# Would a ruling against Net Neutrality NOT have foretold a world of multiple, parallel internets? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 8, 2015, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490 "2015-03-08T01:32:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2015, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/41 "2015-03-14T20:30:46Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Cable’s not a good example for one main reason - it’s through proprietary networks, so there’s no contention for bandwidth or anything like that. I’m not sure what you mean by proprietary here. Cable television is transmitted over standard hardware with standard encodings. That’s why you can hook up any TV to it and it works. And you are incorrect about there being no contention for bandwidth. Cables can only carry a finite amount of data, which translates to X channels at SD, or Y channels at HD, or some combination. > [@](#): > > The whole issue of net neutrality is that your ISP doesn’t get to interfere or editorialize and decide that they prefer their customers to Sony’s gaming platform so they throttle back the Xbox Live connections to the point where they’re nearly unusable, and we’ll set Sony up with the lowest latency and highest bandwidth we can, in hopes of driving business toward Sony and away from Microsoft. This is always framed as the ISP meddling, but why isn’t this just a problem of false advertising? If my ISP is up front about the fact that I’ll get a different level of service for different things and I agree to that, then it’s not interference or editorializing, it’s just a particular service package. I see that there’s potential for abuse here, but do you not also see that there’s a potential for better product? I’d _love_ there to be an internet plan that had super-fast service for things that I care about and throttled the ones I don’t. Requiring that all bits be treated the same means that services like video delivery will continue to use vast amounts of bandwidth, because with sufficient buffering, video streaming can deal with relatively unresponsive networks, while things with higher real-time requirements will continue to have issues because they can’t get the kind of prioritization they require to really shine. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/42 "2015-03-17T16:46:14Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean by proprietary here. Cable television is transmitted over standard hardware with standard encodings. That’s why you can hook up any TV to it and it works. And you are incorrect about there being no contention for bandwidth. Cables can only carry a finite amount of data, which translates to X channels at SD, or Y channels at HD, or some combination. I meant more that if you’re getting cable from say, Comcast, that your bandwidth isn’t being shared with a bunch of non-Comcast users on a bunch of non-Comcast programming, which isn’t the case on the wider internet. If I’m watching HBO on my cable TV, it’s coming from HBO to Comcast, and then to me, on Comcast’s network. If I’m streaming it on HBO GO, it’s going from HBO, through their ISP to my ISP, and there may be intermediate carriers in between. What’s to stop one of those intermediate carriers from prioritizing the traffic THEY like over HBO? I’m not paying them, I’m paying my ISP and HBO, but those assholes in the middle could potentially impact my experience by prioritizing their own traffic over mine. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/43 "2015-03-17T19:13:26Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Which was only allowed to happen after[trust busting regulations](http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/corporate-monopolies/government_history.html) helped to break up the monopolies. This is exactly the sort of thing that is being suggested by the net neutrality rules. Interestingly enough your link doesn’t mention if the regulation was effective. > [@](#): > > Why? If net neutrality rules aren’t in place, than the only viable competition will be those who have the ability to make a deal with the ISP’s, which can squash any new or innovative idea that they find is contrary to their business interests. I don’t thik that Netflix was in favour of NN out of the goodness of their hearts. With only so much bandwidth available at any certain time it’s easy to see them asking the FCC to block any new “high use” companies entering a market “until they would not create a problem”. That’s what I would do if I were Johnny Netflix. > [@](#): > > Except when they don’t as with the examples above. The problem is that people get the idea that the only constraints on free trade come from the government, when in fact the vast majority are produced within the market world itself. Net Neutrality is really a government regulation whose sole purpose is to prevent a defacto and much more harmful corporate regulation. How are they going to show that they actually solved a problem or even prevented it? > [@](#): > > Generally I prefer government in charge rather than the corporations, since the primary goal of the government is to keep Americans happy so they can be reelected, Most of the regulators are not in electable positions. As a politician your job is to get reelected not to make people happy. I can simply convince them that I’m less bad than the other guy. > [@](#): > > while the primary goal of corporations is to simply extract as much money as possible from Americans by any means necessary. Good thing regulators never take your money or your ability to make it like licensing laws where your competition decided if you should enter a market. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/44 "2015-03-17T19:57:31Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I don’t thik that Netflix was in favour of NN out of the goodness of their hearts. With only so much bandwidth available at any certain time it’s easy to see them asking the FCC to block any new “high use” companies entering a market “until they would not create a problem”. That’s what I would do if I were Johnny Netflix. So… Netflix lobbies for NN, which specifies that ISPs must be content neutral in providing bandwidth. Then, they ask the FCC to block new content companies that are trying to enter the market because they use too much bandwidth? There’s a much less silly reason behind Netflix’s lobbying, it’s because they themselves have a giant target on their backs, and would be the first company throttled and asked to pay to get the bandwidth back. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/45 "2015-03-17T23:54:45Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > So… Netflix lobbies for NN, which specifies that ISPs must be content neutral in providing bandwidth. Then, they ask the FCC to block new content companies that are trying to enter the market because they use too much bandwidth? Exactly. Wouldn’t you do that if you were Johnny Netflix? I mean, why not use a regulator to shield you from competition? This already happens in other areas. > [@](#): > > There’s a much less silly reason behind Netflix’s lobbying, it’s because they themselves have a giant target on their backs, and would be the first company throttled and asked to pay to get the bandwidth back. Definitely, but they aren’t supporting NN because of freedom and consumers but their own bottom line. It is economically convenient for them, a heavy-bandwidth user, to get the same treatment as a text-chat service. Netflix does it for them, not for us. They are the Australian 86-wheel land-train asking to pay the same toll as the guy in the Sentra. Of course they have a big target and they have responded as all (evil, aparently) corportations do. You say “throttled” I say “pay their share”. ---
**Author:** ![OldOlds](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a3d4f5/32.png) [@OldOlds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldOlds)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/46 "2015-03-18T02:07:04Z")
Once the ISPs can control the speed of the pipes, they are in a position to select winners and losers. I’m not at all OK with that. And, while it is annoying in the case of Netflix, as a large and established company, Netflix could roll with it if they had to, raising prices and negotiating contracts. Not that I think it’s OK, but they would be unlikely to be driven out of business. More concerning to me are the ability of ISPs to favor a specific service (notably one they own) and even prevent a competing service from launching. I realize the rent-a-antenna services were ruled illegal, but consider something like that for a minute. As soon as such a service is launched, could Comcast block it or slow it? It competes with their cable, after all. How about VOIP? Again, Comcast and the others like to bundle their phone service. withot NN, what’s to prevent them for crippling those. So a lack of NN could just as easily stifle innovation. I believe we need NN at least until such a time as the vast majority of people have multiple options for high speed internet. Then the market forces might be able to work. I do believe it is quite uncommon in most markets to have real options (cable and DSL doesn’t really count, since one is so vastly superior to the other) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490.md?page=2)