Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
On 4/26/2014 3:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
This is absolutely false. Regulating monopolies CAN protect monopolies, but that’s not always the outcome.
Monopolies absolutely can persist without regulation. Except in the most highly dense population areas, there is not a sufficient market to support the deployment of more than one copy of a given media type to that population. As a result, there is, in most places, a natural monopoly in each media type, whether that’s electrical, water, cable, twisted pair, fiber, etc.
Sounds like the market at work, not monopoly power......I've never heard the term "monopoly" used where the market contains all the players that want to play. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
What are any of you talking about? Have you even bothered to read for example the wikipedia article on "monopoly" or are you so solipsistic that you just make up the entire universe in your head? Do you also pontificate on quantum physics and neurosurgery when the urge strikes you??? Sorry but this discussion is so, uneducated, usage of terms which are not as they are defined in the English or any other language, etc. <BOLD> But what do you think about the FCC's efforts in regard to "net neutrality"? </BOLD> Do you agree with CNBC's assessment that the internet has a "fast lane" and up until now FCC regulations prevented consumers and content providers from using it under the guise of "net neutrality". Do you believe there's anything at stake here for you beyond just nattering about your own personal and peculiar notion of what a "monopoly" is? Does that really matter to any of this? I almost believe that this entire flame war on the definition of monopoly is being fanned by sockpuppets whose job it is to make sure no one here talks about net neutrality in any effective or at least meaningful way. http://www.cnbc.com/id/101607254 F.C.C., in 'Net Neutrality' Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a content company is willing to pay for it, according to people briefed on the proposals. ... Would someone please define this "fast lane" for me? That would be a really good start. Preferably the managers of that fast lane because they surely must be on this list...no? P.S. CNBC is owned by Comcast (or more specifically NBC Universal, which is owned by Comcast.) -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
The "Fast Lane" perhaps starts as not counting traffic against metered byte caps, similar to what ATT did on their mobile network. If the content/service provider is willing to pay the provider, then the users may not pay overage fees or get nasty letters anymore when they exceed data caps. The second and more contentious part of it is using QoS to guarantee the content/service provider's traffic is delivered, at the expense of traffic from those who aren't paying. So if Netflix decides to pay and Amazon Prime doesn't, well Netflix will make it to your house and Prime might not. Right now everyone's traffic gets dropped equally. :) (Well more Netflix because there is a lot more of it). -Phil (all opinions are my personal opinions) On 4/27/14, 1:44 PM, "Barry Shein" <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
What are any of you talking about? Have you even bothered to read for example the wikipedia article on "monopoly" or are you so solipsistic that you just make up the entire universe in your head? Do you also pontificate on quantum physics and neurosurgery when the urge strikes you???
Sorry but this discussion is so, uneducated, usage of terms which are not as they are defined in the English or any other language, etc.
<BOLD>
But what do you think about the FCC's efforts in regard to "net neutrality"?
</BOLD>
Do you agree with CNBC's assessment that the internet has a "fast lane" and up until now FCC regulations prevented consumers and content providers from using it under the guise of "net neutrality".
Do you believe there's anything at stake here for you beyond just nattering about your own personal and peculiar notion of what a "monopoly" is? Does that really matter to any of this?
I almost believe that this entire flame war on the definition of monopoly is being fanned by sockpuppets whose job it is to make sure no one here talks about net neutrality in any effective or at least meaningful way.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101607254
F.C.C., in 'Net Neutrality' Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane
The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a content company is willing to pay for it, according to people briefed on the proposals.
...
Would someone please define this "fast lane" for me? That would be a really good start. Preferably the managers of that fast lane because they surely must be on this list...no?
P.S. CNBC is owned by Comcast (or more specifically NBC Universal, which is owned by Comcast.)
-- -Barry Shein
The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Everyone interested in how this plays out today, can read Bill Norton's Internet Peering book. While some say situations "didn't happen this way or it happened that way" doesn't really matter. What is clear and matters is the tactics/leverage backbones and networks use against each other in trading traffic are very real and explained well. These situations are one of the reasons I helped Coresite (AKA old CRGwest) build Any2 Peering. Amazon now has a kindle edition of the latest for just $10. Paper version is like $50-$100. The 2014 Internet Peering Playbook: Connecting to the Core of the Internet [Kindle Edition] William B. Norton (Author). Bob Evans CTO Fiber Internet Center Fiber International MTI Corporation
The "Fast Lane" perhaps starts as not counting traffic against metered byte caps, similar to what ATT did on their mobile network. If the content/service provider is willing to pay the provider, then the users may not pay overage fees or get nasty letters anymore when they exceed data caps. The second and more contentious part of it is using QoS to guarantee the content/service provider's traffic is delivered, at the expense of traffic from those who aren't paying. So if Netflix decides to pay and Amazon Prime doesn't, well Netflix will make it to your house and Prime might not. Right now everyone's traffic gets dropped equally. :) (Well more Netflix because there is a lot more of it).
