Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (8864 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-22-2018 11:48 AM
201 online now:
dwise1, frako, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle (6 members, 195 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 838,765 Year: 13,588/29,783 Month: 1,034/1,576 Week: 246/303 Day: 14/29 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   Net Neutrality --- For Once, Everyone Wins
Percy
Member
Posts: 17655
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 61 of 73 (825874)
12-18-2017 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by caffeine
12-18-2017 2:26 PM


caffeine writes:

I thought the issue was about restricting access based on what the owners of sites are willing to pay, rather than the end consumer.

Some of the details of how the Internet works are not discussed in any of the articles on net neutrality. The most important detail is how major content providers like Netflix, Hulu, ESPN, Amazon, etc., connect to the Internet. I don't know how they connect, but I'm pretty sure they don't call up their local ISP (e.g., Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon, etc.). Websites like this one connect to the Internet via a web hosting company, Superb Internet in our case. Content providers like Netflix likely provide all their own hardware and support for their connection to the Internet. They don't have any business relationships with either ISPs or web hosting companies. Comcast can't send Netflix a bill just because one of Comcast's Internet customers watched a movie.

But most articles you read about net neutrality stress that ISPs will now be able to charge companies like Netflix more for streaming movies. I don't see how that's possible, because ISPs aren't currently charging Netflix anything for streaming movies. Netflix isn't a customer of any ISP, and there are dozens of ISPs out there (a few very large ones and lots of very small ones).

But the ISPs can blackmail Netflix into a business relationship by cutting back on the bandwidth they provide Netflix movie streaming URLs. Netflix will have to enter into a business relationship with the ISPs (all of them, presumably) in order to distribute their product.

But for every ISP to enter into a business relationship with every content provider would be an incredible amount of effort. Why would ISPs and content providers want to do this? (By the way, if they did do this, content providers would have to raise their prices.)

So what I think will happen (and I'll mention again that this isn't what I've read in any article - no one agrees with me that I know of) is that ISPs will instead raise prices to their current Internet customers (that would be you and me - well, me at least, since you're in the Czech Republic) according to data usage and/or data bandwidth.

The way it works now in the US is that ISPs charge customers based upon a maximum data rate that you can choose. If there are other variables in the type/speed of service, I'm not aware of them. The way data usage and/or data bandwidth charges would differ from how we're being charged now would be like this. Data usage would be the same as what everyone is already familiar with with their mobile phones. Data bandwidth would be where you're charged more during periods when you use higher data rates, such as when you watch a movie. I think this is about one year away.

But this will only be the first incarnation. It *will* eventually get to the point where ISPs and content providers make deals, even though that will become a huge rats nest of deals because there are so many ISPs and so many content providers, because content providers will begin seeking a competitive advantage ("WATCH 4 NETFLIX MOVIES SIMULTANEOUSLY IN YOUR HOME"), and then the dam will break. I think this is about two years away.

The ISPs are on the verge of becoming incredibly wealthy, which means there will be further consolidation (the way Charter just bought Time Warner), and they'll be buying content providers.

All the above, with the exception of the sprinkling of facts, is just my opinion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by caffeine, posted 12-18-2017 2:26 PM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 12-19-2017 12:58 AM Percy has responded
 Message 65 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2017 8:26 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 73 (825892)
12-19-2017 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
12-18-2017 3:36 PM


Comcast can't send Netflix a bill just because one of Comcast's Internet customers watched a movie.

When you say, "can't" do you mean that such things are technically difficult, or that they are impractical, or that they are illegal.

I don't believe there are any obstacles to Comcast doing exactly that. The packets running through a network contain information about both the source and the destination.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up theyre not going to shoot me. This is what Im thinking theyre not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 12-18-2017 3:36 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 12-19-2017 10:25 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29546
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 63 of 73 (825893)
12-19-2017 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
02-26-2015 2:11 PM


not much neutrality
I would like to think it's true. But just over the last year or so I've had the experience of Google interfering with my blogs so that my Dashboard is all messed up, I can't answer comments, can't even post them to the blog itself any more, and I no longer get the hundreds of viewers I used to get. They told me they were going to change something a year or so ago and since then I don't know how to use any of it. Also I used to notice that on many subjects my blog would show up at the top of a Google search, but now it's way down the page.

