Obama saves net neutrality, orders broadband be classified as vital service

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Remember, libertarians like wormyguy claim to be anti-corporatism.

This is a gift to Netflix.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Remember, libertarians like wormyguy claim to be anti-corporatism.

This is a gift to Netflix.

And Netflix users.

And corn subsidies benefit users of corn syrup.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If bandwidth is not being depleted and is some unlimited resource, then why has there been all this controversy over how to handle spectrum reallocation?  Why have they been trying to get broadcasters to lessen their use of the spectrum?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If bandwidth is not being depleted and is some unlimited resource, then why has there been all this controversy over how to handle spectrum reallocation?  Why have they been trying to get broadcasters to lessen their use of the spectrum?

How does net neutrality "deplete" more of the capacity on the internet than a hypothetical system that allowed certain traffic to have priority?

I'm not clear on the technical aspects of this, but I think the basic principle here would be that with a limited amount of bandwidth available, pricing is a method of managing demand. If providers of high bandwidth content want it to get through efficiently, they can pay more for that. On the one hand a provider like Netflix would be able to provide more reliable service, but with an increased cost. This increased cost could spur the content provider to be more efficient in its use of bandwidth, or it might mean higher cost for the consumer, which would redirect entertainment to other formats, freeing up that bandwidth for other activities.

I realize there are all sorts of reasons why this might not work out, but to get rid of any sort of congestion pricing-type mechanism, as net neutrality would seem to imply, how is the rationing of a limited amount of bandwidth supposed to occur under net neutrality?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If bandwidth is not being depleted and is some unlimited resource, then why has there been all this controversy over how to handle spectrum reallocation?  Why have they been trying to get broadcasters to lessen their use of the spectrum?

How does net neutrality "deplete" more of the capacity on the internet than a hypothetical system that allowed certain traffic to have priority?

I'm not clear on the technical aspects of this, but I think the basic principle here would be that with a limited amount of bandwidth available, pricing is a method of managing demand. If providers of high bandwidth content want it to get through efficiently, they can pay more for that. On the one hand a provider like Netflix would be able to provide more reliable service, but with an increased cost. This increased cost could spur the content provider to be more efficient in its use of bandwidth, or it might mean higher cost for the consumer, which would redirect entertainment to other formats, freeing up that bandwidth for other activities.

I realize there are all sorts of reasons why this might not work out, but to get rid of any sort of congestion pricing-type mechanism, as net neutrality would seem to imply, how is the rationing of a limited amount of bandwidth supposed to occur under net neutrality?

I understand what you're saying, but that really a situation of a solution in search of a problem.

We have these open internet rules that have served us very well over the years.  Lycos and Yahoo couldn't use their market power to crush Google.  Myspace couldn't crush Facebook by paying off the ISPs.  The openness on the public internet also allows new technologies to spring up because data is treated like data.  You didn't need to reprogram the internet whenever a new application was invented or pay some ridiculous up front fee to experiment in a new business.  That's all important to protect for the good of the consumers.  Also, remember that consumers largely have little to no choice over which ISP they use as most areas have at most 2 broadband services.

And, your response is, but what about poor Netflix and Google?  Well, they don't need a fast lane on the public internet because they can use peering agreements with ISPs.  Google has servers inside your ISP that allows Youtube to run faster.  And, by the way, Netflix and Google seem to be happy with this Net Neutrality decision.  They're more worried about ISPs using their monopoly position in an anti-competitive way than they are worried about lack of bandwidth on the public internet. 

I have no idea what post you were reading that made you think my concern is for "poor Netflix and Google."  It clearly wasn't one of mine.  My concern is having an internet with a capacity that allows it to be free from congestion. I don't know what you said here has to do with that. And how do the peering and special servers inside ISPs not run afoul of the idea of net neutrality?

As far as I can tell, the solution in search of a problem here is net neutrality. Have ISPs been crushing upstart content providers?  If they ever do, and people can't get access to a wide range of content due to deliberate blocking by the ISP, then there will be a demand for more open ISP.  If under such circumstances the ISPs still maintain a monopoly, then it is the monopoly that is the problem, not the lack of net neutrality.