because they build their data centers on top of these huge internet trunks and plug directly into it. Here in my neck of the woods in Northern VA there is a major junction of internet trunk lines in Ashburn, VA... a community that 20 years ago was more known as cow country.
And oh if only it was cow country still, my wife would be much happier living here
As it is it's the closest "non-northern virginia" area that I could put her in that was not an hour outside of civilization.
They will need to just charge everyone more for their service because they couldn't charge NetFlix users specifically for the increased peer contract with Level 3.
And I would much rather have them raising costs on all those trying to get access, or level 3 finding out that they can't keep charging the Comcasts of the world the extra costs they want and stay in business...and having my internet connection work in a neutral fashion as it primarily has been...as opposed to those costs still generally coming back and hitting me in some fashion anyways AND screwing with my connection in ways that makes the market of what sites and services I use far less "free".
No, I don't believe that. Most ISPs would be thrilled to sell you internet that didn't support NetFlix because they would have a high expectation that your actual usage would be well below what a NetFlix user would use.
Exactly. And I'm sure most ISP's would be happy to just not support Netflix at all, because it'd help their network capacity out and they wouldn't really have to worry much about losing customers, because in many cases those customers would have no, or EXTREMELY few, alternatives if they wanted internet access.
NetFlix uses over a quarter of the entire internet bandwidth. What happens when the number grows to 30%, or more? Net Neutrality is an endorsement of a monopoly on bandwidth by the big data providers like NetFlix and Youtube. Look at it this way, if you follow Net Neutrality, then as you throttle all traffic equally then NetFlix will always have the lions share of the internet, and the start-ups will be stuck subdividing whatever remains.
Netflix and Youtube only have that monopoly because people are actually choosing to use their services. They're not getting those monopolies by falsely manufacturing it by simply paying big money to get it...they're getting it because people are USING it. Yes, a startup would have to compete with that in either case. However, in the case of net neutrality, they're fighting on an even playing field. If people start moving from NetFlix to [Random Streaming Movie/TV Service we'll call "X"], then Netflix's total claim on the bandwidth will end up dropping and the new services will start growing because of USAGE. However, under the other scenario, Netflix, via deals with the carriers, has a leg up on an uneven playing field because it's service is coming to you faster, giving you better quality video and less buffering, than service X making it harder for service X to compete. And even if server X manages to take away some of the usage base of Netflix, it's still stuck in the slow lane because it doesn't have the financial bucks to shell out for the "fast lane" like Netflix does. This artificially maintains Netflix's control on that ever increasing portion of internet usage as opposed to allowing actual end user usage to dictate that.
Which I haven't been doing any more than the net neutrality side has been screaming "CORPORATIONS BAD!!"
I appreciated your most recent post I'm currently responding to actually giving a tangible way you think the government would cause an issue with net neutrality. But for the most part, prior to that, I had seen VERY little evidence from anyone complaining about the threats of the government "regulating" the internet of the government actually taking wrongful action regarding the internet or expressing their desire for such action.
Am I going "Corporations bad"? Yes. I've also in this thread and others been providing actual hard evidence of instances where corporations have done, or express a desire to do, things that are contradictory to net neutrality standards.
No, it isn't clear. Imaginary clarity stems from the over simplification of the issue.
Yes. It is clear. When a telecom company that offers phone service outright blocks the leading VoIP service from its network that's a clear example of violating net neutrality principles. When a telecom company throttles it's users speeds and ability to use peer to peer services and lies to their customers about it at first, that's a clear example of violating net neutrlaity principles. When a telecom company hijacks a persons searches through google or bing or yahoo and instead routes it through their own search engine with their own sponsored ads on it, that's a clear example of violating net neutrality principles. When a telecom company allows their users to use their data to watch youtube, but doesn't allow them to use it to watch any other video service, that's a clear example of violating net neutrality principles. When a telecom company is actively talking about potentially implimenting a "fast lane" method of service, that's a clear example of a proposed desire to violate net neutrlaity principles. When a telecom company is filing appeals to give them the ability to throttle or stop traffic to sites and services for reasons other than significant network capacity issues, that's a clear desire to violate net neutrality principles. When a telecom outright blocks access to a particular website from it's useres, that's a clear example of a violation of net neutrality issues.
That's not "imaginary clarity". Those are rock solid, factual occurences that are clear examples of telecom companies violating, or advocating for their ability to violate, net neutrality principles. Those all happened for a whole variety of reasons, and you may even agree with some of their reasons for doing it, but that doesn't change the fact they are violations of those principles that people feel are important.
What? Maybe you haven't been following this debate? The issue at hand is that Net Neutrality is the government stepping into a low regulation environment. By definition I have no examples of something the government is only proposing it will do.
Exactly. There's a FEAR the government may over step, but there's no evidence related to any previous actions they've done regarding the internet to suggest they WILL overstep. There's also FEAR that the telecoms will continue to go against net neutrality principles, but with them there is clear evidence of them doing such in the past and actions indicating they want to in the future.