Nothing I can do about any of it. I know that Google has the right to do whate4ver they want to my blogs. I considered going over to Wordpress but they are too technically complicated for me, and they charge for the service. So for a long time I've just given up, figure I'm living in a politically tyrannical environment and that is the end of that.

Then today I heard a guy interviewed on my local Christian radio station, Jerry Johnson of National religious Broadcasters, connected with a website called Internet Freedom Watch, who said there is a lot of censorship of conservative and Christian internet content. Thinkgs like a Google page having nine negative hits for a search on a conservative candidate followed by one positive one, and nine positive for a leftist candidate followed by a negative one.

The Yahoo main page always has negative coverage of Trump in about that same ratio of ten negative to one positive. This I can see for myself, it's been this way for over a year. But if I go directly to conservative sites I can find lots of positive coverage of Trump.

I'm hoping all this won't justl be rationalized away here. I haven't read much of the freedom watch topic, saving it for a time when I can give it more attention. But I'm posting in case someone will be fair about it. If not, I won't be surprised but anyway.

https://internetfreedomwatch.org/

ABE: Here's a page of that site that gives a timeline on some examples of internet censorship:
https://content.nrb.org/...cs/images/ifw_timeline_poster.jpg

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-26-2015 2:11 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by caffeine, posted 12-20-2017 6:32 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17655
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 64 of 73 (825904)
12-19-2017 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by NoNukes
12-19-2017 12:58 AM


NoNukes writes:

Comcast can't send Netflix a bill just because one of Comcast's Internet customers watched a movie.

When you say, "can't" do you mean that such things are technically difficult, or that they are impractical, or that they are illegal.

I'm not speaking literally. Certainly Comcast has the manpower and means to send a bill to Netflix. But so what.
My own presumption is that lacking a business contract between the two companies that Netflix would throw the Comcast bill in the trash. Actually, Netflix's legal department would probably write Comcast a nice letter.

Netflix getting billed by Comcast would sort of be like someone walking through a mall and then getting billed by the mall for strolling through the space that they make publicly available so that they can make money by renting store space. And putting pay turnstiles at the mall entrance is what the Internet is about to become within a couple years or so. Not a perfect analogy (I won't bore you with the details of where the analogy breaks down), but you get the idea.

I don't believe there are any obstacles to Comcast doing exactly that. The packets running through a network contain information about both the source and the destination.

Yes, of course, there are no technical restrictions to figuring out who exactly to send the bill to.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 12-19-2017 12:58 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 12-19-2017 8:37 PM Percy has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 65 of 73 (825956)
12-19-2017 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
12-18-2017 3:36 PM


Percy writes:

quote:
But most articles you read about net neutrality stress that ISPs will now be able to charge companies like Netflix more for streaming movies. I don't see how that's possible, because ISPs aren't currently charging Netflix anything for streaming movies.

That's because we have some concept of net neutrality such that Comcast cannot stop traffic from Netflix going to a Comcast customer.

As we have seen, Comcast did throttle the speed of customers accessing Netflix over Comcast lines. They can make watching Netflix so crappy that you decide to switch over to Comcast's competing service, but they didn't stop you from reaching Netflix at all.

And as we saw when smartphones were first emerging on the scene and as we can see in Indonesia right now, your service provider can simply block your access to those sites. If I recall correctly, Verizon routinely disallowed the use of certain apps on their phones, regardless of provider, because they provided a similar app and thus you weren't allowed to use the competition's. In Indonesia, the ISP blocks access to Netflix specifically because they have their own streaming video service and you aren't allowed to use the competition.

So what Comcast can do is tell Netflix, "Pay us or you won't have these customers." And since broadband access is monopolized (thanks to conservative efforts and direct action by the cable companies to specifically carve up the nation into markets so that they won't compete against each other), those customers won't have any way to access Netflix unless and until Netflix coughs up the money.

Netflix may have sufficient resources to hook into the major backbones of the Internet more directly, but they still require the ISP to provide the last mile connection.

And then, while they're at it, they'll turn to the customer and say, "If you want to see Netflix, you'll have to pay us for faster access."


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 12-18-2017 3:36 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 12-20-2017 7:55 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 73 (825957)
12-19-2017 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Percy
12-19-2017 10:25 AM


Netflix getting billed by Comcast would sort of be like someone walking through a mall and then getting billed by the mall for strolling through the space that they make publicly available so that they can make money by renting store space.

