Oh, itâs not that baâ[please insert 25¢ for another kilobyte of data]
Your use of the âdouble-dippingâ term is still too kind to the ISPâs. Thereâs already double-dipping going on. You, the user, pay for your bandwidth. Netflix also already pays for its bandwidth. So in a sense even a neutral net double-dips, charging both ends of the pipe. (Contrast this with the old-school âcaller paysâ model of telephony, which the carriers successfully broke with the advent of cell phones.)
What Comcast now argues is that Netflix doesnât pay enough - because they pay their ISP, rather than Comcast directly, and the other ISP doesnât pay Comcast enough in the peering and transfer agreements. Thatâs an attempt to triple dip: now in addition to charging both ends of the pipe for the data, Comcast wants to charge the server end again because itâs not on their network segment. (And then, by extension, even if it is on their network segment, well, because they can.)
Next comes the quadruple-dip: telling the end user that Netflix is a âpremium serviceâ and charging the end user for the privilege of streaming the bits that heâs already paying for, because the server operator has also been charged for the privilege of streaming the bits he is already paying for.
Al least two of these four charges (user bandwidth, server bandwidth, server premium access fees, user premium service fees) are nothing more than monopoly rent. And the cable internet providers own a monopoly in most areas of the country. (I canât get copper or fibre DSL: my home phone has a wireless terminal, and the copper to my house is no longer maintained. So for me itâs Time Warner or wireless. Terrestrial wireless is many times the cost, and satellite is even worse.)
As you correctly point out, the providers enjoy a monopoly because of the priceless government subsidy that gives them access to their rights of way. The price for that access should be public service.
At this point, I think the only effective option would be to coordinate mass piracy and refuse to pay for all digital content.
The only free choice is refusal to pay
Spectators of Suicide - Manic Street Preachers
Having just paid for Manic Street Preachers songs earlier today might mean that I am being a hypocrite though.
When Facebook bought out Oculus, the response was swift & vicious: âFUCK OCULUSâ cried the masses.
FCC guts our ârightâ to a free and open internet (and goddamnit someone should make it a right), and the response is angry, but in a far more subdued way. This seems like a much more pressing issue. What really bums me out though is that I have no idea how I, as an individual, am supposed to fight this.
Torrent.
Make sure you and everybody you know and everybody they know contact their representatives. Itâs not much, but itâs not nothing.
Some of us do not have representatives.
About the closest thing here in Oxford, UK, are Bernie Sanders brother and nephew.
I feel like we should be coordinating another internet blackout a la SOPA. Fucking ISPs wouldnât have a product to sell were it not for the content providers they continually try to screw harder and harder.
First: Fuck Comcast.
Just moved into a new place and arranged to have internet installed.
(Somewhat Local Cable Guy standing outside): Hey, see this coax coming into your house? Your place is pre-installed for Comcast. I donât think Iâm allowed toâŚ
(Me with wire cutter standing outside):
(Somewhat Local Cable Guy): Iâll just go run a new wire from the poleâŚ
As I said before, Fuck Comcast repeatedly. Once I heard about the FCCâs new âScrew JQ Publicâ plan, I wondered why they ever bothered with the recently-lost court case. Did the corporate overlords go out for lunch on the day that case was instantiated, or what?
That makes about as much sense as a protest strategy as looting neighborhood corner shops in order to protest against the banks. Unless youâre currently purchasing all you digital content directly from your ISP, in which case thatâs like burning down farms to protest your local grocery chainâŚ
I disagree. The FCC is wholly owned by the RIAA and MPAA and Big Content. Nuke them from orbit, and we might have a chance of getting a chairperson who wasnât/isnât about to be one of their lobbyists.
Itâs important to remember this isnât a done deal yet. If you are in the US, definitely make some noise: call the FCC, call your representative and your senator.
But not all ISPs are created equal either. Wherever you are, you can call your ISPâs management and demand to know their position on net neutrality, and make it clear you will take your business elsewhere depending on the answer. Other ISPs will follow Comcastâs lead if they think they can get away with it, but if they can be convinced NOT to follow that lead, Comcast may eventually be the one forced to back away from its position.
What are the Pros and Cons of having the members of a regulatory body populated by the lobbyists of the industry they regulate?
Whether thatâs a fair characterization or not is irrelevant, as in this case itâs a move that benefits ISPs, not content creators. In fact, if anything it harms them, as any content distributor not owned by the ISP potentially has a new barrier to entry, which results in fewer channels of content delivery, i.e. fewer revenue streams. Plus weâre also talking about all the content on the web that has nothing to do with the large media companies that benefit from the RIAA and MPAA - all the apps and data services, all the games, not to mention all the indie movies and music, etc.
Even if your characterization was entirely correct, unless your media consumption was made up only of Britney Spears and Spider-Man movies, etc., youâd eventually end up adding additional injury to content creators already being negatively impacted by the lack of net neutrality and encouraging a net culture that was extremely hostile to anyone outside those big media conglomerates.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
