Jawbreaker;1584266 wrote:I am all for making a profit but when you are paying for bandwidth, at a premium compared to other parts of the world, you shouldn't have your packets prioritize for services the ISP wants you to use or not use. I pay for an Internet connection and not for someone to tell me what traffic gets priority over another. I can handle that on my own network.

The FCC really screwed up on this net neutrality bit.

Yeah I mean, Comcast operates as a cable television provider and owns NBC who has a stake in Hulu which is a Netflix competitor. I don't want the internet to turn into a shit show of "well if you have Comcast you have to pay extra to use Netflix and access foxnews.com and if you have...". That would suck. The internet is valuable to society and the economy because it has been so open, this needs to be strongly defended or we risk much.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/25/5431382/the-internet-is-fucked

I Wear Pants;1584367 wrote:http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/25/5431382/the-internet-is-fucked

I am reading that now. Talk about attention grabbing head

dlazz;1584230 wrote:Supply and demand isn't applicable to bandwidth since there's virtually unlimited supply.

That is the key point you keep overlooking.

No, the point you keep ignoring is the investment cost. You're making the same bullshit entitlement argument that people use to justify stealing MP3's, because there's no marginal cost to them. It's MY asset - Walmart can go build their own road, or perhaps buy mine for fair market value - but that's expensive which is exactly why they will pay me a fair price to use mine. It's more than just the maintenance cost, which can be very marginal, it's also about the return/cost of the asset itself (not to mention, ultimately, replacement cost).

If I build a road to bring goods to customers....and then Walmart comes along wanting to use my road for free, and undercut my prices and steal my customers...Why SHOULDN'T Walmart have to pay part of the cost of that road? There is a real, calculable and fair imputed "toll" that Walmart should pay. Period.

The bottom line here is Netflix is as guilty as Comcast. That's why they ultimately struck a fair deal for both sides.

Lack of competition is a problem, but a good corollary might be mobile with FRAND patents. Basically, a company HAS to license a FRAND patent to you, but the price has to be fair and reasonable (which can be determined from a variety of sources). A company doesn't get to use your tech for free simply because there's no "marginal cost" to your R&D department.

So there's a reasonable metered toll here that Netflix should pay, and that toll rate would theoretically decrease over time as the bandwidth/cost ratio increases.

gut;1584390 wrote:No, the point you keep ignoring is the investment cost. You're making the same bullshit entitlement argument that people use to justify stealing MP3's, because there's no marginal cost to them. It's MY asset - Walmart can go build their own road, or perhaps buy mine for fair market value - but that's expensive which is exactly why they will pay me a fair price to use mine. It's more than just the maintenance cost, which can be very marginal, it's also about the return/cost of the asset itself (not to mention, ultimately, replacement cost).

If I build a road to bring goods to customers....and then Walmart comes along wanting to use my road for free, and undercut my prices and steal my customers...Why SHOULDN'T Walmart have to pay part of the cost of that road? There is a real, calculable and fair imputed "toll" that Walmart should pay. Period.

Blah blah blah. Another poor analogy. The road is already there and it has as many lanes as needed. Why should you charge driver A more than driver B?

If the road wasn't built yet you'd have a point. But the road is already there and it's vastly under utilized.

You obviously don't realize how the Internet works.

gut;1584394 wrote:Lack of competition is a problem, but a good corollary might be mobile with FRAND patents. Basically, a company HAS to license a FRAND patent to you, but the price has to be fair and reasonable (which can be determined from a variety of sources). A company doesn't get to use your tech for free simply because there's no "marginal cost" to your R&D department.

So there's a reasonable metered toll here that Netflix should pay, and that toll rate would theoretically decrease over time as the bandwidth/cost ratio increases.

I understand the FRAND patents but I fail to see how this applies to an ISP.

As for the second part, please explain to me why it cost less for a wireless operator (Verizon, ATT, Sprint, T-Mobile) to transmit a packet of information over LTE than 3g (gsm/cdma) but the prices have increased over time. Also, Netflix is paying for access to the internet already and the end user is paying their ISP for access. Why should the ISP, other than for self serving reasons, be allowed to collect on both ends. This is why net neutrality is so important. As it stands right now, Internet providers can determine who can play on their networks with the end user having little or no choice.

dlazz;1584399 wrote:Blah blah blah. Another poor analogy. The road is already there and it has as many lanes as needed. Why should you charge driver A more than driver B?

If the road wasn't built yet you'd have a point. But the road is already there and it's vastly under utilized.

You obviously don't realize how the Internet works.

LMAO, you know nothing about how business work and make investments, do you? It was a very simple analogy, but I suppose only if one understand the concepts of ROI.

The cost of that road is initial investment, maintenance, and an accrual for replacement/upgrade. If Driver B uses the road 10X as much as Driver A, do you think Driver B isn't paying 10X as much in tolls? And why shouldn't a truck pay more to use a toll road than a car?

Jawbreaker;1584400 wrote:I understand the FRAND patents but I fail to see how this applies to an ISP.

As for the second part, please explain to me why it cost less for a wireless operator (Verizon, ATT, Sprint, T-Mobile) to transmit a packet of information over LTE than 3g (gsm/cdma) but the prices have increased over time. Also, Netflix is paying for access to the internet already and the end user is paying their ISP for access. Why should the ISP, other than for self serving reasons, be allowed to collect on both ends. This is why net neutrality is so important. As it stands right now, Internet providers can determine who can play on their networks without the end user have little or no choice.

The point about FRAND is you have an asset with no marginal cost, but a necessary part of doing business. The company can't refuse to license you, but they also aren't required to license for free. The cable companies have an asset, and they are allowed to price fairly. Charging a toll is not the same as gouging or extortion - the price is not irrelevant.

The wireless providers actually only connect you to the pipes, and pay a per user fee to the ISP's. LTE is faster, but you're ignoring the massive multi-billion dollar cost of investment.

Part of the problem with Netflix is the cable companies have traditionally charged a per user fee rather than a metered system (as with most utilities). And the bandwidth is not unlimited, otherwise our speeds wouldn't drop 50% or more during peak times. But if you metered, maybe the allocated costs would be $1 for you to download a Netflix movie, and $1 to for Netflix to upload. If you then step-up to HD, more traffic to allocate costs on, so your rate drops but you've also doubled your bandwidth...and so now it might cost you and Netflix each $1.60 to stream that movie.

And speed tiers have been around for a while. If you're not under contract, or your contract expires, you are fair game for the cable company to change the tier structure/price. That is basically what they did to Netflix, which is why Netflix has now contracted for a certain level of service.

And if you read the fine print in your cell or cable contract, they have ALWAYS reserved the right to throttle heavy users in order to reduce "congestion" to deliver quality service.

There are many ways to skin this cat. They could meter all users (which I don't think anyone wants, but is most fair), meter only end users, or they could meter commercial upstream.

gut;1584403 wrote:LMAO, you know nothing about how business work and make investments, do you? It was a very simple analogy, but I suppose only if one understand the concepts of ROI.

The cost of that road is initial investment, maintenance, and an accrual for replacement/upgrade. If Driver B uses the road 10X as much as Driver A, do you think Driver B isn't paying 10X as much in tolls? And why shouldn't a truck pay more to use a toll road than a car?

Should they be able to look in the driver's trailer and charge him more based on what he is hauling?

In Gut's ideal world.

gut;1584403 wrote:It was a very simple analogy, but I suppose only if one understand the concepts of ROI.

You're right. It was a simple analogy.
But it was an analogy that is completely irrelevant to ISP's

gut;1584413 wrote:Charging a toll is not the same as gouging or extortion - the price is not irrelevant.

The toll booth analogy doesn't work. In the real world you can choose other routes and avoid the tolls.

For most people, especially in the Midwest, they only have 1 choice for Internet... Thus they would HAVE to pay the toll. THAT is extortion/gouging.

Gut is an absolute moron.

WebFire;1584418 wrote:Should they be able to look in the driver's trailer and charge him more based on what he is hauling?

Don't have to. It's a usage based fee.

