re: Marco Rubio on Net Neutrality: ‘This Is a Solution in Search of a Problem’

quote:

---

Your presumption of being "wrong" is your own issue.

---

You are wrong, there's no way around it. You are advocating extortion.

quote:

---

You're paying your ISP different rates for Netflix and Billy Bob's Konsipracy Blog? I thought that was illegal.

---

You are insufferable.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why should the ISPs pricing reflect that difference in value?

---

Because it's the basis of a free market.

---

No, that's the basis of extortion. But I guess you do have a point.. in a truly free market, extortion is a valid business model.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Should FedEx charge me more for shipping a pound of gold vs. a brick?

---

If customers are willing to pay for it... sure. Why not?

---

And, you know, I probably would pay a lot more to ship gold than a brick, and that's okay. If we negotiate a rate and come to an agreement, I'll pay and they should deliver. We have a problem, though, with the next sentence that you neglected to quote... what happens when they demand more money from the receiver?

quote:

---

Ok. Stop paying Netflix and see if you can still offload their content. Stop paying your ISP and see if you can offload their content. Both are part of the delivery of the content. One gets paid for it. The other does not.

---

It just blows my mind that you can acknowledge that I pay my ISP to deliver Netflix to me, then immediately claim that my ISP doesn't get paid for delivering Netflix to me.

quote:

---

Let's run with this toll booth analogy. Say you owned a toll road. One customer makes $10,000,000 per year in profit, and floods the road with delivery vehicles to the point you have to add lanes to keep the road passable. And there's Tommy, who owns a single motorcycle and only travels the road to visit his grandma once a month. Would you charge both customers the exact same toll? Does your road have the same economic value to the delivery company's customers as it does to grandma?

---

Your analogies always mold to fit your agenda. You argue about "both ends" of the delivery system when it suits, and you argue using only one end of the delivery system here. Obviously, Tommy would pay much less than the large company, and he would probably pay an amount proportional to his use of the road vs the large company. That's how things should work, right? Netflix pays many 1000s of times more than I do to serve their content.

Now, the other end. Tommy's grandma also has a toll booth. Should grandma pay more to receive a delivery from the company than she would to let Tommy in? Or should the company have to pay more to get in than Tommy does? What if the company is sending grandma her meds via motorcycle courier? Should the toll booth operator care? Or is a motorcycle a motorcycle? "Just you, Tommy? That'll be $1. Wait, you have grandma's medications? That'll be $10."

quote:

---

quote:

---

So tell me, what would you call it if there was someone who inspected the things you buy

---

Walmarks knows exactly what you buy. If you think ISPs don't log their traffic. I don't know what to say.

---

You are just shameless with the cherry-picking of words. I don't care who knows what I buy. Why don't you answer the question as asked?

You seem to like Walmart analogies, so let's try this: what if your ISP gets bought by Amazon, and Amazon decided to block your access to walmart.com unless Walmart pays up? Walmart would have to pay Amazon whatever arbitrary fee they ask, and then increase their prices to cover these new costs, so that Amazon's prices are more competitive.

In your view, this should be totally legal, if not the way things should be. After all, those bits coming from walmart.com are pretty valuable, right? Amazon the ISP should be able to charge more to cover the value of those bits, right?

Or do you think maybe Walmart should have some legal grounds to stand on when they give Amazon a big "frick you"?