Net Neutrality ruling leading to data caps from service providers

[Slyfox696]

Maybe it was Netflix's turn to pay, or perhaps they were in a better position to pay.

Why should anyone have to pay? The ISPs are already getting fees from the consumer. That's how they get paid. They shouldn't be able to say to the customer "Well, you're paying us $50-$100 a month, but you can only go to the places we say you can go".

If you truly care about a citizen's ability to use the Internet how they see fit, you should be against that.

To do that, you have to have the money to pay for it, or take out bonds to pay for it.

:shrug:

That's their job. That's part of being an ISP. Comcast has 23+ million subscribers. At a roughly average price of $80 a month, that's a LOT of money per month. Part of the ISPs responsibility is making sure their network is strong enough to sustain demand. That's on them.

You and I both know that as much as there are individuals and businesses that are abusing their power, the very same thing can also be said about governments. Given 1/2 a chance, the government will walk right in, take all the cards for itself.

Sure. But that's not what's happening now. The federal government isn't walking in and offering Internet. They are merely saying that ISPs cannot pick winners and losers.

We can see it happening in slow motion with ObamaCare, for example. Now that all the health insurance providers have found out that the healthcare exchanges are unprofitable, they are all walking away from them, leaving the government statist / leftists to pitch what they wanted in the first place, which is government run single payer, and no private healthcare insurance. Too bad that it'll end up looking like the VA, and cost the tax payers 10 times more, as it's perceived as free and readily, easily, and frequently abused. Just have to look at the Medicare scams that are costing the taxpayer billions. It's the same high level pattern. The government is like the weeds that invade a pristine lawn, or a cancer that invades healthy tissue.

Let's ignore the larger Obamacare discussion and focus on this. This is nothing like mandated single payer insurance. And that's been my point all along. This is more in line with the government requiring labels on all food you buy. They are literally telling the ISPs they can not withhold information.

Yes, I see where you have statist tendencies. All I can do is urge you to resist them. :mrgreen:

That's not a "statist" tendency. That's the very job of a government. We saw what happened when businesses had carte blanche to write their own rules. It didn't work. So we have to balance how much we need government to protect citizens from big business. And as long as there is virtually no competition, we have little choice but to make sure the company providing the Internet to a given region does not abuse their power, in the pursuit of ever greater profits.

By the way, I really have enjoyed this discussion.

 

[NeverTrump]

Part 2
Umm, I get it just fine. But since both would be a violation of net neutrality, I fail to see why you're mentioning it, aside from the fact you don't understand what you're talking about.








Yes, you did. There's your proof.

But I'll grant you this. Going back, I can at least see where you got confused. I was saying the FCC says their rules will stop throttling. You seem to think I was saying the FCC would block advertising. But, and I made this clear (as you can see), a service advertising itself has nothing to do with net neutrality. You could make the argument an ISP preventing advertisements from competitors on their network would violate net neutrality, but, as I said, that STILL would have nothing to do with Netflix or Amazon.

So, I'll grant you that you were confused. But you were still wrong, even on your response to the confusion.

Because Netflix is not an ISP.

Think of it has a digital highway. Comcast owns the highway and Netflix is the business. You, the customer, pay Comcast a toll to get on the road in order to drive to Netflix. However, the ISP wants Netflix to pay in order to have a plot of land next to their highway. And if Netflix doesn't pay up, then they'll block traffic on the road that leads to Netflix.

Net neutrality is to prevent the digital highway from being closed in front of Netflix. It would have nothing to do with how Netflix handles their advertising.

Does that make sense?

No, they have literally been your positions. And they've been wrong. And you constantly talk about them. I'm not lying about your positions, your positions are just wrong.

I'm involved in this stuff for a living. I'm far from calling myself an expert, but I know enough to know when someone is either ignorant or making stuff up. You don't know what you're talking about..

If you've been paying attention, I've had a very nice discussion with eohnberger, even though we don't agree. It's the difference between someone who is willing to discuss intelligently and be willing to acknowledge things they may not know. It's a far cry from our discussion.

They are not laws. I've told you this.

I haven't told a single lie about you. I said an ISP could block a website and you said it took years to do that. That's not me lying about what you said, that's you just saying something stupid. Don't blame me for your ignorance.

The fact you obviously have no idea why you are ignorant is exactly what I've been trying to tell you all along. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know why you sound like you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm willing to educate you (for example, we can start with you saying common carrier rules prevent an ISP from blocking traffic to a website, when the entire crux of the argument is whether or not ISPs should be classified as common carrier), but you have to be willing to acknowledge your ignorance first and be willing to learn.

Ok I think the difference between you and me is that when you say you believe websites can be blocked you are only taking about throttling but that is dishonest because blocking means lack of or no access allowed. You should have said slowing down the sites, every time. Not interchanging blocking with the word throttling. That is why I couldn't make sense of your arguments. Next time if you don't interchange those words it would have gone smoother.

I'm my mind blocking literally means knocking the website offline so no one can use it. I fix networks and computer hardware for a living and It is what I work with on a daily basis. Never in my five years of doing this had I ever had an ISP tell me they purposely are knocking this site or location off the internet for no good reason. That's what I thought you were arguing for when you said they were blocking the site. Which is why I kept mentioning how hard it was to do this.

This seems to be a matter of grammar confusion more then anything else and I'm sorry for any confusion/emotional distress I may have caused you

 

[eohrnberger]

Why should anyone have to pay? The ISPs are already getting fees from the consumer. That's how they get paid. They shouldn't be able to say to the customer "Well, you're paying us $50-$100 a month, but you can only go to the places we say you can go".

Someone has to pay for those big fat pipes to carry all that fat video content. Those pipes are expensive, every single month, and the telco carrier (or other carrier) that engineered it, put it into place, supports it, and maintains it expects to be paid, each and every month.

If you truly care about a citizen's ability to use the Internet how they see fit, you should be against that.

:shrug:

That's their job. That's part of being an ISP. Comcast has 23+ million subscribers. At a roughly average price of $80 a month, that's a LOT of money per month. Part of the ISPs responsibility is making sure their network is strong enough to sustain demand. That's on them.

