Internet businesses ask U.S. to keep net neutrality rules

[MaggieD]

I already answered that in my post. I edited it in after my original. I'll re-post it.

Because the Internet has evolved, dramatically, in the last 5-10 years. Look at the influence of Amazon on Black Friday, the rise of Netflix and YouTube. Look at how many TV streaming services there are now.

The world has changed and has become ever more reliant on the Internet. Which also means Internet usage has grown substantially. The Internet is used in ways it could never be used 15 years ago.

It's not that anything was "broken", it's that the world had to adapt to the evolving influence of the Internet.
Net Neutrality isn't the government controlling the Internet. If you're reading any source which says it does, then you need to immediately stop reading that source.

Not legally, they don't.

Don't confuse broadband ISPs with wireless ISPs (cell phone data). The rules adopted by the FCC did not cover mobile providers and, as such, the repeal won't change anything with them.

They DO throttle and tier speed pricing right now. And I am quite sure AT&T is operating within the law. No doubt in my mind. Everything I’m posting here is from my common sense. I’ve read no such claim.

 

[Praxas]

What sites can you see now that you couldn’t see in 2014? They’ve NEVER throttled to the point of service disruption. That’s the business they’re in.

ISPs were going to ban netlifx and other streaming services. It's clear you didn't read the link so I'm not going to bother anymore with you as you don't care.

 

[jonny5]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-of-each-others-cloud-services-idUSKBN1DS0TO

The whole basis of Ashit Pi's argument for killing your internet is built on the false premise that repealing Net Neutrality protections would allow businesses to thrive. If that were the case, why are so Businesses that have innovated and thrived over the Internet like AirBnB, Netflix, Amazon, Etsy, and Reddit oppose the repeal of Net Neutrality?



The repeal of Net Neutrality is Anti-consumer, Anti-American garbage that only seeks to benefit the already in power ISPs that can throttle and effectively destroy startup Internet businesses that are unable to pay the ransom that bigger businesses like Netflix and Amazon can pay for. If you truly care for not just Freedom of speech, but for freedom of business, then you should be for protecting the Internet from the big telecom companies.

Isnt it obvious? Netflix accounts for about 40% of all traffic. Its in their interest to use the the force of govt to help them corner the market. Its like if the govt forced Ellisville to allow Walmart to build. Or for the library to carry Playboy (back when they had nude photos).

#repealNN

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-of-each-others-cloud-services-idUSKBN1DS0TO

The whole basis of Ashit Pi's argument for killing your internet is built on the false premise that repealing Net Neutrality protections would allow businesses to thrive. If that were the case, why are so Businesses that have innovated and thrived over the Internet like AirBnB, Netflix, Amazon, Etsy, and Reddit oppose the repeal of Net Neutrality?



The repeal of Net Neutrality is Anti-consumer, Anti-American garbage that only seeks to benefit the already in power ISPs that can throttle and effectively destroy startup Internet businesses that are unable to pay the ransom that bigger businesses like Netflix and Amazon can pay for. If you truly care for not just Freedom of speech, but for freedom of business, then you should be for protecting the Internet from the big telecom companies.

Net Neutrality was a solution to a hypothetical problem that has never happened in the whole history of the internet. The fact that you mention Netflix in your post shows you don't know how the internet works.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

ISPs were going to ban netlifx and other streaming services. It's clear you didn't read the link so I'm not going to bother anymore with you as you don't care.

Why do these lies persist? it's clear you don't understand net neutrality and what it is and isnt.

 

[WillyPete]

They DO throttle and tier speed pricing right now. And I am quite sure AT&T is operating within the law. No doubt in my mind. Everything I’m posting here is from my common sense. I’ve read no such claim.

You are focused on the consumer end, and you're correct, they throttle and tier your pricing. That's not what this is about.

It's about ISPs being able to discriminate between other Internet businesses and ISPs.

The best parallel example I can think of is when they don't show a pro teams game on TV because the team couldn't cut a deal with the broadcaster.

Absent these protections, when your ISP isn't happy with the deal they cut with Netflix, they can restriction access, slow down connections to Netflix for their customers, and do whatever else they feel like until they renegotiate, and then they will restore service. If they compel Netflix to pay more, then that cost will be passed to the consumer.

