• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rogers explains why it came last in Netflix rankings

Hatuey

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,334
Reaction score
27,000
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/rogers-explains-why-came-last-netflix-rankings-203012953.html

Later that day, Keith McArthur, vice-president of social media for Rogers Communications, posted on the company's Redboard blog that the speed results "only apply to customers’ specific Netflix connection and not overall internet speeds," which were much faster. He added that the test was conducted "just before we virtually doubled Netflix capacity."


That led some people to speculate that Rogers might be throttling or deliberately slowing down Netflix as part of its internet traffic management practices. If that were the case, it would be required to disclose the practice under Canadian net neutrality rules.


Rogers's social media team responded both on its blog and on Twitter that "We absolutely do not throttle traffic on our network."


University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist, who specializes in issues related to the internet, wrote on his blog Tuesday that Rogers's responses "raise troubling questions about how Rogers manages its network and whether the slow Netflix speeds could have been used to create a competitive advantage for its own online video services."
Click to expand...

There will be hell to pay if congress lets US companies restrict access to the internet or slow down speeds for certain websites. It's already starting in Canada and it's only a matter of time before internet users let the government know that companies don't get to charge us for 100Mbps and then slow down certain websites. Companies don't get to tell us which perfectly legal sites we can visit and how fast we can navigate them. We're not China. We won't put up with this kind of bs.
 
Hatuey said:
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/rogers-explains-why-came-last-netflix-rankings-203012953.html



There will be hell to pay if congress lets US companies restrict access to the internet or slow down speeds for certain websites. It's already starting in Canada and it's only a matter of time before internet users let the government know that companies don't get to charge us for 100Mbps and then slow down certain websites. Companies don't get to tell us which perfectly legal sites we can visit and how fast we can navigate them. We're not China. We won't put up with this kind of bs.
Click to expand...

I agree. I pay for the access to the internet and the speed with which I travel it. I expect my contract to be fulfilled. Just like I don't buy buckets of internet I buy a pipeline and I expect that pipeline to be able to handle at full capacity I require my traffic needs. This net neutrality argument is bs its simply the internet service providers trying to get more money on the same traffic. Netflix pays for its access. The customers pay for their access. The ISP need to connect them per their contract not extort people.
 
Hatuey said:
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/rogers-explains-why-came-last-netflix-rankings-203012953.html



There will be hell to pay if congress lets US companies restrict access to the internet or slow down speeds for certain websites. It's already starting in Canada and it's only a matter of time before internet users let the government know that companies don't get to charge us for 100Mbps and then slow down certain websites. Companies don't get to tell us which perfectly legal sites we can visit and how fast we can navigate them. We're not China. We won't put up with this kind of bs.
Click to expand...

Agree COMPLETELY!!! And, given that it's you and me agreeing when we are usually on opposite sides of almost everything, it shows that the Congress and the FCC (they should change the "F" from Federal to F***ed to be more accurate) are treading down a dangerous road here.
 
Well the difference here is that the CRTC will do something about it if we annoy them enough. I would also like to see net neutrality amended to the U.S. constitution and our Charter, I really do think we need to add digital rights to the charter.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Agree COMPLETELY!!! And, given that it's you and me agreeing when we are usually on opposite sides of almost everything, it shows that the Congress and the FCC (they should change the "F" from Federal to F***ed to be more accurate) are treading down a dangerous road here.
Click to expand...

The biggest argument in favor of this type of nonsense is that the market will correct itself if it is tried. Utter nonsense. It's already an established fact that internet providers act like Mexican cartels. They've divided themselves the CUS and gouged the living **** out of customers through price collusion and oligarchic policies. Why would they ever correct this if they don't have to? Comcast? AT&T? Verizon? The companies constantly criticized for ****ing over their customers are the ones who will correct themselves? Right, because if the only provider in your area is Comcast you'll what? Move? Get another non-existent provider?
 
Hatuey said:
The biggest argument in favor of this type of nonsense is that the market will correct itself if it is tried. Utter nonsense. It's already an established fact that internet providers act like Mexican cartels. They've divided themselves the CUS and gouged the living **** out of customers through price collusion and oligarchic policies. Why would they ever correct this if they don't have to? Comcast? AT&T? Verizon? The companies constantly criticized for ****ing over their customers are the ones who will correct themselves? Right, because if the only provider in your area is Comcast you'll what? Move? Get another non-existent provider?
Click to expand...

This is a situation where we need true net neutrality. Almost the absence of government regulation other than to ensure that everyone has equal access, including content providers and customers of ISP's get what you pay for.

What really pisses me off is that companies like Netflix have to PAY to get their site FULL ACCESS at full speeds. And if they don't pay, they get throttled, or even if they pay, an ISP that also has a competing service (like movies) can still throttle them to make them less competitive. That's not a free market. That needs to be fixed, not made worse.
 
Carjosse said:
Well the difference here is that the CRTC will do something about it if we annoy them enough. I would also like to see net neutrality amended to the U.S. constitution and our Charter, I really do think we need to add digital rights to the charter.
Click to expand...

Just a new set of rights for government to ignore.
 
sites like our own would suffer if net neutrality ended. it is all kinds of ****ed up that any DP member would support this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom