Ok now I am confused. How couldn't another company do the same? I don't understand this point.
my whole thing was if any existing company had to pay to get access to an isps network how could another company in the same field do the same?
Ok now I am confused. How couldn't another company do the same? I don't understand this point.
youtube pays comcast for unthrottled network to comcasts companies.
dailymotion, or world star hiphop, or vimeo says no were not paying.
they can no longer compete with youtube because they are getting a crappier connection between them and comcasts customers.
because youtube is owned by google and they have ooldes of cash they can do pretty much whatever they'd like, the other companies that are similar to youtube minus the ads can not.
youtube wins, not by content but by cash.
facebook can pay comcast to get access to their customers, a startup called assface or whatever can not get the same access, people flock to facebook.
people already pay for access to "isp" network.
isps should never ask the other side to pay them too.
if it wasn't for net neutrality we'd still have myspace and facebook would never have existed.
So what you are saying is that a company's decision not to try and compete is the fault of the ISP and net neutrality is needed to fix poor business decisions? Sounds like mob mentality to me. Just because one company decides to play by the rules and wins and the others decide the rules are crap so they don't and therefore lose, we should change the rules so that losers can win.
That's your opinion.
no, i'm saying an open internet allows everyone to compete on an even playing field.
and as far as my opinion hardly.
do you work for an isp?
Everyone can compete now and it is a level playing field now. All pay. All pay based on their usage. How is that not fair and equal treatment or as you say a level playing field.
I do not work for an ISP.
Your argument is pretty silly because it can be used to excuse business from paying taxes. Why should one business have to pay more tax than the other. Taxes could be considered prohibitive for a start-up to compete but I don't see anyone arguing that here.
because the isps customers already pay for access to the internet that covers the cost of peering with tier 2 networks
and for the most part tier 2 networks don't charge isps because of peering agreements.
isps asking google amazon ebay et. al for money is just egregious.
Damn xBiffx you would probably think Net Neutrality was the best thing ever if a republican came up with it.
So do you think it would be fair if General Motors paid comcast, time warner cable, etc. a massive amount of money to reduce all traffic going to Tesla, Honda and Ford to speeds so slow nobody would ever bother visiting their websites but leave a clear open pipe to www.chevrolet.com?
biff do you think bandwidth is a finite object?
Bullshit. This has nothing to do with right or left in my book other than I don't think government is the answer. If that means I lean right, so be it. But if a righty was pushing for this, my answers would be the exact same because its about the principle, not which side happens to be supporting it.
If that isn't the most self serving mischaracterization. Youtube isn't paying an ISP to reduce Vimeo's traffic/speed, they are paying to assure their own traffic/speeds. If in doing so they get more traffic, so be it. That is the choice of the ISP/Youtube user.
But your characterization does bring up a thought. Don't companies do exactly that in another form of media, such as TV advertising? If you can block more ad time then your competitor, wouldn't that limit them? Are you guilty of reducing their time, or just merely increasing your own which had the side effect of limiting time available to them?
Everyone can compete now and it is a level playing field now. All pay. All pay based on their usage. How is that not fair and equal treatment or as you say a level playing field.
I do not work for an ISP.
Your argument is pretty silly because it can be used to excuse business from paying taxes. Why should one business have to pay more tax than the other. Taxes could be considered prohibitive for a start-up to compete but I don't see anyone arguing that here.
You need to read up then, because ISP's are currently doing almost this. They can essentially slow down traffic to Website A if Website A doesn't agree to pay them money. This has nothing to do with how much available bandwidth there is nor is it about prioritizing traffic A over traffic B. It's simply pay money or we can slow you down if we see fit.
So your solution is none because you don't see a problem? You don't see a problem with Netflix having to pay Comcast and consequently raise their customers bills so people can get the shows that they want from their paid service over their already paid for internet connection? You do understand in doing this that people are paying Comcast twice for their connection, right? Netflix isn't going to eat the extorted fees, their customers do. On top of that, Comcast is competing against Netflix for cable TV customers and this gives them a way to punish Netflix customers for not using Comcast cable TV services. You don't see a problem with any of this?
If you don't see the problems with this then you are either a cable industry shill or their useful idiot
I see a potential problem. I don't see an obvious solution. I don't see net neutrality fixing any of this. All its going to do is change who is getting payment. The content providers will no longer have to pay ISP's, great. You think they are going to reduce their rate for service? Hell no. And you think that somehow all this regulation is going to be free? Hell no. The end user still gets screwed only now they pay the ISP and also the government to make sure they aren't paying the ISP twice, whoopee! Yet another example of unintended consequences where the "problem" didn't really get "fixed" but rather replaced with another "problem."
why would they have to pay the government?
And you think that somehow all this regulation is going to be free? Hell no.
It's right in my previous post.
Net neutrality isn't free.
what are taxes for again?
also it's the fcc's job to regulate it.
Do you think that the FCC operates out of thin air?
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government, created by Congressional statute (see 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154) to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. The FCC works towards six goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the media, public safety and homeland security. The Commission is also in the process of modernizing itself.[3]
you mean the money the government gives them now is for fun?!
hmm looks like it's their job already.
the government already pays them.
Where do you think the government gets the money to give them?
Why is this honestly a discussion?
why does the fcc need more money to do the job they are currently tasked with?
we are we having THIS conversation?
Since the FCC doesn't currently regulate net neutrality I'm not sure where you are going with this.