[vfclists]

The usual and expected hatchet job from a main stream media stalwart.

Neglecting the fact the fact digging up the ground to place cable, which is what the customer is actually paying for is entirely different from wiring up interconnects at core exchanges, which costs virtually nothing in comparison.

The customer pays the last mile provider to go fetch with the understanding that what they pay covers everything the provider is supposed to go fetch with some profit added on. Then the provider goes to stiff the content provider for a share of their income, or else throttles the content provider which is essentially robbing the customer of a service they've already paid for.

Why can't the NY Times put it this plainly and simply?

[rayiner]

I don't think your average customer assumes anything about what their service payment covers. I bet most think it just covers the wire into their house. Would the perceived regulatory need go away if cable companies made clear: "we reserve the right to charge the sources of data you download, not withstanding the service charges for your connection."

I mean, its like Hulu Plus. The fact they charge a fee doesn't preclude them from charging advertisers to market to you.

[majormajor]

Does net neutrality fix this issue?

If Comcast wants the extra money they're trying to get from Netflix/Level 3/etc, but is politically prohibited from doing so, then can't they still just raise end-user's prices? That would look worse from a Comcast PR perspective, but with no competition—which lets them get away with letting the quality of service degrade—does that really matter?

This (especially in terms of Netflix vs Comcast) seems like a massive distraction from the underlying competition issue. A distraction Comcast is probably happy to have.

[marcosdumay]

Yes, they can just increase end-user's prices. And that's what they should do if their costs are really larger than revenue, as they claim. (What I obviously doubt is true, because they didn't.)

Comcast is trying to block Netflix probably because people are stopping paying for cable TV, not because of costs. Thus thinking about costs and revenue will send you on the wrong avenue.

[_red]

No, NN won't fix the issue.

Even more, most NN supporters cannot actually state what they envision such laws to even do. If you ask, they will give you handwavy answers like "provide equal access"...then they will be unable / unwilling to answer any of the obvious questions that follow on from that (ie. what if I pay for faster access, what does that mean for others who don't? Is all QoS illegal now? How will NN be monitored, government installed monitoring stations in ISP? etc etc etc)

This is a political wet-dream though, lots of people clamoring for "more regulation" without any real knowledge of the details or effects. It was the same sort of lazy, unfocused clamor that brought us the Patriot Act, so be prepared.

[pedrocr]

Here's my proposal:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7644339

It would fix the issues of neutrality at the interconnect point. Additional rules may be needed to prevent an ISP from throttling a specific port/protocol/service inside it's own network, but this would fix the current hot issue (blocking Youtube, Netflix, etc).

[pessimizer]

>If Comcast wants the extra money they're trying to get from Netflix/Level 3/etc, but is politically prohibited from doing so, then can't they still just raise end-user's prices?

Of course they can, and will. That wouldn't divide the internet into fast lanes and slow lanes, though, and would be transparent.

[majormajor]

The follow-up becomes: is it better if more of the cost for bandwidth-intensive services is passed on to every consumer, or just to consumers of those services?

I don't know where I fall on that one.

[bandushrew]

It is Comcast's customer who requested data, and it is Comcast who is responsible for ensuring that request is fulfilled.

Therefore it is Comcast's customer who should pay for the service that Comcast provides.

Getting Netflix - for example, to pay Comcast to ensure that Comcast is willing to fulfill the requests for data by Comcast customers is just.....odd.

[vfclists]

What are these costs?

Are the bottlenecks at the junction between the ISP and the customer, or at the junction between the ISP and the content provider?

Did Comcast have purchase and install new equipment to boost Netflix speeds, or did they just flip a switch on already existing equipment to open some throttles?

[majormajor]

Presumably someone had to pay something to set up a direct interconnect between Netflix and Comcast to bypass the delivery networks that were used before. But more generally, I'd refer you back to my original post in this thread, about the costs coming from Comcast's lack of viable competition in most markets. Without fixing that issue, the cost is going to be what the consumer will bear instead of what the market will bear, net neutrality regulations or not.

[pedrocr]

> Without fixing that issue, the cost is going to be what the consumer will bear instead of what the market will bear, net neutrality regulations or not.

Actually the issue is quite the opposite. The ISPs backed themselves into a corner with unlimited plans. They can't raise prices based on usage so they're trying the next best thing, shaking down the other side of the connection. It's much easier to play hardball with Netflix than with thousands of customers, who may just say "well, if I'm going to pay that much for this connection I may as well cancel cable and use Netflix/torrents exclusively. So imposing neutrality at the interconnect would actually solve the current issue.

[vfclists]

There is a difference between needing extra money and wanting extra money? Does Comcast want it because they need it to deliver higher speeds to the customers, or are they claiming to need because neither customer nor content provider has alternatives?

If customer's Netflix speeds are degraded it should be because contention at the customer end is slowing down Netflix speeds, not throttling at the ISP's end.

Is there anything high volume enough at customer's ends to interfere with Netflix or other video download speeds?

[wavefunction]

Maybe they have visions of a NYTimes "news channel" added to your internet service that you pay for and receive whether you want it or not.

Greed or ignorance are generally my first guesses when trying to analyze what appears to be propaganda.

[vfclists]

It is mostly greed.

If it is ignorance it is usually an editorial decision. I mean, you can't have idealistic and conscientious writers influencing public opinion against Big Co if you need their ad spending, can you?