You are still putting the power to pick winners and losers in the hands of the ISP. Those added costs Amazon and Google and Microsoft pay will be passed to the consumer and it will be very difficult for competition to appear that puts downward pressure on prices.
Ah, and I assume that AWS of Google or Microsoft will host them for free, out of the goodness of their hearts?
Or do you think that PBS and NPR are going to have to pony up to pay them in order to have their streaming not get throttled?
This is the point. Under your proposal, everything will cost more, as any free or service cheap enough to give away for free will have a new, extra cost associated with it in order to not be throttled.
This will not just kill pretty much any content provider start-up, but it will also end up costing you (and me) more money for the privilege of having access to less content.
This is factually inaccurate. Most of internet users in the states have 2 or more broadband providers, plus cell and satellite options.
I can see that your contention that Amazon will pay ISPs to block Alibaba is absurd and unsupported.
You realize PBS already pays Amazon to host their content, right?
Why wouldn’t they? Amazon can just have a contract with Comcast to only allow Amazon traffic. That would actually make a lot of business sense for Amazon. For the users, not so much.
You ever go to a place that serves only Coke products or only Pepsi products? How do you think that happens? Luckily, people have many choices on where to get their soft drink needs fulfilled. Choices for ISP? Not so much.
I mean you keep repeating this and the answer stays the same. What you describe has never happened and would be illegal.
Those places buy products from Coke or Pepsi and get a discount for buying exclusively from them. What does Comcast buy from Alibaba? Obviously nothing. Once again your analogy completely misses the mark.
What makes this illegal?
Most but far from all (IIRC 33% only have one choice). Further, as someone who lives in an area with two choices (RCN and Comcast) I can tell you that the competition is near non-existent.
I would allege collusion but I have no proof. More likely it is a wink and a nod because both know a price war costs both of them money so neither of them do it.
Cell and satellite are so far removed from comparable to cable ISP as to not count as competition. Like comparing a Yugo to a Ferrari and suggesting the Yugo is a meaningful competitor to Ferrari.
For Amazon, that is enough competition. We see this all the time with TV providers and networks. They jaw and argue about cost but in the end they always work something out.
It’s complicated, and amazon does deliver most of PBS interactive video streaming content, but they still have a website and other content that needs to either be moved to one of the big players, or deal with paying to keep it from being throttled as well.
And you are still missing the point. If AWS is paying a surcharge to deliver content to subscribers, then they are going to pass that cost on to their customer, PBS, making it harder for them to continue to provide free content for the community.
Do you not accept that this will increase costs and decrease service? If not, why exactly do you think so? What services will become cheaper? What services will become better? Will any services become both?
I don’t think that would cover Comcast having a contract with Amazon to be the only on-line retailer available to Comcast end-users.
His video teleconferencing won’t suffer from too much latency :rolleyes:
They work things out by passing the price onto the consumer.
When ESPN and time warner have a fight, and ESPN demands more money in order for time warner to keep carrying it, who do you think actually loses in that situation?
It’s not complicated and PBS hosts their website on AWS as well. Any website worth its salt is hosting their content on a CDN. No start up today would do otherwise and,
therefore, would never have to worry about their content being throttled.
What happened with Comcast and Netflix is that Netflix paid to have direct connections with Comcast’s network. That’s good for everyone involved. Traffic on the internet backbone is reduced and Netflix users get better speeds. We don’t have any financial details, but it doesn’t seem like it was a significant cost to Netflix. Really, Comcast’s actions appear to have been a stick to get Netflix to work with them. AFAIK there hasn’t been a fee increase to Netflix users.
A given ISP and AWS have a symbiotic relationship. Both have the power to do major harm to each other. It’s a mutually assured destruction situation which will result in a mutually agreeable resolution.
You can think what you like but as the cite says it’s clearly illegal.
If they are able to do that it means ESPN is taking that money and creating content people want to watch. That is a net win for consumers.
And I disagree. I do agree that you think it is illegal.
Again, you seem to think being hosted on AWS would prevent your site from being throttled if you don’t pay a fee. This is incorrect.
Maybe they are hosted on AWS, as well, I was not, and am still not able to find anything on hosting other than “most of their PBS interactive” streaming, but I’ll take your word on that.
But that still changes nothing. Unless you are saying that Amazon is going to pay a flat rate to all the ISPs, and all their traffic will be treated the same, there are going to be different tiers of service you can buy from AWS as well, where the more you pay, the less you get throttled.
I assume that very few people are actually running their own servers anymore, which is actually kind of sad, but there were, 5 years ago, when I was setting up my business website, a million different hosts to deliver my content. Some had no frills and just offered you web space, some gave you email as well, some had wordpress plugins built in, point is, there were many options, and you could pay for more frills or save by having fewer. Without net neutrality, those web hosting packages will also include the QoS of packets, and you will have yet another metric to pay for. Either that, or most of those CDN’s will go out of business, leaving only the big guys left to dominate the market.
I do not see less choice at a higher price as being a benefit to the consumer, but this is what we will end up with.
Yeah, that was two companies improving their infrastructure, not a bad idea, but not something that came about due to either the presence of, or lack of net neutrality.
Their symbiosis is to spend as little to get as much as possible from the consumer. I have no doubt that the big ISPs and the big CDNs will be just fine.
The losers will be any small ISP’s that have tried to stay afloat, and small CDN’s that haven’t been acquired yet, and the consumer, who will be paying a higher price to have access to less content.