Amazon, Google, Microsoft & Spotify among companies pushing Day of Action for net neutrali...

Posted:
in General Discussion
A group of 40 technology companies on Wednesday launched a "Day of Action," designed to encourage feedback to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission in support of net neutrality regulations -- which are opposed by Trump-appointed chairman Ajit Pai, as well as internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon.




A few of the companies participating in the Day of Action -- linked to the industry-based Internet Association -- include Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Snap, Spotify, and Twitter. In some cases, such as with Reddit and Netflix, businesses are calling deliberate attention to the cause via banners and pop-ups on their websites.

July 12 is also being marked by other pro-neutrality organizations, such as Fight for the Future, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Conspicuously absent is Apple, despite the growing importance of services like iCloud Drive and Apple Music. Tim Cook did discuss net neutrality with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2015, but the CEO has remained largely quiet otherwise. He has often been vocal about other topics such as privacy, the environment, and LGBT rights.

Net neutrality insists that all traffic be treated equally by ISPs. If the FCC abandons the principle, ISPs could conceivably created tiered experiences in which some sites and services are faster than others -- such as their own, or ones from companies rich enough to pay. In extreme cases options could be throttled, blocked, or hidden behind paywalls.

Companies like T-Mobile have already been skirting the edges of regulations with "zero-rating" practices, in which favored services don't count against bandwidth caps.

On May 18, the FCC voted to advance a Pai proposal to reverse net neutrality protections. The official "Comment Date" on the matter is July 17.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 31
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,165member
    Hmmm...

    As it appears to be a bit un-Apple-y on the surface I wonder if it's an indication of sorts that Apple may have some plans for an internet service provider that favors Apple devices over competing products. Net Neutrality would certainly have an effect on that.  Otherwise as the article alludes to it does seem unusual for Mr Cook to avoid commenting on the subject or joining its tech-brethren in the Day of Action. 
    edited July 2017 rorwessels
  • Reply 2 of 31

    I can understand why companies like Amazon and Netflix would stand for so called Net Neutrality as they consume inordinate amounts of bandwidth and don't have to worry about building or maintaining the networks that delivery their services to their customers.  I used to think net neutrality was a good idea, but the more I think about it, I am not as convinced.  The ISP's are being forced to spend millions (maybe billions?) of dollars every year to continue to upgrade their capacity.  While my service continues to get more and more expensive every year and it seems to get slower at the same time.  So why shouldn't the people who are building and maintaining these networks be able to work out better agreements with the content providers?  Network management is a very difficult thing and we are all spoiled with the idea that it's just there.  It's not magic and it's not free.

    Now, it may well be that Apple knows this and is working with the carriers to ensure that their services are given a most favored content status in the future.  This could be good for Apple users in the long run.

    And if you think's it's bad now, just wait until VR and the MetaVerse take hold of society. 

    Also, if I am paying for bandwidth, why should I be subsidizing the advertisers out there with the bandwidth that I am paying for?  That hardly seems fair. 

    mike1Metriacanthosaurussuperk9
  • Reply 3 of 31
    gatorguy said:
    Hmmm...

    As it appears to be a bit un-Apple-y on the surface I wonder if it's an indication of sorts that Apple may have some plans for an internet service provider that favors Apple devices over competing products. Net Neutrality would certainly have an effect on that.  Otherwise as the article alludes to it does seem unusual for Mr Cook to avoid commenting on the subject or joining its tech-brethren in the Day of Action. 

    Perhaps Apple is starting to realize that getting involved in divisive politics can actually be detrimental to it's business.  Or, perhaps they are already working to ensure that their services are given preferential access.  I seem to remember an article years ago that alluded to this sort of arrangement but it was scuttled when the so called Net Neutrality rules where passed by the FCC.
    superk9
  • Reply 4 of 31
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member

    I can understand why companies like Amazon and Netflix would stand for so called Net Neutrality as they consume inordinate amounts of bandwidth and don't have to worry about building or maintaining the networks that delivery their services to their customers.  I used to think net neutrality was a good idea, but the more I think about it, I am not as convinced.  The ISP's are being forced to spend millions (maybe billions?) of dollars every year to continue to upgrade their capacity.  While my service continues to get more and more expensive every year and it seems to get slower at the same time.  So why shouldn't the people who are building and maintaining these networks be able to work out better agreements with the content providers?  Network management is a very difficult thing and we are all spoiled with the idea that it's just there.  It's not magic and it's not free.

    Now, it may well be that Apple knows this and is working with the carriers to ensure that their services are given a most favored content status in the future.  This could be good for Apple users in the long run.

    And if you think's it's bad now, just wait until VR and the MetaVerse take hold of society. 

    Also, if I am paying for bandwidth, why should I be subsidizing the advertisers out there with the bandwidth that I am paying for?  That hardly seems fair. 

    You have reached the same conclusion I reached after seeing and listening to all "sides" on this issue. It became obvious to me that the "bandwidth equality" arguments were propaganda from the heavy bandwidth users and nothing else.
    smaffeimwhiteMetriacanthosaurusjdgaz
  • Reply 5 of 31
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,165member
    rorwessels said: 

    Also, if I am paying for bandwidth, why should I be subsidizing the advertisers out there with the bandwidth that I am paying for?  That hardly seems fair. 

    Because the content you're watching/reading/replying to via your paid-for bandwidth still has top be paid for too somehow, unless you think it should be mandated that your ISP shares some of the money you paid with sites like AI or Ars or whoever's website you've found valuable to you. 
    edited July 2017
  • Reply 6 of 31
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,222member

    I can understand why companies like Amazon and Netflix would stand for so called Net Neutrality as they consume inordinate amounts of bandwidth and don't have to worry about building or maintaining the networks that delivery their services to their customers.  I used to think net neutrality was a good idea, but the more I think about it, I am not as convinced.  The ISP's are being forced to spend millions (maybe billions?) of dollars every year to continue to upgrade their capacity.  While my service continues to get more and more expensive every year and it seems to get slower at the same time.  So why shouldn't the people who are building and maintaining these networks be able to work out better agreements with the content providers?  Network management is a very difficult thing and we are all spoiled with the idea that it's just there.  It's not magic and it's not free.

    Now, it may well be that Apple knows this and is working with the carriers to ensure that their services are given a most favored content status in the future.  This could be good for Apple users in the long run.

    And if you think's it's bad now, just wait until VR and the MetaVerse take hold of society. 

    Also, if I am paying for bandwidth, why should I be subsidizing the advertisers out there with the bandwidth that I am paying for?  That hardly seems fair. 

    You have reached the same conclusion I reached after seeing and listening to all "sides" on this issue. It became obvious to me that the "bandwidth equality" arguments were propaganda from the heavy bandwidth users and nothing else.
    There are concepts of "Net Neutrality" that make sense to me and others I see as down right wrong. For example, if I want to check my data usage on my Verizon Phone and I am hitting a Verizon hub and Verizon does not want ding my data allowance for using data from THEIR servers on THEIR network on THEIR cell towers, why should this be illegal? Network traffic shaping based on the type of data packet also makes sense.

    VoIP traffic, for example, needs lower latency and time deterministic behavior while an FTP file transfer does not allowing data packets to arrive in any order for final assembly. If your network is maxed out, doing smart prioritization has the potential to keep the QoS of EVERYONE reasonably high VS bad for most. Why should this be illegal?

