Net Neutrality - Obama shows support

[derspiess]

 

[frunk]

There was a widely-circulated video (I think there were similar chain-type emails that circulated before that) a few years ago that told us that we were headed for ISPs only allowing us to access 10-15 websites and that we'd have to pay extra to access additional sites.

And don't think they wouldn't try if they could.

They certainly could if they wanted to, but I think that would be a disastrous business model. 

[Admiral Yi]

They certainly could if they wanted to, but I think that would be a disastrous business model.

Too esoteric.

[CountDeMoney]

They certainly could if they wanted to, but I think that would be a disastrous business model.

Doubtful, since they're monopolies in most parts of the country by now.  Verizon, Comcast Xfinitiny and the others can bundle their prices any way they see fit.    It's what the more esoteric call "maximizing profits".

The sheep will eat what is placed in the slop trough, unless they're fortunate enough to face the southern skies for a satellite dish.

And as a consumer, you don't like it? It's a Yi Country; you don't have to have it. 

[Admiral Yi]

In much the same way that the cable companies currently restrict their customers to 15 channels.

[CountDeMoney]

In much the same way that the cable companies currently restrict their customers to 15 channels.

And don't think they wouldn't try if they could.

They certainly could if they wanted to, but I think that would be a disastrous business model.

[Grey Fox]

In much the same way that the cable companies currently restrict their customers to 15 channels.

They do, you have to pay more money per channel/bundles you get.

[CountDeMoney]

In much the same way that the cable companies currently restrict their customers to 15 channels.

They do, you have to pay more money per channel/bundles you get.

Now, now, let's not confuse the issue with increased costs and reduction of services over the last several years.  That would be maximizing profits and minimizing costs, and well all know the cable companies are about so much more than that.

[Admiral Yi]

They do, you have to pay more money per channel/bundles you get.

My example was a bad one.  Cable companies charge more for more channels because the channels charge them.  Web sites don't charge ISPs for hits.

[frunk]

The problem is that the number of cable channels isn't even close to the number of different websites.  Are there even a thousand different distinct cable channels?  Maybe a hundred get 99% of the eyeballs.  Websites number in the millions, and you'd have to probably include a couple thousand to get that 99% threshold.  What makes it even worse is that websites are interlinked, with even the most mainstream of mainstream sites linking to relatively obscure websites.  I don't think anyone would want an internet where a significant fraction of links were broken just because your provider doesn't give you access.

[Ideologue]

It's all good. Have a kid now etc. In New Zealand doing streaming video product management.

I've worked in either ISPs or online streaming all my working life more or less.

STEM POTM.

[Siege]

Isint technology advancing fast enough to make all this discussion a moot point?
I mean, google is laying that thick wire in Utah...

[sbr]

What does Google fiber have to do with how ISPs treat the information that flows through that fiber?

[Grey Fox]

They do, you have to pay more money per channel/bundles you get.

My example was a bad one.  Cable companies charge more for more channels because the channels charge them.  Web sites don't charge ISPs for hits.

No but ISPs would like to charge Websites for hits.

[Admiral Yi]

So would I.  So what?