Sure, but I'm curious why you think it's important to Comcast? How would it be important to them in a way that doesn't affect regular people?

The moat strategy that goofy just posted makes sense to me, but you seemed to dismiss that idea earlier in a reply to suzzer.

JFC I've said he exact same thing like 3x in this thread. Is this thing on? CHECK CHECK

I actually disagree and think they'll definitely take away things at some point but nothing that would cause the masses to uproar (ie bittorrent, gambling/poker sites to name a few possibilites that sprung to mind). Netflix probably just pays the damn ransom.

And what you'll notice is Netflix costing an extra couple bucks a month.

I don't have netflix, so no I won't

Broadband should just be a public utility. You can't even get a job at the local Pizza Hut or Wal Mart or whatever now without applying online, so poors without internet access are going to be shut out of even the lowest end of the labor market.

As one example, it might give them more commercial leverage over other big businesses they have commercial relationships with and allow them to benefit at the expense of other big companies. Another is that it might make it possible for ISPs to make profitable investments in upgraded service that they can sell to customers who value it.

There's plenty of reason to be skeptical that that's how it will play out, and personally I don't see a good case to allow ISPs to block/degrade otherwise lawful content. For other net neutrality violations, like paid prioritization/fast lanes/whatever, it's seems to me that net neutrality is likely to be harmful by disincentivizing investments in better internet.

I'm not really sure what you're referring to about the moat strategy. Are you talking about the Sanchez tweet that goofy quoted? What Sanchez is saying is that the next Netflix will be less profitable if Comcast makes them/their customers pay for their disproportionate use of network resources, which seems indisputably true, but also kind of a shrug for me. I didn't go back and look, but I suspect suzzer was talking about how various flagrant violations of anti-trust law that will be clearly illegal with or without net neutrality rules.

Fast lanes is literally exactly degrading other lawful content. There's nothing that's meaningfully easier or harder to deliver, and it's not like they're literally talking about building out new infrastructure to fast-lane-company consumers (which would have been legal anyway).

Once they have a network that can deliver fast-lane throughput for anything, they have a network that can deliver fast-lane throughput for everything- or at the very least equivalent throughput if the fast-lane thing isn't being used at the time, and if they're not delivering that speed, it's because they're artificially degrading other things.

Now, as far as future investments go, if this were a competitive space (which it isn't in most areas), companies would *naturally* be making better and better internet to gain or keep market share. But it's largely a monopoly or handshake duopoly, with gigantic barriers to large-scale entry, so you're right, they have minimal incentive to serve the public better without collecting bribes from large companies first because the public has nowhere else to go.

That's also why telcos are being dickheads of the highest order when it comes to trying to suppress municipal broadband- if there's another market entrant that isn't ****, they have to upgrade service to compete (which, shockingly, they can and do in areas where municipal broadband gets established). But it's far more profitable to lobby for bull**** laws so they can keep offering ****ty internet as a monopoly, so that's what they do. Your perspective has to be beyond myopic to see *net neutrality* as the suppressor of better internet and not the monopoly or near-monopoly positioning.

From my understanding of net neutrality being taken away is that the consumer won't notice much if anything since they can't travel into the future to see what life would have been like. It is the removal of potential good things in the future rather than actual good things.

God if only that CNN article was real lmao

1.3 zettabytes was picked because that was the amount of global internet traffic spanning from 1984 to 2013.

Kind of a big qualifier! If the network is at the limits of capacity, then something has to get delayed. It makes perfect sense that you would decide which things to delay based on who was willing to pay you for higher priority. If you have to delay something, it's more efficient for it to be an email that will be read in an hour rather than a streaming video packet that needs to arrive in the next 15 seconds to avoid stuttering. Some consumer routers offer exactly that ability, because it makes sense.

What makes sense to me is if you have available network capacity and refuse to let traffic use it. That's what I think of as degrading. There's not an efficiency case for it, and it lends itself more to blackmail-type dynamics.

Competitive internet would definitely be a great thing. Makes you wonder why we rarely hear about it...

Like I said - imagine if Jimmy Carter hadn't loosened home brewing regulations, which were a massive barrier to entry that the big beer cos enjoyed ever since prohibition. We'd still have a few major domestic beers to choose from, the craft beer revolution never would have happened, and most people would have no idea what could have been. That makes it much more insidious than a tax bill imo - which people will eventually notice.

https://www.kegworks.com/blog/how-ji...er-revolution/

Imagine if say the national parks were all privatized and crammed with billboards. We'd never know any better. Or if Central Park was never built. Or California didn't stipulate that all beaches are public. Etc.

Nobody's going to pay for priority on a network that can't handle the traffic to begin with. Drrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. So they're promising both creators and consumers X bandwidth to an end user, at which point they no longer have a network management reason to give a **** how the consumer uses the X- if the consumer overloads his personal X and starts degrading his stuff, then he can decide *himself* what to prioritize.


In the real world, https://arstechnica.com/information-...higher-speeds/

Also in the real world, municipal fiber has brought 10-50 fold bandwidth increases at a similar price point and runs at a profit despite the lack of economy of scale- the telcos *could* have simply delivered that level of service before local fiber built out, or something close to it, but they didn't because there wasn't any incentive to, because of the general lack of competition.

All your arguments are basically against straw men in a different universe. If internet were extremely competitive, net neutrality wouldn't be a concern because a company going against it at the same price point would be suicide. If networks were routinely at capacity despite building out the best profitable service, paid prioritization would be reasonable. But neither of those things are remotely true.

Slippery slope my friend.

That ajit pie 7 things video is worthy of a punch in the face.

Yea. Don't make fun of him for his last name, make fun of him for being one of those briefcase to class lanyard d*ck corporate tools whose lame attempts to connect with the hip cool kids is painfully lame.

Oh you sweet summer child.

First off, I'm amazed that this bot even exists. There truly must be one for all occasions. Second, I've got this being investigated more quickly and more thoroughly than the 2 million-ish fake comments on FCC's site.

Here's another one btw

I could imagine a version of net neutrality regulation that allows QoS filtering of the type you are describing, but insists that QoS controls depend on the technical nature of the traffic, and not specifically who the traffic is for.

That is, sure you can prefer to deliver streaming video packets over email packets but you can't prefer Netflix over Hulu. There are probably some cases where this is technically difficult, but for the most part it's fairly straightforward. I don't think advocates for net neutrality are generally opposed to QoS implementations like what you're describing.

In my FB thread today. This is the propaganda that Fox and the right has been pushing to try and get their base to support their agenda. Another obvious example of propaganda, but should we care? There's supposed to be a large enough percentage of people who are for Net Neutrality, but can they whittle this lead to a meaningful opposition?



In their world, the evil Obama came down and ruined the internet by giving them net neutrality (in reality the internet was founded on the idea of net neutrality and this term was coined in 2003, but it's been a major issue since to 90's). So in their world the innocent telecom corps just want to charge a fair amount because they are suffering from record profits, and monopolies. They don't want to victimize grandma with unfair high monthly service changes when she only reads e-mail once a week, vs. those netflix streamers who use un-toggled bandwidth.

I've watched issues like this get whittled away into nonsense over the years, so that's why I'm asking. Is there any hope in breaking tribal politics for these peoplem and get them to understand, or just don't even bother? It's a big echo chamber.

go back and reread. That's not what he's saying. He's (intentionally?) confusing like 3-4 different topics, mixing them all together, and throwing in a healthy dose of "everything is obama's fault"

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1051157755251

^^^ the fact that Pai won't even cooperate with law enforcement to investigate those comments is a sure sign that there is no evidence of corruption here

Y'all wrong - two plus two still works