• 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!

Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

The government funded the development of the Internet technologies, and then kept it's hands off it.
Except for legislating it, and basically having a solid grip on ICAAN, etc etc.

By the way -- doesn't your description of this history pretty much refute your own claims that government can't be trusted? How does it make sense to describe governments as inexorably overreaching, when they literally leave it alone for a few decades? It just doesn't compute.


All of the things that you mention are ancillary to the core issue here, which is the delivery, or lack there of, of content, which really is something that the government should keep out of, and let the private sector handle it. It's been doing pretty well so far.
It looks to me like you are confusing "treating all traffic as equal" and "government censorship of content."

Net neutrality, yet again, has NOTHING to do with censoring content. The only thing it does is prevent ISPs from abusing their monopoly position. And yeah... they pretty much are monopolies, as we can see with the mergers of the already-big companies (again, Comcast and Time-Warner).


Well at least we can agree on that point, but between the two, let me choose between businesses I deal with. No such choice with government, so much more limited government's involvement the better, if you ask me.
Nice theory, too bad it doesn't match reality. There isn't much choice in broadband ISPs these days, and we'll have one less choice if the Comcast-Time Warner merger goes through. Even customers in NYC, a big urban region, have few options for broadband. Most of the companies they can choose from (Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc) have conflicts of interest with services like Netflix or Vonage.

Oh, and we can choose our elected officials, who in turn determine what bureaucracies like the FCC can do.


The fairness doctrine was pushing onto the market what the market didn't want, distorting the market. Something that the government shouldn't be doing, but yet does far, far, far too often on nearly every front and impacting every industry.
Lol

No, the Fairness Doctrine wasn't "distorting the market." Not even close.

The spectrum is a public good. The government licenses it to specific entities, in exchange for certain requirements. The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to actually treat it as a public good, and spend a small amount of time discussing topics of public interest in a balanced way. Stations didn't have to devote their networks 24/7 to the topic; they could have other programs that expressed any point of view they wanted. It's no different than the CTA.


Until we know the details of the business deal that resolved the conflict we don't know anything...
By now, we have a pretty good idea.

Slow Comcast speeds were costing Netflix customers - Aug. 29, 2014
The inside story of how Netflix came to pay Comcast for internet traffic – Quartz

There is no question that Comcast strangled them, and redirected their own customers to complain to Netflix, who caved.


The end result was posted in the graph earlier, the content was delivered to the end users. Problem solved, and it didn't take government involvement. Must eat you up alive that it didn't.
What "eats me alive" is that it was an egregious example of a monopolist with a conflict of interest, that abused its position, a ****ty solution that favored a corporate behemoth at the expense of a nimble, newer, non-monopolistic competitor.

I don't mind at all when companies are able to sort things out on their own, without screwing the customers in the process. That isn't what happened here. Hence the problem, and the need for regulation, especially since next time the company who gets the shaft might not be able to afford the ransom.
 
Except for legislating it, and basically having a solid grip on ICAAN, etc etc.

By the way -- doesn't your description of this history pretty much refute your own claims that government can't be trusted? How does it make sense to describe governments as inexorably overreaching, when they literally leave it alone for a few decades? It just doesn't compute.

That which has been left alone, will now be subjected to government oversight. That's a step backwards to me. Seems the government should continue to take a hands off. Besides, since you've admitted that it's the ISPs network, a private network, by which Internet based justification doe sthe government have the right to go and meddle inside of someone's private network?

It looks to me like you are confusing "treating all traffic as equal" and "government censorship of content."

Since traffic and content are the same thing on a digital network, how can you keep them apart?

Net neutrality, yet again, has NOTHING to do with censoring content. The only thing it does is prevent ISPs from abusing their monopoly position. And yeah... they pretty much are monopolies, as we can see with the mergers of the already-big companies (again, Comcast and Time-Warner).