    But there is potential for abuse. Blocking traffic from competitors or slowing it down as to be unusable are the simple ones. Defining these borders and boundaries needs to be done instead of the blanket "All data is equal" mantra. It isn't.
    jdgaz
  • Reply 7 of 31
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,165member
    steven n. said:

    I can understand why companies like Amazon and Netflix would stand for so called Net Neutrality as they consume inordinate amounts of bandwidth and don't have to worry about building or maintaining the networks that delivery their services to their customers.  I used to think net neutrality was a good idea, but the more I think about it, I am not as convinced.  The ISP's are being forced to spend millions (maybe billions?) of dollars every year to continue to upgrade their capacity.  While my service continues to get more and more expensive every year and it seems to get slower at the same time.  So why shouldn't the people who are building and maintaining these networks be able to work out better agreements with the content providers?  Network management is a very difficult thing and we are all spoiled with the idea that it's just there.  It's not magic and it's not free.

    Now, it may well be that Apple knows this and is working with the carriers to ensure that their services are given a most favored content status in the future.  This could be good for Apple users in the long run.

    And if you think's it's bad now, just wait until VR and the MetaVerse take hold of society. 

    Also, if I am paying for bandwidth, why should I be subsidizing the advertisers out there with the bandwidth that I am paying for?  That hardly seems fair. 

    You have reached the same conclusion I reached after seeing and listening to all "sides" on this issue. It became obvious to me that the "bandwidth equality" arguments were propaganda from the heavy bandwidth users and nothing else.
    There are concepts of "Net Neutrality" that make sense to me and others I see as down right wrong. For example, if I want to check my data usage on my Verizon Phone and I am hitting a Verizon hub and Verizon does not want ding my data allowance for using data from THEIR servers on THEIR network on THEIR cell towers, why should this be illegal? Network traffic shaping based on the type of data packet also makes sense.

    VoIP traffic, for example, needs lower latency and time deterministic behavior while an FTP file transfer does not allowing data packets to arrive in any order for final assembly. If your network is maxed out, doing smart prioritization has the potential to keep the QoS of EVERYONE reasonably high VS bad for most. Why should this be illegal?

    But there is potential for abuse. Blocking traffic from competitors or slowing it down as to be unusable are the simple ones. Defining these borders and boundaries needs to be done instead of the blanket "All data is equal" mantra. It isn't.
    For those that really don't know what Net Neutrality is or some of the arguments being made both for and against:
    https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~raylin/
     
    For the pro-neutrality side
    https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality
    https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these-are-the-arguments-against-net-neutrality-and-why-theyre-wrong/

    and against Net Neutrality:
    https://notesonliberty.com/2017/05/29/an-argument-against-net-neutrality/

    And then there's this one that falls somewhere in the middle
    https://www.wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/
    edited July 2017 jahblade
  • Reply 8 of 31
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 11,565member
    If it’s something AT&T, Comcast and Verizon are against, then I support it. 

    Seriously tho, NN makes sense. Dumb pipes, that’s all these bozos should be. No different than energy companies -- they should have no say in how the bits are used, their only job is delivering them.
    jahblademacguitzm41
  • Reply 9 of 31
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 11,565member

    I can understand why companies like Amazon and Netflix would stand for so called Net Neutrality as they consume inordinate amounts of bandwidth and don't have to worry about building or maintaining the networks that delivery their services to their customers.  I used to think net neutrality was a good idea, but the more I think about it, I am not as convinced.  The ISP's are being forced to spend millions (maybe billions?) of dollars every year to continue to upgrade their capacity.  While my service continues to get more and more expensive every year and it seems to get slower at the same time.  So why shouldn't the people who are building and maintaining these networks be able to work out better agreements with the content providers?  Network management is a very difficult thing and we are all spoiled with the idea that it's just there.  It's not magic and it's not free.

    - who’s “forcing” ISPs to upgrade their capacity? That’s just part of their jobs. 

