'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Derek
Posts: 2180
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby Derek » Mon May 12, 2014 12:04 am UTC

Diadem wrote:The Vihart video mentioned that internet is much more expensive in the US then elsewhere. That made me wonder. What do you guys pay for internet? And how fast is the internet you are getting.

I'm just done signing up for internet for my new home, and the system we have here (The Netherlands) is quite strange, but probably quite good. There's actually two companies involved in your internet. One that owns the cables, and one that provides the connection. So while i can't chose which company owns the physical fiber that connects to my house, I can chose which ISP I want, and I can easily switch.

Still damn expensive though. I basically pay 65 euros for 100mbit (+tv and phone), with some bonuses for new customers throw in. I picked one of the more expensive ISPs, but even the cheapest ones were like 50 euros.

In Pennsylvania I have a similar set up for my electrical bill. One company owns the wires and collects a fee for that regardless, but then I can choose my "producer" from several dozen options, some are cheaper, some are "green", etc.

For the record, 65 euros, about $90, will get you about 50 Mb/s + tv, or 100 Mb/s for internet alone, where I live. Of course, in the US they always have introductory rates for new customer, which then go up significantly after a year or so. Apparently if I were a new customer I could get 100 Mb/s for $60. Right now I think I'm paying $70 for 60 Mb/s + "tv" that I don't use and don't want. That's the second discount I've had, after my first one expired and I called to get a new one*. This one will expire in a couple months, but I'm looking to move to a new place, and hopefully I can work it out so that I'm treated as a "new" customer again.

*If you can convince them that you might actually switch services, they will renew your introductory rate or offer you a similar new discount. Fortunately for me, Verizon came into my area with FIOS last year, so I had a legitimate alternative and so I was able to get a new discount.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby Red Hal » Mon May 12, 2014 1:39 pm UTC

We pay about £80 ($120) per month. This gives us the following:

Internet (120Mbps down, 20Mbps up)
Cable TV (Full dual TiVo package, 150-odd channels)
Telephone landline (calls free to UK numbers, plus our mobiles.)
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby CorruptUser » Mon May 12, 2014 1:42 pm UTC

I think it should be illegal to use "megabits" as a unit of measure.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby yurell » Mon May 12, 2014 1:46 pm UTC

Why do you think that?
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

Chen
Posts: 5565
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby Chen » Mon May 12, 2014 1:52 pm UTC

Up here in Montreal, I pay around $50/month for 20Mbit down, 10 Mbit up internet. My cable TV is about $60/month. Only one company owns the cable lines themselves though. That's the company I use for the TV. However, the internet is through a third party that uses the other company's lines. And is a LOT cheaper than if I were to go through the main company. I'm not really sure how they work that out, but its good for us consumers. Still looks a fair bit more expensive than in other countries (not including US) though.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby leady » Mon May 12, 2014 2:07 pm UTC

I would assume for the 3 standard reasons

a) access speed vs internet speed (for want of a good term)
b) MB vs Mb (that pesky factor of 8 to make the numbers look better)
c) Possibly that wierd thing that computers work on 1024, networks on 1000s

Not sure what you can replace it with though :)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby CorruptUser » Mon May 12, 2014 2:32 pm UTC

yurell wrote:Why do you think that?


Everyone uses megabytes. The only reason to use megabits is to confuse the average layperson into thinking they are getting 8 times the speed they actually get, and that's what the cable companies are counting on.

I really hate marketing gimmicks. "Used" became "pre-owned", but now it's "pre-loved" or "new-to-you".

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby Zamfir » Mon May 12, 2014 2:46 pm UTC

Bits really are the standard in networking, not bytes. I am not sure where that difference comes from. At a guess it's because networking doesn't have the direct link between bytes and memory. In many computer applications, data will always be an integer multiple of bytes because memory comes in byte-sized chunks or larger. Less so in transmission. Especially when you are also sending checksum bits etc, so even if the underlying data is byte-chunked, the actual transmitted stream isn't.

