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.
-
@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?
-
@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:
@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?
do they really?
I've been working from an assumption that the interconnect was free because in the past the interconnect was basically a wash, so there was no fees earmarked for that traversal. If that's correct, then the ISPs wouldn't have anything to pay the other side.
If that's wrong, and they have in fact been collecting fees from customers with a fee in mind, well, then I completely agree.
-
@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:
@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?
Your comment about double-dipping and Netflix.
So if a bunch of traffic is coming in from an interconnect that brings Netflix media, there is suddenly a massive imbalance in data exchange in that agreement. The ISP is taking on and not sending back. So in any interconnect agreeement there is a much bigger bill due at the end of the month to the ISP for that connection.
Before Netflix and the like there was no issue with a small ISP's backbone.
The only way to stop the bleeding, as with any P2P service as was also brought up, would be to throttle that interconnect.
EDIT: And thats what this bill, section 30, specifically said they were not going to touch when this went into effect in 2015.
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Before Netflix and the like there was no issue with a small ISP's backbone.
This is the flaw, the issue was always there, just ignored. If there are users and they are inequal, which they always are, then there was an issue. The entire problem is fake, that's the unlying issue making it confusing. They are just deciding that now that there is someone big and obvious to extort, so they are ignoring how this has always worked in the past, and using a giant vendor that they can point to and get the public to get riled up about, and using that pressure to extort someone.
But Netflix is paying them for that bandwidth. it's teh ISP's responsibility to have figured out the imbalance issues, and for all customers to have been paying appropriately for it together, evenly.
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
The only way to stop the bleeding, as with any P2P service as was also brought up, would be to throttle that interconnect.
Why do you need to throttle it instead of charging like you do for any normal ISP connection? This isn't a hard problem. It's like a barter system with an imbalance, thankfully we have cash so no rational business can possibly have this problem unless they are trying to do something wrong and trying to cover it up. Just charge for usage, how obvious can it be?
And obviously it's charge for all usage, not picking and choosing for the purpose of extortion.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
The only way to stop the bleeding, as with any P2P service as was also brought up, would be to throttle that interconnect.
Why do you need to throttle it instead of charging like you do for any normal ISP connection? This isn't a hard problem. It's like a barter system with an imbalance, thankfully we have cash so no rational business can possibly have this problem unless they are trying to do something wrong and trying to cover it up. Just charge for usage, how obvious can it be?
And obviously it's charge for all usage, not picking and choosing for the purpose of extortion.
So if from 2000 to 2012 my interconnect costs were about $16,000 for 800 subscribers, and now it is closing on $50k because of media streaming with no increase in cost to subscribers (real number scenario here) what do I do?
I close the doors and go bankrupt or throttle that connection so I can afford it. This is something the NN law didnt address, which is why as an ISP you just threw your hands up back then and said "nothing is gonna change". Im gonna be throttling that interconnect so I can afford the bill.
-
@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:
The only way to stop the bleeding, as with any P2P service as was also brought up, would be to throttle that interconnect.
Why do you need to throttle it instead of charging like you do for any normal ISP connection? This isn't a hard problem. It's like a barter system with an imbalance, thankfully we have cash so no rational business can possibly have this problem unless they are trying to do something wrong and trying to cover it up. Just charge for usage, how obvious can it be?
And obviously it's charge for all usage, not picking and choosing for the purpose of extortion.
So if from 2000 to 2012 my interconnect costs were about $16,000 for 800 subscribers, and now it is closing on $50k because of media streaming with no increase in cost to subscribers (real number scenario here) what do I do?
I close the doors and go bankrupt or throttle that connection so I can afford it.
Yes, if your business model is no good, you should not be in business. That's how business works. If you don't provide something of value that is worth paying for, that's just unfortunate. But without question, if your business model can't make money, no one should be forced to subsidize you.
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
This is something the NN law didnt address, which is why as an ISP you just threw your hands up back then and said "nothing is gonna change". Im gonna be throttling that interconnect so I can afford the bill.
That's the problem, it doesn't work that way. If everyone paid for usage, none of this would be an issue. It can't be, it's as simple as that.
In your system, there is no answer. because if teh customers can't afford it, neither can Netflix.
-
Or if Netflix was to be able to afford it, they would have to raise their prices and pass the cost onto the customers - the same customers we are claiming can't afford it. Clearly that's not possible.
So the bottom line is that the ISPs don't have a working business model. And there is only one group at potential fault for that, the ISPs.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Or if Netflix was to be able to afford it, they would have to raise their prices and pass the cost onto the customers - the same customers we are claiming can't afford it. Clearly that's not possible.
So the bottom line is that the ISPs don't have a working business model. And there is only one group at potential fault for that, the ISPs.
So while Verizon is big enough to force Netflix to pay I am not. BUT.... reading NN more carefully the intention was to use TITLE II to set zero tier rates on a case by case basis.
So this is the reason I changed my mind yesterday. They could make my rate zero on an interconnect. Now I can compete and stay in business.
They just werent sure how they were going to do it, and made some statements about how they would make their mind up as they went. Making the actual law more of a starting point that didnt change much in the beginning.
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Or if Netflix was to be able to afford it, they would have to raise their prices and pass the cost onto the customers - the same customers we are claiming can't afford it. Clearly that's not possible.
So the bottom line is that the ISPs don't have a working business model. And there is only one group at potential fault for that, the ISPs.
So while Verizon is big enough to force Netflix to pay I am not. BUT.... reading NN more carefully the intention was to use TITLE II to set zero tier rates on a case by case basis.
So this is the reason I changed my mind yesterday. They could make my rate zero on an interconnect. Now I can compete and stay in business.
There should be no competition, that's why the government alone should control the Internet connections.
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
So while Verizon is big enough to force Netflix to pay I am not.
But they shouldn't be allowed to, that's extortion Netflix has already paid for the access.
