What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@travisdh1 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Why do you assume I want ISPs to make more money? More competition means profits are competed away. Less money for ISPs and at least more options for end users. Shitty ISPs fold and sell their assets to the better ISP.
There's that competition word, very few areas of the country actually have competing ISPs. If you're lucky it's one that's faster and one that's painfully slow.
Lol I don’t know why @scottalanmiller doesn’t care about it. I have Spectrum. You can get Att but it’s just shitty DSL.
There’s no choice. From where we are at I can only see competition as making a difference.
right, so what's stopping competition today?
-
@travisdh1 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@travisdh1 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Why do you assume I want ISPs to make more money? More competition means profits are competed away. Less money for ISPs and at least more options for end users. Shitty ISPs fold and sell their assets to the better ISP.
There's that competition word, very few areas of the country actually have competing ISPs. If you're lucky it's one that's faster and one that's painfully slow.
Lol I don’t know why @scottalanmiller doesn’t care about it. I have Spectrum. You can get Att but it’s just shitty DSL.
There’s no choice. From where we are at I can only see competition as making a difference.
You said it yourself, there is no choice today. I agree that competition would help the situation, but the reality is that no competition exists today, and probably never will when even Google can't break into the market.
It's more than that - competition itself can not bring about neutrality. You could have 30 ISPs and it's possible that none of them would offer neutrality. You only get that by regulation.
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@travisdh1 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Why do you assume I want ISPs to make more money? More competition means profits are competed away. Less money for ISPs and at least more options for end users. Shitty ISPs fold and sell their assets to the better ISP.
There's that competition word, very few areas of the country actually have competing ISPs. If you're lucky it's one that's faster and one that's painfully slow.
Lol I don’t know why @scottalanmiller doesn’t care about it. I have Spectrum. You can get Att but it’s just shitty DSL.
There’s no choice. From where we are at I can only see competition as making a difference.
I care about it, but I don't care in comparison to neutrality. One is shitty Internet, the other undermines our political system.
Fair enough, but this law doesn’t show me anything that solves packet neutrality.
what law is that? NN or your stated OIO?
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@travisdh1 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Why do you assume I want ISPs to make more money? More competition means profits are competed away. Less money for ISPs and at least more options for end users. Shitty ISPs fold and sell their assets to the better ISP.
There's that competition word, very few areas of the country actually have competing ISPs. If you're lucky it's one that's faster and one that's painfully slow.
Lol I don’t know why @scottalanmiller doesn’t care about it. I have Spectrum. You can get Att but it’s just shitty DSL.
There’s no choice. From where we are at I can only see competition as making a difference.
I care about it, but I don't care in comparison to neutrality. One is shitty Internet, the other undermines our political system.
Fair enough, but this law doesn’t show me anything that solves packet neutrality.
Which, I think we all agree, it doesn't go far enough. Not even close. But we need to put stronger things in place before repealing anything.
Which was my question the other day - If Pai has our best citizen interest in mind, why does he need to repeal the current law instead of making a new one to subplant it?
-
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@travisdh1 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Why do you assume I want ISPs to make more money? More competition means profits are competed away. Less money for ISPs and at least more options for end users. Shitty ISPs fold and sell their assets to the better ISP.
There's that competition word, very few areas of the country actually have competing ISPs. If you're lucky it's one that's faster and one that's painfully slow.
Lol I don’t know why @scottalanmiller doesn’t care about it. I have Spectrum. You can get Att but it’s just shitty DSL.
There’s no choice. From where we are at I can only see competition as making a difference.
I care about it, but I don't care in comparison to neutrality. One is shitty Internet, the other undermines our political system.
Fair enough, but this law doesn’t show me anything that solves packet neutrality.
Which, I think we all agree, it doesn't go far enough. Not even close. But we need to put stronger things in place before repealing anything.
Which was my question the other day - If Pai has our best citizen interest in mind, why does he need to repeal the current law instead of making a new one to subplant it?
Net Neutrality, as I have said in the other post in this, isnt the name of the law. Its called the Open Internet Order and above I posted the law and copied/pasted the specific section that allows ISP's to throttle and do as they please.
https://mangolassi.it/post/364141 Check it out...