    - why should content providers owe ISPs anything? Do air conditioning companies make agreements (payments you mean) to the power companies since ACs use a lot of customers’ power? No, that’s absurd 

    - travel the rest of the world and see their cheaper, faster internet – then tell me we’re spoiled here. 
    jahbladespice-boymacguitzm41
  • Reply 10 of 31
    steven n. said:

    I can understand why companies like Amazon and Netflix would stand for so called Net Neutrality as they consume inordinate amounts of bandwidth and don't have to worry about building or maintaining the networks that delivery their services to their customers.  I used to think net neutrality was a good idea, but the more I think about it, I am not as convinced.  The ISP's are being forced to spend millions (maybe billions?) of dollars every year to continue to upgrade their capacity.  While my service continues to get more and more expensive every year and it seems to get slower at the same time.  So why shouldn't the people who are building and maintaining these networks be able to work out better agreements with the content providers?  Network management is a very difficult thing and we are all spoiled with the idea that it's just there.  It's not magic and it's not free.

    Now, it may well be that Apple knows this and is working with the carriers to ensure that their services are given a most favored content status in the future.  This could be good for Apple users in the long run.

    And if you think's it's bad now, just wait until VR and the MetaVerse take hold of society. 

    Also, if I am paying for bandwidth, why should I be subsidizing the advertisers out there with the bandwidth that I am paying for?  That hardly seems fair. 

    You have reached the same conclusion I reached after seeing and listening to all "sides" on this issue. It became obvious to me that the "bandwidth equality" arguments were propaganda from the heavy bandwidth users and nothing else.
    There are concepts of "Net Neutrality" that make sense to me and others I see as down right wrong. For example, if I want to check my data usage on my Verizon Phone and I am hitting a Verizon hub and Verizon does not want ding my data allowance for using data from THEIR servers on THEIR network on THEIR cell towers, why should this be illegal? Network traffic shaping based on the type of data packet also makes sense.

    VoIP traffic, for example, needs lower latency and time deterministic behavior while an FTP file transfer does not allowing data packets to arrive in any order for final assembly. If your network is maxed out, doing smart prioritization has the potential to keep the QoS of EVERYONE reasonably high VS bad for most. Why should this be illegal?

    But there is potential for abuse. Blocking traffic from competitors or slowing it down as to be unusable are the simple ones. Defining these borders and boundaries needs to be done instead of the blanket "All data is equal" mantra. It isn't.
    That "potential for abuse" is being shoved down people's throats as an absolutely-guaranteed-going-to-happen-can't-be stopped-inevitabllity. In reality, it just private companies choosing how to do business and customers choosing whether or not to support it. Some proponents use the fact that ISP A is the only one in your area, so you can't stop them from abusing you. Its just not true.
  • Reply 11 of 31

    If it’s something AT&T, Comcast and Verizon are against, then I support it. 

    Seriously tho, NN makes sense. Dumb pipes, that’s all these bozos should be. No different than energy companies -- they should have no say in how the bits are used, their only job is delivering them.
    These are private companies trying to do business. You talk about them as if they owe you something and you're entitled to broadband internet access. I don't know about you, but I manage to use the internet every day at high speed. That isn't going to change. Unless of Net Neutering is increased and these companies are forced into a situation where it is even harder to do reasonable business.
    edited July 2017
  • Reply 12 of 31

    I can understand why companies like Amazon and Netflix would stand for so called Net Neutrality as they consume inordinate amounts of bandwidth and don't have to worry about building or maintaining the networks that delivery their services to their customers.  I used to think net neutrality was a good idea, but the more I think about it, I am not as convinced.  The ISP's are being forced to spend millions (maybe billions?) of dollars every year to continue to upgrade their capacity.  While my service continues to get more and more expensive every year and it seems to get slower at the same time.  So why shouldn't the people who are building and maintaining these networks be able to work out better agreements with the content providers?  Network management is a very difficult thing and we are all spoiled with the idea that it's just there.  It's not magic and it's not free.