ISPs might have kept the bits for marketing reasons, but they didn't introduce them for marketing reasons, it always were bits.

speising
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby speising » Mon May 12, 2014 4:57 pm UTC

it's not 8 times the speed. one byte does encode into more than that for transmission. at least one parity bit, and some overhead, so it's more like 10:1.
and since the overhead depends on protocol, mtu, and whatnot, the raw bitrate ist the only reliable number.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5401
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby mosc » Mon May 12, 2014 5:44 pm UTC

Derek wrote:In Pennsylvania I have a similar set up for my electrical bill. One company owns the wires and collects a fee for that regardless, but then I can choose my "producer" from several dozen options, some are cheaper, some are "green", etc.

This system relies on the premise that wiring a house from two different power providers is inherently inefficient. In contrast to the internet, the power grid is essentially built from the ground up to incorporate economies of scale. Is this what we really want for the internet? One wire provider? Data can get to us in so many ways it seems like the supplier side is more open.

ISP's are facing a lot of the same problems that phone companies did a few years back. It seems like the same inevitable trade-offs are needed. You can't be a national infrastructure holder, it creates a conflict of interest and a lack of competition. Peering is messy and costs money but if the companies involved are small enough as to not impose national standards, things will stay competitive. I'm not a big net neutrality guy. I think it's incredibly complicated and peering is more the issue than cable tiered service plans. To me, I'm more afraid of infrastructure owners acting on the national stage. They impede progress. Comcast, Verison, etc should have to divest their infrastructure holdings and license them. Those infrastructure holdings would then have financial walls in place between favoring their former company's data vs another.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby nitePhyyre » Mon May 12, 2014 6:11 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Up here in Montreal, I pay around $50/month for 20Mbit down, 10 Mbit up internet. My cable TV is about $60/month. Only one company owns the cable lines themselves though. That's the company I use for the TV. However, the internet is through a third party that uses the other company's lines. And is a LOT cheaper than if I were to go through the main company. I'm not really sure how they work that out, but its good for us consumers. Still looks a fair bit more expensive than in other countries (not including US) though.
I'm in montreal using distributel. I'm paying $40/month for 5mbps down / 1mbps up. Their next tier is $52 for 10mbps down / 1.5mbps up.

Who do you have? Looks like I'm being ripped off!

CorruptUser wrote:Everyone uses megabytes. The only reason to use megabits is to confuse the average layperson into thinking they are getting 8 times the speed they actually get, and that's what the cable companies are counting on.

I really hate marketing gimmicks. "Used" became "pre-owned", but now it's "pre-loved" or "new-to-you".
In addition to what Zamfir and speising pointed out -- bits are bits, bytes are bytes, for a reason -- how is it a marketing gimmick in any way, shape, or, form? Where would you even come up with the idea that everyone uses megabytes? No one uses megabytes. If most ISP's rated their connections in bytes, and then, one ISP who had slower connections rated theirs in bits, you might have a point. The only time that it matters that volume and speed is measured in different units is if you ask yourself "how long will it take to download this file of size X?".

At that point, if you don't know the difference between bits and bytes, you'll do the division and come up with the wrong answer. But it will be the same wrong answer for each company marketing to you. It doesn't offer any marketing advantage. More importantly, for most consumers, especially the ones who will be tripped up by the bits/bytes 'confusion', the numbers -- as well as the units they are measured in -- are meaningless. The ISP companies may as well rates their connection as 10 mega magic per second. If consumers are happy with their speeds, yay! If not, well then they'll want more magic per second. It doesn't matter in the slightest what unit you actually use to measure your magic in.

It doesn't confuse laymen into thinking they are getting 8 times the speed because the layperson has no reference frame. Speed is speed. Storage is storage, never the twain shall meet. There is never a comparison between bits and bytes.

It is like complaining that your gas tank is in gallons while your speedometer is in mph. They should use the same units, the speedometer should be in mpg! Yes, you could do that. However, it would be silly and inaccurate.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Derek
Posts: 2180
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby Derek » Mon May 12, 2014 7:16 pm UTC

mosc wrote:This system relies on the premise that wiring a house from two different power providers is inherently inefficient. In contrast to the internet, the power grid is essentially built from the ground up to incorporate economies of scale. Is this what we really want for the internet? One wire provider? Data can get to us in so many ways it seems like the supplier side is more open.