So there was a squabble between Netfix and ComCast on how that bill was going to be paid, and / or how the necessary upgrades to ComCast's customer network to deliver all that fat content to all the Netflix users.

Yeah, just think about that for a minute. ComCast and / or Netflix has to be able to deliver at least one high quality HD video stream, each of them of a different title, to each household in their entire network, all their customers at the same time. A huge network build out like that is major bucks, and doesn't happen overnight. No wonder there were some squabbles.

Here is the start of the math for you:

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306
Internet Connection Speed Recommendations
Below are the Internet download speed recommendations per stream for playing movies and TV shows through Netflix.

• 0.5 Megabits per second - Required broadband connection speed
• 1.5 Megabits per second - Recommended broadband connection speed
• 3.0 Megabits per second - Recommended for SD quality
• 5.0 Megabits per second - Recommended for HD quality
• 25 Megabits per second - Recommended for Ultra HD quality

You can do a speed test to check your current Internet speed.

Ain't multiplication a real bitch? Yeah, this just grew to huge major pipes, and a major network, didn't it?

No, it's not where you can go, it's how much of a demand on the shared infrastructure you are allowed to make. It has to be shared with all the other users that are sharing the same pipes.

Sure. But that's not what's happening now. The federal government isn't walking in and offering Internet. They are merely saying that ISPs cannot pick winners and losers.

Let's ignore the larger Obamacare discussion and focus on this. This is nothing like mandated single payer insurance. And that's been my point all along. This is more in line with the government requiring labels on all food you buy. They are literally telling the ISPs they can not withhold information.



That's not a "statist" tendency. That's the very job of a government. We saw what happened when businesses had carte blanche to write their own rules. It didn't work. So we have to balance how much we need government to protect citizens from big business. And as long as there is virtually no competition, we have little choice but to make sure the company providing the Internet to a given region does not abuse their power, in the pursuit of ever greater profits.

By the way, I really have enjoyed this discussion.

Yeah, it's been a good discussion, I hope that you do take a look at the engineering and math of the network demands.

 

[Slyfox696]

Ok I think the difference between you and me is that when you say you believe websites can be blocked you are only taking about throttling but that is dishonest because blocking means lack of or no access allowed.

No, when I say blocked, I mean blocked. I've explained this numerous times now.

You should have said slowing down the sites, every time.

No, blocking and throttling are different. Allow me to post for you, again, from the FCC:

Bright Line Rules:

• No Blocking:
• No Throttling:
• No Paid Prioritization:

Notice how they differentiate between blocking and throttling? Yeah, that's exactly the difference I'm talking about as well. And if you knew anything about networking, you'd know this too.

Not interchanging blocking with the word throttling.

I didn't interchange them. You just don't know what you're talking about.

That is why I couldn't make sense of your arguments.

No, you couldn't make sense of my arguments because you lack the requisite technical knowledge to do so.

Next time if you don't interchange those words it would have gone smoother.

I didn't interchange the words. They have different meanings. But "blocked" doesn't mean killing a website, it means an ISP stopping traffic to and/or from a host.

Seriously, why do you continue posting? You've shown an utter lack of contempt for facts and a lack of desire to learn.

I'm my mind blocking literally means knocking the website offline so no one can use it.

You're wrong. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. You are wrong.

That's the problem...like I said, you literally DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

An ISP blocking access to a website does not mean taking the website offline. If you knew anything about this topic, you'd know that. But you don't. Which is why you don't. Block access to a website simply means shutting off any traffic to the destination.

See, this is why you couldn't make sense of my arguments...because you DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I fix networks and computer hardware for a living

No, you don't. I refuse to accept that. Given your absolute lack of knowledge, exposed once more only a sentence or two ago, there's no way any rational person would trust you with their network.

Never in my five years of doing this had I ever had an ISP tell me they purposely are knocking this site or location off the internet for no good reason.

Geez, do you think that's because an ISP literally can't do that? Why in the hell would you think anyone is stating that an ISP can kill a website? Oh, I know...because you think "blocking" a website is "knocking it offline"...and why? Because you DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

That's what I thought you were arguing for when you said they were blocking the site.

Yes, because you DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

Which is why I kept mentioning how hard it was to do this.

Unless an ISP owns the server a website uses (and this is unlikely to be true for any major business), there's no way an ISP can knock a website offline. Anyone with a modicum of technical knowledge knows this. No one with a modicum of technical knowledge would think anyone would suggest it. But you did think that. Why? Because you DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

Let's ignore for a moment I TOTALLY do not believe you fix networks and let me just ask you a direct networking question. I'm a network administrator and my clients visiting YouTube is killing my bandwidth. When I say I'm going to "block YouTube", do you really think that means I'm going to march to Google headquarters and take a sledgehammer to their servers? Do you think I'm going to file a motion with a court to get the court to take YouTube offline? Do you really not understand how utterly stupid it is to think that blocking access to a website means knocking it offline?

You say you work on networks, yet do you really not understand that to block YouTube all I have to do is enter a simple rule into either my content filter or my firewall and simply block access to YouTube servers? Do you really not understand that? Do you even know what a content filter is or what a firewall does?

This seems to be a matter of grammar confusion more then anything else and I'm sorry for any confusion/emotional distress I may have caused you

No, it's not a matter of grammar confusion. It's a matter of you not know what you're talking about. Don't try to pass it off as anything else. You don't know what you're talking about. I've told you this many times. I've also told you many times I'm willing to help you learn more about it, but you've never taken me up on my offer.

So don't blame "grammar" and certainly don't blame me because I'm knowledgeable enough to know you don't know anything about this subject.

 

[Slyfox696]

Someone has to pay for those big fat pipes to carry all that fat video content. Those pipes are expensive, every single month, and the telco carrier (or other carrier) that engineered it, put it into place, supports it, and maintains it expects to be paid, each and every month.

Absolutely. And that's why they charge their customers fees. I have no problem with that.

