Net Neutrailty is back

[ksen]

How can powerful companies be so stupid. They are service providers not information providers. the information providers use isps to deliver that which the users want, not that which those providing wire and energy between the information and the user want. There is no sense in Verizon's position.

It does boggle the mind.

 

[Nexus]

While the anti-net neutrality people have often argued ISP's ought to be able to do what they want and give numerous analogies , they never attempt to persuade us consumers why its in our best interests to have ISP's throttle our service to companies that didn't pay extra fees.

 

[blastula]

I would like them to regulate the internet against content about dress colors, for a start.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

http://agoodcartoon.tumblr.com/post/112519623990/the-cartoonist-has-no-idea-how-net-neutrality

 

[coloradoatheist]

While the anti-net neutrality people have often argued ISP's ought to be able to do what they want and give numerous analogies , they never attempt to persuade us consumers why its in our best interests to have ISP's throttle our service to companies that didn't pay extra fees.

Actually it's one that I think both sides will exaggerate the drawbacks or the benefits. The Internet has gone about 30 years without government interface, and all of a sudden with one or two small problems that were fixed that the government must get involved.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

While the anti-net neutrality people have often argued ISP's ought to be able to do what they want and give numerous analogies , they never attempt to persuade us consumers why its in our best interests to have ISP's throttle our service to companies that didn't pay extra fees.

Actually it's one that I think both sides will exaggerate the drawbacks or the benefits. The Internet has gone about 30 years without government interface, and all of a sudden with one or two small problems that were fixed that the government must get involved.

Understood. Because the Internet worked just fine back when streaming video didn't exist, once streaming video became mainstream and there were a few minor instances of ISPs throttling video streaming data (in order to get more money to allow the streams to go unhindered), we can pretend that all is well as the invisible hand whacks off the corporate penis.

 

[dismal]

While the anti-net neutrality people have often argued ISP's ought to be able to do what they want and give numerous analogies , they never attempt to persuade us consumers why its in our best interests to have ISP's throttle our service to companies that didn't pay extra fees.

It sounds like they claim they are attempting to prioritize traffic during periods of congestion to preserve the best overall experience for their subscribers.

Cogent said they prioritized data based on user type “putting its retail customers in one group and wholesale in another.” Cogent said “retail customers were favored because they tend to use applications, such as VoIP, that are most sensitive to congestion” and that they “implemented a QoS structure that impacts interconnections during the time they are congested.” Cogent classified M-Lab performance tests into the highest priority class. As they did so, this change instantly and dramatically improved the M-Lab test results. [Described by Susan Crawford as “the Cliff and the Slope” – it appears the cliff was Cogent taking on Netflix and the slope was the introduction of a fast lane on the Cogent network] The fact that the high priority traffic class so quickly improved M-Lab’s test performance demonstrates conclusively that there must have been significant congestion present in Cogent’s network. Cogent now admits to impacting third-party content and says they did it as a “last resort effort to help manage the congestion and its impact to our customers”.

From earlier link.

 

[ksen]

While the anti-net neutrality people have often argued ISP's ought to be able to do what they want and give numerous analogies , they never attempt to persuade us consumers why its in our best interests to have ISP's throttle our service to companies that didn't pay extra fees.

Actually it's one that I think both sides will exaggerate the drawbacks or the benefits. The Internet has gone about 30 years without government interface, and all of a sudden with one or two small problems that were fixed that the government must get involved.

And by "small problem" you mean the artificial slowing down of certain sites pending a fee paid to the ISPs. And by "fixed" you mean the payment of protection money to the ISPs.

Nice whitewash attempt though.

 

[ksen]

It sounds like they claim they are attempting to prioritize traffic during periods of congestion to preserve the best overall experience for their subscribers.

If you read Verizon's response upthread it sounds like the big ISPs feel it is their right to control access to specific content.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Actually it's one that I think both sides will exaggerate the drawbacks or the benefits. The Internet has gone about 30 years without government interface, and all of a sudden with one or two small problems that were fixed that the government must get involved.

Understood. Because the Internet worked just fine back when streaming video didn't exist, once streaming video became mainstream profitable and there [was money to be made] suddenly there were a few minor instances of ISPs throttling video streaming data (in order to get more money to allow the streams to go unhindered), we can pretend that all is well as the invisible hand whacks off the corporate penis.

fify

 

[dismal]

It sounds like they claim they are attempting to prioritize traffic during periods of congestion to preserve the best overall experience for their subscribers.

If you read Verizon's response upthread it sounds like the big ISPs feel it is their right to control access to specific content.

I am not an expert in the technology issues here.

Are you saying that some providers, such as Netflix, can not have such bandwidth demands that they cause performance for other users to lag?

And that some applications, such as VOIP, are not more sensitive to performance issues than others?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Actually it's one that I think both sides will exaggerate the drawbacks or the benefits. The Internet has gone about 30 years without government interface, and all of a sudden with one or two small problems that were fixed that the government must get involved.

And by "small problem" you mean the artificial slowing down of certain sites pending a fee paid to the ISPs. And by "fixed" you mean the payment of protection money to the ISPs.

Nice whitewash attempt though.

It wasn't artificial. It was Cogent and other providers disagreeing on who should pay for the upgrade of the infrastructure and the companies found a way to involve things. You never think in the business world companies find a way to figure out how to pay for things on their own?

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it's one that I think both sides will exaggerate the drawbacks or the benefits. The Internet has gone about 30 years without government interface, and all of a sudden with one or two small problems that were fixed that the government must get involved.

Understood. Because the Internet worked just fine back when streaming video didn't exist, once streaming video became mainstream and there were a few minor instances of ISPs throttling video streaming data (in order to get more money to allow the streams to go unhindered), we can pretend that all is well as the invisible hand whacks off the corporate penis.

The increased bandwidth was the concern with scarce and sometimes costly upgrades. So the argument is who pays for the increased use of resources? Is it the users of the increased consumption (netflix users), or all comcast users or companies in the middle.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Actually it's one that I think both sides will exaggerate the drawbacks or the benefits. The Internet has gone about 30 years without government interface, and all of a sudden with one or two small problems that were fixed that the government must get involved.

Understood. Because the Internet worked just fine back when streaming video didn't exist, once streaming video became mainstream and there were a few minor instances of ISPs throttling video streaming data (in order to get more money to allow the streams to go unhindered), we can pretend that all is well as the invisible hand whacks off the corporate penis.

The increased bandwidth was the concern with scarce and sometimes costly upgrades. So the argument is who pays for the increased use of resources? Is it the users of the increased consumption (netflix users), or all comcast users or companies in the middle.

Interesting. Could you share with us the costs of these upgrades and what was upgraded?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually it's one that I think both sides will exaggerate the drawbacks or the benefits. The Internet has gone about 30 years without government interface, and all of a sudden with one or two small problems that were fixed that the government must get involved.

Understood. Because the Internet worked just fine back when streaming video didn't exist, once streaming video became mainstream and there were a few minor instances of ISPs throttling video streaming data (in order to get more money to allow the streams to go unhindered), we can pretend that all is well as the invisible hand whacks off the corporate penis.

The increased bandwidth was the concern with scarce and sometimes costly upgrades.

Alleged. And the data made it to Comcast and Verizon's networks fine, so the backbone had absolutely no problem handling the data. And once the deal was struck, the speed of Netflix streaming seemed to magically return to what it was, almost as if no improvement was required at all.

So the argument is who pays for the increased use of resources?

You mean the allegedly expensive increases?

Is it the users of the increased consumption (netflix users), or all comcast users or companies in the middle.

Well, I was presuming that the money already being paid by the consumer for the Internet service in the first place paid for that. Or are Comcast and Verizon living paycheck to paycheck?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Actually it's one that I think both sides will exaggerate the drawbacks or the benefits. The Internet has gone about 30 years without government interface, and all of a sudden with one or two small problems that were fixed that the government must get involved.

Understood. Because the Internet worked just fine back when streaming video didn't exist, once streaming video became mainstream and there were a few minor instances of ISPs throttling video streaming data (in order to get more money to allow the streams to go unhindered), we can pretend that all is well as the invisible hand whacks off the corporate penis.

The increased bandwidth was the concern with scarce and sometimes costly upgrades. So the argument is who pays for the increased use of resources? Is it the users of the increased consumption (netflix users), or all comcast users or companies in the middle.

Interesting. Could you share with us the costs of these upgrades and what was upgraded?

I think they did something simple, though it said the deal wasn't public. Netflix paid for a Comcast circuit or multiple circuits.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Actually it's one that I think both sides will exaggerate the drawbacks or the benefits. The Internet has gone about 30 years without government interface, and all of a sudden with one or two small problems that were fixed that the government must get involved.

Understood. Because the Internet worked just fine back when streaming video didn't exist, once streaming video became mainstream and there were a few minor instances of ISPs throttling video streaming data (in order to get more money to allow the streams to go unhindered), we can pretend that all is well as the invisible hand whacks off the corporate penis.

The increased bandwidth was the concern with scarce and sometimes costly upgrades. So the argument is who pays for the increased use of resources? Is it the users of the increased consumption (netflix users), or all comcast users or companies in the middle.

Interesting. Could you share with us the costs of these upgrades and what was upgraded?

I think they did something simple, though it said the deal wasn't public. Netflix paid for a Comcast circuit or multiple circuits.

So you don't know that they upgraded anything or what the cost was. Nice.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Actually it's one that I think both sides will exaggerate the drawbacks or the benefits. The Internet has gone about 30 years without government interface, and all of a sudden with one or two small problems that were fixed that the government must get involved.

Understood. Because the Internet worked just fine back when streaming video didn't exist, once streaming video became mainstream and there were a few minor instances of ISPs throttling video streaming data (in order to get more money to allow the streams to go unhindered), we can pretend that all is well as the invisible hand whacks off the corporate penis.

The increased bandwidth was the concern with scarce and sometimes costly upgrades. So the argument is who pays for the increased use of resources? Is it the users of the increased consumption (netflix users), or all comcast users or companies in the middle.

Interesting. Could you share with us the costs of these upgrades and what was upgraded?

I think they did something simple, though it said the deal wasn't public. Netflix paid for a Comcast circuit or multiple circuits.

So you don't know that they upgraded anything or what the cost was. Nice.

the said the deal was in millions and that Netflix and Comcast would cut out the middlemen like Cogent and Level 3. It would be buying a circuit or multiple circuits to their data center. It's a normal process business follows.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

the said the deal was in millions and that Netflix and Comcast would cut out the middlemen like Cogent and Level 3. It would be buying a circuit or multiple circuits to their data center. It's a normal process business follows.

But we have no actual deal numbers or what was installed, especially since other ISPs had no problem handling the load from Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, PornHub and TMZ (and also were not offering competing products to Netflix). Hmmm?

 

[ksen]

If you read Verizon's response upthread it sounds like the big ISPs feel it is their right to control access to specific content.

I am not an expert in the technology issues here.

Neither am I, but when Verizon says outright that they think ISPs ought to be able to control access to specific content then I figure I don't have to be in order to take them at their word.

Are you saying that some providers, such as Netflix, can not have such bandwidth demands that they cause performance for other users to lag?

No.

And that some applications, such as VOIP, are not more sensitive to performance issues than others?

No.

 

[ksen]

Actually it's one that I think both sides will exaggerate the drawbacks or the benefits. The Internet has gone about 30 years without government interface, and all of a sudden with one or two small problems that were fixed that the government must get involved.

Understood. Because the Internet worked just fine back when streaming video didn't exist, once streaming video became mainstream and there were a few minor instances of ISPs throttling video streaming data (in order to get more money to allow the streams to go unhindered), we can pretend that all is well as the invisible hand whacks off the corporate penis.

The increased bandwidth was the concern with scarce and sometimes costly upgrades. So the argument is who pays for the increased use of resources? Is it the users of the increased consumption (netflix users), or all comcast users or companies in the middle.

Interesting. Could you share with us the costs of these upgrades and what was upgraded?

I think they did something simple, though it said the deal wasn't public. Netflix paid for a Comcast circuit or multiple circuits.

So you don't know that they upgraded anything or what the cost was. Nice.

the said the deal was in millions and that Netflix and Comcast would cut out the middlemen like Cogent and Level 3. It would be buying a circuit or multiple circuits to their data center. It's a normal process business follows.

There is no congestion problem.