    - travel the rest of the world and see their cheaper, faster internet – then tell me we’re spoiled here. 
    I have Gigabit FIOS. Trust me, I'm not missing out on anything.
  • Reply 13 of 31
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,165member
    steven n. said:

    I can understand why companies like Amazon and Netflix would stand for so called Net Neutrality as they consume inordinate amounts of bandwidth and don't have to worry about building or maintaining the networks that delivery their services to their customers.  I used to think net neutrality was a good idea, but the more I think about it, I am not as convinced.  The ISP's are being forced to spend millions (maybe billions?) of dollars every year to continue to upgrade their capacity.  While my service continues to get more and more expensive every year and it seems to get slower at the same time.  So why shouldn't the people who are building and maintaining these networks be able to work out better agreements with the content providers?  Network management is a very difficult thing and we are all spoiled with the idea that it's just there.  It's not magic and it's not free.

    Now, it may well be that Apple knows this and is working with the carriers to ensure that their services are given a most favored content status in the future.  This could be good for Apple users in the long run.

    And if you think's it's bad now, just wait until VR and the MetaVerse take hold of society. 

    Also, if I am paying for bandwidth, why should I be subsidizing the advertisers out there with the bandwidth that I am paying for?  That hardly seems fair. 

    You have reached the same conclusion I reached after seeing and listening to all "sides" on this issue. It became obvious to me that the "bandwidth equality" arguments were propaganda from the heavy bandwidth users and nothing else.
    There are concepts of "Net Neutrality" that make sense to me and others I see as down right wrong. For example, if I want to check my data usage on my Verizon Phone and I am hitting a Verizon hub and Verizon does not want ding my data allowance for using data from THEIR servers on THEIR network on THEIR cell towers, why should this be illegal? Network traffic shaping based on the type of data packet also makes sense.

    VoIP traffic, for example, needs lower latency and time deterministic behavior while an FTP file transfer does not allowing data packets to arrive in any order for final assembly. If your network is maxed out, doing smart prioritization has the potential to keep the QoS of EVERYONE reasonably high VS bad for most. Why should this be illegal?

    But there is potential for abuse. Blocking traffic from competitors or slowing it down as to be unusable are the simple ones. Defining these borders and boundaries needs to be done instead of the blanket "All data is equal" mantra. It isn't.
    That "potential for abuse" is being shoved down people's throats as an absolutely-guaranteed-going-to-happen-can't-be stopped-inevitabllity. In reality, it just private companies choosing how to do business and customers choosing whether or not to support it. Some proponents use the fact that ISP A is the only one in your area, so you can't stop them from abusing you. Its just not true.
     "Fifty-one percent of Americans only have one choice of broadband provider, according to the FCC’s own 2016 data. Thirty-eight percent of Americans only have two choices. Add it up, and 89 percent of Americans have but one or two options for broadband"
    stukemacguitzm41
  • Reply 14 of 31
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,165member

    I can understand why companies like Amazon and Netflix would stand for so called Net Neutrality as they consume inordinate amounts of bandwidth and don't have to worry about building or maintaining the networks that delivery their services to their customers.  I used to think net neutrality was a good idea, but the more I think about it, I am not as convinced.  The ISP's are being forced to spend millions (maybe billions?) of dollars every year to continue to upgrade their capacity.  While my service continues to get more and more expensive every year and it seems to get slower at the same time.  So why shouldn't the people who are building and maintaining these networks be able to work out better agreements with the content providers?  Network management is a very difficult thing and we are all spoiled with the idea that it's just there.  It's not magic and it's not free.


    - travel the rest of the world and see their cheaper, faster internet – then tell me we’re spoiled here. 
    I have Gigabit FIOS. Trust me, I'm not missing out on anything.
    Where is the US in this list?
    https://www.fastmetrics.com/internet-connection-speed-by-country.php
    macgui
  • Reply 15 of 31
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,439member
    Not sure why so many people here are against NN. Is it some Libertarian "market will settle this" theory? If you look at history for lessons, monopolies crush competition, stifle innovation and offer the consumer less choices. Do any of you remember Microsoft in the 90's. It the Government (yes the body of elected officials you all despise) had not stepped in your beloved Apple would not be around today. Here's an analogy. Two customers go to a farmer to buy eggs, one runs a big restaurant and buys a lot of eggs from this seller. The other man runs a small popular cafe and buys less eggs from the farmer. The big restaurant owner makes a deal with the farmer to not sell any eggs to the cafe owner until after he has taken the best eggs first. The cafe owner no can only get smaller eggs, yet pays the same price of the restaurant owner, his small business suffer's in turn. 
    gatorguymacguitzm41superk9StrangeDays
  • Reply 16 of 31
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,901member