But that's not good enough for the ISP. They were also wanting to charge websites for users visiting the website. And if the website didn't pay up, then they prevented their paying customer from receiving traffic from the website who didn't pay. That I have a HUGE problem with.

So there was a squabble between Netfix and ComCast on how that bill was going to be paid, and / or how the necessary upgrades to ComCast's customer network to deliver all that fat content to all the Netflix users.

Yeah, just think about that for a minute. ComCast and / or Netflix has to be able to deliver at least one high quality HD video stream, each of them of a different title, to each household in their entire network, all their customers at the same time. A huge network build out like that is major bucks, and doesn't happen overnight. No wonder there were some squabbles.

But that's not Netflix's problem. Netflix's problem is signing deals with studios for content. Netflix's problem is a network infrastructure robust enough to handle the load. It's NOT Netflix's problem that the ISP has to upgrade their infrastructure to fulfill their contract with the client.

Let's look at this argument from the reverse. What if Netflix said "Well, we have 25 million subscribers and you have several Internet customers who have cut the cord. Obviously the only reason they buy Internet from you is because of our service. Serving your customers means more infrastructure for us, so Comcast, you need to pay us if you want your customers to keep getting quality service."

Would that make sense? At all? Of course not. So why would we accept that same argument in reverse?

Here is the start of the math for you:

Ain't multiplication a real bitch? Yeah, this just grew to huge major pipes, and a major network, didn't it?

Yup...what's your point? If Comcast cannot handle Internet traffic, they shouldn't sell Internet. What's the problem here?

Comcast charges fees to customers to handle serving the Internet. So are you saying Comcast should take the customers money and not fulfill the contract just because it's a little inconvenient for them? C'mon, you know better than that.

No, it's not where you can go, it's how much of a demand on the shared infrastructure you are allowed to make. It has to be shared with all the other users that are sharing the same pipes.

But that's not Netflix's problem. That's Comcast's problem. They are the ones who should take care of it, because they are the ones who oversold their network.

Let's put it another way (I love examples apparently). I'm promoting a boxing match at the local arena and the local arena holds 500 seats. Let's say I sell 600 tickets because "meh, some people won't show". If all 600 people show, do I have the right to go to the arena and demand they take money out of their own pocket to expand their facility? Of course not. Can I go to the boxers and demand they go buy foldable chairs to increase arena seating? Of course not. It's on me to fix the problem.

If Comcast does not have the infrastructure to fulfill their end of a contract with a user, that's their fault. And their problem. If their network cannot handle 23+ million people using the Internet in a way they see fit, then Comcast should stop accepting new customers. But, obviously, Comcast isn't going to do that. So then it's on them to upgrade their infrastructure.

Yeah, it's been a good discussion, I hope that you do take a look at the engineering and math of the network demands.

I'm well aware of them. As I've mentioned to others, I deal with this thing (albeit in on an obviously smaller level) on a fairly regular basis. For example, during the spring, schools across the state have to take online standardized tests. The tests themselves require some pretty hefty network requirements, but the other teachers who are holding students until they test are also wanting to stream YouTube or Netflix. Which is why in the past 3-5 years we've upgraded our switches across the network, improved our wireless capabilities and pay for over double the bandwidth of our Internet connection.

We invest in our infrastructure to meet the growing demand. I don't see why it's unreasonable to ask Comcast to do the same.

 

[eohrnberger]

Absolutely. And that's why they charge their customers fees. I have no problem with that.

If you think how fast Netflix became a 'thing' and how the demand went from zero to near what? 100% overnight, it's no wonder that the ISPs, such as ComCast, didn't have a network in place to support the instant and huge demand spike. Took a bit of negotiation with Netflix, some key investments and upgrade deployments, and their network could support it, and all's well.

But that's not good enough for the ISP. They were also wanting to charge websites for users visiting the website. And if the website didn't pay up, then they prevented their paying customer from receiving traffic from the website who didn't pay. That I have a HUGE problem with.

You say that as if ISPs were charging by the web site. I've never heard of this. Citation so I can read up on it?

But that's not Netflix's problem. Netflix's problem is signing deals with studios for content. Netflix's problem is a network infrastructure robust enough to handle the load. It's NOT Netflix's problem that the ISP has to upgrade their infrastructure to fulfill their contract with the client.

I think they both have to have upgrades applied. I don't think that the Netflix server farm that stores and streams each household their chosen video didn't spring up out of the ground as if by magic. Does cable really have a 97% profit margin? | The Daily Caller

Let's look at this argument from the reverse. What if Netflix said "Well, we have 25 million subscribers and you have several Internet customers who have cut the cord. Obviously the only reason they buy Internet from you is because of our service. Serving your customers means more infrastructure for us, so Comcast, you need to pay us if you want your customers to keep getting quality service."

Would that make sense? At all? Of course not. So why would we accept that same argument in reverse?

Actually neither argument makes any sense, any business sense at least.

Yup...what's your point? If Comcast cannot handle Internet traffic, they shouldn't sell Internet. What's the problem here?

Assuming that networks and the infrastructure that make them work springs up when needed as if by magic.

Comcast charges fees to customers to handle serving the Internet. So are you saying Comcast should take the customers money and not fulfill the contract just because it's a little inconvenient for them? C'mon, you know better than that.

But that's not Netflix's problem. That's Comcast's problem. They are the ones who should take care of it, because they are the ones who oversold their network.

Let's put it another way (I love examples apparently). I'm promoting a boxing match at the local arena and the local arena holds 500 seats. Let's say I sell 600 tickets because "meh, some people won't show". If all 600 people show, do I have the right to go to the arena and demand they take money out of their own pocket to expand their facility? Of course not. Can I go to the boxers and demand they go buy foldable chairs to increase arena seating? Of course not. It's on me to fix the problem.

If Comcast does not have the infrastructure to fulfill their end of a contract with a user, that's their fault. And their problem. If their network cannot handle 23+ million people using the Internet in a way they see fit, then Comcast should stop accepting new customers. But, obviously, Comcast isn't going to do that. So then it's on them to upgrade their infrastructure.

