I think we're going to see a lot more of this mudslinging in the future if net neutrality falls apart:
- Big ISP demands cash from Big Website in return for not throttling their traffic
- Big Website refuses, then tells their customers who use Big ISP that their service sucks because Big ISP sucks
- Big ISP complains
Stop screaming when I stomp you.
People can hear you.
...4. Google buys Netflix
...5. Google stomps Verizon
...6. Verizon squeals then backs off
...7. Google buys Verizon
The big ISP profits, because that's the way the cards are now stacked.
I just hope Netflix doesn't backdown. I love that someone is finally putting some pressure on Verizon, et al.
Big ISPs thrive because their slimy business practices are poorly understood. Nothing puts net neutrality in terms everyday people can understand like a slow Netflix connection.
We pay more than almost any other country for internet access, it's about time ISPs to provide access that reflects what we spend.
So Verizon objects to the term crowded, because their network is not actually congested, they're just throttling bandwidth to bully Netflix into paying them for peering, is that what's going on here?
Oh, Netflix already agreed to pay the ransom, I guess their infrastructure actually is that shitty then.
...8. Google runs out of companies to buy
...9. Google buys Google; forms Googleplex
...10. Buying loop paradox crashes World Economy
...11. Apple buys Earth
...12. Apple launches iPlanet
...13. Apple - Google merger "approved"
...14. Siri goes sentient
Then Google scans all your traffic, so as to optimize your advertising experience.
11 . godzilla steps on bambi
or , is that 16 ?? or 8 ??
I don't trust Netflix in the Net Neutrality debate. I think all established million and billion dollar internet companies stand to benefit from bandwidth monopolies and under the table dealings and other cable company fuckery. It is the small companies and future companies and unpopular voices who will get fucked if we lose Net Neutrality.
Netflix has a market share and an infrastructure. If they can lock their future competitors out of faster network access, that seems awfully convenient for them. Netflix can just pass along the cost of a "fast lane" to you. Would you rather pay for something cheaper or something that can deliver HD content without buffering that is slightly more expensive? What if that exclusive bandwidth deal also comes with access to exclusive Warner owned content?
I think it is fair to assume companies like Netflix and Google have already planned in advance and developed business strategies for a world where different levels of internet bandwidth speeds can be purchased as a way to stand out from competition. What if they've crunched the numbers, and actually think the end of Net Neutrality would be better for profits?
15 Skynet. duh!
Actually, Netflix did pay Verizon.
So it is more like:
1 Netflix offers free fat data pipes to Verizon locations all across the country so Verizon gets a free, easy way for Verizon's customers to get the data they paid Verizon to deliver.
2 Verizon says no, and, instead, throttles Netflix, having decided that Verizon's paying customers are not customers, but hostages to be held ransom.
3 Netflix pays the ransom, and provides free fat data pipes to Verizon along with a hefty chunk of ransom money to Verizon, but Verizon doesn't hold up it's end of hostage the deal.
4 Netflix sets up a system to note to Netflix customers when Verizon is at fault for bad connections.
5 Verizon goes ape shit for being called out. First rule of Verizon hostage ransom deals, you aren't allowed to talk about Verizon hostage ransom deals.
I'd love for something like this to go to court. The discovery process would surely turn up all kinds of goodies. And Verizon employees taking the stand in court would be great entertainment. I'm sure all Netflix needs to say is "take us to court" and see Verizon back down... though still not improve service or remove throttling.
While I think it's good to have a healthy skepticism of Netflix here, I feel like my desires as a consumer and their desires as a merchant are well aligned. They want to stream HD movies and TV shows right to my home at a fast speed (because this makes their product competitive with traditional cable TV), and I want that, too.
Google falls into the same camp. They want to have reliable streams for their YouTube videos, and me, too! I want the product these guys are selling, I want to pay for it with my monthly fees and add views, they are giving me something I desire.
What none of us want is Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon choking the network speed of Netflix's or Google's stream.
So it doesn't need to be a strong alliance, but here, we are aligned. What's good for them is good for me. It might not be good for the people who own the wires, but they should be regulated as a common carrier and a utility anyway, since they are providing an essential service.
The interesting here is that there is no actual debate. Net neutrality, currently, does not exist.
As it stands, there's a bunch of ISP's all of who are careful not to step into each other's "territory" like drug cartels, and they can do what they want.
Any semblance of a debate is intended to keep people from taking action, thinking that there's still room for discussion and compromises. The actual debate can only happen between the public and the FCC.
Google is already doing it, full speed ahead.
I don't actually understand it though; youtube refuses to buffer videos, then pops up something that claims my ISP is busy during whatever hours.
But I switch to some other video site at HD and everything runs fine. I don't really get it.
/16. Matrix starts inside Skynet
/17. Humanoid AIs populate pre-civilization simulation
/18. Goto 1