I never said it was a good idea, I just said that's how electricity works in Pennsylvania.

nitePhyyre wrote:It doesn't confuse laymen into thinking they are getting 8 times the speed because the layperson has no reference frame. Speed is speed. Storage is storage, never the twain shall meet. There is never a comparison between bits and bytes.

It is like complaining that your gas tank is in gallons while your speedometer is in mph. They should use the same units, the speedometer should be in mpg! Yes, you could do that. However, it would be silly and inaccurate.

I can say from experience that it confuses many people into thinking that they're getting (or are supposed to get) eight times what they're actually getting. You don't have to be a computer whiz to know what megabytes and gigabytes are, so when they see "20 Mb/s" they think "20 megabyte per second", and wonder why they're only getting 2 MB/s. As mentioned, there are perfectly good reasons why network rates are reported in bits, but most people don't understand that.

Chen
Posts: 5565
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby Chen » Mon May 12, 2014 7:31 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:I'm in montreal using distributel. I'm paying $40/month for 5mbps down / 1mbps up. Their next tier is $52 for 10mbps down / 1.5mbps up.

Who do you have? Looks like I'm being ripped off!


I use Electronic Box's cable internet. It's an great deal. Teksavvy is pretty similar when I looked. There are setup fees and you had to get a modem, but that's similar to all the other companies anyways, so I didn't include that in my cost analysis. Funnily enough it was a Videotron technician who came in to set it up.

I used to be using Bell's service paying close to $60/month for 5 mbps down/ 1 mbps up. The rates and speeds are ALL over the place up here.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby nitePhyyre » Mon May 12, 2014 7:44 pm UTC

Derek wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:It doesn't confuse laymen into thinking they are getting 8 times the speed because the layperson has no reference frame. Speed is speed. Storage is storage, never the twain shall meet. There is never a comparison between bits and bytes.

It is like complaining that your gas tank is in gallons while your speedometer is in mph. They should use the same units, the speedometer should be in mpg! Yes, you could do that. However, it would be silly and inaccurate.

I can say from experience that it confuses many people into thinking that they're getting (or are supposed to get) eight times what they're actually getting. You don't have to be a computer whiz to know what megabytes and gigabytes are, so when they see "20 Mb/s" they think "20 megabyte per second", and wonder why they're only getting 2 MB/s. As mentioned, there are perfectly good reasons why network rates are reported in bits, but most people don't understand that.
Ah, I've never come across that. I've had people ask me what the difference between bytes and bits is, but never had people saying that their internet was slow because they are supposed to be getting 20 but instead are only getting 2. That said, I still don't understand how that could be viewed as a marketing scheme.

If they were selling internet in MB then switched over to make it look a lot faster, then sure, marketing scheme. Just like how cereals are asbestos free. But I just don't see how you could view bits as a scheme.

Chen wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:I'm in montreal using distributel. I'm paying $40/month for 5mbps down / 1mbps up. Their next tier is $52 for 10mbps down / 1.5mbps up.

Who do you have? Looks like I'm being ripped off!


I use Electronic Box's cable internet. It's an great deal. Teksavvy is pretty similar when I looked. There are setup fees and you had to get a modem, but that's similar to all the other companies anyways, so I didn't include that in my cost analysis. Funnily enough it was a Videotron technician who came in to set it up.

I used to be using Bell's service paying close to $60/month for 5 mbps down/ 1 mbps up. The rates and speeds are ALL over the place up here.
Ah, its a metered connection. I'd blow through that 100gb limit in a heartbeat. :D 250gb would probably be enough, but then there aren't much cost savings.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon May 12, 2014 8:04 pm UTC

Derek wrote:I can say from experience that it confuses many people into thinking that they're getting (or are supposed to get) eight times what they're actually getting. You don't have to be a computer whiz to know what megabytes and gigabytes are, so when they see "20 Mb/s" they think "20 megabyte per second", and wonder why they're only getting 2 MB/s. As mentioned, there are perfectly good reasons why network rates are reported in bits, but most people don't understand that.