I'm well aware of them. As I've mentioned to others, I deal with this thing (albeit in on an obviously smaller level) on a fairly regular basis. For example, during the spring, schools across the state have to take online standardized tests. The tests themselves require some pretty hefty network requirements, but the other teachers who are holding students until they test are also wanting to stream YouTube or Netflix. Which is why in the past 3-5 years we've upgraded our switches across the network, improved our wireless capabilities and pay for over double the bandwidth of our Internet connection.

We invest in our infrastructure to meet the growing demand. I don't see why it's unreasonable to ask Comcast to do the same.

Ran out of time here. Sorry.

 

[NeverTrump]

An ISP blocking access to a website does not mean taking the website offline. If you knew anything about this topic, you'd know that. But you don't. Which is why you don't. Block access to a website simply means shutting off any traffic to the destination.

See, this is why you couldn't make sense of my arguments...because you DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

No, you don't. I refuse to accept that. Given your absolute lack of knowledge, exposed once more only a sentence or two ago, there's no way any rational person would trust you with their network.

Geez, do you think that's because an ISP literally can't do that? Why in the hell would you think anyone is stating that an ISP can kill a website? Oh, I know...because you think "blocking" a website is "knocking it offline"...and why? Because you DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

Yes, because you DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

Unless an ISP owns the server a website uses (and this is unlikely to be true for any major business), there's no way an ISP can knock a website offline. Anyone with a modicum of technical knowledge knows this. No one with a modicum of technical knowledge would think anyone would suggest it. But you did think that. Why? Because you DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

Let's ignore for a moment I TOTALLY do not believe you fix networks and let me just ask you a direct networking question. I'm a network administrator and my clients visiting YouTube is killing my bandwidth. When I say I'm going to "block YouTube", do you really think that means I'm going to march to Google headquarters and take a sledgehammer to their servers? Do you think I'm going to file a motion with a court to get the court to take YouTube offline? Do you really not understand how utterly stupid it is to think that blocking access to a website means knocking it offline?

You say you work on networks, yet do you really not understand that to block YouTube all I have to do is enter a simple rule into either my content filter or my firewall and simply block access to YouTube servers? Do you really not understand that? Do you even know what a content filter is or what a firewall does?

In this case, they are two different things. I'm still not clear on what you think the actual physical difference is between blocking the site and knocking it offline. Because you are still arguing about content filters. If you are an isp and want to block YouTube what do you think actually happens on that end? You think that the ISP really goes around and cheery picks which users can access it and actually block them manually and purposely?? No they just slow down the site for most users.

It may also be poor choice of wording in the law because ISPs don't act as network administrators to specific end users. They manage the circuits and the panels on their end. Blocking should have never been used in the rules. Since as you and I both agree it's hard to take a website offline.

Furthermore I believe it is harder to throttle YouTube than it is Netflix because YouTube uses different CDNs than Netflix. If they were doing this specifically they were doing it to manage traffic and that is all. It wasn't ever about the specific user and that's why I said you don't understand this difference between blocking kids from going to porno sites and throttling access to steaming websites. Isps really aren't that good at cherry picking their users like that yet. Otherwise they would know that you have kids and wouldn't allow you to go on porno sites in the first place.

But regardless people thought this was going to happen even some in this thread argued that an internet fast lane where isps force the end user to pay for access to particular sites was coming. I'm guessing you didn't believe this but now you know it wasn't going to ever happen.

I think the no blocking rule has been interpreted by others in that way.

 

[Slyfox696]

If you think how fast Netflix became a 'thing' and how the demand went from zero to near what? 100% overnight, it's no wonder that the ISPs, such as ComCast, didn't have a network in place to support the instant and huge demand spike.

It's still not the fault of Netflix. If Netflix WANTS to help, that's fine. But Comcast shouldn't be able to prevent their customers from using Netflix until Netflix pays up. Which is what happened.

You say that as if ISPs were charging by the web site. I've never heard of this. Citation so I can read up on it?

No, I was referring to how Comcast required Netflix to pay them before they stopped throttling Netflix traffic.

But, absent net neutrality, ISPs could have charged for access to certain websites.

I think they both have to have upgrades applied.

They do. Netflix upgrades their infrastructure as their subscriber base increases and Comcast upgrades their infrastructure as demand increases. But Netflix shouldn't have to pay for Comcast's upgrades, just like Comcast shouldn't have to pay for Netflix upgrades.

Actually neither argument makes any sense, any business sense at least.

I agree...but that's what Comcast wanted. And that's something net neutrality protects against.

Assuming that networks and the infrastructure that make them work springs up when needed as if by magic.

Video over the Internet is not new. Comcast had plenty of time to prepare.

Ran out of time here. Sorry.

No problem.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm still not clear on what you think the actual physical difference is between blocking the site and knocking it offline.

It's not what I think, it's what is fact.

If Comcast blocks access to CNN.com for their customers, that doesn't mean Charter or Time Warner customers can no longer access CNN.com, which is what you seem to think is the case. That's not how the Internet (or even networking in general) works.

Because you are still arguing about content filters.

Yes, in a discussion about ISPs filtering content, I'm discussing content filters. Amazing.

If you are an isp and want to block YouTube what do you think actually happens on that end?

There are a number of ways they could do it.

You think that the ISP really goes around and cheery picks which users can access it

Of course not, they just block it for all customers. It wouldn't be difficult.

It may also be poor choice of wording in the law because ISPs don't act as network administrators to specific end users.

We're not talking about law. I've told you this. Stop saying this is a law.

They manage the circuits and the panels on their end. Blocking should have never been used in the rules. Since as you and I both agree it's hard to take a website offline.

We're not taking websites offline. No one has said anything about taking websites offline. Except for you and your absurd definition of what it means to block a website.

It wasn't ever about the specific user and that's why I said you don't understand this difference between blocking kids from going to porno sites and throttling access to steaming websites. Isps really aren't that good at cherry picking their users like that yet. Otherwise they would know that you have kids and wouldn't allow you to go on porno sites in the first place.

