Only YOU Can Protect Net Neutrality

[SoonerP226]

More from Tom Merritt on the subject; I think this is the episode wherein he explains the accounting sleight of hand that the big ISPs use to dissemble without lying about why they can't afford to upgrade connections.

 

[Hobbes]

What you and Netflix are paying for is connection speed not total packets delivered.

My Cox agreement says I get 250GB per month.

They even provide a data usage meter that looks like a little gas gauge that shows how much I have used and how much I have left for the billing period.

LOL - I don’t know about cable but……the telcos would love it if everyone would call in and cancel their POTS lines. They have NEVER made money on those things. Business services are what SUBSIDIZED your home service for years. A couple years ago the large incumbents finally received an ‘ok’ from the FCC to turn off their old networks after years of asking. The drop dead date last I heard is 2020 were all POTS, frame relay, SONET, and the rest of the old stuff will become history.

Well, that is what we are talking about is it not? Cable and DSL providers.
Last time I called Cox to cancel my landline or TV service but keep my internet they begged and offered discounts to keep me subscribing to their service.


ETA: added picture

 

[henschman]

Yes, net neutrality has been great for the growth of the internet so far.

I suppose you want us who are against NN to prove a negative?

Of course all this is assuming that being "good for growth" is sufficient rationale to threaten force against people.

 

[_CY_]

I’ll say it again…you don’t know what you’re talking about.

A decade ago the mux’s I worked on cost in the tens of thousands and were scalable for a decade or more. Most of that SONET equipment is still being used but is being phased out. But now, the prices have risen into the hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions of dollars per box. The only thing that pays for that is profits from increased services because the available customer base hasn’t increased much at all…at least in Oklahoma.
Increasing capacity even more would place an even greater burden on customers that already feel they are paying too much. So, why should everyone subsidize a small fraction of high data users? Why can’t those users who move mountains of data pay for it?

what a load of horse manure!!! point out specifically what I've posted that was wrong.

at no time have I claimed costs to support networks has not gone up. you conveniently forget to point out subscription costs that consumers pays each month has also gone up accordingly. there are HUGE profits involved! facts are bandwidth costs in terms of volume has gone down due to in changes in technologies allowing more and more traffic on the same fibers and/or lines.

so what ISP has to pay to upgrade to take advantage of newer multiplexing technologies (MUX) with new equipment. afterwards bandwidth will drop yet again as traffic allowed scales yet again from the same fiber and/or copper wires.

compare what YOU are paying for communication today vs 10 years ago ... your horsesh*t don't fly ... costs has gone up .. waaaay up!

by the way there's already bandwidth caps in place for heavy users .. so that doesn't fly .. everyone including low volume users are getting throttled purely because ISP wants to squeeze the max profits possible. this why FCC should classify ISP as common carriers so ALL traffic would get equal access by law for the broadband access consumers are already paying for.

 

[Hobbes]

Of course all this is assuming that being "good for growth" is sufficient rationale to threaten force against people.

Mike is telling me that "growth" is justification for ditching existing law and you're telling me that "growth" is insufficient justification for retaining existing law.

"threaten force against people" otherwise known as "law".

 

[henschman]

Right. The moral argument is always the most important to me... the utilitarian one is just icing on the cake. It seems utility is what everyone always wants to argue over though. Probably because most people have already decided whether or not they believe it is OK to use unprovoked violence against people to get them to do what you want, and they consider it a closed matter.

It would be difficult to prove what would happen in a voluntarist society without all the State intervention we currently live with, but everything I know about economics suggests that everyone of productive ability would be better off if everyone were free to associate upon any mutually agreed terms, and to act in their own rational self interest. Moochers and looters would be the only losers in that kind of society.

 

[Hobbes]

That's true, we don't know what would happen if we lived in a utopian libertarian world.

We don't, never have, and never will live in one.

It's a theory, not reality.

 

[henschman]

Sure, but I only advocate politically for things that move us toward more freedom and less initiation of force. The government forcibly preventing ISPs from choosing terms for their association with others does not fit that agenda.

 

[Hobbes]

How would a libertarian business world work?

Would there be copyright and patent laws for example?
And if so, how would infractions be enforced? By threat of force from the .gov?

 

[henschman]

Nah, no copyrights, no patents, no corporations, no subsidies, no bailouts... just people engaging in voluntary association, and legitimate use of force in self defense when the non-aggression principle is violated. In our current system, in which debtors can largely walk away from consumer debts through bankruptcy, most enforcement ultimately occurs through credit ratings agencies. These would be very important in a voluntarist society too. Insurance would play a big role as well, and repo men would probably play a bigger role than they currently do. I also think unions would make a major comeback.