Google Fiber and various other FTTH services disprove the "omg it costs a lot" theory. This is purely a money grab by a monopoly, sanctioned by the FCC because.. the people doing the money grab own the FCC. It helps to keep in mind that several of the parties involved in this grab *HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID TO EXPAND THEIR NETWORKS BY THE PUBLIC, AND HAVE FAILED TO DO SO*. I'm not really sure how anyone could view this whole thing as fair, honest or even legal. I also fully expect the FCC to sign off on it as the receipt says "Paid by Verizon." Nick
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> wrote: > On 10/05/2014 22:34, Randy Bush wrote: > > imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay > > person. <http://vihart.com/net-neutrality-in-the-us-now-what/>. my > > friends in last mile providers disagree. i take that as a good sign. > > Vi's analogy is wrong on a subtle but important point. In the analogy, the > delivery company needs to get a bunch of new trucks to handle the delivery > but as the customer is paying for each delivery instances, the delivery > company's costs are covered by increased end-user charges. > > In the net neutrality debate, the last mile service providers are in a > position where they need to upgrade their access networks, but the end-user > pricing is not necessarily keeping pace. > > There are lot of ways to argue this point, depending on whether you're the > user, the access provider or the content provider. > > From a financial point of view, the content providers will say that access > providers need to charge their end users in a way which reflects their > usage requirements because let's face it, it's the users that are pulling > the traffic - they're not sending traffic to arbitrary IP addresses just > for the fun of it. The end users will say that they're only going to pay > market rate for their services, and they won't care whether this covers > their costs or not. The access providers will say that they're only > upgrading to deal with the additional requirements of the larger content > providers, particularly the CDNs and the video streaming services, and that > the going market rate doesn't allow them to charge the end users more. > Besides, it's a whole pile easier to chase a small number of companies for > a large amount of money than it is to chase a large number of customer for > a small amount of money. Even better, if you chase the the content sources > for cash, you can do this without increasing customer prices which means > you can stay more competitive in the sales market. So from a business > perspective it makes lots of sense to deprioritise the large companies that > don't pay in favour of the ones that do. Those who pay get better service > for their customers; seems fair, right? > > From the proverbial helicopter viewpoint, we are walking towards a > situation where the short-term business actions of the individual companies > involved in the industry is going to lead towards customers being hurt and > this means that the likely long-term outcome is more regulation and > legislative control imposed on the industry. It is another tragedy of the > commons. > > Nick > > >