You are literally having a different conversation than I am. I'm on topic, you don't know what you're talking about.

But regardless people thought this was going to happen

Thought WHAT was going to happen? Do you have any idea how difficult it is for me to discuss this with someone who is completely clueless as to what they are talking about?

even some in this thread argued that an internet fast lane where isps force the end user to pay for access to particular sites was coming.

Again you demonstrate your ignorance.

A fast lane and access to particular sites are two different scenarios. A fast lane references the idea that ISPs slow some traffic and lets others through unhindered. End users paying for access to sites means the ISP blocks access to a certain website, unless their subscriber pays for it. You are conflating two different things.

I'm guessing you didn't believe this but now you know it wasn't going to ever happen.

You don't even know what you're talking about. Comcast already tried the Internet fast lane approach when they throttled Netflix.

I think the no blocking rule has been interpreted by others in that way.

The only people who think the no block rule means something different than what I've said it means are either stupid or ignorant people.

By the way, I have a friend who works as a tech with an ISP. They are currently expanding their network infrastructure. I gave him a glimpse of what you thought blocking a website meant. He literally posted 7 rolling laughing smileys and said, "There are no words". He was mocking your words. Rightfully so.

You don't know what you're talking about. No one with a modicum of knowledge would buy you that you work on networks for a living. But, I'll play your game...what exactly do you do with networks? What work do you do?

 

[NeverTrump]

1. If Comcast blocks access to CNN.com for their customers, that doesn't mean Charter or Time Warner customers can no longer access CNN.com, which is what you seem to think is the case. That's not how the Internet (or even networking in general) works.

2. Yes, in a discussion about ISPs filtering content, I'm discussing content filters. Amazing.

3. There are a number of ways they could do it. Of course not, they just block it for all customers. It wouldn't be difficult.

4. We're not taking websites offline.

5. Thought WHAT was going to happen?

6. A fast lane and access to particular sites are two different scenarios.

End users paying for access to sites means the ISP blocks access to a certain website, unless their subscriber pays for it. Comcast already tried the Internet fast lane approach when they throttled Netflix.

7. The only people who think the no block rule means something different than what I've said it means are either stupid or ignorant people.

8. But, I'll play your game...what exactly do you do with networks? What work do you do?

1. What is the difference between throttling and blocking? You still haven't answered this.

2. Two very different things. The ISPs don't do any content filtering unless you mean the difference between text and video data then yes they can differentiate between those but that's it! You don't seem to know the difference between content filtering and data filtering.

3. Ok. You do know how they would do this right? Because short of slowing the speed down drastically and filtering the ports to manage the content. I don't see what's so bad about that. But apparently you have a huge problem with it for some odd reason.

4. What's the difference between blocking and throttling?

5. See your number 6.

6. No Netflix did not raise its price on the end users. But what I'm saying is people have argued even in this thread that I would have to pay extra to access a site like DP. this was never the case and you know it!

7. Ok if the isps slow down the site apparently slow enough so that people can't ever get it to load it that's not blocking the site. That's slowing it down really slow. Not blocking.

8. I manage about twenty different locations around nj. A good mix of wireless and hard wired networks. And through my experience no ISP has ever once told me that they are slowing down a site for no reason. Most of the time it's user error not even on the content delivery side. Its just their site: lots of downloads happening, crappy computer, connection, router, wires etc. some of the time I'm blocking their access on purpose because of hard content filters I had to put in myself and sometimes its the ISP fault. Broken equipment wires pipes one time we had a manhole cover cut right through a wire.

 

[Slyfox696]

1. What is the difference between throttling and blocking? You still haven't answered this.

2. Two very different things. The ISPs don't do any content filtering unless you mean the difference between text and video data then yes they can differentiate between those but that's it! You don't seem to know the difference between content filtering and data filtering.

3. Ok. You do know how they would do this right? Because short of slowing the speed down drastically and filtering the ports to manage the content. I don't see what's so bad about that. But apparently you have a huge problem with it for some odd reason.

4. What's the difference between blocking and throttling?

5. See your number 6.

6. No Netflix did not raise its price on the end users. But what I'm saying is people have argued even in this thread that I would have to pay extra to access a site like DP. this was never the case and you know it!

7. Ok if the isps slow down the site apparently slow enough so that people can't ever get it to load it that's not blocking the site. That's slowing it down really slow. Not blocking.

8. I manage about twenty different locations around nj. A good mix of wireless and hard wired networks. And through my experience no ISP has ever once told me that they are slowing down a site for no reason. Most of the time it's user error not even on the content delivery side. Its just their site: lots of downloads happening, crappy computer, connection, router, wires etc. some of the time I'm blocking their access on purpose because of hard content filters I had to put in myself and sometimes its the ISP fault. Broken equipment wires pipes one time we had a manhole cover cut right through a wire.

*blather, blather, nonsense and lies*

When you start your post asking me the difference between blocking and throttling, even though I've directed you to the FCC website on multiple occasions which gives the net neutrality rules they've enforced (which also explains the difference), then it's obvious you're not interested in facts, just mindless regurgitating of the same falsehoods you've been speaking all along. And I'm not going to bother wasting my time even reading anything else in your post.

Go learn how the Internet works and then get back to me. Do some research on what "blocking" means (hint: it doesn't mean killing a website) and get back to me. When you can demonstrate even a modicum of technical knowledge, we can discuss this again.

 

[NeverTrump]

*blather, blather, nonsense and lies*

When you start your post asking me the difference between blocking and throttling, even though I've directed you to the FCC website on multiple occasions which gives the net neutrality rules they've enforced (which also explains the difference), then it's obvious you're not interested in facts, just mindless regurgitating of the same falsehoods you've been speaking all along. And I'm not going to bother wasting my time even reading anything else in your post.

Go learn how the Internet works and then get back to me. Do some research on what "blocking" means (hint: it doesn't mean killing a website) and get back to me. When you can demonstrate even a modicum of technical knowledge, we can discuss this again.

I can't even count how many examples I have given you here and you refuse, refuse, refuse to even acknowledge them.