This and other similar scenarios have already happened, and the government had to intervene and fine ISP.

As consumers, we deserve better treatment than being pawns in big company's contract negotiations.

Nevermind that taxpayers that have subsidized the ISPs from day one, and carved out nice little monopolies for them.

 

[CMPancake]

Net Neutrality was a solution to a hypothetical problem that has never happened in the whole history of the internet. The fact that you mention Netflix in your post shows you don't know how the internet works.

Ah yes, simply mentioning Netflix after citing Netflix as an advocate for Net Neutrality invalidated my entire thread. Brilliant assessment as always, Rev.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

You are focused on the consumer end, and you're correct, they throttle and tier your pricing. That's not what this is about.

It's about ISPs being able to discriminate between other Internet businesses and ISPs.

The best parallel example I can think of is when they don't show a pro teams game on TV because the team couldn't cut a deal with the broadcaster.

Absent these protections, when your ISP isn't happy with the deal they cut with Netflix, they can restriction access, slow down connections to Netflix for their customers, and do whatever else they feel like until they renegotiate, and then they will restore service. If they compel Netflix to pay more, then that cost will be passed to the consumer.

This and other similar scenarios have already happened, and the government had to intervene and fine ISP.

As consumers, we deserve better treatment than being pawns in big company's contract negotiations.

Nevermind that taxpayers that have subsidized the ISPs from day one, and carved out nice little monopolies for them.

So if I have a pipe that can handle X amount of data, if netflix use is eating up 90% of that data pipe to the point that every customer is suffering, you are saying the isp is being greedy if it wants to negotiate for transits from a company who's product is eating up the pipe?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Ah yes, simply mentioning Netflix after citing Netflix as an advocate for Net Neutrality invalidated my entire thread. Brilliant assessment as always, Rev.

Netflix was not about net neutrality but about peers, transits, and third parties selling this access between the two companies via colo's specifically who should pay when the transit peer oversold it's capacity..


You do understand that sentence was in english, right?

 

[TheGoverness]

Ah yes, simply mentioning Netflix after citing Netflix as an advocate for Net Neutrality invalidated my entire thread. Brilliant assessment as always, Rev.

 

[CMPancake]

Netflix was not about net neutrality but about peers, transits, and third parties selling this access between the two companies via colo's.


You do understand that sentence was in english, right?

In this thread, I have not once cited the story where Comcast throttled Netflix and prevented Comcast users from accessing Netflix until Netflix paid Comcast a rsnsom. What I did do however (and what you failed to comprehend because English is a bit different in the wacky universe you live in) is cite an article where Netflix, and other online businesses publicly condemn NN.

I understand that you're a bit slow, but I don't have the time, crayons, or paid my ISP for a tutoring package to walk you through reading comprehension 101

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

In this thread, I have not once cited the story where Comcast throttled Netflix and prevented Comcast users from accessing Netflix until Netflix paid Comcast a rsnsom. What I did do however (and what you failed to comprehend because English is a bit different in the wacky universe you live in) is cite an article where Netflix, and other online businesses publicly condemn NN.

I understand that you're a bit slow, but I don't have the time, crayons, or paid my ISP for a tutoring package to walk you through reading comprehension 101

https://money.usnews.com/investing/...7-11-22/netflix-inc-nflx-stock-net-neutrality

netflix is ambivalent to it actually.


Comcast never throttled netflix. netflix was oversaturating it's transit providers, some claim purposefully to get comcast to give them more peers. in reality, it was one transit who oversold its capacity to netflix. that transit provider wanted more money from netflix and a better deal from comcast. this was easily demonstrated as all other devices used the cogent peer, while apple tv used another,. netflix was fine on the apple tv/comcast.



You haven't cited **** actually.


Tell me what is "net neutrality" and "Net Neutrality" in your own words.

 

[CMPancake]

https://money.usnews.com/investing/...7-11-22/netflix-inc-nflx-stock-net-neutrality

netflix is ambivalent to it actually.