Nice theory, too bad it doesn't match reality. There isn't much choice in broadband ISPs these days, and we'll have one less choice if the Comcast-Time Warner merger goes through. Even customers in NYC, a big urban region, have few options for broadband. Most of the companies they can choose from (Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc) have conflicts of interest with services like Netflix or Vonage.

Monopolies? In the vast majority of the broadband connected areas there are at least 2, if not more, choices of both solutions and companies that provide the connectivity. Doesn't sound like a monopoly to me.

Oh, and we can choose our elected officials, who in turn determine what bureaucracies like the FCC can do.

When's the last time you chose an FCC bureaucrat? I don't think they come up for elections very often.

No, the Fairness Doctrine wasn't "distorting the market." Not even close.

The spectrum is a public good. The government licenses it to specific entities, in exchange for certain requirements. The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to actually treat it as a public good, and spend a small amount of time discussing topics of public interest in a balanced way. Stations didn't have to devote their networks 24/7 to the topic; they could have other programs that expressed any point of view they wanted. It's no different than the CTA.

CTA?

By now, we have a pretty good idea.

Slow Comcast speeds were costing Netflix customers - Aug. 29, 2014
The inside story of how Netflix came to pay Comcast for internet traffic – Quartz

There is no question that Comcast strangled them, and redirected their own customers to complain to Netflix, who caved.

What "eats me alive" is that it was an egregious example of a monopolist with a conflict of interest, that abused its position, a ****ty solution that favored a corporate behemoth at the expense of a nimble, newer, non-monopolistic competitor.

And this has occurred on the Internet when, exactly? Most nimble, newer, non-monopolistic tech companies sell out to corporate behemoth's at the market rate or above. If there's anything to like about the tech industry is that nimble, newer, non-monopolistic competitor nearly always out compete the corporate behemoth's.

And speaking of behemoth's, when the federal government gets involved, it's the gorilla in the room, and you expect the nimble, newer, non-monopolistic competitor to be able to take THAT behemoth on? What sized companies have the resources to lobby and get what they want from the federal government? The nimble, newer, non-monopolistic competitors? Or the corporate behemoth's? You sure you want the federal government inviolved in this? Seems that it'd go far worse for the nimble, newer, non-monopolistic competitors if they are.

I don't mind at all when companies are able to sort things out on their own, without screwing the customers in the process. That isn't what happened here. Hence the problem, and the need for regulation, especially since next time the company who gets the shaft might not be able to afford the ransom.

isp-speed.png

For all of how long? 3 Months or less that traffic was impacted?

I think you are suffering from an idealized concept of what the federal government does, and how it does it. Better get over that, as it could be fatal.
 
That which has been left alone, will now be subjected to government oversight. That's a step backwards to me.
Yes, we get that.

The thing is, the Internet is very different than it was in the past. In particular, ISPs are consolidating, and are involved in businesses that create conflicts of interest with new services like VOIP and VOD. Hence the need for regulation.


since you've admitted that it's the ISPs network, a private network, by which Internet based justification doe sthe government have the right to go and meddle inside of someone's private network?
Uh... yes, obviously I believe that governments are empowered to regulate ISPs and telcos, even if the telcos own the wiring and set up private contracts.


Since traffic and content are the same thing on a digital network, how can you keep them apart?
Net neutrality isn't about censoring content, or blocking the website for Fox News. It's about ensuring that ISPs treat all the data that customers request equally. They should not be allowed to intentionally slow down or impede the latency of a service that competes with something the ISP happens to offer. It's a narrow role. Is it really that hard to understand that this is a narrow regulation, that is not particularly egregious, is not going to result in massive overreach or insanely difficult regulations?


Monopolies? In the vast majority of the broadband connected areas there are at least 2, if not more, choices of both solutions and companies that provide the connectivity. Doesn't sound like a monopoly to me.
Considering that pretty much all of those companies now have the same conflicts of interest, and are consolidating, it really is not much of a choice.


Children's Television Act. Regulation so horrific and burdensome that you've never heard of it. ;)


And this has occurred on the Internet when, exactly?
Hello? Last year? Netflix v Comcast?


