Netflix is now paying Time Warner Cable for direct access and faster streams

http://gigaom.com/2014/08/19/netflix-is-now-paying-time-warner-cable-for-direct-access-and-faster-streams/

Don't worry... I'm certain that our govt will collude with the corporations to product fix it for us. That's the pattern.

PkrBum wrote:Don't worry... I'm certain that our govt will collude with the corporations to product fix it for us. That's the pattern.

I would prefer that the government step in and enforce net neutrality. Most reasonable people with an inkling of common sense agree.

How does this sort of thing play out in the libertarian world, PkrBum? When ISP's gain a monopoly in a particular community and then begin extorting money from websites merely for the opportunity to reach the market...is that what libertarians consider an optimal economic model?

Most statist sheeple feel that data is data, and that when a customer pays for access to the internet, that means they should have access to the entire internet with no bias imposed on them by their monopoly ISP. What does the libertarian say?

This is a teaching opportunity, PkrBum. Here you have the opportunity to explain the stateless solution to this issue and show us all how it is optimal.

Would you agree that faster service is a better product than slower service? Do good products usually cost the same as bad ones?

I'm sure there's room for quality controls and perhaps standards that distinguish what levels of service are.

In progresso world you want product fixing, price fixing, wage fixing... etc. In the real world value has a cost.

PkrBum wrote:Would you agree that faster service is a better product than slower service? Do good products usually cost the same as bad ones?

I'm sure there's room for quality controls and perhaps standards that distinguish what levels of service are.

In progresso world you want product fixing, price fixing, wage fixing... etc. In the real world value has a cost.

Let me clarify.  ISP's with monopolies are beginning to extort websites that provide streaming content by holding bandwidth hostage.  Pay them a fee and their customers will be able to access your website just as well as any other.  Don't, and access to your website will be slow or may not even be available at all.

We're not seeing it yet, but where this is heading is customer's pocketbooks will eventually be affected as well.  What's that?  You want to access espn.com?  You will need to purchase the Sports Internet package in order to do that.  What?  You want to read CNN.com?  Sorry, we do not support that website at all, though you can certainly have access to Fox News and World Net Daily.  What's that?  Your community would prefer to build out its own fiber optic network so you can escape ISP monopoly bias?  Sorry, we pay the GOP house to ensure that that is illegal.

Now that we are on the same page with respect to what net neutrality (or, a lack thereof) looks like, how does this play out in libertarian world?   I'll say again that the solution is simple.  Enforce net neutrality.  Done.  What is the libertarian solution? Or do libertarians even see a problem?

??

I checked my bill again to be sure. I do not have U-Verse...just basic wireless service, and I am paying almost exactly double the U-Verse advertised rate for new subscribers. Plus I have technical issues (might lose my signal for no apparent reason...might have to reinstall)...and I often have to reload pages because the images don't come up...I'm no expert but I think that's called "timing out".