Re: If there is so much demand for Net Neutrality....Iain,
Let me add that there have been three concerns.
First, is the notion that ISPs will block content. Under all administrations and all rule sets this has been against the rules and shot down pretty quickly.
Second, there is the notion that ISPs will slow content. This comes in three forms. First, that ISPs will not build networks fast enough (which in fact is not a Net Neutrality issues). Second, that they will actively slow disfavored content . Which outside the Netflix-Comcast case - again shown to be Cogent - is a potential issue but it would mean the deployment of a crapload of equipment to make the service worse. Three, is the possibility that they will prioritize favored content which seems to be the most likely here. I think we need to think about this a bit more (see paragraph below).
Third, there is the notion that in combination with number 2 that the ISPs will start selling prioritization. I have always found that notion absurd. The reason is pretty simple: If you sell me something, I want something in return for the money. You can't just sell me a "trust me it will be better". It better work - ALL THE TIME. Given the communications involved in Adaptive Bit Rate - EVERY streamed video service can measure connection quality and report problems to users who then will have data to get reimbursed for missed SLAs.
Finally, back to priorization of favored content. We already have it. To me, we have a bit pipe into the home and companies split that bandwidth between services. Linear Pay TV is given essentially infinite priority. We could have much better Internet Service if all TV service was OTT. Then the pipes into the home will be used more efficiently.
Re: If there is so much demand for Net Neutrality....The point about demand is interesting. It seems to me that net neutrality is a fairly esoteric issue. If you asked the average, non-tech person, they probably wouldn't know what it means (although I'm not sure most people would say they want an unfettered Internet).
The tech giants aren't building a "net neutral" Internet because they know that net neutrality is not really going to hurt them. And the markets agree. If Pai's legislation is such a threat to those companies, why are shares in both Alphabet and Facebook up around 40% since this time last year?
If it's going to hurt anyone, it's the Internet "long tail" -- the smaller players that don't have the resources of the Googles and Facebooks. But those players will struggle even without net neutrality protections as network effects drive more traffic toward Google and Facebook, which will also continue to buy any companies they see as a particular threat. This is why net neutrality is such a crock.
There is an interesting piece in today's Economist, incidentally, which covers some of the same points about the growing might of Google and Facebook. Net neutrality gets a passing mention.
Ad HominemIf I looked like the author of this article, I would refrain from attacking the appearance of others. Maybe your points and arguments don't have much merit, if you choose that route.
Re: If there is so much demand for Net Neutrality....I'm scared to click that YouTube link in case it's a rick-roll.
You make some good points about GAFA (as the new borg has become known). I'm not sure that their current dominant positions are as secure as they look today. Facebook already looks over. No one goes there anymore.
If there is so much demand for Net Neutrality....Obama fancied Google, Facebook, Netflix, Amazon etc....They were in his ear and he thought he was hip and cool. Prior to Obama and Wheeler the FCC was a very autonomous commission and the government kept their hands off and let them do their work without influence. But Obama had Wheeler on strings like a puppet. Remember Wheeler was a former Cable lobbyist. The internet wasn't broken in 2015 but the Democrats wanted a fox in the henhouse and they got their wish with Net Neutrality. Anyone ever ask why those 4 tech companies worth north of $1.5 Trillion don't pool their resources and build their own dedicated Net Neutral Network where they can have it free and clear? If there is so much demand for this Net Neutral Network and it is so important surely these tech companies could join forces and kick in $100B+ to build the network that with all this demand can pay for itself very quickly and garner even more profits for the tech companies. Simply a power grab by Obama and Democrats to control the people. Having the internet treated like a utility would be disastrous long term. Do you see major innovations coming from the water company?(They still read my meter manually sending a guy around in a truck) Innovation from the electric company? Innovation from my Natural Gas Provider? Net Neutrality is some buzz word as usual to scare the masses that big bad business is going to curtail their inernet and free speech? I don't see ATT, Verizon, Comcast influencing free speech but I do see that coming from Twitters, Google/Youtube, Facebook etc...The Democrats want control and the Tech Companies want their free ride on the internet pipes....plain and simple.
Let me add that there have been three concerns.
First, is the notion that ISPs will block content. Under all administrations and all rule sets this has been against the rules and shot down pretty quickly.
Second, there is the notion that ISPs will slow content. This comes in three forms. First, that ISPs will not build networks fast enough (which in fact is not a Net Neutrality issues). Second, that they will actively slow disfavored content . Which outside the Netflix-Comcast case - again shown to be Cogent - is a potential issue but it would mean the deployment of a crapload of equipment to make the service worse. Three, is the possibility that they will prioritize favored content which seems to be the most likely here. I think we need to think about this a bit more (see paragraph below).
Third, there is the notion that in combination with number 2 that the ISPs will start selling prioritization. I have always found that notion absurd. The reason is pretty simple: If you sell me something, I want something in return for the money. You can't just sell me a "trust me it will be better". It better work - ALL THE TIME. Given the communications involved in Adaptive Bit Rate - EVERY streamed video service can measure connection quality and report problems to users who then will have data to get reimbursed for missed SLAs.
Finally, back to priorization of favored content. We already have it. To me, we have a bit pipe into the home and companies split that bandwidth between services. Linear Pay TV is given essentially infinite priority. We could have much better Internet Service if all TV service was OTT. Then the pipes into the home will be used more efficiently.
seven