Oh, confusion totally happens. But in the tech world, where so many things have at least vaguely similar labels, and people who are non-techies are making purchasing decisions, this is about par for the course. It's like folks confusing memory and hard drive space. It's...basically just going to happen, and no degree of marketting is really changing it.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby Diadem » Tue May 13, 2014 8:33 am UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:Ah, its a metered connection. I'd blow through that 100gb limit in a heartbeat. :D 250gb would probably be enough, but then there aren't much cost savings.

You have a 5 mpbs connection and you'd blow through 100 GB (you wrote gb but I assume you mean GB since I've never heard of datalimits being expressed in bits) in a heartbeat? Your heart only beats once ever 2 days?

A 200 GB data limit seems quite generous for a 5 mbit line. You'd have to use the line at full capacity a significant amount of time to reach it. Are you running a commercial server or something?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby leady » Tue May 13, 2014 9:23 am UTC

You'd laugh, but I've seen several people regularly get a Tb down a standard 8Mbps line...

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby yurell » Tue May 13, 2014 10:53 am UTC

That's only about 35 hours of flat-out downloading. Call it 140 hrs if we're running at 1/4 capacity, and at eight hours a day that's a Tb done in just over a fortnight (for 8Mb/s).
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby leady » Tue May 13, 2014 11:35 am UTC

Lax units sorry naturally meant TB - but its not the single incident that amused me, its that it was (and I assume still is) the same people every month

I don't think there is enough time in the day to watch that much stuff! (unless its all Linux ISOs...)

Chen
Posts: 5565
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby Chen » Tue May 13, 2014 11:41 am UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:Ah, its a metered connection. I'd blow through that 100gb limit in a heartbeat. :D 250gb would probably be enough, but then there aren't much cost savings.


Their DSL can hit similar speeds (a little more expensive) but its unlimited downloads between 2am and 2pm. Teksavvy has unlimited downloads from 2 am to 8 am as well for their cable. I never reach the 150 gig limit myself so I'm perfectly content with the cable. They did say on their forums eventually the cable would transition to a similar "unlimited between 2am and 2pm" system.

speising
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby speising » Tue May 13, 2014 11:43 am UTC

o tempora, o mores.
i remember when we had a "fair-use" clause, which was considered exceeded at 10GB/month.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby Zamfir » Tue May 13, 2014 12:10 pm UTC

You young ones. WHEN I WAS young, a bad network connection left you a hole for the fish to swim through.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby leady » Tue May 13, 2014 1:16 pm UTC

I fondly remember my 300 baud modem (that 300 bits per second...) for my amiga

it could reach a staggering 1200/75 bps to prestel, which naturally as a teenager I had no chance of purchasing :)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue May 13, 2014 1:29 pm UTC

leady wrote:Lax units sorry naturally meant TB - but its not the single incident that amused me, its that it was (and I assume still is) the same people every month

I don't think there is enough time in the day to watch that much stuff! (unless its all Linux ISOs...)


There is in the pirating community, a slight tendency towards hoarding. I suspect rather a lot of people download a lot of stuff with every intention to check it out someday, but never get around to it.

speising
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby speising » Tue May 13, 2014 1:45 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
leady wrote:Lax units sorry naturally meant TB - but its not the single incident that amused me, its that it was (and I assume still is) the same people every month

I don't think there is enough time in the day to watch that much stuff! (unless its all Linux ISOs...)


There is in the pirating community, a slight tendency towards hoarding. I suspect rather a lot of people download a lot of stuff with every intention to check it out someday, but never get around to it.

i wouldn't know personally, of course, but i have heard, that you may have to download a few versions of a movie before you find a good one.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue May 13, 2014 7:21 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:Ah, its a metered connection. I'd blow through that 100gb limit in a heartbeat. :D 250gb would probably be enough, but then there aren't much cost savings.

You have a 5 mpbs connection and you'd blow through 100 GB (you wrote gb but I assume you mean GB since I've never heard of datalimits being expressed in bits) in a heartbeat? Your heart only beats once ever 2 days?