What is it about this law that you like? The Title II has nothing to do with NN, its a whole longer standing argument from the 90's about "zero tier".
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@travisdh1 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Why do you assume I want ISPs to make more money? More competition means profits are competed away. Less money for ISPs and at least more options for end users. Shitty ISPs fold and sell their assets to the better ISP.
There's that competition word, very few areas of the country actually have competing ISPs. If you're lucky it's one that's faster and one that's painfully slow.
Lol I don’t know why @scottalanmiller doesn’t care about it. I have Spectrum. You can get Att but it’s just shitty DSL.
There’s no choice. From where we are at I can only see competition as making a difference.
I care about it, but I don't care in comparison to neutrality. One is shitty Internet, the other undermines our political system.
Fair enough, but this law doesn’t show me anything that solves packet neutrality.
Which, I think we all agree, it doesn't go far enough. Not even close. But we need to put stronger things in place before repealing anything.
Which was my question the other day - If Pai has our best citizen interest in mind, why does he need to repeal the current law instead of making a new one to subplant it?
Net Neutrality, as I have said in the other post in this, isnt the name of the law. Its called the Open Internet Order and above I posted the law and copied/pasted the specific section that allows ISP's to throttle and do as they please.
https://mangolassi.it/post/364141 Check it out...
What is it about this law that you like? The Title II has nothing to do with NN, its a whole longer standing argument from the 90's about "zero tier".
Holy shit 500+ pages, I'm a slow reader, this will take me a while. That said, if the law truly offers nothing to protect the citizens, then I guess nothing. But again, with having read it, what does it hurt while we wait for something better to come along?
Also as Scott said, I don't care about more players coming to the market more than the internet being a free unencumbered, unfiltered, unthrottled connection to each other.
Having read the first few pages
Currently, video is the dominant form of traffic on the Internet. These video services directly confront the video businesses of the very companies that supply them broadband access to their customers.
This is one of the main roots of the problem. If the makers of roads where in some type of other business that was threatened by others who used those roads, you can bet the makers of roads would find ways to not maintain the roads as a way of maintaining a stranglehold on their current business in that threatened sector.
To that end, I'd like to see internet connectivity become it's own thing, not allowed to be intermingled with other business interests. Nah - that probably goes to far (maybe). But you have to admit that buy allowing a select few content providers also be the ones that provide the access to the internet, how could you not anticipate the internet providers to want to leverage that internet for their own gains?
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Oh and he just pulled out the "competition" distraction.
Yup, this solidified it further, NN is absolutely needed and AP has no intention of protecting the US from companies. He's sold us out.
I am going to start referring to this as the Open Internet Order, not NN. I support NN but do not believe the OIO was comprehensive enough to impact the actual issues everyone is worried about.
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1_Rcd.pdf
And in case anyone has had a hard time find it, see the link above. So anyone who wants to tell me what you THINK the Open Internet Order did for you I would like to check out what the actual law says.
The prominent issue everyone is talking about is throttling of services, which could be applied to the user but is generally applied at interconnect to limit a network or services speed.
Regarding throttling and despite HBO John Oliver's claims, the law DOES NOT prohibit throttling at the interconnection level. So does not eliminate your theoretical fear of Comcast screwing Netflix in an anticompetitive measure to promote its own content.
Straight from Page 10¶ 30
30. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to interconnection. Three factors
are critical in informing this approach to interconnection. First, the nature of Internet traffic, driven by
massive consumption of video, has challenged traditional arrangements—placing more emphasis on the
use of CDNs or even direct connections between content providers (like Netflix or Google) and last-mile
broadband providers. Second, it is clear that consumers have been subject to degradation resulting from commercial disagreements,28 perhaps most notably in a series of disputes between Netflix and large last mile broadband providers. But, third, the causes of past disruption and—just as importantly—the
potential for future degradation through interconnection disputes—are reflected in very different
narratives in the record.EDIT:
Also... The Open Internet Order does not prevent Comcast from requiring payment to send traffic to their networks; it only puts ISPs under the general rules of Title II where they FCC would decide on a case by case basis what to do. So basically, it depends on how well the lobbyists work over politicians.
So a few thoughts on this part.
Interconnections are a special situation. As I understand it, it's suppose to be a Quid Pro Quo - both sides more or less send the same amount of data to each other. In case where this is true, there there is basically a zero billing situation.