    I can understand why companies like Amazon and Netflix would stand for so called Net Neutrality as they consume inordinate amounts of bandwidth and don't have to worry about building or maintaining the networks that delivery their services to their customers.  I used to think net neutrality was a good idea, but the more I think about it, I am not as convinced.  The ISP's are being forced to spend millions (maybe billions?) of dollars every year to continue to upgrade their capacity.  While my service continues to get more and more expensive every year and it seems to get slower at the same time.  So why shouldn't the people who are building and maintaining these networks be able to work out better agreements with the content providers?  Network management is a very difficult thing and we are all spoiled with the idea that it's just there.  It's not magic and it's not free.

    Now, it may well be that Apple knows this and is working with the carriers to ensure that their services are given a most favored content status in the future.  This could be good for Apple users in the long run.

    And if you think's it's bad now, just wait until VR and the MetaVerse take hold of society. 

    Also, if I am paying for bandwidth, why should I be subsidizing the advertisers out there with the bandwidth that I am paying for?  That hardly seems fair. 

    Net neutrality is absolutely essential from a delivery perspective. ISPs want to have their cake and eat it by charging users and content providers. This subject comes up every year at MWC.

    ISPs should be providing the infrastructure and charging a competitive price for it. They already have more than enough capacity and are promoting ever higher speeds and capacities. Mobile data will see major change with 5G. Content providers should be optimizing services and content to reduce the strain on certain areas at certain times but the idea of net neutrality is something that should be sacred. Some content providers are in fact collaborating with content delivers already. Facebook/Movistar have just started laying the first 6,000KM stretch of fibre under the ocean.
    spice-boy
  • Reply 17 of 31
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,901member
    steven n. said:

    I can understand why companies like Amazon and Netflix would stand for so called Net Neutrality as they consume inordinate amounts of bandwidth and don't have to worry about building or maintaining the networks that delivery their services to their customers.  I used to think net neutrality was a good idea, but the more I think about it, I am not as convinced.  The ISP's are being forced to spend millions (maybe billions?) of dollars every year to continue to upgrade their capacity.  While my service continues to get more and more expensive every year and it seems to get slower at the same time.  So why shouldn't the people who are building and maintaining these networks be able to work out better agreements with the content providers?  Network management is a very difficult thing and we are all spoiled with the idea that it's just there.  It's not magic and it's not free.

    Now, it may well be that Apple knows this and is working with the carriers to ensure that their services are given a most favored content status in the future.  This could be good for Apple users in the long run.

    And if you think's it's bad now, just wait until VR and the MetaVerse take hold of society. 

    Also, if I am paying for bandwidth, why should I be subsidizing the advertisers out there with the bandwidth that I am paying for?  That hardly seems fair. 

    You have reached the same conclusion I reached after seeing and listening to all "sides" on this issue. It became obvious to me that the "bandwidth equality" arguments were propaganda from the heavy bandwidth users and nothing else.
    There are concepts of "Net Neutrality" that make sense to me and others I see as down right wrong. For example, if I want to check my data usage on my Verizon Phone and I am hitting a Verizon hub and Verizon does not want ding my data allowance for using data from THEIR servers on THEIR network on THEIR cell towers, why should this be illegal? Network traffic shaping based on the type of data packet also makes sense.

    VoIP traffic, for example, needs lower latency and time deterministic behavior while an FTP file transfer does not allowing data packets to arrive in any order for final assembly. If your network is maxed out, doing smart prioritization has the potential to keep the QoS of EVERYONE reasonably high VS bad for most. Why should this be illegal?