Let me ask you a question, then. You told me you'd help me understand it. So I will ask you a very simple question on "blocking sites.": You do know how they would do this right? Because short of slowing the speed down drastically and filtering the ports to manage the content. I don't see what's so bad about that. But apparently you have a huge problem with it for some odd reason.

Care to explain to me what's so bad about networks managing ports during peak hours??

 

[Slyfox696]

I can't even count how many examples I have given you here and you refuse, refuse, refuse to even acknowledge them.

Because they don't make sense! Because they are devoid of facts! Giving examples which are factually wrong does not prove anything, other than you don't know what you're talking about.

Let me ask you a question, then. You told me you'd help me understand it. So I will ask you a very simple question on "blocking sites.": You do know how they would do this right?

As I said, there's more than one way. For example, they could redirect DNS requests to resolve to a different server or they could simply kill traffic heading to or from a specific host.

Because short of slowing the speed down drastically and filtering the ports to manage the content. I don't see what's so bad about that.

You don't see what's so bad about an ISP blocking their customers access to specific websites? Really?

But apparently you have a huge problem with it for some odd reason.

Uh, absolutely I do. The bigger question is "why don't you"? Why are you okay with the ISPs deciding where I can go on the Internet and where I cannot go? Why do you think it is okay for Charter to prevent Internet traffic from Playstation Vue reaching my house, just so I have to pay for their TV service?

Why do you think that's okay?

Care to explain to me what's so bad about networks managing ports during peak hours??

I have literally explained this over and over again, both to you and eohrnberger.

If I'm a paying customer, I should have the right to access the content I want, provided the content I want is legal. The ISP should not be allowed to interfere with my traffic, just because they want to make more money from Netflix or force me into buying their services. That completely defeats the concept of a free and open Internet.

Just out of curiosity...do you live in Turkey? Or China? Or any other country where blocking content on the Internet is common?

 

[NeverTrump]

1. As I said, there's more than one way. For example, they could redirect DNS requests to resolve to a different server or they could simply kill traffic heading to or from a specific host.

2. You don't see what's so bad about an ISP blocking their customers access to specific websites? Really?

3. The bigger question is "why don't you"? Why are you okay with the ISPs deciding where I can go on the Internet and where I cannot go? Why do you think it is okay for Charter to prevent Internet traffic from Playstation Vue reaching my house, just so I have to pay for their TV service? Why do you think that's okay?

4. If I'm a paying customer, I should have the right to access the content I want, provided the content I want is legal. The ISP should not be allowed to interfere with my traffic, just because they want to make more money from Netflix or force me into buying their services. That completely defeats the concept of a free and open Internet.

5. Just out of curiosity...do you live in Turkey? Or China? Or any other country where blocking content on the Internet is common?

1. Well it depends but sure they can reroute to a different server. That's not necessarily blocking the site. Why would they kill traffic? They might move it, but I've never heard of an ISP deliberately doing what you describe. If you can point me to some example of that, it would be helpful.

2. I don't see this happening in a large enough way for the complaints to be justified.

3. I have not heard of this happening anywhere. I did a preliminary check on reddit for complaints about your specific problem, and while some have complained about local channels specifically (which is very hard for an independent operator to get right see Apple). I do not see where they had to pay Charter to get content, unless if that's what you were talking about. I would understand why a local provider would want you to pay for local channels, and not pay SONY. So I think it's a mixture of the two not working great together, not so much solely the ISPs fault. https://www.reddit.com/r/Vue/comments/4d4315/charter_cable_peering_issues_effecting_vue/ How do you like Vue, otherwise?? I felt the service under-developed and lacking in content in the first place, but they may have done more changes since I last read up on it.

4. I can see both sides of the issue, and sympathize with the other side as well. However, because the rules are in place I'll just say that you were right on this one and I was wrong. That idea is pretty well put in place in the rules now, however, to suggest that everything is fine or that throttling won't happen just because of these rules is incredibly naive.

5. I live in NJ. You would know this if you read my examples from my last post where I gave you plenty of examples of the problems with blaming ISPs for all your internet woes. I don't think Charter particularly is an outstanding ISP/service in the first place, so it's no surprise to me that you are having issues. I don't see blocking internet content being a huge problem in THIS Country, the US! You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to back up your claim that it is. So where is this huge problem?

Also from my understanding it is the government not private corporations that do the blocking in those countries.

 

[Slyfox696]

1. Well it depends but sure they can reroute to a different server. That's not necessarily blocking the site.

Of course it is. If I send a request to CNN.com and Comcast redirects it to MSNBC.com, that is most certainly blocking my access to CNN.com.

Just stop already.

Why would they kill traffic?

I have literally answered this question 10 times. Go back and read one of the previous times I've answered it. If you want some keywords, look up "Charter" and "Playstation Vue".

2. I don't see this happening in a large enough way for the complaints to be justified.

...you have to be joking, right? Do you really not understand what we're talking about?

Of course it's not happening now. That is the entire point of net neutrality. God, this is so ridiculous that I have to keep explaining this over and over to you.

3. I have not heard of this happening anywhere.

Thanks FCC and net neutrality!

I did a preliminary check on reddit for complaints about your specific problem, and while some have complained about local channels specifically (which is very hard for an independent operator to get right see Apple). I do not see where they had to pay Charter to get content, unless if that's what you were talking about. I would understand why a local provider would want you to pay for local channels, and not pay SONY. So I think it's a mixture of the two not working great together, not so much solely the ISPs fault. https://www.reddit.com/r/Vue/comments/4d4315/charter_cable_peering_issues_effecting_vue/

...seriously? Why is it so hard for you to understand context?

How do you like Vue, otherwise?? I felt the service under-developed and lacking in content in the first place, but they may have done more changes since I last read up on it.

I love it. With the exception of History Channel, I have every channel I ever watched on Charter. I love DVR with no storage restrictions (the 28 day limit doesn't bother me) and the video quality is just as good as I had previously. And, most importantly, I'm paying $50 less per month.