You are ignoring the incentives Netflix would have to make an arrangement with the Comcast due to Comcast having their hands on the throats of Netflix and any of Netflix competitors. I expect that Netflix will quickly come to an accommodation with Comcast or whoever is one of the 1-2 providers the average computer user has available.

Yes, of course, there are no technical restrictions to figuring out who exactly to send the bill to.

Exactly. There is no "can't" here. There are no real technical issues, and no significant relationship barriers either.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up theyre not going to shoot me. This is what Im thinking theyre not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 12-19-2017 10:25 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 12-19-2017 10:08 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17655
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 67 of 73 (825959)
12-19-2017 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by NoNukes
12-19-2017 8:37 PM


NoNukes writes:

You are ignoring the incentives Netflix would have to make an arrangement with the Comcast

No Im not. I mentioned it in the first reply to Caffeine in Message 61, the paragraph that begins, But the ISPs can blackmail Netflix into a business relationship

Exactly. There is no "can't" here. There are no real technical issues, and no significant relationship barriers either.

I think what I said earlier in Message 64 still stands. Nothing was mentioned or implied about technical issues, its just that no current business relationship exists between content providers and ISPs, at least not regarding bandwidth:

Percy in Message 64 writes:

I'm not speaking literally. Certainly Comcast has the manpower and means to send a bill to Netflix. But so what. My own presumption is that lacking a business contract between the two companies that Netflix would throw the Comcast bill in the trash. Actually, Netflix's legal department would probably write Comcast a nice letter.

Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 12-19-2017 8:37 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2017 9:32 AM Percy has responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1478
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 68 of 73 (825964)
12-20-2017 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Faith
12-19-2017 1:47 AM


Re: not much neutrality
Then today I heard a guy interviewed on my local Christian radio station, Jerry Johnson of National religious Broadcasters, connected with a website called Internet Freedom Watch, who said there is a lot of censorship of conservative and Christian internet content. Thinkgs like a Google page having nine negative hits for a search on a conservative candidate followed by one positive one, and nine positive for a leftist candidate followed by a negative one.

You're talking about a different kind of neutrality than the topic of the thread. When people talk about "net neutrality" they mean whether ISPs have to be neutral with regards to the data they transmit, or whether than can prioritise, restrict or block data from certain sources.

What you're talking about is whether search engines and content aggregators should be neutral in the information they present; or are they allowed to pick and choose. This is actually a difficult question, I think, since the whole point of aggregators is to be selective in some sense - they're meant to be filtering for relevance, or what their target market would find interesting. And they're often required to do some filtering to remove illegal content, which can include not only child porn and copyright violations, but also material promoting terrorism, for example.

No idea if you have laws on this in the US, but Google is facing a colossal fine in Europe - not for filtering things based on politics, but for doing so to maximise traffic to their own businesses over their competitors.

They could, of course, filter things by their political viewpoint, but I don't see much evidence that they do so. More negative than positive results about a politician can simply mean that there is more negative about them on the internet and, more importantly, that the negative sources are better at optimising their pages for search engines. I did a quick Google for Ted Cruz, since he's quoted in the Freedom Watch article I looked at, and in the top ten results I get his wikipedia page; five hits for Ted Cruz's own official pages and social media sites; one pro-Cruz article from a conservative source (the Blaze); a link to all articles about Ted Cruz on ABC; one article from CNN from back in 2016; and lastly tedcruz.com; which seems to consist of only a picture of Hilary Clinton - not sure what's going on there.

Edited by caffeine, : forgot to finish a sentence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 12-19-2017 1:47 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17655
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 69 of 73 (825965)
12-20-2017 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Rrhain
12-19-2017 8:26 PM


Rrhain writes:

quote:
But most articles you read about net neutrality stress that ISPs will now be able to charge companies like Netflix more for streaming movies. I don't see how that's possible, because ISPs aren't currently charging Netflix anything for streaming movies. Netflix isn't a customer of any ISP, and there are dozens of ISPs out there (a few very large ones and lots of very small ones).

That's because we have some concept of net neutrality such that Comcast cannot stop traffic from Netflix going to a Comcast customer.

You left out the last sentence of my paragraph which helped provide context, so I included it in the quote above.
Repeating what I was trying to say more clearly, now that net neutrality has been repealed ISPs can charge content providers for access to bandwidth, but this can't happen immediately because there are not yet any business relationships in place between content providers and ISPs concerning bandwidth.

