12-01-2017, 02:17 PM
CageTheBengal Wrote:Not true. ISPs wanted to and have controlled how much bandwidth flows based upon population.
Net neutrality says little to nothing about network optimization. Does it need defining? Probably, but the NN regulations never addressed it clearly or effectively.
CageTheBengal Wrote:if Comcast decided to reduce speeds or cut off access all together to their content to hurt their competitor. Is it 100% sure going to happen? No but that doesn't mean setting up the groundwork for that to happen is a smart move.
This HAS happened, with Verizon and apps and another company trying to favor their own ondemand video services. Both were slapped and fined by EXISTING FCC regulations.
CageTheBengal Wrote:Maybe because say a company like Comcast might want to discriminate against a competitor like Netflix.
I knew this would come up or was behind some of the thinking. That case has been widely misunderstood by NN advocates. It was little more than the politics over whether Netflix or the ISP's should pay for infrastructure upgrades to support Netflix bandwidth demands. It was actually more than that, but not a NN issue. Netflix pays for bandwidth, and just like any other company/transaction fees for service requirements are negotiable. It only becomes a NN issue when service and rates offered to Netflix aren't available to others. Incidentally, it's a deal that improves service FOR EVERYONE by breaking bottlenecks (so pretty much the opposite of NN concerns). The pissing contest about who should pay had nothing to do with NN.
CageTheBengal Wrote:What do you find appealing about letting ISPs make the rules they get to play by?
I don't find anything appealing about it. I just don't see where it is or has been necessary given existing laws and regulations. What it really comes down to is a lack of competition, but now you're talking an issue separate and distinct from NN.
--------------------------------------------------------
