Goodbye, net neutrality; hello, net discrimination (bill, facts, places, corrupt)

[bUU]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Currently yes to some degree since my ISP offers some different plans however what we are discussing here is changes to that arrangement where the content provider would be footing part of that bill.

That change already happened, and now has actually happened with regard to two ISPs.

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Who is it that doesn't understand the topic?

You. Either that or you're just so confused that you cannot follow a thread that has so many different aspects. I'm not going to waste effort dumbing it down.

[LibertyandJusticeforAll]

The internet have providers who get you to the networks.. These networks are controlled in many ways by many networks since it was "created". That is OK, they sell that service they built it, they put lines to polls, under ground and to homes and business and governments.

When you have to PAY to much for someone and or they control everything you learn to live without it and as will the other companies who will then be broke.

The Internet is a globally distributed network comprising many voluntarily interconnected autonomous networks. It operates without a central governing body.

The internet is freedom for many and its a way to control that freedom sooner or later.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by bUU

That change already happened, and now has actually happened with regard to two ISPs.

In your previous post to a rhetorical question I asked you argued I do I have equal access Netflix competitors, one post later you are arguing I don't have equal access. Make up your mind as there is no cohesion to what you are posting.

Originally Posted by thecoalman

If I'm a heavy user of Netflix and I have too pay more to my ISP how is that a benefit to me other than equal access to Netflix competitors? LOL

if
if/
conjunction
conjunction: if
1.
introducing a conditional clause.
synonymsn (the) condition that, provided (that), providing (that), presuming (that), supposing (that), assuming (that), as long as, given that, in the event that

[bUU]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

In your previous post to a rhetorical question I asked you argued I do I have equal access Netflix competitors, one post later you are arguing I don't have equal access. Make up your mind as there is no cohesion to what you are posting.

Stop talking about more than one thing, then. If you want to talk about reality - i.e., there is no requirement whatsoever for net neutrality - then say so. If you want to talk about the future, when some kind of net neutrality (the kind proposed by the FCC) will be imposed, then say so. If you cannot keep the different threads straight, that's your problem.

And if you want to talk about a fantasy world where "information just wants to be free", you can say that too, and I'll post the standard ridicule of such out-of-touch nonsense.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by bUU

And if you want to talk about a fantasy world where "information just wants to be free",

It's free to the consumer on my site unless you want to consider viewing ads as paying for it , the ad revenue pays for the server and I put some money in my own pocket as well. This is a fairly common business model especially for smaller sites that depend on it as their only source of revenue which brings me back to the point I've been making.

If my server costs were to increase to maintain those speeds my visitors expect then I'm in postion of having to either seek additional revenue such as subscription service which would probably fail if a competing service with deep pockets was offering it "free" or I may just have to go offline.

With the consumer footing the bill for the bandwidth they use instead of the content provider and giving them equal access to all sites and service we avoid the issue of large companies leveraging bandwidth. I and millions of other sites are not put in that position.

bUU, your positions on this forum are mostly liberal, yes? You're in a very odd postion here of supporting big business and giving them what is potentially a very unfair advantage over small business.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

It's free to the consumer on my site unless you want to consider viewing ads as paying for it

So in other words, not free.

You also forget that the visitors to your website may have to incur costs to connect to the Internet. And so on.

Originally Posted by thecoalman

This is a fairly common business model especially for smaller sites that depend on it as their only source of revenue which brings me back to the point I've been making.

Yes, a fairly common business model, and one that has nothing to do with the specific cases where net neutrality won't prevail, which is the actual topic of this thread.

Originally Posted by thecoalman

If my server costs were to increase ... I may just have to go offline.

Not every business model is necessarily viable, especially those that have previously relied on shifting the heavy load of providing the service onto other companies who aren't getting value-based compensation attributable to the portion of the load they're carrying, associated with providing the service.

Originally Posted by thecoalman

bUU, your positions on this forum are mostly liberal, yes?

Actually, my positions on this forum are mostly a balance between liberal and conservative perspectives. There are a number of issues where the liberal perspective has a position of primacy - such as matters of economic injustice - but once basic humane decency has been served, I'm distinctly pro-business.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by bUU

...relied on shifting the heavy load of providing the service onto other companies who aren't getting value-based compensation attributable to the portion of the load they're carrying,

But again I'm not suggesting the ISP not be compensated but who is doing the compensating. The consumer whether they are paying the ISP a higher rate or paying Netflix a higher rate is still paying the costs. By billing the customer solely through the ISP and giving them equal access to all sites and services you are providing a more level playing field amongst the content providers.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

But again I'm not suggesting the ISP not be compensated but who is doing the compensating.

We're not just talking about the ISP. We're talking about the interconnecting network providers as well.

Originally Posted by thecoalman

The consumer whether they are paying the ISP a higher rate or paying Netflix a higher rate is still paying the costs.

Yet there is no way for the interconnecting network providers to get paid under your scenario. Furthermore, the ISP cannot charge a higher rate, because public pressure prevents them from metering service as thoroughly as your scenario would require.

Originally Posted by thecoalman

By billing the customer solely through the ISP and giving them equal access to all sites and services you are providing a more level playing field amongst the content providers.

The only way to make that viable is for government to ban the practice of unlimited service. Service providers cannot do that unilaterally, nor are they allowed to collude to make it happen, so government must step in and require metered service, and specify minimum proportions to keep the metering relevant.

And that still leaves the interconnecting networks unfairly uncompensated.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by bUU

Yet there is no way for the interconnecting network providers to get paid under your scenario.

If they can figure out how to charge the content provider who is one end then certainly they can figure out how to charge the consumer for it on the other end.

Furthermore, the ISP cannot charge a higher rate, because public pressure prevents them from metering service as thoroughly as your scenario would require.

Too bad. If they were forced to charge the consumer they have no choice.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

If they can figure out how to charge the content provider who is one end then certainly they can figure out how to charge the consumer for it on the other end.

I give up trying to explain this to you.

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Too bad.

Too bad that it means you don't get your way, perhaps.