hopeful Carly Fiorina Displays Astounding Ignorance In Slamming Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
On the post: Presidential Hopeful Carly Fiorina Displays Astounding Ignorance In Slamming Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
The reason I'm against net neutrality is because I'm serviced by a provider that takes great care of me and if they ever make me unhappy - I can switch to another provider. I don't see the government making things better for folks that like their current Internet service.
I know, nothing about the net neutrality will force me to change service providers, of course we've all heard something similar before as in "if you like your current healthcare insurance you can keep it". Ask any one of the millions of people who had to switch carriers how that promise worked out. It's true that more people have health insurance now, which is a good thing, but the cost to the majority of folks who liked their current provider before Obamacare has been high. I'm paying more for worse coverage. Hate to see that happen with the Internet just so folks can watch Netflix without paying a bit more for it to cover the enormous amount of backbone bandwidth it consumes.
On the post: Presidential Hopeful Carly Fiorina Displays Astounding Ignorance In Slamming Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
On the post: Presidential Hopeful Carly Fiorina Displays Astounding Ignorance In Slamming Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
Not all government is bad, but limited government is best.
On the post: Presidential Hopeful Carly Fiorina Displays Astounding Ignorance In Slamming Net Neutrality
Re: Everyone is an idiot
On the post: TSA Agents Outwitted By Cory Doctorow's Unlocked, 'TSA-Safe' Suitcase
From the stupid is as stupid does dept.
Next >>