What most people are struggling with here is that the fairest and most equitable thing is metered usage (careful what you wish for!), like most utilities. But that is not historically how they've priced. Along comes Netflix chewing up ONE THIRD of internet traffic and people honestly really don't think Netflix should pay more?

ernest_t_bass;1584431 wrote:Gut is an absolute moron.

It's called economics and business, something you appear entirely too ignorant of. This is why there's the wealth gap is growing - the internet appears to be making people dumber.

gut;1584450 wrote:Don't have to. It's a usage based fee.

What most people are struggling with here is that the fairest and most equitable thing is metered usage (careful what you wish for!), like most utilities. But that is not historically how they've priced. Along comes Netflix chewing up ONE THIRD of internet traffic and people honestly really don't think Netflix should pay more?

So wouldn't every website or app have to pay based on meter usage? Why just Netflix, or whatever site is chosen?

dlazz;1584428 wrote:The toll booth analogy doesn't work. In the real world you can choose other routes and avoid the tolls.

It's a VERY good analogy. In the real world, you have other content options beside Netflix - that is precisely why this is not extortion/gouging. Nor do a lack of alternatives mean having to pay something is unfair.

In your world, the road never gets built because once it gets built you don't believe the owner is entitled to a return on his investment. Apparently, you don't think the owner should be able to charge anything.

gut;1584450 wrote:Don't have to. It's a usage based fee.

What most people are struggling with here is that the fairest and most equitable thing is metered usage (careful what you wish for!), like most utilities.

And in this case, the end user would pay the metered fee, like most utilities. Kirby doesn't have to pay for the amount of electricity I use to sweep my floors.

gut;1584456 wrote:It's a VERY good analogy. In the real world, you have other content options beside Netflix - that is precisely why this is not extortion/gouging. Nor do a lack of alternatives mean having to pay something is unfair.

In your world, the road never gets built because once it gets built you don't believe the owner is entitled to a return on his investment. Apparently, you don't think the owner should be able to charge anything.

This isn't how other utilities work, since you pointed to other utilities in the reply to me.

WebFire;1584454 wrote:So wouldn't every website or app have to pay based on meter usage? Why just Netflix, or whatever site is chosen?

What it comes down to is basically tiered data allowances for commercial use. I really don't understand why people struggle with this - there are numerous examples of business/commercial use paying different rates than consumers, nor is price "discrimination" by industry uncommon but it's done through complicated pricing structures. And when it comes to really big suppliers and customers, special rates are typically negotiated

WebFire;1584458 wrote:This isn't how other utilities work, since you pointed to other utilities in the reply to me.

What are you talking about? My post you quoted had nothing to do with utilities, that's a strawman argument you are attempting to make confusing two completely different points.

The point made was most utilities price based on usage. In fact, there aren't many services, period, that are priced "all you can eat".

I'm sorry, who said that ISPs shouldn't be paid? I think people are clearly stating that net neutrality is a good thing. I also understand companies like TWC, Verizon, and Comcast need to have a return on their investment. As it stands now, there isn't any need for them to continue to invest and make improvements. If they have no competition within the markets they operate, what is spurring innovation and upgrades?

Jawbreaker;1584470 wrote:As it stands now, there isn't any need for them to continue to invest and make improvements. If they have no competition within the markets they operate, what is spurring innovation and upgrades?

I agree. That really has nothing to do with net neutrality, though. If Comcast and Netflix want to buy/sell one lane of the highway for Netflix exclusive use, that's just capitalism. Yeah, it potentially an issue for the little guy to navigate the other more crowded lanes now...but then it really becomes a discussion about barriers to entry.

Guess the thread got off track. I don't see any reason to approve this merger, even if market share still well less than MS back in the day, breaking up a company vs. blocking a merger is rather different. It's not just about broadband, either, because when you factor in cable/content it might look like less marketshare but you now have an even more major player integrated across verticals.

To me this merger is far less compelling than the Sprint/TMo, which would have put them on par with AT&T and VZW and had 3 pretty equal players. This is probably more "comparable" to the AT&T/TMo deal....both of those cell deals were blocked by the FCC (or was it the FTC?)

gut;1584463 wrote:What are you talking about?

The same question can be applied to you. You obviously don't have a grasp on what an ISP actually does but want to throw your Business degree at it.

LOL