A 200 GB data limit seems quite generous for a 5 mbit line. You'd have to use the line at full capacity a significant amount of time to reach it. Are you running a commercial server or something?
Ok, maybe a heartbeat was a bit of exaggeration. My cardio isn't that good.

Seeding. That's where all my data goes.

But figure, an hour tv show is 1 to 1.5 GB. With my wife and I, we watch 2-3 hours total a night. More on the weekend. That's like 80 GB alone. Plus I'm a nice guy and sharing is caring, so I seed at least 1.5 times what I download. That's another 120-odd GB. Nearly at 200 total. If it is rare, I'll seed indefinitely. And that's just regular usage. All scripted downloads and uploads that I don't even touch. Then I stream music. That's like 4-6 hours of streaming mp3's every weekday. That's like another .5-1 GB. Add in any games I download, any disc images, web pages, android apps and their updates. My wife downloads TV shows for people at her work and brings them in for people on pen drives. I don't even know how much data / how many shows she does that for, although a bunch of it is stuff we already watch ourselves so there is no extra download for that. I listen to audiobooks, about 2 hours a day while I'm stuck in traffic. So that's another half gig every other day or week, depending on the length of the book. Then of course there's this:
Tyndmyr wrote:There is in the pirating community, a slight tendency towards hoarding. I suspect rather a lot of people download a lot of stuff with every intention to check it out someday, but never get around to it.
I'm totally guilty of that. "Oh, what's that? One good song from an artist? Guess I have no choice but to download their entire discography." Or, "That looks like a good game. I'll probably never play it, I spend too much time playing KSP. But I should probably download it and all its expansion packs, just in case."

tl;dr: When you watch a lot of TV and movies without having cable... you use a bunch of data.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue May 13, 2014 8:10 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote: Then of course there's this:
Tyndmyr wrote:There is in the pirating community, a slight tendency towards hoarding. I suspect rather a lot of people download a lot of stuff with every intention to check it out someday, but never get around to it.
I'm totally guilty of that. "Oh, what's that? One good song from an artist? Guess I have no choice but to download their entire discography." Or, "That looks like a good game. I'll probably never play it, I spend too much time playing KSP. But I should probably download it and all its expansion packs, just in case."

tl;dr: When you watch a lot of TV and movies without having cable... you use a bunch of data.


I haven't even pirated in ages, and it's *still* an issue for me. I have a giant stack of video games that I haven't even pulled the wrappings from, and when I see some awesome bundle deal, it's still tempting.

It's pretty easy to hit some hard core data usage...I do 3-5 Gb a mo on my phone alone, and I've got broadband for both my shop and home as well. So, basically, I've got three accounts that I dump money at for internet service. Thus, I don't really feel bad if my data usage spikes a bit. It's not as if they are exactly struggling to cut costs or the like. More of a "I have to call them every few months when they start adding crap to my account".

Randomizer
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:23 am UTC
Location: My walls are full of hungry wolves.
Contact:

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby Randomizer » Wed May 14, 2014 12:11 am UTC

Today reddit has a blog post on the subject on Net Neutrality, if anyone's interested. They have a bunch of links to information on the subject and are asking people to call congress and the FCC to have them reclassify ISPs as Title II common carriers under the Telecommunications Act of 1934. Besides that, I found this FCC filing to be pretty informative about the history of how the internet has been regulated.
Belial wrote:I'm all outraged out. Call me when the violent rebellion starts.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby Ormurinn » Thu May 15, 2014 3:33 pm UTC

http://oddblots.tumblr.com/post/8581783 ... -economics

This guy makes a convincing economic argument that the scare stories of the pro net-neutrality folks aren't feasible.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

speising
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby speising » Thu May 15, 2014 3:37 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:http://oddblots.tumblr.com/post/85817835358/stoptheslowlane-is-short-bus-economics

This guy makes a convincing economic argument that the scare stories of the pro net-neutrality folks aren't feasible.


stopped reading at the second paragraph:
The case in favor of Net Neutrality is that without it, content companies will pay ISPs to slow down or even block their competitors.

that's so the complete opposite of the truth. without NN, companies will have to pay ISPs not to slow down or even block their own traffic.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby Ormurinn » Thu May 15, 2014 4:12 pm UTC

speising wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:http://oddblots.tumblr.com/post/85817835358/stoptheslowlane-is-short-bus-economics

This guy makes a convincing economic argument that the scare stories of the pro net-neutrality folks aren't feasible.


stopped reading at the second paragraph:
The case in favor of Net Neutrality is that without it, content companies will pay ISPs to slow down or even block their competitors.

that's so the complete opposite of the truth. without NN, companies will have to pay ISPs not to slow down or even block their own traffic.