Comcast never throttled netflix. netflix was oversaturating it's transit providers, some claim purposefully to get comcast to give them more peers. in reality, it was one transit who oversold its capacity to netflix. that transit provider wanted more money from netflix and a better deal from comcast. this was easily demonstrated as all other devices used the cogent peer, while apple tv used another,. netflix was fine on the apple tv/comcast.



You haven't cited **** actually.


Tell me what is "net neutrality" and "Net Neutrality" in your own words.

You are an incredibly dense individual.

Yes, Comcast throttled Netflix. Whether or not they did isn't up for debate.

My thread was titled "Internet Businesses ask to keep Net Neutrality rules." One of said businesses is Netflix. I know your game, and everyone knows in lieu of dealing with reality you derail threads with nonsense.

So no, I won't play your game. The phrase "Net Neutrality" doesn't suddenly have a different meaning whether you make it a proper noun or not.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

You are an incredibly dense individual.

Yes, Comcast throttled Netflix. Whether or not they did isn't up for debate.

Your hubris to arrogantly proclaim a falsehood is mind boggling.

Comcast never throttled netflix. It simply stopped peering for them and sent them back to negotiate with it's transit providers. Do you even know how transit providers work???

My thread was titled "Internet Businesses ask to keep Net Neutrality rules." One of said businesses is Netflix. I know your game, and everyone knows in lieu of dealing with reality you derail threads with nonsense.

from your link:

"The companies, which sent the letter on Cyber Monday to coincide with the biggest online shopping day of the year, argued that slowing access to content, called “throttling,” or blocking it altogether, would hurt the U.S. economy."


So they support a fix that wouldn't work for a hypothetical problem that has never in the history of the internet actually happened.


You do know the peering issue that was comcast/netflix was left out of the "Net Neutrality" rules, right?

So no, I won't play your game. The phrase "Net Neutrality" doesn't suddenly have a different meaning whether you make it a proper noun or not.

"net neutrality" = treating each packet, equally

"Net Neutrality"= obama power grab to try to regulate isp's as a utility to broaden taxing services. Obama literally made the internet subject to Title II of the antiquated Communications Act of 1934, which was an update of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 that regulated railroads.


IT had nothing to do with "treating each packet equally", which if you know anything about them data packets, would be the last thing you would want to do. If'n I'm a business owner and at 3pm when the kiddies all got on the xboxes my VOIP phone would die, that would be bad. If you throttle xbox traffic so that other services are not affected, you have traffic shaping.

 

[Slyfox696]

They DO throttle and tier speed pricing right now.

Not legally, they don't.

I have a feeling you don't quite understand how Net Neutrality works. Net Neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic is treated equally. It's NOT about ISPs giving out the same speed of access, that's not what Net Neutrality does.

Let's use an example. Charter provides Internet AND TV service. I dropped Charter TV service because it was grossly overpriced and instead signed up with Playstation Vue, which is a streaming TV service. Without Net Neutrality, Charter could throttle any traffic to Playstation Vue, because they are a competitor service. Or they could give priority to their own streaming Spectrum TV service and Vue customers could get horrible video quality.

That is what Net Neutrality is designed to prevent. It's not about telling ISPs they have to offer certain speeds and prices, it's about treating all Internet traffic equally. And, no, they are not legally allowed to not do that now.

And I am quite sure AT&T is operating within the law.

:lol:

You don't keep up much with AT&T, do you?

No doubt in my mind. Everything I’m posting here is from my common sense. I’ve read no such claim.

But it's based on a seemingly inaccurate understanding of the topic. Just because you think it is common sense doesn't mean it's anywhere close to the truth.

Net Neutrality was a solution to a hypothetical problem that has never happened in the whole history of the internet.

Why would post things a little Googling can prove to be false?

The fact that you mention Netflix in your post shows you don't know how the internet works.

So Comcast didn't take deliberate actions which only throttled Netflix traffic until Netflix started paying? That didn't happen?

So if I have a pipe that can handle X amount of data, if netflix use is eating up 90% of that data pipe to the point that every customer is suffering, you are saying the isp is being greedy if it wants to negotiate for transits from a company who's product is eating up the pipe?

Yes, because consumers agree to pay access to the pipe and, in return, the ISP agrees to build their pipe large enough to handle their consumers' demands.