The problem with this is that this is no longer true. Services like Netflix broke this model. To that end, I understand a need for change to the interconnect agreement. In a case like this, I can understand why Netflix could/would be asked to pay their ISP more than the normal ISP fees, because they are the reason the ISP that NetFlix uses to become unbalanced at the Interconnect.
Now today with more and more video services coming online, and more and more cord cutters moving sole to internet streaming video (vs traditional cable/satellite feeds), this is driving even more traffic from these few primary sites, I'm assuming massively unbalancing these interconnects.I'm not sure the best solution for bringing balance back to this.
-
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
The problem with this is that this is no longer true. Services like Netflix broke this model. To that end, I understand a need for change to the interconnect agreement. In a case like this, I can understand why Netflix could/would be asked to pay their ISP more than the normal ISP fees, because they are the reason the ISP that NetFlix uses to become unbalanced at the Interconnect.
I don't buy this theory. Netflix already pays for their bandwidth. You never use more of a service and get worse and worse rates for being a bigger customer, you get either flat pricing or improved pricing based on volume. Netflix isn't the only data user on their ISP. Even if Netflix is the biggest single user, every user on the ISP is responsible for the imbalance together as a whole. If the prices are too low, then everyone needs to be charged more. It just means that Netflix' ISP accidentally billed too little to cover their costs (that seems unlikely.)
This is a nonsensical bit of BS that ISPs say to try to justify cheating. They want to double dip when they see a rich customer that they can extort.
Think about any other kind of business.... who charges their best customers extra? Who punishes people for being customers? It makes no sense unless they are extorting them. You don't go to McDonald's every day and get told that since you are such a regular, loyal customer that your burgers will cost more than those of less frequent customers! You already pay the same amount per sandwich as everyone else, you are already the highest paying customer.
Netflix already pays more than anyone else, they are already charged for their volume. There cannot be a need to charge them additionally. Any imbalance is caused by all cumulative customers and is supposed to be covered by the rate that the ISP charges to the customers.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
The problem with this is that this is no longer true. Services like Netflix broke this model. To that end, I understand a need for change to the interconnect agreement. In a case like this, I can understand why Netflix could/would be asked to pay their ISP more than the normal ISP fees, because they are the reason the ISP that NetFlix uses to become unbalanced at the Interconnect.
I don't buy this theory. Netflix already pays for their bandwidth. You never use more of a service and get worse and worse rates for being a bigger customer, you get either flat pricing or improved pricing based on volume. Netflix isn't the only data user on their ISP. Even if Netflix is the biggest single user, every user on the ISP is responsible for the imbalance together as a whole. If the prices are too low, then everyone needs to be charged more. It just means that Netflix' ISP accidentally billed too little to cover their costs (that seems unlikely.)
This is a nonsensical bit of BS that ISPs say to try to justify cheating. They want to double dip when they see a rich customer that they can extort.
Think about any other kind of business.... who charges their best customers extra? Who punishes people for being customers? It makes no sense unless they are extorting them. You don't go to McDonald's every day and get told that since you are such a regular, loyal customer that your burgers will cost more than those of less frequent customers! You already pay the same amount per sandwich as everyone else, you are already the highest paying customer.
Netflix already pays more than anyone else, they are already charged for their volume. There cannot be a need to charge them additionally. Any imbalance is caused by all cumulative customers and is supposed to be covered by the rate that the ISP charges to the customers.
Yeah you are right on this. And when I saw a long while back when this passed that it wasn’t going to apply to interconnect rules I really just threw my hands up in the air.
Reading the whole ting yesterday and the day before I realize that the FCC was trying to do the impossible and seemed to intend to return to this issue later when they had more experience.
So that is why I have changed my mind in the other new post I started. They didn’t need to repeal this, they needed to keep marching forward with it.
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
The problem with this is that this is no longer true. Services like Netflix broke this model. To that end, I understand a need for change to the interconnect agreement. In a case like this, I can understand why Netflix could/would be asked to pay their ISP more than the normal ISP fees, because they are the reason the ISP that NetFlix uses to become unbalanced at the Interconnect.