4. I can see both sides of the issue, and sympathize with the other side as well. However, because the rules are in place I'll just say that you were right on this one and I was wrong. That idea is pretty well put in place in the rules now, however, to suggest that everything is fine or that throttling won't happen just because of these rules is incredibly naive.

Throttling COULD happen, but then the ISP would be running afoul of the rules of the FCC.

Sure, ISPs COULD still violate the rules, just like I COULD steal from my neighbor. But the point is there are now consequences, where before there was not.

5. I live in NJ. You would know this if you read my examples from my last post

I told you, I stopped reading your last post when you asked me a question which I had already provided an answer multiple times.

where I gave you plenty of examples of the problems with blaming ISPs for all your internet woes.

Again with the strawman.

I'm not blaming ISP for Internet woes. In fact, I have no current complaint with my ISP. Charter has been good to me and with their acquisition of Time Warner, I won't have to worry about data caps for at least 7 years.

That's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is twofold. 1) What net neutrality is and 2) Why it is necessary.

I don't think Charter particularly is an outstanding ISP/service in the first place, so it's no surprise to me that you are having issues.

I'm not having issues. Again, please post in context.

I don't see blocking internet content being a huge problem in THIS Country, the US!

I didn't say there's a widespread problem with it. In fact, there's not because it is now forbidden. We're talking about why forbidding it is a good thing.

You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to back up your claim that it is. So where is this huge problem?

I've answered this question of yours multiple times now. Stop asking questions I've answered over and over.

Also from my understanding it is the government not private corporations that do the blocking in those countries.

Exactly, but since you don't have a problem with websites being blocked from end users, I was just wondering if you live in one of those countries where it is the norm.

 

[NeverTrump]

1. Of course it is. If I send a request to CNN.com and Comcast redirects it to MSNBC.com, that is most certainly blocking my access to CNN.com.
I have literally answered this question 10 times. Go back and read one of the previous times I've answered it. If you want some keywords, look up "Charter" and "Playstation Vue".

2. I love it. With the exception of History Channel, I have every channel I ever watched on Charter. I love DVR with no storage restrictions (the 28 day limit doesn't bother me) and the video quality is just as good as I had previously. And, most importantly, I'm paying $50 less per month.

3. Sure, ISPs COULD still violate the rules, just like I COULD steal from my neighbor. But the point is there are now consequences, where before there was not.

4. I'm not blaming ISP for Internet woes. In fact, I have no current complaint with my ISP. Charter has been good to me and with their acquisition of Time Warner, I won't have to worry about data caps for at least 7 years. That's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is twofold. 1) What net neutrality is and 2) Why it is necessary. I'm not having issues. Again, please post in context.

5. I didn't say there's a widespread problem with it. In fact, there's not because it is now forbidden. We're talking about why forbidding it is a good thing.

6. Exactly, but since you don't have a problem with websites being blocked from end users, I was just wondering if you live in one of those countries where it is the norm.

1. But that doesn't happen and has never happened in the history of the internet by an ISP. If hackers are involved sure, but that has nothing to do with the topic. That's an entirely different thing and ISPs never did that before. So wait?? You made up an example??? That's your answer to my question!!! :lamo:lamo:lamo I want actual examples not made up scenarios that never have happened.

2. Because from your post you made it sound like there was nefarious things happening with Charter and PS Vue. So now that you lied about that happening it's a good service. Hmmm. Interesting way to argue a point... but I was looking for an actual example of something like that happening before NN rules.

3. They still could have before the rules and there is no evidence that this was a widespread problem so I see no need for this useless piece of legislation.

4. Great you are reconfirming that you lied on the example that you provided above. Do you have an actual real-life example of websites being blocked or redirected before the Net Neutrality rules were passed???

5. But why forbid something that wasn't a problem?

6. I've never seen that happening. I've seen the vague references to services being stopped or slowed down because of technicalities or lack of infrastructure even, but never one in which the ISP blocked a site for no reason. Which is what you are effectively arguing was going on behind the scenes even though you have never provided any sources for your claim. That is why I say you are arguing for a conspiracy theory as if it was fact. If there are literally no examples that you can think of and you actually have to go out of your way to make up an example of it happening, then why were the rules needed???

 

[Slyfox696]

1. But that doesn't happen and has never happened in the history of the internet by an ISP.

But there was nothing stopping it from happening. And now it cannot. That's the point.

So wait?? You made up an example???

You're just now coming around to understanding what I've been saying for days?

I want actual examples not made up scenarios that never have happened.

They could have happened. We already see ISPs counting other websites against data cap, but not their own service. It's not a leap at all to think they would throttle traffic, or outright block it, to a competitor website. That's the entire point.

Again, we don't have to have a bank robbery before we install a security system.

2. Because from your post you made it sound like there was nefarious things happening with Charter and PS Vue. So now that you lied about that happening it's a good service.

What??

I never once said Charter was doing nefarious things, you asked WHY an ISP would do that and I gave you the example. Are you really going to post dishonestly about a question you asked?

3. They still could have before the rules

Do you really not see the difference between following the rules and not following the rules? Really?

so I see no need for this useless piece of legislation.

It's not legislation. How many times do I have to tell you this?

4. Great you are reconfirming that you lied

Umm, how did I lie, except in some warped translation unhinged from reality?

Do you have an actual real-life example of websites being blocked or redirected before the Net Neutrality rules were passed???

IT DOESN'T MATTER! I've told you that. We KNOW Comcast and Verizon throttled Netflix traffic. We KNOW Comcast doesn't count their streaming service against their data cap. No one said it was a widespread problem, we're saying we want to PREVENT it from becoming a problem at all.

Why in the world do you not understand such basic concepts? Is it dishonesty or just a lack of basic understanding?

5. But why forbid something that wasn't a problem?

Why install a security system at a bank which has never been robbed?

6. I've never seen that happening.

Irrelevant to this tangent. I'm saying that you seemed to suggest you had no problem with websites being blocked. Is that true or not?