If the ISP is having trouble meeting demand, then they need to upgrade. It's the cost of doing business. Trying to get money from both the front and backends is greedy.

Comcast never throttled netflix. netflix was oversaturating it's transit providers

An issue which was never an issue until it suddenly was an issue. And it was never an issue with other ISPs, either. And, suddenly, it wasn't an issue once Netflix started paying money either.

It's almost as if it suddenly became an issue just to get more money out of Netflix.

 

[MaggieD]

So if I have a pipe that can handle X amount of data, if netflix use is eating up 90% of that data pipe to the point that every customer is suffering, you are saying the isp is being greedy if it wants to negotiate for transits from a company who's product is eating up the pipe?

That’s my point as well. ISPs should be entitle to charge those sites which fill the pipe and cause ISPs to build more and or bigger pipes. I have a suspicion that those who vehemently oppose doing away with net neutrality are the ones who stream and download like wildfire. Looking after their own interests at the expense of those of us who DON’T do that.

 

[Mr Person]

They throttle right now, so quite obviously net neutrality doesn’t prohibit that.

Again, no they do not.




They can sell different download/upload speeds, aka, different amounts of bandwidth. That is NOT throttling.

Throttling is if they sell a download/upload speed but specifically make Netflix stream a lot slower than that download/upload speed. That's what net neutrality would block.



I feel like I've said this about four different times now.

 

[CMPancake]

Your hubris to arrogantly proclaim a falsehood is mind boggling.

Comcast never throttled netflix. It simply stopped peering for them and sent them back to negotiate with it's transit providers. Do you even know how transit providers work???

Again, it isn't my job to have you come to terms with reality. That's between you and your mental health physician.

from your link:

"The companies, which sent the letter on Cyber Monday to coincide with the biggest online shopping day of the year, argued that slowing access to content, called “throttling,” or blocking it altogether, would hurt the U.S. economy."


So they support a fix that wouldn't work for a hypothetical problem that has never in the history of the internet actually happened.

Except it has happened before, the only people that claim that throttling hasn't happened is yourself. This doesn't bear repeating but again the only thing I can do is present you the facts. Just because you refuse to accept them doesn't make you correct.

You do know the peering issue that was comcast/netflix was left out of the "Net Neutrality" rules, right?

Again, you're incorrect and again you're trying to change reality to fit your talking points. With Title II protections, ISPs like Comcast are not able to unfairly throttle Netflix and other streaming services.

"net neutrality" = treating each packet, equally

"Net Neutrality"= obama power grab to try to regulate isp's as a utility to broaden taxing services. Obama literally made the internet subject to Title II of the antiquated Communications Act of 1934, which was an update of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 that regulated railroads.

I like how I told you I wasn't going to play your silly "NN" vs "nn" game so you just played this game by yourself. Literally you are the only person who subscribes to this idea.

IT had nothing to do with "treating each packet equally", which if you know anything about them data packets, would be the last thing you would want to do. If'n I'm a business owner and at 3pm when the kiddies all got on the xboxes my VOIP phone would die, that would be bad. If you throttle xbox traffic so that other services are not affected, you have traffic shaping.

Then as the consumer you should have the tools to decide how your broadband is distributed through the household. The people who shouldn't be making the decisions on how to prioritize your internet access is the ISP.

Lets use a similar analogy to yours, but unlike your analogy it'll make sense. Do you believe that Comcast should be able to throttle internet access for those attempting to play Call of Duty on the PC and Playstation while prioritizing it for the Xbox?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Why would post things a little Googling can prove to be false?

Show me..

So Comcast didn't take deliberate actions which throttled Netflix traffic until Netflix started paying? That didn't happen?

nope. Netflix did not have a peering agreement with comcast. Netflix's transit partners to comcast oversold thier capacity. In the past comcast would open more peers for these transit providers who were now using more than they had negotiated for. It was only one transit provider cogent who oversold netflix but didn't want to pay comcast for these direct peering connections.

Without these transits and peering netflix doesn't work. In fact the peering issue was excluded from Obama's Net Neutrality rules.