I don't buy this theory. Netflix already pays for their bandwidth. You never use more of a service and get worse and worse rates for being a bigger customer, you get either flat pricing or improved pricing based on volume. Netflix isn't the only data user on their ISP. Even if Netflix is the biggest single user, every user on the ISP is responsible for the imbalance together as a whole. If the prices are too low, then everyone needs to be charged more. It just means that Netflix' ISP accidentally billed too little to cover their costs (that seems unlikely.)
This is a nonsensical bit of BS that ISPs say to try to justify cheating. They want to double dip when they see a rich customer that they can extort.
Think about any other kind of business.... who charges their best customers extra? Who punishes people for being customers? It makes no sense unless they are extorting them. You don't go to McDonald's every day and get told that since you are such a regular, loyal customer that your burgers will cost more than those of less frequent customers! You already pay the same amount per sandwich as everyone else, you are already the highest paying customer.
Netflix already pays more than anyone else, they are already charged for their volume. There cannot be a need to charge them additionally. Any imbalance is caused by all cumulative customers and is supposed to be covered by the rate that the ISP charges to the customers.
Yeah you are right on this. And when I saw a long while back when this passed that it wasn’t going to apply to interconnect rules I really just threw my hands up in the air.
Reading the whole ting yesterday and the day before I realize that the FCC was trying to do the impossible and seemed to intend to return to this issue later when they had more experience.
So that is why I have changed my mind in the other new post I started. They didn’t need to repeal this, they needed to keep marching forward with it.
Yeah, no question that it fell way short. But it was all we had. Now we have nothing but our passports
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
The problem with this is that this is no longer true. Services like Netflix broke this model. To that end, I understand a need for change to the interconnect agreement. In a case like this, I can understand why Netflix could/would be asked to pay their ISP more than the normal ISP fees, because they are the reason the ISP that NetFlix uses to become unbalanced at the Interconnect.
I don't buy this theory. Netflix already pays for their bandwidth. You never use more of a service and get worse and worse rates for being a bigger customer, you get either flat pricing or improved pricing based on volume. Netflix isn't the only data user on their ISP. Even if Netflix is the biggest single user, every user on the ISP is responsible for the imbalance together as a whole. If the prices are too low, then everyone needs to be charged more. It just means that Netflix' ISP accidentally billed too little to cover their costs (that seems unlikely.)
This is a nonsensical bit of BS that ISPs say to try to justify cheating. They want to double dip when they see a rich customer that they can extort.
Think about any other kind of business.... who charges their best customers extra? Who punishes people for being customers? It makes no sense unless they are extorting them. You don't go to McDonald's every day and get told that since you are such a regular, loyal customer that your burgers will cost more than those of less frequent customers! You already pay the same amount per sandwich as everyone else, you are already the highest paying customer.
Netflix already pays more than anyone else, they are already charged for their volume. There cannot be a need to charge them additionally. Any imbalance is caused by all cumulative customers and is supposed to be covered by the rate that the ISP charges to the customers.
You missed a vital part of the equation - the interconnects.
Your mcdonalds and you buy beef from the beef maker, and you (mcdonalds) sells potatoes (just go with me) that the beef maker buys from you. In the beginning, you both agree to swap products and not send a bill because you are both doing the swapping equally.
Along comes a giant mcdonalds who single handledly buy 100x hamburgers driving up demand for beef by mcdonalds, but the beef seller isn't asking for more potatoes from mcdonalds.. there is now a misbalance between mcdonalds and the beef company.
How do you fix this imbalance?
You really think you should raise the rate on every single burger? Maybe, I'm not entirely sure.
-
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
You really think you should raise the rate on every single burger? Maybe, I'm not entirely sure.
No, they should already be charging enough per burger that it doesn't matter if there is an imbalance at all.
But if they screw that up, then yes absolutely they should be charging everyone not just one customer picked at random. That's clearly the only logical or acceptable solution. There is zero basis for picking one customer to punish as every customer is responsible for the imbalance equally on a "per GB" basis.
-
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Maybe, I'm not entirely sure.
Where would any doubt or grey area enter into that? I don't even see the possibility of there being another acceptable option.
-
Let's look at the McD's issue different.
Bob buys 1 burger. Pays for one.
Sally buys 3 burgers. Pays for three.