I've seen the vague references to services being stopped or slowed down because of technicalities or lack of infrastructure even

Comcast and Verizon did NOT slow down Netflix because of technicalities or infrastructure. You know that as well as I do.

but never one in which the ISP blocked a site for no reason.

It would not be for no reason. I told you the reasons they would do it, if they do it.

Which is what you are effectively arguing was going on behind the scenes even though you have never provided any sources for your claim. That is why I say you are arguing for a conspiracy theory as if it was fact.

It is not a conspiracy theory. It IS a fact. We KNOW the ISPs were already throttling traffic to squeeze money out of Netflix. We KNOW they are not counting data to their own services against a cap. We know VOIP was being blocked by an ISP. We KNOW these things are happening.

It's not a conspiracy theory to think the ISP would push their services over a competitor in an unfair manner, when they have already demonstrated their willingness to do it.

If there are literally no examples that you can think of and you actually have to go out of your way to make up an example of it happening, then why were the rules needed???

Why install a security system at a bank? How many times can I ask you this question as an answer before you'll stop asking your ridiculous question?

 

[NeverTrump]

1. IT DOESN'T MATTER! I've told you that. We KNOW Comcast and Verizon throttled Netflix traffic. We KNOW Comcast doesn't count their streaming service against their data cap. No one said it was a widespread problem, we're saying we want to PREVENT it from becoming a problem at all.

2. Why install a security system at a bank which has never been robbed?

3. It is not a conspiracy theory. It IS a fact. We KNOW the ISPs were already throttling traffic to squeeze money out of Netflix. We KNOW they are not counting data to their own services against a cap. We know VOIP was being blocked by an ISP. We KNOW these things are happening.

4. It's not a conspiracy theory to think the ISP would push their services over a competitor in an unfair manner, when they have already demonstrated their willingness to do it.

5. Why install a security system at a bank? How many times can I ask you this question as an answer before you'll stop asking your ridiculous question?

1. Yes it does. You can't make up an example when I asked for a specific real-life example of this happening. I understand your side doesn't want it to become a problem that would be a fair point if you can actually point out that ISPs were doing this with these intentions in mind. However, what I have always said, was that it wasn't, hasn't and never would have been a problem! At least not one so nefarious as the picture painted by most of the people in your camp. You saw the memes just as much as I did.

This scenario was never on the table, and was never going to be a reality. That's just how I see it.

2. First you have to prove bank robberies actually happen! In this case that would be site redirections.

3. OK. You agreed with me earlier that the Netflix problem wasn't a problem because the two companies came up with a deal on their own. That's what I prefer. If that's the only example you can come up with to back up why these new rules need to be there. I really see a problem with that more than the actual things that Net Neutrality is supposed to prevent.

4. That is not what I have a problem with in this discussion but as I pointed out before, Net Neutrality hasn't stopped ISPs from pushing their services over competitors'. I always see those FIOS ads saying "This video is on on demand, but not on Netflix yet." The conspiracy theory here is that you think ISPs will purposely redirect websites. That is a far cry from pushing their services over another competitor. That's even a far cry from the extreme example above.

5. I do not think that you have proven that site redirections happen. Throttling surely does and we can endlessly debate on whether the ISPs do that with good intentions or bad ones, but you have not proven that ISPs will block and/or redirect content from competitors.

 

[Slyfox696]

1. Yes it does.

No it doesn't. What matters is that they COULD have and we have already seen them start down the path. That's what matters.

This scenario was never on the table, and was never going to be a reality. That's just how I see it.

You mean the way television is already done? You're right, that would have NEVER happened. :roll:

2. First you have to prove bank robberies actually happen!

...now you're saying bank robberies don't happen. Got it.

3. OK. You agreed with me earlier that the Netflix problem wasn't a problem

No, I didn't. The fact Netflix HAD to pay Comcast was most definitely a problem. Stop telling falsehoods.

4. That is not what I have a problem with in this discussion but as I pointed out before, Net Neutrality hasn't stopped ISPs from pushing their services over competitors'.

But it has stopped them from preventing customers from reaching competitors. Which is exactly the point. As I've said.

I always see those FIOS ads saying "This video is on on demand, but not on Netflix yet."

What? That has nothing to do with net neutrality.

I'm done with you. You don't even understand net neutrality. You continuously post falsehoods and you have shown zero technical competence and, quite frankly, zero interest in learning.

Aside from all of the provably false things you have said (and they've been many), the fact is you clearly don't know what you're talking about. And everyone who does know what they're talking about laughs at you.

 

[NeverTrump]

1. No it doesn't. What matters is that they COULD have and we have already seen them start down the path. That's what matters. You mean the way television is already done? You're right, that would have NEVER happened. :roll:

2. No, I didn't. The fact Netflix HAD to pay Comcast was most definitely a problem. Stop telling falsehoods.

3. But it has stopped them from preventing customers from reaching competitors.

1. I maintain that it never would have. Scary charts don't work on me. You're going to have to do a lot better job proving that this sort of thing was just on the horizon if Net Neutrality rules weren't there. Being sarcastic about it and typing in all caps does not help you prove your point.

2. I maintain it was not a problem Net Neutrality fixed either. So it's a really bad and hypocritical example and one of the only ones you seem to stick to.

Just because Netflix had the money to pay ISPs, that doesn't A) make it right or B) mean any/every one else could.
Net neutrality isn't about stopping Netflix from voluntarily entering into a contract with an ISP.

You just said here in this sentence that Net Neutrality wasn't about stopping the problem of Netflix from entering into a contract with an ISP. Now you are saying it is??? You keep going back and forth between these things makes me think you will defend Net Neutrality to the moon and back and not listen to one single word of criticism about it.

3. You haven't adequately proven this. You've just made up examples about scenarios that you think could happen. You also talked about one vague local case about VOIP. I don't understand how you can say that is proof that your conspiracy theory and various doomsday scenarios was going to happen. It's just not enough evidence for me to get on the bandwagon. In fact, it's severely lacking.

Just because you and all your friends believe that Net Neutrality saved the world from all these doomsday scenarios you fell for, doesn't mean you're right!