- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 57,470
- Reaction score
- 14,587
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
it isn't extending service to anyone. that is the entire issue.
As long as the money goes to extend service to everybody I don't care.
Maybe this is a dumb question but if an ISP decides to screw with their customers as described then don't you think that those customers would switch ISP's so that they are no longer screwed with?
And if both the isps in your area are doing the same thing?
it isn't extending service to anyone. that is the entire issue.
:dohSo what taxes are y'all talking about?
That ain't going to happen. So many Congress members like Cruz are bought and paid for by the telecoms that they will never, ever, ever vote for this. It's easier to get the GOP to remove nuclear and oil subsidies than it will be for them to vote to cut off the high revenue tier structure from their donors.
Ted Cruz's plan is to make NN sound bad as a tool to hammer Obama on during the GOP primaries. The amount of damage he can do purely by associating it with the ACA and Obama will cause plenty of Republicans to vote against it purely out of their own primary concerns.
That law would be nice, but it's not even remotely realistic given telecom contributions and what Ted Cruz is doing in terms of association.
Okay, how about you offer a reason why ISPs won't throttle?
Please aside from magic, what is stopping monopolies from engaging in behavior to literally charge you extra for every packet of data you want delivered or received within a reasonable period of time?
Are you COMPLETELY UNAWARE that ISPs have throttled Netflixks?
Actually, your article says different and notes that this WAS NOT a "net neutrality" issue.
added emphasis is mine.
No, they did not "throttle" netflix, that's not accurate.
​Comcast vs. Netflix: Is this really about Net neutrality? - CNET
please read this and get up to speed on this. not all is as it seems.
Definitely an interesting read. Though still leaves some questions in the air as to why the speeds for Netflix on Comcast immedietely increased as soon as a financial deal was done. Using the analogies in your article, the "firehose connection" wouldn't have been created and finished as soon as a deal was done...it would've taken time for money to change hands and the work to be done. So there's a legitimate question to be had as to whether or not the slow down was simply a natural issue, or if it was a result of artificial hinderance on the part of comcast on top of any natural issue that would've been present.
So what taxes are y'all talking about?
Notice what i'm saying. I'm suggesting it's far fetched to suggest it's going to occur in the next 2 to 6 years, which was the time period I spoke about being willing to hold off on taking such an extreme action as classifying it as a utility and pushing for a law. To go from where we are now, which is still...relatively speaking...extremely based in neutrality principles to such an extreme end as pay per page view is not going to be something that occurs in half a decade in my mind. That's like running a marathon in an hour. I just don't see that being realistic.
It does, and I acknowledged earlier in the thread it would require an enforcement mechanism. But there's a large difference in giving the government a SPECIFIC set of rules that it can enforce, and giving the government the carte blanche options for enforcement and new regulation that comes with declaring it a utility.
A specific law would be a form of regulation, but one created by the legislation rather than a regulatory agency. That means whatever body charged with enforcing it (I basically said it'd likely still be the FCC) is bound by the criteria's and limits of said law. Meaning it's very difficult for it to expand beyond that law without additional legislation, putting a bit of a potential stop gap on the government expanding beyond simple neutrality standards.
By making it a utility, you're giving the regulatory agency a FAR wider field in which it can create new and additional regulation that it wants to enforce, as the laws regarding utilities are already on the books and are far more widely acted upon than a simple net neutrality bill would allow.
No, they did not "throttle" netflix, that's not accurate.
​Comcast vs. Netflix: Is this really about Net neutrality? - CNET
please read this and get up to speed on this. not all is as it seems.
Health insurance could have been fixed without the government taking control as it did.
Net Nuetrality could be fixed without the government taking control.
You believe the government taking control is the only answer...as I stated earlier.
Ted Cruz doesn't give a flying monkey's butt about whether or not he's right.
Cruz is entirely doing this to out flank every Republican Presidential candidate in 2015-2016 by attacking everything Obama wants and does. Cruz knows full well that anyone who is even remotely tech informed knows he's completely full of crap. But most of us won't vote for him anyways. The crazy radicals within the GOP primaries, most of whom are old, white and tech illiterate will eat Cruz's statements up. Cruz knows he has to win the primaries and playing to the extremists is how he plans on doing just that.
I fully suspect that Cruz knows he's wrong. But he doesn't care he's wrong because being wrong is just a means to an end. In a sense Cruz is farming the idiots for their votes. Expect Cruz to be nearly 100% "Whatever Obama Wants, I Hate" for the next two years. Doesn't matter what, Cruz's plan of attack is to be the anti-Obama. Whether or not that ticket will get him into the White House remains to be seen.
If you don't like how your ISP operates then go with another.
I see your point, but it is related in that ISPS can charge different networks different rates dependent on what the data is and therefore treat the packets of data differently. Technically, it is still throttling in that they reduced the amount of data that they would allow Netflix's networks to send over their own lines due to the interconnection fee dust up. The bigger issue of interconnection fees obviously is huge. I get that Comcast's data lines aren't that big, but that's partially their fault for not investing. That article makes this more nuanced, but I don't feel that it has substantially changed the issue.
How many ISPs do you have in your area?
If I have 10 peers, would letting netflix take up 7 of them organically be "neutral" to the people trying stream from porndig? (I use 10 as an example)...
point being, that if one service is eating up all the capacity of an isp, is that neutrality if other sites and services are squeezed out?
That's not the way the internet works. Content providers already have to pay for the bandwidth they're using. They're either paying for an ISP to connect them to the Tier 1 internet backbone or they're directly paying for infrastructure in the tier 1 network. All traffic on the Tier 1 network is done through settlement-free interconnection. That means everyone routes everyone else’s traffic and no one charges per packet fees. If a company like netflix grows and starts to increase their footprint then they have to pay to for either more bandwidth or more Tier 1 infrastructure.
The ISP acts in a similar way. They either pay to connect to the tier 1 backbone or they provide tier 1 infrastructure. They pay for this by selling you a piece of that bandwidth. So you're paying for what you use, and content providers are paying for what they use.. seems pretty fair to me.
But now cable companies are trying to get more money. You're already paying for the bandwidth you use. You're also paying paying content providers so that they can buy the bandwidth they use. Now cable companies want content providers to pay a third time without providing anything for it. Where do you think that money will come from? You. Do you really want to pay more for exactly what you're getting now?
We have pretty much the worst internet in the industrialized world. We pay more than anyone else, and get less for it.
BBC News - Why is broadband more expensive in the US?
lmao. I agree with everything you said, but "white"? Seriously: lmfao, what is even the point of saying that?
[/QUOTE]uhm, prior to the deal, netflix came to comcast via convergent and others. now they have a direct connection.
My netflix is the same price.
Did you see any of my other links? it explains it all.
We have pretty much the worst internet in the industrialized world. We pay more than anyone else, and get less for it.
BBC News - Why is broadband more expensive in the US?
Content providers are more than welcome to peer with ISPs to provide better service for their customers. If you backtrace to google.com you're likely to see many fewer hops than to other sites on the internet.
But Netflix didn't make a deal with your ISP because of free market forces. They made a deal because ISPs deliberately sabotaged content from netflix unless netflix agreed to pay for direct peering. That means that Netflix now has less money to pay for developers and content. Sure the price might be the same, but the product isn't as good as it otherwise would have been.
When you signed your terms of service, did you agree to x bandwidth unless it's to a site which is directly competing with other products produced by your ISP?
Seriously? Comcast et al "allowed" Netflix to pay for peered connections as a courtesy? I suppose the mob allowed businesses to buy protection as a "courtesy" as well.That's what they did, they negotioated with comcast to do that.
Incorrect, they used to open up additional peers for bandwith demands based on courtesy, not a business agreement. This is nothing to do with NN
If netflix is slowing down ones porndig, does one have a right to argue the opposite?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?