John buys 7 burgers. Pays for seven.
Eric buys 8 burgers. Pays for twelve.Why would Eric, the best customer who already would have been paying more than anyone else, have to subsidize the other, lesser customers? Of all customers, Eric is the one that it makes the least sense to over charge, as he already pays the most and has the most scale and is your best customer. Why do you seek to punish only Eric, when everyone bought burgers and contributed to the need to buy beef?
Eric is not why you need to buy beef, everyone together is the reason that you need to buy it. you can't single out one customer as the problem, because the problem is the cumulative beef needs.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
You really think you should raise the rate on every single burger? Maybe, I'm not entirely sure.
No, they should already be charging enough per burger that it doesn't matter if there is an imbalance at all.
But if they screw that up, then yes absolutely they should be charging everyone not just one customer picked at random. That's clearly the only logical or acceptable solution. There is zero basis for picking one customer to punish as every customer is responsible for the imbalance equally on a "per GB" basis.
yeah.. that makes sense...
So to keep on with my burger/potato example... each side considers their product worth say $0.10 each. Technically each side is paying the other $0.10 for each thing from the other.. but in reality they simplified their life and agreed long ago to not pay or bill because they appeared to be equally sending and receiving...
At this point I see it as mcdonalds in my example as being greedy and not wanting to give up that $0.10 that they would otherwise be giving up if they would have just had a straight billing situation in the first place.
Ok I'm on board with that.
stop being greedy ISPs that are unbalancing, and just pay the other side, you've already been paid!...
-
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
You really think you should raise the rate on every single burger? Maybe, I'm not entirely sure.
No, they should already be charging enough per burger that it doesn't matter if there is an imbalance at all.
But if they screw that up, then yes absolutely they should be charging everyone not just one customer picked at random. That's clearly the only logical or acceptable solution. There is zero basis for picking one customer to punish as every customer is responsible for the imbalance equally on a "per GB" basis.
yeah.. that makes sense...
So to keep on with my burger/potato example... each side considers their product worth say $0.10 each. Technically each side is paying the other $0.10 for each thing from the other.. but in reality they simplified their life and agreed long ago to not pay or bill because they appeared to be equally sending and receiving...
At this point I see it as mcdonalds in my example as being greedy and not wanting to give up that $0.10 that they would otherwise be giving up if they would have just had a straight billing situation in the first place.
Ok I'm on board with that.
stop being greedy ISPs that are unbalancing, and just pay the other side, you've already been paid!...
It's not greedy, it's literally extortion. A little different. They are basically trying to hold the biggest customers hostage because they rely so much on the service. Since they can identify them, everyone can blacklist them as a group unless they pay the extortion fees.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
You really think you should raise the rate on every single burger? Maybe, I'm not entirely sure.
No, they should already be charging enough per burger that it doesn't matter if there is an imbalance at all.
But if they screw that up, then yes absolutely they should be charging everyone not just one customer picked at random. That's clearly the only logical or acceptable solution. There is zero basis for picking one customer to punish as every customer is responsible for the imbalance equally on a "per GB" basis.
yeah.. that makes sense...
So to keep on with my burger/potato example... each side considers their product worth say $0.10 each. Technically each side is paying the other $0.10 for each thing from the other.. but in reality they simplified their life and agreed long ago to not pay or bill because they appeared to be equally sending and receiving...
At this point I see it as mcdonalds in my example as being greedy and not wanting to give up that $0.10 that they would otherwise be giving up if they would have just had a straight billing situation in the first place.
Ok I'm on board with that.
stop being greedy ISPs that are unbalancing, and just pay the other side, you've already been paid!...
It's not greedy, it's literally extortion. A little different. They are basically trying to hold the biggest customers hostage because they rely so much on the service. Since they can identify them, everyone can blacklist them as a group unless they pay the extortion fees.
A little confused.
At a major carrier interconnect companies pay each other based on data sent/received to and from each network. They pay each other the difference. So, without me telling you which way it is billed (in or out for overages) how do you think it should be billed? If Verizon sends someone more traffic then they take back from a network or if Verizon gets more traffic then their network sends to another network?