-Phil (all opinions are my personal opinions)
On 4/27/14, 1:44 PM, "Barry Shein" <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
What are any of you talking about? Have you even bothered to read for example the wikipedia article on "monopoly" or are you so solipsistic that you just make up the entire universe in your head? Do you also pontificate on quantum physics and neurosurgery when the urge strikes you???
Sorry but this discussion is so, uneducated, usage of terms which are not as they are defined in the English or any other language, etc.
<BOLD>
But what do you think about the FCC's efforts in regard to "net neutrality"?
</BOLD>
Do you agree with CNBC's assessment that the internet has a "fast lane" and up until now FCC regulations prevented consumers and content providers from using it under the guise of "net neutrality".
Do you believe there's anything at stake here for you beyond just nattering about your own personal and peculiar notion of what a "monopoly" is? Does that really matter to any of this?
I almost believe that this entire flame war on the definition of monopoly is being fanned by sockpuppets whose job it is to make sure no one here talks about net neutrality in any effective or at least meaningful way.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101607254
F.C.C., in 'Net Neutrality' Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane
The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a content company is willing to pay for it, according to people briefed on the proposals.
...
Would someone please define this "fast lane" for me? That would be a really good start. Preferably the managers of that fast lane because they surely must be on this list...no?
P.S. CNBC is owned by Comcast (or more specifically NBC Universal, which is owned by Comcast.)
-- -Barry Shein
The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Well, that's a metaphorical use of "fast lane" which is fine but I think the PR spin by CNBC was to actually give listeners the impression that they'd get faster service (e.g., on streaming video) now that this nasty FCC rule was out of the way. On April 27, 2014 at 14:07 bedard.phil@gmail.com (Phil Bedard) wrote:
The "Fast Lane" perhaps starts as not counting traffic against metered byte caps, similar to what ATT did on their mobile network. If the content/service provider is willing to pay the provider, then the users may not pay overage fees or get nasty letters anymore when they exceed data caps. The second and more contentious part of it is using QoS to guarantee the content/service provider's traffic is delivered, at the expense of traffic from those who aren't paying. So if Netflix decides to pay and Amazon Prime doesn't, well Netflix will make it to your house and Prime might not. Right now everyone's traffic gets dropped equally. :) (Well more Netflix because there is a lot more of it).
-Phil (all opinions are my personal opinions)
On 4/27/14, 1:44 PM, "Barry Shein" <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
What are any of you talking about? Have you even bothered to read for example the wikipedia article on "monopoly" or are you so solipsistic that you just make up the entire universe in your head? Do you also pontificate on quantum physics and neurosurgery when the urge strikes you???
Sorry but this discussion is so, uneducated, usage of terms which are not as they are defined in the English or any other language, etc.
<BOLD>
But what do you think about the FCC's efforts in regard to "net neutrality"?
</BOLD>
Do you agree with CNBC's assessment that the internet has a "fast lane" and up until now FCC regulations prevented consumers and content providers from using it under the guise of "net neutrality".
Do you believe there's anything at stake here for you beyond just nattering about your own personal and peculiar notion of what a "monopoly" is? Does that really matter to any of this?
I almost believe that this entire flame war on the definition of monopoly is being fanned by sockpuppets whose job it is to make sure no one here talks about net neutrality in any effective or at least meaningful way.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101607254
F.C.C., in 'Net Neutrality' Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane
The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a content company is willing to pay for it, according to people briefed on the proposals.
...
Would someone please define this "fast lane" for me? That would be a really good start. Preferably the managers of that fast lane because they surely must be on this list...no?
P.S. CNBC is owned by Comcast (or more specifically NBC Universal, which is owned by Comcast.)
-- -Barry Shein
The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
-- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
On Apr 26, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/26/2014 3:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
This is absolutely false. Regulating monopolies CAN protect monopolies, but that’s not always the outcome.
Monopolies absolutely can persist without regulation. Except in the most highly dense population areas, there is not a sufficient market to support the deployment of more than one copy of a given media type to that population. As a result, there is, in most places, a natural monopoly in each media type, whether that’s electrical, water, cable, twisted pair, fiber, etc.
Sounds like the market at work, not monopoly power......I've never heard the term "monopoly" used where the market contains all the players that want to play.
It doesn’t. What it contains is all the players that can afford to play. When the number of players that can afford to play==1 that’s pretty much the definition of monopoly. If you want to try and pervert the term to meet your previous (bizarre) claims, then I’m sure you can do enough dancing around the dictionary to eventually arrive at your chosen destination. However, Patrick and I are more concerned with the actual outcome for consumers (including ourselves) than with the sophistry required to engage in the discussion you appear to want to have. Owen
If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they should lose common carrier protections. -Dan
And Carterphone should apply to cellular networks, but I am not holding my breath. Owen On Apr 27, 2014, at 6:59 PM, goemon@anime.net wrote:
If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they should lose common carrier protections.
-Dan
participants (6)
-
Barry Shein -
Bob Evans -
goemon＠anime.net -
Larry Sheldon -
Owen DeLong -
Phil Bedard