Yes as the poster above notes, that Netflix "dominates 30% of peak traffic" (a metric usually used by the same crowd I'm talking about in the article) is a talking point used to somehow suggest Netflix isn't playing fair or is taking up more than their fair share of capacity. Except this is traffic generated by users demanding to use Netflix over connections both sides already pay for. It's also part of the "Netflix is a bogeyman" narrative.
And if you get enough people that don't know any better to accept this is all Netflix's fault, you "win" the discourse war by effectively modifying truth. Or at least muddying the water enough so that it becomes "debatable" over whether Netflix is a villain.
"Why don't we just punish those hypothetical bad things when they actually if and when they come to pass?"
They are coming to pass.
I consider AT&T's sponsored data a "bad thing" and a horrible precedent in that it allows big companies to gain previously unobtainable leverage over smaller operators. And yet here we are with the FCC simply considering it a "creative" pricing model because it's just ambiguous enough to hide the anti-competitive intent below a layer of PR speak.
You're basically injecting a network gatekeeper right in the middle of a relatively healthy ecosystem, where they're suddenly letting companies with the deepest pockets obtain priority marketing and other treatment over small companies. This automatically disadvantages startups, nonprofits, or other smaller ventures and unnecessarily distorts the entire playing field.
"they truly are a leader of the broadband industry."Sometimes. They're pretty great on the engineering front when it comes to DNS security or IPV6 upgrades. But when it comes to customer service they're undeniably the worst not only in the telecom industry -- but according to rankings like the ACSI -- across ALL industries.
Trying to get even basic screw ups fixed can often wind up as a Kafka-esque multi-month nightmare. That's not exactly what I'd call leadership.
That's what I worry about. I think Google eventually sees a management shift and somebody decides to sell this effort on the cheap. Until then though, the pressure it's placing on ISPs is great, and hopefully Google would sell it to somebody with similar goals.
Still, they're at least educating cities on how to get out of their own way, even if the end result isn't exactly curing the digital divide.
Yes, they've been doing this kind of nonsense for YEARS now. That includes push pollsters, who'll call and fill voters heads with all manner of nonsense. I saw one push pollster hired by Cox and AT&T in the Southwest informing locals that if they approved a local municipal broadband operation, the government would attempt to ration their TV viewing AND block their access to religious programming.
I remember AT&T and Comcast used very similar tactics in St. Charles and those other Illinois communities that were considering it.
"Missed in the article, the Apple exclusiveness will end just before the end of the next season of Game of Thrones"
HBO Now launches just ahead of "Game of Thrones" newest season. From there it's a three month exclusive. How is that "the Apple exclusiveness will end just before the end of the next season of Game of Thrones"?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a net neutrality issue
"The core component of net neutrality is that everyone's packets should be treated the same. That's where it starts and ends."
You're going to find that's too narrow of a definition as the conversation evolves and carriers get increasingly clever. By that logic, interconnection won't really be part of the conversation either, since all packets are being treated the same -- Verizon and friends are just demanding payment out at the edge of the network.
Just because they use different network-related mechanisms to reach the same goals doesn't somehow mean it's not part of the same conversation.