And speaking of behemoth's, when the federal government gets involved, it's the gorilla in the room, and you expect the nimble, newer, non-monopolistic competitor to be able to take THAT behemoth on?
That's what they've been doing for years. And with net neutrality, they don't have to "take on" the FCC, because the regulation will ensure that they will not be blocked off by an ISP with a potential conflict of interest, or profit motive to extort them in exchange for some sort of "priority" service, or compete against big competitors with the big bucks to get "priority" service.

E.g. imagine that a company develops a better search than Google, and doesn't want to sell out. Google pays Comcast for priority traffic, so even though the small company delivers better results, their website is slower than Google -- due to nothing they are doing wrong. How does this help the innovators?


I think you are suffering from an idealized concept of what the federal government does, and how it does it. Better get over that, as it could be fatal.
lol

Did I mention the whole "hysterical slippery slope" thing? :mrgreen:
 
Yes, we get that.

The thing is, the Internet is very different than it was in the past. In particular, ISPs are consolidating, and are involved in businesses that create conflicts of interest with new services like VOIP and VOD. Hence the need for regulation.



Uh... yes, obviously I believe that governments are empowered to regulate ISPs and telcos, even if the telcos own the wiring and set up private contracts.



Net neutrality isn't about censoring content, or blocking the website for Fox News. It's about ensuring that ISPs treat all the data that customers request equally. They should not be allowed to intentionally slow down or impede the latency of a service that competes with something the ISP happens to offer. It's a narrow role. Is it really that hard to understand that this is a narrow regulation, that is not particularly egregious, is not going to result in massive overreach or insanely difficult regulations?



Considering that pretty much all of those companies now have the same conflicts of interest, and are consolidating, it really is not much of a choice.



Children's Television Act. Regulation so horrific and burdensome that you've never heard of it. ;)



Hello? Last year? Netflix v Comcast?



That's what they've been doing for years. And with net neutrality, they don't have to "take on" the FCC, because the regulation will ensure that they will not be blocked off by an ISP with a potential conflict of interest, or profit motive to extort them in exchange for some sort of "priority" service, or compete against big competitors with the big bucks to get "priority" service.

E.g. imagine that a company develops a better search than Google, and doesn't want to sell out. Google pays Comcast for priority traffic, so even though the small company delivers better results, their website is slower than Google -- due to nothing they are doing wrong. How does this help the innovators?



lol

Did I mention the whole "hysterical slippery slope" thing? :mrgreen:

Seems like we are looking this from 2 very different points of view. Each of us don't seem to be willing to give in much.

We may have to agree to disagree on this particular topic.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/technology/obama-net-neutrality-fcc.html

I am absolutely for this. This will allow the little guy the same access as the big guy. Great stuff.

I am absolutely against it. Govt has no right to interfere in the workings of private companies, and when they do they make it worse, not better. This will result in the 'big guys' using govt regulation to push little guys out of the market.

Govts job is to protect our lives and ensure our unalienable rights. Access to the internet is not one of those.
 
The government might over reach beyond requiring that telecoms treat all data neutrally, and begin to interfere with the free exchange of the internet.

HOWEVER...

The telecoms WILL over reach, as they've done so in the past and taken stances in the present to suggest they have continue to have a desire to do such.

I'll take the chance with the government over the near certainty with the telecom psuedo-monopolies.
 

Yeah, the problem with Net Neutrality as sold is that it puts the government in charge of denying revenue streams to the ISPs in favor of saving the content providers money. It's picking winners.

The problem is that in the end the ISPs will maintain net neutrality by simply charging the end user more for internet access. This is a common way our government tries to fool the American people into granting Government control. Net Neutrality is sold as a way of sticking it to the big corporations in favor of the little guy when, in the end, the end consumer is paying for it either way and now, with the Government now going to the highest bidder, the little guy is even more screwed.
 
Yeah, the problem with Net Neutrality as sold is that it puts the government in charge of denying revenue streams to the ISPs in favor of saving the content providers money. It's picking winners.

The problem is that in the end the ISPs will maintain net neutrality by simply charging the end user more for internet access. This is a common way our government tries to fool the American people into granting Government control. Net Neutrality is sold as a way of sticking it to the big corporations in favor of the little guy when, in the end, the end consumer is paying for it either way and now, with the Government now going to the highest bidder, the little guy is even more screwed.

Some are claiming that to be against the Net Neutrality FCC regulations is to be of the opinion that all government is evil.

Well, not so, as you clearly outline above. But the reality is that if the government's got it's finger is it, it's time to keep your hands on your wallet, as it seems they no longer have your best interests at heart (if they ever did is a good question).
 
Some are claiming that to be against the Net Neutrality FCC regulations is to be of the opinion that all government is evil.

Well, not so, as you clearly outline above. But the reality is that if the government's got it's finger is it, it's time to keep your hands on your wallet, as it seems they no longer have your best interests at heart (if they ever did is a good question).

Yeah, in the end the Government doesn't save you from Corporate America as much as it gets in bed with Corporate America. With Government regulation now you have a pathway for Corporations to influence regulations on the Internet through influential politicians.

I would MUCH rather the Government maintain a semblance of Net Neutrality by being more anti-monopoly and keeping a single provider from taking over huge regions of the country and denying the consumer choices.
 
The government might over reach beyond requiring that telecoms treat all data neutrally, and begin to interfere with the free exchange of the internet.

HOWEVER...

The telecoms WILL over reach, as they've done so in the past and taken stances in the present to suggest they have continue to have a desire to do such.

I'll take the chance with the government over the near certainty with the telecom psuedo-monopolies.

The government ALWAYS overreaches. This isn't a "maybe" scenario.

I see the future innovation of the internet under government regulation being a lot like the innovation within Ma Bell in the 1970s, non-existent. Forcing all ISPs into providing the same service eliminates competition, and without competition there is no innovation.
 
The government ALWAYS overreaches. This isn't a "maybe" scenario.

I see the future innovation of the internet under government regulation being a lot like the innovation within Ma Bell in the 1970s, non-existent. Forcing all ISPs into providing the same service eliminates competition, and without competition there is no innovation.

Nothing is requiring them to to provide the same service. Nothing is suggesting that AT&T must lay fiber to offer similar service to FiOS. Nothing is saying that you can't put caps on how much data you offer to your customers or if you want to have fully disclosed lower "peak" time decreases on all traffic, or anything of the sort.

It's simply forcing ISPs to treat all data equally. That if I'm paying for 10mb per second download speeds than I can use that 10mb per second to view a website or read an email or watch a movie or make a VoIP call or play a game, and I can use whatever websites, email programs, video services, communication services, or games that I want when doing that. There's all KINDS of different ways companies can differentiate their services while still remaining neutral as it comes to data.
 
Nothing is requiring them to to provide the same service. Nothing is suggesting that AT&T must lay fiber to offer similar service to FiOS. Nothing is saying that you can't put caps on how much data you offer to your customers or if you want to have fully disclosed lower "peak" time decreases on all traffic, or anything of the sort.

But that has a huge effect on how the back end of the internet actually works. When you pay for 10mb connection to the internet you are not licensed 10mb of bandwidth full on all the time. This is because the internet hub is generally over provisioned and can not support all users of that hub using all of their data all of the time. Your bandwidth is "thin provisioned" to allow you the 10mb when you need it, on the assumption that when you aren't using it the bandwidth goes to someone else.

The shared bandwidth gives the functional illusion to full time full bandwidth because the ISP shifts resources on the fly and plays a constant game of load balancing to ensure people get enough of their contracted bandwidth to meet their demand.

But the bandwidth illusion plays out for all customers of the ISP, both data consumers and data providers. The internet is generally over-licensed and control by complex QoS systems that ensure the best provisioning per customer of internet resources. Net Neutrality would essentially kill QoS and require one of two alternatives for dealing with peak traffic:

1) Over provisioning - building far more bandwidth into the system than is needed on-average so that peak needs are met or

2) Cap per-month data usage. Many of the "faster-cheaper" providers overseas, as well as wireless providers in the US, use this approach.

Many who work on the internet for a living would prefer to continue with the QoS model over the higher cost of over-provisioning and the headache of per-month data caps.

It's simply forcing ISPs to treat all data equally.

But they can't, not as currently configured. It would require guaranteeing all ISP customers the contracted bandwidth which the ISPs can't provide. This is all in the EULAs nobody ever reads.

That if I'm paying for 10mb per second download speeds than I can use that 10mb per second to view a website or read an email or watch a movie or make a VoIP call or play a game, and I can use whatever websites, email programs, video services, communication services, or games that I want when doing that.

As stated, the contracted 10mb bandwidth is not an average, but a peak throughput. The ISP charges you based on less than half that amount of average throughput. Some providers will also sell the "boost" packages that are a little clearer where they "boost" is actually the cap on your bandwidth while the sold bandwidth is the average.

There's all KINDS of different ways companies can differentiate their services while still remaining neutral as it comes to data.

But not when it comes to bandwidth.they have to be able to manage data types and QoS in order to provide the on demand bandwidth that customers expect.
 
It's picking winners.
While that can definitely be an outcome of some government regulations, NN doesn't actually do that. It doesn't guarantee that a business will be a success, doesn't contract a specific vendor for government services, doesn't subsidize the outbound traffic for a company like Netflix, doesn't tell ISPs to actually block anyone.

What it does is recognize that many large ISPs have a conflict of interest. On one hand, ISPs are in the business of delivering Internet to users; at the same time, they also provide competing services. If the market picks the winners, then the ISPs are going to put their thumb on the scales, which is unfair and doesn't give consumers a free choice.


The problem is that in the end the ISPs will maintain net neutrality by simply charging the end user more for internet access.
No, that won't solve the issue. If Comcast launches its own social networking service and decides to slow down Facebook, that isn't resolved by Comcast charging its end-users even more for broadband.


This is a common way our government tries to fool the American people into granting Government control.
Uh huh. So again, show us how the FCC now dominates all TV broadcasts, since they've had 80 years to do so.

Also keep in mind that no one in government has actually wanted to enact Net Neutrality. The courts ruled against it, the FCC certainly hasn't been pushing for it, Congress is split, Obama didn't say anything until last week. It hardly looks to me like "The Government" is doing anything unified, let alone fooling people into giving it more control....
 
But that has a huge effect on how the back end of the internet actually works. When you pay for 10mb connection to the internet you are not licensed 10mb of bandwidth full on all the time. This is because the internet hub is generally over provisioned and can not support all users of that hub using all of their data all of the time. Your bandwidth is "thin provisioned" to allow you the 10mb when you need it, on the assumption that when you aren't using it the bandwidth goes to someone else.

Yes, it's assumed I'm not using that 10 mb all the time.

But when I AM using that 10 mb, the impact on the network is of little difference if I'm using it to watch Netflix instead of watching Verizon's (now defunct) RedBox Instant service or if I'm playing a game that uses my entire bandwidth or I'm streaming music while reading a flash heavy site.

When I'm using 10 mb I'm using 10 mbs, regardless of HOW I'm using it

1) Over provisioning - building far more bandwidth into the system than is needed on-average so that peak needs are met or

2) Cap per-month data usage. Many of the "faster-cheaper" providers overseas, as well as wireless providers in the US, use this approach.

Meaning they absolutely have options OTHER than refusing to treat each packet of data as equal or slowing/shutting down/hijacking competing services to instead filter people to their own.

Many who work on the internet for a living would prefer to continue with the QoS model over the higher cost of over-provisioning and the headache of per-month data caps.

And many disagree, but nice appeal to authority. Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Yahoo, multiple social media sites, Ebay, and I can go on are all entites that work on the internet for a living and are in favor of net neutrality. The only sector within the tech industry where there is significant support AGAINST the notion of net neutrality is in the telecoms, IE the entites that have shown again and again a desire to not treat all data equally, to block or hamper things they don't like on their network, to hijack and disallow competing services to ones they offer, etc. IE the only sector in tech that is primarily against net neutrality are the one sector that is largely poised to expand their profit margins with it being defunct.

As stated, the contracted 10mb bandwidth is not an average, but a peak throughput.

Right. NO WHERE am I suggesting you should always get your 10 mb. Indeed, you'll note my earlier posts, I specifically mentioned the ability to decrease bandwidth during peak times. The issue I'm putting forth, and generally put forth, regarding net neutrlaity isn't a suggestion that the peak usage rates that you're paying for must ALWAYS be attainable...but rather, that whatever amount of usage you are able to get at a given time should be able to be used in whatever manner possible.

If you need to throttle my 10 MB max down to 2 MB during peak times, fine...understandable. But that throttling should be applying to EVERYTHING, and it needs to be for a legitimate network stability reason. What's NOT okay however is throttling my speed based on what I want to use it for. What's not okay is throttling my ability to watch videos on netflix, but not throttling it when viewing it on Red Box instant for example.

When I'm at my peak bandwidth, I should be able to use that bandwidth however I want...movies, games, sites, video chat, whatever.

When I'm at my lowest bandwidth, I should be able to use that bandwidth however I want...movies, games, sites, video chat, whatever.

What shouldn't be happening is that I have "peak bandwidth" when I'm searching certain websites or sending emails, but throttled low bandwidth when I'm watching movies or playing games. What shouldn't be happening is when I'm wanting to search with google I get low bandwidth, but if I use an ISPs own ad-laden search engine I get full bandwidth...something, given past practices by telecoms, is reasonable to suggest would happen should net neutrality fail as a concept.

There is a difference between limiting your maximum speeds in general, and throttling specific services and sites up or down. One is still treating all data neutrally...the other is not.
 
Last edited:
But that has a huge effect on how the back end of the internet actually works. When you pay for 10mb connection to the internet you are not licensed 10mb of bandwidth full on all the time. This is because the internet hub is generally over provisioned and can not support all users of that hub using all of their data all of the time. Your bandwidth is "thin provisioned" to allow you the 10mb when you need it, on the assumption that when you aren't using it the bandwidth goes to someone else.
Which is still allowable under net neutrality.

The only difference is that the ISP can't slow down 1.5mb/sec of Netflix in the exact scenario in which they'd allow 1.5mb/sec of Youtube.

1.5mb/sec of Youtube and 1.5mb/sec of Netflix have the same impact on network capacity. They should be treated the same.
 
The government ALWAYS overreaches. This isn't a "maybe" scenario.

Government overreaching with one regulation is not an argument against another, perfectly valid regulation.
 
Which is still allowable under net neutrality.

The only difference is that the ISP can't slow down 1.5mb/sec of Netflix in the exact scenario in which they'd allow 1.5mb/sec of Youtube.

1.5mb/sec of Youtube and 1.5mb/sec of Netflix have the same impact on network capacity. They should be treated the same.

No, it isn't the same. Unless Youtube and NetFlix flow through the same trunk and follow the same path, and have the same burst characteristics then it isn't the same internet footprint. Just because the net Neutrality defenders need to simplify how the internet works to support their argument doesn't mean the internet is simple.
 
No, it isn't the same. Unless Youtube and NetFlix flow through the same trunk and follow the same path, and have the same burst characteristics then it isn't the same internet footprint. Just because the net Neutrality defenders need to simplify how the internet works to support their argument doesn't mean the internet is simple.

:roll: Nitpicking. Tell me you think this is why Comcast was making Netflix unwatchable.

