Can you name any business that is being hurt by lack of net neutrality?
Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
Dish Network's Charlie ergen in FCC crosshairs over wireless buildout
- Thread starter bluegras
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 190
- Views 18K
Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
Well, since NetFlix has been coerced into pay both it's ISP and some end user"s ISPs for transmission of NetFlix traffic, I would say NetFlix has been hurt. NetFlix isn't the only one by the way, just the first example that came to mind
Also customers of those ISPs that limit the amount of traffic through the peering points and consequently suffer traffic bottlenecks when accessing traffic that must come through those peering points have been hurt.
I contract with CenturyLink to provide me with a 10meg DSL circuit, if I can't get a 10meg feed from NetFlix because CenturyLink artificially limits the total NetFlix traffic it will accept through the peering point then CenturyLink has harmed me as a customer. FYI NetFlix's ISP has offered to share costs to increase the available bandwidth at peering points, multiple ISPs have declined.
Netflix has not been hurt...they are a billion dollar company
Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
So you are trying to say a billion dollar company can't be hurt?
I guess Disney and Amazon should just throw in the towel on competing with Netflix.
Im saying net neutrality is a non issue for netflix
Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
EDIT: When they have to pay for bandwidth twice, that hurts.
Last edited:
I agree it’s a non issue to a company like Netflix. It is an issue for any start up streaming company trying to break into the mold. I am still against NN as there is no reason the government needs to be involved. This is THE open free market in play.
This might be a push to Undedicate us from the internet, the same way we did TV and landline phones. ISPs can be jerks until another ISP, smaller, offers the speeds to all without the non sense, and grows from there. Be nice to see dedicated ISPs, that are not content providers as well. I’m not sure if Google is still going that route, but that is what they were saying when they started rolling out Google Fiber.
This might be a push to Undedicate us from the internet, the same way we did TV and landline phones. ISPs can be jerks until another ISP, smaller, offers the speeds to all without the non sense, and grows from there. Be nice to see dedicated ISPs, that are not content providers as well. I’m not sure if Google is still going that route, but that is what they were saying when they started rolling out Google Fiber.
But it's not the open and free market when I only have one ISP to choose.
Perhaps in theory. I assume you saw that monopoly ISPs did when Google Fiber came to Nashville and Louisville regarding the pole attachment rules? They used their political power to write rules to try to keep Google from deploying their infrastructure. You can't get away from the fact that government regulation is necessary when dealing with monopolies. It is something we learned a long time ago. The fact that the ISPs fought (fee-free, low-overhead) Title II NN (and lost in court) is actually pretty ridiculous since it didn't actually cost them anything. AT&T, Verizon, etc. all said it was a non-issue and then fought it anyway. The only thing it did was prevent them from prioritizing their own, ancillary businesses over generic traffic. Beyond that, all they had to do was manage their network such that customers' experience wasn't poor. The repeal of Title II NN is probably going to mean a much more convoluted and difficult to implement regulatory solution (written by congress) in the long run, making it more expensive for everyone invovled. Clearly they don't teach "knowing a good deal when you got one" in Business School anymore.
So they used the government to prevent competition, but we need to get the government to stop monopolies? Sounds like you’re fighting for why deregulation would work better, since there would be no worry about anyone writing their own rules in that case.
Two different governments to begin with (local vs. federal), and the behavior of the one (local/political) is the reason why the second (federal/regulatory) is unfortunately necessary. The regulatory body should only have to step in when someone breaks the rules. I am not a fan of over-regulation, which is why Title II was perfect for NN. There was no additional bureaucracy or red tape. It was simple and easy.
I have to disagree. If the local government has created the monopoly(gave rights to the cable co), then there is no need to get the Feds involved at all. Local governments can be ousted a lot easier than federal ones. And when fed gets involved in local business, we end up with the 1992 retransmission act that has driven costs too high. The local government is doing the will of their people and if it is an issue of the people, then vote them out. The people have a lot more control on local issues.
If all the network traffic was local to the city, I would agree with you, but it is not, so I do not. In any case, this has probably gotten too far off topic, so moving on...
While I can't say much... DISH is installing cell sites... and are actively seeking locations for more sites.. including asking retailers...
MVDDS Buildout - Retailer Survey
Charlie is NOT sleeping.
MVDDS Buildout - Retailer Survey
Charlie is NOT sleeping.
Similar threads