    But there is potential for abuse. Blocking traffic from competitors or slowing it down as to be unusable are the simple ones. Defining these borders and boundaries needs to be done instead of the blanket "All data is equal" mantra. It isn't.
    Just to pick up on the 'THEIR' part. Especially cell towers. In my part of the world, In the bad old days each company had their own towers. This led to a mushroom field of antenna infraestructure and technical issues. 

    The solution was for companies to share  backbone distribution infrastructure and compensate each other for load. 

    Something similar happened with fiber. One company in different zones and then there are agreements on leasing out to different providers. The agreements are supervised by government.

    In a way it is similar to how international calls used to be handled. Often traffic was lopsided and the companies compensated the imbalances.
  • Reply 18 of 31
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,222member

    I can understand why companies like Amazon and Netflix would stand for so called Net Neutrality as they consume inordinate amounts of bandwidth and don't have to worry about building or maintaining the networks that delivery their services to their customers.  I used to think net neutrality was a good idea, but the more I think about it, I am not as convinced.  The ISP's are being forced to spend millions (maybe billions?) of dollars every year to continue to upgrade their capacity.  While my service continues to get more and more expensive every year and it seems to get slower at the same time.  So why shouldn't the people who are building and maintaining these networks be able to work out better agreements with the content providers?  Network management is a very difficult thing and we are all spoiled with the idea that it's just there.  It's not magic and it's not free.

    - who’s “forcing” ISPs to upgrade their capacity? That’s just part of their jobs. 

    - why should content providers owe ISPs anything? Do air conditioning companies make agreements (payments you mean) to the power companies since ACs use a lot of customers’ power? No, that’s absurd 

    - travel the rest of the world and see their cheaper, faster internet – then tell me we’re spoiled here. 
    I have traveled the world and have to find this "cheaper, faster" internet you speak of. In general, I find I am always paying much higher prices for internet around the world compared to the US. Sometimes the performance is a bit better frequently much slower. There are a handful of places where internet is more ubiquitous than the US but not as many as some would lead you to believe.
  • Reply 19 of 31
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,222member
    avon b7 said:
    Net neutrality is absolutely essential from a delivery perspective. ISPs want to have their cake and eat it by charging users and content providers. This subject comes up every year at MWC.

    ISPs should be providing the infrastructure and charging a competitive price for it. They already have more than enough capacity and are promoting ever higher speeds and capacities. Mobile data will see major change with 5G. Content providers should be optimizing services and content to reduce the strain on certain areas at certain times but the idea of net neutrality is something that should be sacred. Some content providers are in fact collaborating with content delivers already. Facebook/Movistar have just started laying the first 6,000KM stretch of fibre under the ocean.
    Then it is your view content providers have no obligation to pay for the network traffic they push? It should be illegal for Google, Facebook or Netflix to set up content networks within popular ISPs to speed traffic to their users? If you agree with John Oliver's diatribe on NN, then you understand a very one sided and highly biased view of the issue. What I am saying is this is much more complex than the likes of Google, Facebook, Netflix (and a few others) make it out to be. This small group of companies represent almost 50% of the worlds network traffic and they are using all of their power to brainwash people into a single view-point so they can pay less for delivering their content.

    Likewise, Comcast, TW and other ISP are trying to maximize their profits and stop declining revenue from cable Viewership by pushing and prioritizing their content over the competition. It is a very complicated issue with lots of different views and there is no simple answer like saying: "ISP should be dumb pipes" or "Net neutrality is absolutely essential from a delivery standpoint."
  • Reply 20 of 31
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Mmm.  

    So when Qualcomm charges both Apple and Apple's suppliers, it's wrong. 

    But when ISPs charge both content providers and the folk who consume their content, it's okay. 

    We can't have it both ways, people. 


    tzm41StrangeDays
Sign In or Register to comment.