net neutrality

[ShadySands]

Mor, not sure where you are from but in my experience, from the places I've lived, there just isn't more than a small handful of options. In fact where I live now I really only have one option for fast (cable) internet and two options if I ever decide to go back down to DSL

 

When I lived in New York I had a couple more options such as fiber but still nothing like a dozen ISPs to choose from. That's also before the contracts they try to lock you into and the connection fees and whatever else you get charged when you decide to switch

[Oerwinde]

 

in Canada, the cable/satellite companies own the internet providers and the cell networks, and recently bought the major TV networks. So what's happening now is they're setting bandwidth caps for internet use, then offering similar services to Netflix that don't count towards your cap.

I am not familiar with Canada telecommunication market, but it seem to me that you outlined two issues, which are not necessarily related. One is your cable/satellite companies created a monopoly, which should be dealt with like any other monopoly through competition laws. The second is bandwidth caps, which is unpopular among certain circles but legitimate in most cases.

 

 

We have essentially 3 cellular networks, Rogers, who had the largest network, then Bell and Telus worked together to build enough infrastructure to surpass them jointly. We have 4 television providers, Shaw, Rogers, Telus, and Bell. Shaw and Rogers are cable(an agreement in the 90s between the 2 split the country between Rogers in the east, and Shaw in the west), Telus is fibre optic, and Bell is satellite. We had 3 major telivision networks, CTV, which got bought by Bell, Global, which got bought by Shaw, and CityTV which got bought by Rogers. Telus is basically the provincial telephone providers from all of western Canada merging into a single company.

 

So if you want internet in Canada, all the infrastructure is owned by 4 companies, Rogers, Shaw, Telus, or Bell. So even if you go with an independent provider, they are buying their bandwidth from one of the major companies. 

[Mor]

Mor, not sure where you are from but in my experience, from the places I've lived, there just isn't more than a small handful of options. In fact where I live now I really only have one option for fast (cable) internet and two options if I ever decide to go back down to DSL

 

When I lived in New York I had a couple more options such as fiber but still nothing like a dozen ISPs to choose from. That's also before the contracts they try to lock you into and the connection fees and whatever else you get charged when you decide to switch

In my current place of residence, they did a smart thing and separated Infrastructure from Internet Service Providers i.e. you pick a Infrastructure provider(DSL,Cable, etc) who connect you physically to the "internet" and whatever ISP which who is your gateway to the content on the internet(username/password, DNS, etc). No ISP contracts, you can switch whenever you want.

 

I don't believe this the situation where you are... like I said before competition is a good thing.

 

 

Except they're not subsidizing their material, they're interfering with everyone else's.

 

The road analogy would be if Wal-Mart was allowed to set up tolls in front of Target. The telephone, a less abstract analogy, would be if Verizon was allowed to intentionally degrade all telephone calls made to someone using AT&T.

Better analogy would be how Wal-Mart(or any service provider), deal with shopper traffic, specifically during rush hours when their register line are at full capacity. The idea is to maintain basic service, the most common solution is quick line register for people with few items.

 

As for your example, Verizon "intentionally degrade" calls from AT&T would probably a violation of some competition law. However, buying bandwidth(~prioritizing) is standard practice. All ISP worldwide lease bandwidth for international traffic those who have more provide better service during rush hours, most modern infrastructure designed to be all in one(phone,internet,tv) with prioritizing in mind(VOIP, data, etc) even your home modem\router is almost certainly have at least basic ability to allow some prioritizing(so that my skype call to make grandma happy wont be interrupted by some background download).

 

IMO the real problem here is rush hours traffic, poor infrastructure and or lack of competition. I don't see anything inherently wrong prioritizing, bandwidth speed/data caps and or paying more for better service. Because latency sensitive services are more important than some background file sharing, because there is no reason that my grandma should pay as much as some kids who cap out their bandwidth all day all night and lastly because new infrastructure wont fund it self and when there is money in it you get competition.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Mor

[ShadySands]

Netflix to pay Comcast for smoother online video streaming

 

The pact between the nation's leading online video service and the largest U.S. provider of home Internet access could result in higher rates for consumers.

[Meshugger]

 

Wrong question. The right question, in a philosophical sense, is what should be denied access?

 

Not from a design perspective. How do you design a system with an infinite access options?

 

Sure your statement will make a philosophy major happy. But a little clue should be the employment prospects of philosophy majors.

 

Practicalities, mother****er. ;p

 

 

I somehow missed this. The current design of the Internet is that access is userbased. Moral and ethical constraints aside, try to change it to service providerbased is costly and will in the long run only benefit the big telecom-companies on the expense on everyone else. See Shadysands link for example. 

 

TV is already providerbased with licenses, and all the beaurocracy that surrounds it. Why on earth turn the Internet the same? Control of information? Naaaah ;-P