Internet monopolies and Net Neutrality

No fucking alarmist nonsense by either side please. I'm already well-aware that both sides of the issue are jewish billion-dollar corporations who only care about their own wallets.

My biggest concern is the ongoing consolidation of the internet under specific, massive websites. Google has virtually no competition, Youtube has virtually no competition, Amazon has virtually no competition, Twitter has virtually no competition, Facebook, Netflix, etc (even Sup Forums), all of which are backing net neutrality (or have in the past). The internet is one of the easiest mediums to create a service on, yet somehow we're developing massive monopolies left and right.

Is this a side-effect of net neutrality? I've seen very little discussion on the actual impact of paid prioritization in particular, would it not be possible for a smaller website to provide a better service than google by paying to be in an upper-priority tier? Paid prioritization seems like it would discourage the current scheme of attracting as much traffic as possible using as much content as possible, then making minute amounts of profit through advertising or data mining. Rather, the websites that would afford the highest tiers should be the ones that make the most money in proportion to their traffic. It would enable actual tiers of service through the net, much like physical services, whereas currently everything is forced to be around the same level no matter what level quality they actually provide.

Other urls found in this thread:

practicallynetworked.com/news/comcast.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

How the fuck is a smaller company going to get the cash to financially compete with google?

Consolidation is a function of tax system, it has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Better to have a chance than none at all.

If you have .0001% of Google's traffic then you would be paying .0001% for prioritization. Google doesn't magically pay less for their traffic compared to everyone else.

For something that has nothing to do with internet market forces, it sure does seem odd for all the biggest internet corporations to go full apocalypse mode over it.

h
Net neutrality's whole point is to prevent ISPs from shaping traffic based upon content. The conflict you're worried about has nothing to do with how an ISP resells bandwidth to end users.

Actually under the cable bundling system (that cable companies as ISPs want to use but can't under Net Neutrality) lesser known channels typically cost end users a lot more to access than more popular channels, if they're available at all.

Google are already paying for their bandwidth. Just as you pay your ISP to send your requests to Google and send the results back to you, they have to pay somebody to receive your request and transmit the response back to you. (Said ISP might be themselves, I don't know, but that's still a cost).

>Google doesn't magically pay less for their traffic compared to everyone else.
Uh, what? Have you ever heard of bulk rates? The contract to supply any service, including bandwidth, to an entity as large as Google would have all potential providers falling over themselves to offer the most bargain basement rate available.

>Is this a side-effect of net neutrality?
Please tell me you're joking. Where I live (Ireland) we don't have net neutrality in mobile carriers (think it's coming in now with a recent EU law).

What happens? Not much honestly, mostly they still just sell data by the gigabyte like they normally do, but when they decide to use the lack of net neutrality, it almost invariably comes in the form of a bundle where access to Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and maybe Instagram is totally free, while everything else counts towards your data cap. If you want to see aggressive centralization, remove net neutrality.

Television doesn't work remotely the same way as internet though. Why compare them? Traffic is an internet-specific factor.

That's my point though. Google has to pay for their internet like everyone else, which is exactly why Google doesn't want the option of higher-tier internet service to exist.

Whatever perks they get for being a market behemoth doesn't change the fact that they're have a tremendous amount of traffic that operates on a nickel and dime basis. They would never be able to pay for a higher tier than a subscription-based service, for example.

What would you rather have? Policy that might potentially block large internet corporations from monopolizing, or policy is already blocking ISP monopolies (who have a natural monopoly) from taking further advantage of their monopoly?

>mostly they still just sell data by the gigabyte like they normally do
>but when they decide to use the lack of net neutrality, it almost invariably comes in the form of a bundle where access to Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and maybe Instagram is totally free, while everything else counts towards your data cap
So you went from all sites costing data to some sites costing data?

ISPs are a business too and they have the business right (or whatever it's called in legal term) to throttle whatever service businesses they want just like those very same service businesses (Google, Netflix, Youtube, Pornhub etc.) can censor whoever they want on their platform.

Probably internet corporations, honestly. I can go somewhere that doesn't have shitty ISPs, but I can never escape Google. Besides, two wrongs don't make a right; people need to be breaking the ISP monopolies rather than trying to make them "tolerable".

What about this do you not get? They are already paying by the byte for their traffic because somebody owns the cable that leaves their data centers. If there was going to be some crippling negative effect of having all their traffic and their relatively inefficient monetization, it would have already crippled them.

They are already storing exabytes of data. They are already running thousands or even millions of servers, they are already paying somebody to shift petabytes of data in and out of their data centers.

You seem to believe (for no reason at all) that one more cost would break the bank, even though servers, electricity, bandwidth and storage have all scaled and remained affordable for them, somehow this extra "priority tax" would prove too much for them. It wouldn't.

It being cheaper depends on whether or not the data rates for non-mainstream sites got worse when they came up with that idea and if so by how much. I don't use mobile data so I have no idea.

> business rights are more important than a well functioning society where information can be both easily consumed and easily disseminated.
Go lick a boot.

>they have the business right (or whatever it's called in legal term) to throttle whatever service businesses they want
They literally don't though.

