re: Net neutrality devil's advocate

quote:

---

Google can't penetrate these cities. fricking Google.

---

roger took an economics class in the 70s

you have no idea what youre talking about

quote:

---

I go to their competitor

---

good thing we have a list of like 37 broadband ISP's to choose from.

(no message)

quote:

---

ISPs won't just 'pop up'. Cost alone is a barrier to entry, nevermind what the big boys could do if NN is gone. Google learned the hard way.

---

Christ, you people are clueless. There are at least a couple of hundred small broadband providers in the US. THEY are the ones harmed most by the NN regulations because of the increased costs.

It's amazing how many of you believe that the only way to be a broadband provider is to start with a nationwide network of fiber.

And Google as an example is a joke. NN did NOTHING to help them as an ISP.

Is Roger really the only person here who understands that this rule was not beneficial in any way?

(no message)

quote:

---

I see you dodged the point and simply posted a strawman.

---

That's all they can provide. Just saying that competition will pop up (despite that even Google can't do it) and just vague bullshite of "lets see what happens".

Meanwhile our side has concrete stories on how the Big 6 has actively tried or succeeded in silencing people and corporations who don't meet their narratives and they shut them down. They deserve no benefit of the doubt and we absolutely to assume the worst from them.

quote:

---

People have no idea what it takes and how much it costs to build out an ISP infrastructure. Even in rural areas it costs millions upon millions to bury fiber, even with government subsidies the cost is astronomical. On top of that, there's tons of government regulation on the land, crossing roads, Bridges, etc. Then you have to buy the equipment to aggregate customers, route said customers, and pay for internet bandwidth through your internet uplinks. Support contracts on all of said equipment. Employees with knowledge to support the ISP are not cheap, either.

---

So why do ISPs take on all of this expense?

The incentive of profit.

Take away that incentive of profit with overregulation, and the internet infrastructure becomes stagnant.

I am not against any regulation of the internet, but some of you seriously lack a knowledge of economics. Remove profit incentives and you will help slow growth and really prevent any ISP competition from appearing in the future.

Do you want to trade the internet infrastructure of the future for the internet infrastructure of 2017 forever, in exchange for the ability to tell the ISPs how they handle their network?

quote:

---

So firstly, you're saying netflix was actually was being charged for the bandwidth it used? Does NN not give netflix and similar services an advantage by allowing them to hog bandwidth at "r

---

No.

I spelled it out pretty clearly in the post.

Let's say Netflix had services with ISP ABC. They pay out the arse to get 20 gigabit/sec or some outlandish bandwidth. They pay thousands a month for that service, and their provider gives it to them.

But this group of Netflix subscribers on the other side of the fence, paying for their own bandwidth. 50 megabits/sec here, 35 megabits/sec there, and they are paying a tiered amount with Comcast agreed to in exchange for that degree of service.

But Comcast gets annoyed. Even though they have already been paid for an agreed data amount, they didn't actually expect users to USE what they fricking bought, and this shite is eating into their profit margins.

So they send Netflix an ultimatum, pay us again for service, or we will selectively hamper packets originating from you, regardless of the source, whose destinations are our customers.

At no point did Netflix get a free ride, nor did they use more than was sold to them. Their bill is likely well over 100k a month. The problem (if there was one and it wasn't simply greed), was Comcast oversold bandwith to THEIR customers, not to Netflix. And they then use their captive customers, who often have no other choice for quality Internet, as unwitting hostages to extort Netflix to sweep their (Comcast's, not Netflix) frick up under the rug.

quote:

---

Secondly, why would Comcast throttle said ISP when instead Comcast could charge them for the use of its facilities? Seems bad business on the part of comcast. Otherwise, said ISP can build their own fiber systems and get with it?

How is Comcast subsidized?

---

First question: nothing, but why not both? They have done this already.

Second: cost of entry for new fiber networks is a pretty much insurmountable barrier. You can count on one hand the number of companies associated with tier one backbones globally.

Third: the statement was in error. Looking into it, Comcast isn't directly subsidized as far as backbone infrastructure goes. They are closely associated with Level 3, whom they buy transit from.

quote:

---

That's all they can provide. Just saying that competition will pop up (despite that even Google can't do it) and just vague bullshite of "lets see what happens". 

---

2578 ISPs in the US, and almost all of them predate the rule.

Your side does nothing but make up straw men.