So what Comcast can do is tell Netflix, "Pay us or you won't have these customers."

Yes, I said much the same thing in the message you're replied to, Message 61, see the paragraph that begins, "But the ISPs can blackmail Netflix into a business relationship...", and the other paragraph that begins, "But this will only be the first incarnation."

And then, while they're at it, they'll turn to the customer and say, "If you want to see Netflix, you'll have to pay us for faster access."

I cover this also in the paragraph that begins, "The way it works now in the US..."

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2017 8:26 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 73 (825971)
12-20-2017 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Percy
12-19-2017 10:08 PM


I think what I said earlier in Message 64 still stands. Nothing was mentioned or implied about technical issues, its just that no current business relationship exists between content providers and ISPs, at least not regarding bandwidth:

Again, that is simply not a significant obstacle. I expect that Netflix and Comcast will reach an accommodation quickly. Netflix has no other choice.

And you are right. You did not mention any technical issues. You did not give reasons, which is why I asked for your thoughts on the matter.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up theyre not going to shoot me. This is what Im thinking theyre not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 12-19-2017 10:08 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 12-20-2017 6:21 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17655
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 71 of 73 (826027)
12-20-2017 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by NoNukes
12-20-2017 9:32 AM


NoNukes writes:

Again, that is simply not a significant obstacle. I expect that Netflix and Comcast will reach an accommodation quickly. Netflix has no other choice.

Back in Message 61 I said that there does seem to me to be a significant obstacle. There are many content providers and many ISPs. All content providers would require business agreements with all ISPs:

Percy in Message 61 writes:

But for every ISP to enter into a business relationship with every content provider would be an incredible amount of effort. Why would ISPs and content providers want to do this? (By the way, if they did do this, content providers would have to raise their prices.)

Maybe it's not as bad as I think. All websites provide content, but the volume content providers are Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. The rest are all just Best Buy, Walmart, Home Depot, etc., and maybe agreements with these sites are unnecessary. Like I said, maybe not as bad as I think. But still, there *are* dozens of ISPs, and volume content providers would need agreements with each one - not a small task.

AbE: I just went to the Home Depot website and right on the front page found a video, basically just a commercial. So on second thought, the number of agreements between content providers and ISPs is probably going to be horrendous.

But another factor to consider is that ISPs have committed not to make such changes. All such promises have an expiration date, and my guess is about two years, and mainly because they'll spend the first year preparing to put their Internet customers (that would be people like you and me) into data usage and data bandwidth tiers, also discussed in Message 61:

Percy in Message 61 writes:

The way it works now in the US is that ISPs charge customers based upon a maximum data rate that you can choose. If there are other variables in the type/speed of service, I'm not aware of them. The way data usage and/or data bandwidth charges would differ from how we're being charged now would be like this. Data usage would be the same as what everyone is already familiar with with their mobile phones. Data bandwidth would be where you're charged more during periods when you use higher data rates, such as when you watch a movie. I think this is about one year away.

Another factor to consider is disagreements between content providers and ISPs. Remember when CBS went off the air on Dish for about three days a few weeks ago? When the ISPs start running the show for content providers, expect blackouts like this.

Back to your message:

And you are right. You did not mention any technical issues. You did not give reasons, which is why I asked for your thoughts on the matter.

Sorry, I thought I was speaking plainly. I just meant that short a business agreement that Comcast couldn't send Netflix a bill that they'd be obligated to pay. You mentioned technical issues when you said, "I don't believe there are any obstacles to Comcast doing exactly that. The packets running through a network contain information about both the source and the destination," but it seemed so obvious a thing to tell the person who supports our server that I thought you were joking. I didn't realize you actually thought I might have technical reasons for thinking Comcast couldn't bill Netflix.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : AbE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2017 9:32 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by NoNukes, posted 12-26-2017 5:21 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3664
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 72 of 73 (826221)
12-26-2017 1:33 AM


Choke off the spammers?
Maybe one good thing that could be done via a non-neutral internet is to suppress those domains and IPs that feed out the spam?

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 73 (826223)
12-26-2017 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Percy
12-20-2017 6:21 PM


There are many content providers and many ISPs.

There is a short list of ISPs that really matter, and the content providers will be gotten to on a priority basis. I imagine that Netflix is way up there on the priority list.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up theyre not going to shoot me. This is what Im thinking theyre not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 12-20-2017 6:21 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018