In terms of market effects, aren't those two effects symmetric? Either way the ISP is picking winners in a market, and the more successful the picked winner is, the lower the marginal utility to the picked winner of continuing the arrangement.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

speising
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby speising » Thu May 15, 2014 4:51 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:
speising wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:http://oddblots.tumblr.com/post/85817835358/stoptheslowlane-is-short-bus-economics

This guy makes a convincing economic argument that the scare stories of the pro net-neutrality folks aren't feasible.


stopped reading at the second paragraph:
The case in favor of Net Neutrality is that without it, content companies will pay ISPs to slow down or even block their competitors.

that's so the complete opposite of the truth. without NN, companies will have to pay ISPs not to slow down or even block their own traffic.


In terms of market effects, aren't those two effects symmetric? Either way the ISP is picking winners in a market, and the more successful the picked winner is, the lower the marginal utility to the picked winner of continuing the arrangement.

yes, but it's not symmetric, when the rest of the post tries to debunk the idea that companies would be willing to sabotage the competitors. when all they do is trying not to be sabotaged by the isp.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby Xeio » Thu May 15, 2014 4:54 pm UTC

speising wrote:
The case in favor of Net Neutrality is that without it, content companies will pay ISPs to slow down or even block their competitors.
that's so the complete opposite of the truth. without NN, companies will have to pay ISPs not to slow down or even block their own traffic.
Even worse is, what happens when the ISP is a content provider? Now they can slow down their competitors for free, you don't even need colluding anymore.

I recall not even a year ago when I couldn't watch CBS shows on the CBS website because Viacom and Time Warner were having a spat about their cable TV services (and my ISP happened to be Time Warner).

Derek
Posts: 2180
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby Derek » Thu May 15, 2014 7:06 pm UTC

speising wrote:stopped reading at the second paragraph:
The case in favor of Net Neutrality is that without it, content companies will pay ISPs to slow down or even block their competitors.

that's so the complete opposite of the truth. without NN, companies will have to pay ISPs not to slow down or even block their own traffic.

The two scenarios are isomorphic: One provider is paying the ISP for better speeds than another provider.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu May 15, 2014 7:26 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:
speising wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:http://oddblots.tumblr.com/post/85817835358/stoptheslowlane-is-short-bus-economics

This guy makes a convincing economic argument that the scare stories of the pro net-neutrality folks aren't feasible.


stopped reading at the second paragraph:
The case in favor of Net Neutrality is that without it, content companies will pay ISPs to slow down or even block their competitors.

that's so the complete opposite of the truth. without NN, companies will have to pay ISPs not to slow down or even block their own traffic.


In terms of market effects, aren't those two effects symmetric? Either way the ISP is picking winners in a market, and the more successful the picked winner is, the lower the marginal utility to the picked winner of continuing the arrangement.


Nah. Net neutrality doesn't solve everything, it's true, but it does take care of significant inequities. It's one thing for people to need to pay for bandwidth. That's fine. You pay for what you use, and that's dandy, and will happen either way.

But with NN, there's at least a level playing field in terms of what customers are paying. The worst scenario is definitely when the carrier is also a content provider(not uncommon), and has a direct motive to interfere with provided service to others. Prioritization of content should not happen on the basis of who owns the content.

elasto
Posts: 3749
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 'Net Neutrality' Struck Down

Postby elasto » Fri May 16, 2014 12:41 am UTC

Yeah. A non-NN world is like Walmart owning all the roads and allowing their vans unimpeded access while all the other supermarkets have to queue on the hard shoulder.

NN is good for the internet for the same reason it's good for any mode of transportation.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests