Obama Urges FCC to Re-Classify Internet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 68Charger

Whether a "big corporatation" is for Net Neutrality would depend on what their role is in the internet... Netflix is obviously FOR it, since they want to force the main core carriers to carry their traffic (which is 1/3 the internet's traffic) without paying them a dime to invest in the infrastructure...
The carriers are obviously against it... and have won lawsuits that the FCC was over-stepping their bounds when they forced Net Neutrality as they defined it.

---

What about Netflix matters in this? They DO pay for their internet access. The users of Netflix DO pay for their internet access. What you're describing is the companies who were paid already wanting more. There's no way to work around that. They want more, even after the bill is paid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 68Charger

Whether a "big corporatation" is for Net Neutrality would depend on what their role is in the internet... Netflix is obviously FOR it, since they want to force the main core carriers to carry their traffic (which is 1/3 the internet's traffic) without paying them a dime to invest in the infrastructure...
The carriers are obviously against it... and have won lawsuits that the FCC was over-stepping their bounds when they forced Net Neutrality as they defined it.

---

By this one statement it is entirely obvious that you have zero concept of how the Internet actually works and how it is paid for. Please don't hold strong opinions about things you don't understand. Come back when you have a basic understanding of things like transit, peering, cost relocation/sharing, negative transit, pay-for-play, etc. Your understanding of how Netflix and Comcast get paid is entirely flawed.

For the Comcast/NetFlix issue (which I may have been intimately involved with as a neutral 3rd party) - Comcast was/is leveraging its ability as a monopoly in a majority of markets (they own the content and the eyeballs - and the roads to get to those eyeballs) to try and get NetFlix to pay above and beyond the costs they were already covering by the ARPU from the end-user subscription revenues. In effect, double-dipping..

If anyone really wants a lesson in all of this I will post a long diatribe, but I really don't want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asmo

By this one statement it is entirely obvious that you have zero concept of how the Internet actually works and how it is paid for. Please don't hold strong opinions about things you don't understand. Come back when you have a basic understanding of things like transit, peering, cost relocation/sharing, negative transit, pay-for-play, etc. Your understanding of how Netflix and Comcast get paid is entirely flawed.

For the Comcast/NetFlix issue (which I may have been intimately involved with as a neutral 3rd party) - Comcast was/is leveraging its ability as a monopoly in a majority of markets (they own the content and the eyeballs - and the roads to get to those eyeballs) to try and get NetFlix to pay above and beyond the costs they were already covering by the ARPU from the end-user subscription revenues. In effect, double-dipping..

If anyone really wants a lesson in all of this I will post a long diatribe, but I really don't want to.

---

That's where I am. I could go into all of this, but the level of existing understanding and willingness to understand is so low it has only been worth my time to try to correct the big errors.

Let me start (and hopefully end with this). Those that know me - know that I am a very strong libertarian, hate government involvement with just about anything, and want them out of our lives as much as possible. That said

Net Neutrality is a GOOD thing. It is the foundation of the Internet as we all know it.

A small example: Without Net Neutrality we would all be at the mercy of our Internet providers to regulate what content we are allowed to see. Without it, things like THIS MESSAGE BOARD, would probably not exist. Think about it this way - if Comcast says they don't like guns, they could throttle (or outright deny) the bandwidth to this COAR-15 to practically nothing - preventing all of us from coming here or we would have to pay *extra* to go to this site, etc. What kind of an effect would that have on the Internet as a whole if it was applied en mass? Please don't think for a second that your ISPs wont do it (hint: they all have test markets doing this right now).

Asmo, I am sure plenty of folks here would appreciate and laud your efforts.

So we have the government on one end and private enterprise on the other end and the users (all of us) stuck in the middle?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roberth

So we have the government on one end and private enterprise on the other end and the users (all of us) stuck in the middle?

---

Yep. Shitty situation, and no clear way to fix it since you would need someone with the people's interest in mind to correct it. That's why I'm doubtful over this posted by OP, but mildly hopeful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asmo

I spend some $dayjob arguing about net neutrality so I am not going to do it here.. But this sums it up:

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

---

The oatmeal is super liberal... not a reasonable source of information on the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asmo

Net Neutrality is a GOOD thing. It is the foundation of the Internet as we all know it.

---

Just because someone uses the term "Net Neutrality" doesn't mean they're talking about the good thing you're thinking about (/me points to gun safety analogy I posted earlier).


The simple fact is if these so-called Net Neutrality rules go into effect it will mean the end of flat rate/unlimited data plans and we'll all have to start paying by the MB ... and you can kiss Netflix goodbye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asmo

A small example: Without Net Neutrality we would all be at the mercy of our Internet providers to regulate what content we are allowed to see. Without it, things like THIS MESSAGE BOARD, would probably not exist.

---

The opposite is true, we have never had any government forced net neutrality before. We are ALREADY at the mercy of our ISPs and they don't regulate content because the first one to do so would go out of business in a matter of days. The free market is what kept the internet mostly free and open. Stop trying to distort the free market, it never works out well for those at the bottom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artema

What about Netflix matters in this? They DO pay for their internet access. The users of Netflix DO pay for their internet access. What you're describing is the companies who were paid already wanting more. There's no way to work around that. They want more, even after the bill is paid.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asmo

By this one statement it is entirely obvious that you have zero concept of how the Internet actually works and how it is paid for. Please don't hold strong opinions about things you don't understand. Come back when you have a basic understanding of things like transit, peering, cost relocation/sharing, negative transit, pay-for-play, etc. Your understanding of how Netflix and Comcast get paid is entirely flawed.

For the Comcast/NetFlix issue (which I may have been intimately involved with as a neutral 3rd party) - Comcast was/is leveraging its ability as a monopoly in a majority of markets (they own the content and the eyeballs - and the roads to get to those eyeballs) to try and get NetFlix to pay above and beyond the costs they were already covering by the ARPU from the end-user subscription revenues. In effect, double-dipping..

If anyone really wants a lesson in all of this I will post a long diatribe, but I really don't want to.

---

There's 2 sides to this- and ARPU applies to infrastructure costs that were predicted, and the IXPs (cross-connects between carrirers) are predicted in a model.
Netflix comes along with their horrible delivery model (from an efficiency standpoint, millions of the same movie being delivered in individual streams) and adds 1/3 more traffic onto that model, and the IXPs get overloaded between who gets paid from Nexflix, and who gets paid from the subcribers... Now that infrastructure has to be upgraded- and somebody on each side has to pay for that upgrade... Or Netflix could change their delivery model to something that doesn't overload IXPs and core links (put the content at the edge)

As an engineer, I've always thought their content delivery model sucks balls- and is dictated by the MPAA (content must be encrypted and individually delivered)... I'd argue you don't seem like a very neutral 3rd party.