Interested in your logic @scottalanmiller from a blind perspective. Because that is one of the hot debates the FCC was staying out of for now as they wrote it in the recently repealed law, but also something Title II will give them the control to set in years to come once they decide.
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
You really think you should raise the rate on every single burger? Maybe, I'm not entirely sure.
No, they should already be charging enough per burger that it doesn't matter if there is an imbalance at all.
But if they screw that up, then yes absolutely they should be charging everyone not just one customer picked at random. That's clearly the only logical or acceptable solution. There is zero basis for picking one customer to punish as every customer is responsible for the imbalance equally on a "per GB" basis.
yeah.. that makes sense...
So to keep on with my burger/potato example... each side considers their product worth say $0.10 each. Technically each side is paying the other $0.10 for each thing from the other.. but in reality they simplified their life and agreed long ago to not pay or bill because they appeared to be equally sending and receiving...
At this point I see it as mcdonalds in my example as being greedy and not wanting to give up that $0.10 that they would otherwise be giving up if they would have just had a straight billing situation in the first place.
Ok I'm on board with that.
stop being greedy ISPs that are unbalancing, and just pay the other side, you've already been paid!...
It's not greedy, it's literally extortion. A little different. They are basically trying to hold the biggest customers hostage because they rely so much on the service. Since they can identify them, everyone can blacklist them as a group unless they pay the extortion fees.
A little confused.
At a major carrier interconnect companies pay each other based on data sent/received to and from each network. They pay each other the difference. So, without me telling you which way it is billed (in or out for overages) how do you think it should be billed? If Verizon sends someone more traffic then they take back from a network or if Verizon gets more traffic then their network sends to another network?
Interested in your logic @scottalanmiller from a blind perspective. Because that is one of the hot debates the FCC was staying out of for now as they wrote it in the recently repealed law, but also something Title II will give them the control to set in years to come once they decide.
I guess I'm missing something, how does what you are asking apply to what we are discussing? Each carrier gets paid by their customers for access, they have money to pay for imbalances from that charge. What more to it is there?
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
You really think you should raise the rate on every single burger? Maybe, I'm not entirely sure.
No, they should already be charging enough per burger that it doesn't matter if there is an imbalance at all.
But if they screw that up, then yes absolutely they should be charging everyone not just one customer picked at random. That's clearly the only logical or acceptable solution. There is zero basis for picking one customer to punish as every customer is responsible for the imbalance equally on a "per GB" basis.
yeah.. that makes sense...
So to keep on with my burger/potato example... each side considers their product worth say $0.10 each. Technically each side is paying the other $0.10 for each thing from the other.. but in reality they simplified their life and agreed long ago to not pay or bill because they appeared to be equally sending and receiving...
At this point I see it as mcdonalds in my example as being greedy and not wanting to give up that $0.10 that they would otherwise be giving up if they would have just had a straight billing situation in the first place.
Ok I'm on board with that.
stop being greedy ISPs that are unbalancing, and just pay the other side, you've already been paid!...
It's not greedy, it's literally extortion. A little different. They are basically trying to hold the biggest customers hostage because they rely so much on the service. Since they can identify them, everyone can blacklist them as a group unless they pay the extortion fees.
A little confused.
At a major carrier interconnect companies pay each other based on data sent/received to and from each network. They pay each other the difference. So, without me telling you which way it is billed (in or out for overages) how do you think it should be billed? If Verizon sends someone more traffic then they take back from a network or if Verizon gets more traffic then their network sends to another network?
Interested in your logic @scottalanmiller from a blind perspective. Because that is one of the hot debates the FCC was staying out of for now as they wrote it in the recently repealed law, but also something Title II will give them the control to set in years to come once they decide.
This should be super simple..
If they are each paying each other $1/GB, and the other vendor sends 100 extra GB to Verizon, that vendor simply pays Verizon $100..The other size has already been paid by the customers for that transfersal, so that company should just be giving it to Verizon...
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
At a major carrier interconnect companies pay each other based on data sent/received to and from each network. They pay each other the difference. So, without me telling you which way it is billed (in or out for overages) how do you think it should be billed? If Verizon sends someone more traffic then they take back from a network or if Verizon gets more traffic then their network sends to another network?
Are you saying that the issue is that maybe Netflix should be getting paid for all of the traffic that they put onto the network?