Not to mention you're still wrong. If the different routing really was causing network problems, net neutrality allows for throttling in that situation. Next goalpost.
 
For those who are still not embracing the concept of Net Neutrality - this writeup covers it pretty darned well

Dear Senator Ted Cruz, I'm going to explain to you how Net Neutrality ACTUALLY works - The Oatmeal


If you don't want your ISP deciding you can access their sites faster than other sites.... net neutrality is key.

If you want big business to control how you access sites, then be against net neutrality.

Up until recently, the internet was set up with net neutrality. Worked pretty good. Let's keep it.
 
:roll: Nitpicking. Tell me you think this is why Comcast was making Netflix unwatchable.

Not to mention you're still wrong. If the different routing really was causing network problems, net neutrality allows for throttling in that situation. Next goalpost.

It's not moving goalposts, you just don't understand the actual technical issues at play. There are a legion of differences between, in your example, Youtube and NetFlix.

Not the least of the differences is the enormous amount of bandwidth consumed by NetFlix as the single greatest user of internet bandwidth in the world. In a limited, over-leased, QoS driven system it makes perfect sense to throttle NetFlix in order to give other content access to the circuits.

The alternative is to upgrade the entire system in order to accommodate NetFlix but then who should be charged for that other than NetFlix? Should the ISP charge all of its customers for the added infrastructure to accommodate NetFlix customers even if all of the ISP customers aren't NetFlix subscribers? By throttling NetFlix or charging a premium it passes the cost of the increased capacity to NetFlix and NetFlix customers who are really the people who should be paying for it.
 
For those who are still not embracing the concept of Net Neutrality - this writeup covers it pretty darned well

Dear Senator Ted Cruz, I'm going to explain to you how Net Neutrality ACTUALLY works - The Oatmeal


If you don't want your ISP deciding you can access their sites faster than other sites.... net neutrality is key.

If you want big business to control how you access sites, then be against net neutrality.

Up until recently, the internet was set up with net neutrality. Worked pretty good. Let's keep it.

Some people just have this blind idea that anything the government does is automatically bad. They think that government can only harm freedom, never enhance it.
 
For those who are still not embracing the concept of Net Neutrality - this writeup covers it pretty darned well

Dear Senator Ted Cruz, I'm going to explain to you how Net Neutrality ACTUALLY works - The Oatmeal


If you don't want your ISP deciding you can access their sites faster than other sites.... net neutrality is key.

If you want big business to control how you access sites, then be against net neutrality.

Up until recently, the internet was set up with net neutrality. Worked pretty good. Let's keep it.

Dear Oatmeal, stop making people dumber with your uneducated take on how the internet functions.
 
It's not moving goalposts, you just don't understand the actual technical issues at play. There are a legion of differences between, in your example, Youtube and NetFlix.

Not the least of the differences is the enormous amount of bandwidth consumed by NetFlix as the single greatest user of internet bandwidth in the world. In a limited, over-leased, QoS driven system it makes perfect sense to throttle NetFlix in order to give other content access to the circuits.

The alternative is to upgrade the entire system in order to accommodate NetFlix but then who should be charged for that other than NetFlix? Should the ISP charge all of its customers for the added infrastructure to accommodate NetFlix customers even if all of the ISP customers aren't NetFlix subscribers? By throttling NetFlix or charging a premium it passes the cost of the increased capacity to NetFlix and NetFlix customers who are really the people who should be paying for it.

Netflix consumes a lot of bandwidth, which is why they pay a lot of money for it. They're being charged for their extra consumption already.

And you're operating under this weird idea that Netflix only had its traffic throttled during times when network capacity was being saturated.
 
Dear Oatmeal, stop making people dumber with your uneducated take on how the internet functions.

They know how the internet works. You just don't know how net neutrality works. If Netflix traffic were actually causing capacity issues for Comcast, Comcast can throttle that traffic under net neutrality. Next complaint please.
 
Back
Top Bottom