Yes, because consumers agree to pay access to the pipe and, in return, the ISP agrees to build their pipe large enough to handle their consumers' demands.

maybe you should understand what a transit and a peer is, as well as a colo. look it up, then tell me why your statement here doesn't address anything.

If the ISP is having trouble meeting demand, then they need to upgrade. It's the cost of doing business. Trying to get money from both the front and backends is greedy.

*sigh* this is ignorance. Netflix was paying transits for peers, the transits were not paying comcast because it was mutually beneficial. NEtflix actually forced traffic through peers one by one oversaturating them trying to force the transit companies to upgrade thier equipment, this wasn't comcast. What comcast did was put a stop to this by not opening up new peers.

This has NOTHING to do with net neutrality, but peering and transits. have you figured out what those are yet?

An issue which was never an issue until it suddenly was an issue. And it was never an issue with other ISPs, either. And, suddenly, it wasn't an issue once Netflix started paying money either.

It's almost as if it suddenly became an issue just to get more money out of Netflix.

It was only an issue when netflix saturated the transits and didn't want to pay for peers. Do you know what a peer is?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Again, it isn't my job to have you come to terms with reality. That's between you and your mental health physician.

Given that you are being schooled by what you believe to be a mental patient, how bad for you. :lol:

Except it has happened before, the only people that claim that throttling hasn't happened is yourself. This doesn't bear repeating but again the only thing I can do is present you the facts. Just because you refuse to accept them doesn't make you correct.

Show me....

Again, you're incorrect and again you're trying to change reality to fit your talking points. With Title II protections, ISPs like Comcast are not able to unfairly throttle Netflix and other streaming services.

Comcast never throttled comcast. netflix overloaded transits and comcast stopped giving those transits free extra peers. only 1 transit, cogent was affected. Netflix also tried to overload these transits to force transits and comcast to upgrade equipment at no cost to netflix.

I like how I told you I wasn't going to play your silly "NN" vs "nn" game so you just played this game by yourself. Literally you are the only person who subscribes to this idea.

Net neutrality is every packet treated equally Net Neutrality was obamas rules for the FCC that had nothing to do with actual net neutrality. if you disagree show me how it does.

Then as the consumer you should have the tools to decide how your broadband is distributed through the household. The people who shouldn't be making the decisions on how to prioritize your internet access is the ISP.

You control every packet once it passes your router. wow.......


Oh but I get what you mean. so in your scenario, my voip phone doesnt work, netflix constantly stutters, and call of duty has too much lag. you are ignorant of what traffic shaping is and why its needed and a good thing.

Lets use a similar analogy to yours, but unlike your analogy it'll make sense. Do you believe that Comcast should be able to throttle internet access for those attempting to play Call of Duty on the PC and Playstation while prioritizing it for the Xbox?

Why would they do that? To what benefit? actually PSN throttles speeds, did you know that?


A better question would be why would comcast throttle speed of console players at a time when they saturate the network to the point of greater than 80% network utilization? what would happen if that overhead hit 100%? now what if I told you Consoles runs fine when capped to 10% during those times. what happens when I cap it to the rest of the network?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

That’s my point as well. ISPs should be entitle to charge those sites which fill the pipe and cause ISPs to build more and or bigger pipes. I have a suspicion that those who vehemently oppose doing away with net neutrality are the ones who stream and download like wildfire. Looking after their own interests at the expense of those of us who DON’T do that.

I oppose net neutrality because it's a solution that wont work to a problem that in the history of the internet has never happened. but that's just it, the argument is not about the pipe, it's about peers, ie colo direct access to comcast's equipment that was netflix and comcasts's dispute which is wrongly tied to "net neutrality.

 

[Slyfox696]

Show me.

Again...five seconds of Googling. Try it.

nope.

False.

Netflix did not have a peering agreement with comcast. Netflix's transit partners to comcast oversold thier capacity. In the past comcast would open more peers for these transit providers

And they suddenly stopped doing that for Netflix traffic. Correct? So they took a deliberate action which resulted in virtually unusable Netflix traffic, yes?

Seriously, it's amazing how wrong you are on this.

maybe you should understand what a transit and a peer is

Maybe you should understand how the Internet works before making statements like this in a post which has already shown how little you understand it.

*sigh* this is ignorance.

No, it isn't. It's the way the world works. If you accept money in exchange for a service, it's on you to upgrade if you can no longer provide the service adequately.

was paying transits for peers, the transits were not paying comcast because it was mutually beneficial. NEtflix actually forced traffic through peers one by one oversaturating them trying to force the transit companies to upgrade thier equipment, this wasn't comcast. What comcast did was put a stop to this by not opening up new peers.

This has NOTHING to do with net neutrality, but peering and transits. have you figured out what those are yet?

Of course it did. That's nonsensical. As you yourself stated "In the past comcast would open more peers for these transit providers", and yet they stopped doing that for traffic coming from Netflix. They specifically adjusted the way they handle those situations with regards to Netflix traffic. In other words, Netflix traffic was treated differently. You can shout all you want about transit providers, but it wasn't an issue with any other ISP and it wasn't an issue with an other traffic. Just Netflix traffic on Comcast.

It was only an issue when netflix saturated the transits

Oh, so all of a sudden Netflix just started saturating the transits? It wasn't a gradual growth, like the company itself? Just seemingly overnight, Netflix was just too much? And it was only too much on Comcast networks, no one else?

No, it was only an issue when Comcast wanted to make it an issue. You're wrong on this. You know you're wrong on this.

 

[holbritter]

ISPs were going to ban netlifx and other streaming services. It's clear you didn't read the link so I'm not going to bother anymore with you as you don't care.

Where did it say that in the link? Are you talking about a different one than the OP.

 

[Praxas]

Where did it say that in the link? Are you talking about a different one than the OP.

Yes, the one I linked to Maggie on showing the history of the net neutrality and why they instituted it.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Again...five seconds of Googling. Try it.

Nothing. I accept your concession.

And they suddenly stopped doing that for Netflix traffic. Correct? So they took a deliberate action which throttled Netflix traffic, yes?

at best they inactioned when they didn't give cogent additional peers outside of thier agreement.

Seriously, it's amazing how wrong you are on this.

dood you are playing checkers, all hopped up about how you are winning, meanwhile, we've been playing rocket science.

Maybe you should understand how the Internet works before making statements like this in a post which has already shown how little you understand it.

Oh please, holy thor god of war, wax technical to me on how it works and how little I understand, I beg you.... buahahahjahahahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!

No, it isn't. It's the way the world works. If you accept money in exchange for a service, it's on you to upgrade if you can no longer provide the service.

You should read your SLA more carefully.

Of course it did. That's nonsensical. As you yourself stated "In the past comcast would open more peers for these transit providers", and yet they stopped doing that for Netflix traffic. They specifically adjusted the way they handle those situations with regards to Netflix traffic. In other words, Netflix traffic was treated differently. You can shout all you want about transit providers, but it wasn't an issue with any other ISP and it wasn't an issue with an other traffic. Just Netflix.

yes the transit providers had an agreement, outside of that agreement comcast was opening up more peers. as it became apparent that this peering was an unfair deal for comcast they stopped doing it and wanted to negotiate. it was outside of the contract. Netflix responded by flooding the transits in an attempt to force comcast to upgrade thier agreements with the transits.

as far as it just being netflix/comcast you cant be more willfully ignorant:

Peer Dispute Leaves Some 'Net Users in the Dark
https://www.infoworld.com/article/2...-deliberately-harming--broadband-service.html
https://arstechnica.com/information...opping-packets-every-day-over-money-disputes/



over 26 here alone:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.739.9077&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Oh, so all of a sudden Netflix just started saturating the transits? It wasn't a gradual growth, like the company itself? Just seemingly overnight, Netflix was just too much? And it was only too much on Comcast networks, no one else?

yes, as the complaint alleges in the lawsuit.
Peering Dispute: Verizon, NetForecast Say Netflix Network is the Congested One - Telecompetitor

No, it was only an issue when Comcast wanted to make it an issue. You're wrong on this. You know you're wrong on this.

so if I have and pay for physical equipment, it is your right to plug your **** into mine for free? is that really your argument? (have you figured out what a peer even is?)