Hypothetically, bundles would work similar to the bundles example. Otherwise, how would smaller companies generate traffic? I imagine a startup would start off on a slower speed until I got some users. You can easily imagine the issues with this: Why go on some youtube alternative when youtube is x10 faster?

I never said it would be directly crippling to them, I said it would provide an advantage to more financially-dense services. You're really avoiding the point here, paid prioritization enables bidding wars for priority. It's nothing like a tax, it's direct market competition.

>cellphone companies made calls between cellphones of the same company free
>making a call to a number from a different company costs 3 times as much vs what it used to cost
I guess something similar will happen.

I think net neutrality isn't necessary if there were more options to choose from for internet. I'm not american but I know a lot of you guys are pretty much forced into comcast or at&t because there's no room for competition. NN seems like a bandaid on a much bigger problem, and it's making both sides hate the shit out of each other when they both have valid points.

>mfw people frame this discussion as Comcast vs Netflix or Comcast vs google or etc.
My biggest fear is that Netflix and Google will be able to pay for exclusivity deals with ISPs, and the end of Net Neutrality makes this possible.

I want alternatives to Google and Netflix, I want the Internet architecture to support this possibility.

>Hypothetically, bundles would work similar to the bundles example
Why is that? What incentives exist for it to be specifically that way?

>Otherwise, how would smaller companies generate traffic?
Same way they generate traffic right now?

>I imagine a startup would start off on a slower speed until I got some users.
Why would they?

>You can easily imagine the issues with this
I can imagine a lot of issues with a lot of things, but how does it relate to reality whatsoever?

They don't? Well they should then.

>Verizon v. FCC

No, corporations should not be granted rights to enact policies that make society as a whole worse off simply to pursue money for themselves. That's the worst kind of retardo-libertarian ideal.

None of the "free" sites in user's post have any relation to any irish ISPs whatsoever though. They presumably had to pay a heft amount of money to be free, which leaves me wondering what their regional financials look like. If for example they are taking a hit in Ireland to pull that stunt, then they can't realistically pull it off on a big scale.

?????

We talking about throttling or something else here?

>paid prioritization enables bidding wars for priority.
Am I supposed to picture Google losing a bidding war against the little guy? For this to work, the little guy has to outbid Google. But that's not the worst of it because if Google loses, the ISP also loses. Some of their customers will leave and go to a different ISP with faster YouTube.
So the little guy has to outbid Google by a wider margin than the amount of money the ISP would lose by not having Google win the bidding. This is totally unrealistic, not only do they have to win a bidding war against a company a hundred times larger than them, they have to do it in an environment where the "auctioneer" actively wants them to lose.

>They presumably had to pay a heft amount of money to be free
Did they? It's quite possibly just a way of providing unlimited data (something an awful lot of ISPs, even mobile ones, do anyway) but without the complications of the abuse of that data (large downloads, torrents, 4K Netflix, etc.). An ISP offering unlimited Facebook gets 90% of the positive customer experience that an ISP offering unlimited data does, without any of the costs of abuse prevention or the costs of abuse itself.

I'm going to enjoy watching frogposters lose access to their frogposting sites when ISPs are allowed to discriminate based on site origin.

*switch on VPN*

Ahahahahaha, good luck.


practicallynetworked.com/news/comcast.htm

Sorry, you must upgrade your subscription to Verizon Gold™ to use VPN services.

Does Google make the hgihest profit-per-byte on earth? No? Then It can lose bidding wars.

I don't know why the idea of a law being supported and lobbied by google helping google is so alien to you.

*switch to ISP that doesnt ban VPN*

If staying in the normie cage would be free without net neutrality. I would pay to access other sites then facebook, twitter etc, but normies are bliss with their social media.
This will just cage the normies and let the rest of us explore outside the cage without noemies shitting it up.

"VPN is not a prohibited use"

All the more reason why knowing the financial details of how it worked out would be very interesting. Right now there is more disinformation about net neutrality (again, on either side) than information.

>mysteriously unable to connect
>"Sorry user, we can not provide support on this item."

>Is this a side-effect of net neutrality?
no, it isn't

one of the poor asian countries has two tiers of internet plans available
they have a "facebook plan", which gives only access to facebook servers, and absolutely nothing else
that is the plan everyone can afford, that is the plan that everyone in the country winds up using

then they have their non-facebook plan, that plan costs about thirty times more, and still if you are using something other than facebook, the routes are so bad that you are looking at a half minute to establish a connection to the site


the tiered approach does not work elsewhere, there is no reason to believe it would be a good thing here
all you're doing is opening the door to pay more for "misc bandwidth", which isn't one of the sponsored services provided through your isp giving you "unlimited bandwidth under this service"
that is what discourages competition

Honestly, consolidation is its own thing. Not related.

Off topic, where is your gif from?

>Off topic, where is your gif from?
Carnival Phantasm's OP.

Tyty

>then they have their non-facebook plan, that plan costs about thirty times more, and still if you are using something other than facebook, the routes are so bad that you are looking at a half minute to establish a connection to the site
That sounds like an infrastructure problem, not a neutrality problem.