• 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!

Burger King Releases Pro-Net Neutrality Video

ReverendHellh0und said:
As I figured.


HULU already what are equivalent to "fast lanes". These are called "peering agreements" which are direct connections to the ISP's equipment. (imagine your Xbox is hulu and your cable modem is your ISP on the other end. That physical connection is the peer, hulu pays for this either direct or through 3rd party transit provider which is a middle man company who does peering between the two (a crude explaination). so your example fails as it has nothing to do with net neutrality because HULU and other large service content providers have peering agreements with the ISP. NN rules do not apply in your case.


Like I said, I am a shark, you are in my ocean, and you can't even swim.
Click to expand...

We'll see what happens but I have a big fat I told you so lined up if people start getting gauged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Winston said:
We'll see what happens but I have a big fat I told you so lined up if people start getting gauged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...




You mean gouged?


Though "gauged" might be an interesting pun.



I'll donate $100 to a charity of your choice if you ever get to say that to me. ;)
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
That's pretty dumb.


Let me ask you a question. IF I am ATT and I have my 99 dollar unlimited data plan and I want to offer a 20 dollar unlimited data plan that restricts video to 240p should I be allowed to?
Click to expand...

Certainly

But if you the consumer paid for download speeds of 10 mbps should your ISP restrict it to 5 because you are watching Youtube and not Netflix?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Certainly

But if you the consumer paid for download speeds of 10 mbps should your ISP restrict it to 5 because you are watching Youtube and not Netflix?
Click to expand...



If that was in your TOS and it's what allowed them to charge you 20 bucks instead of 99 absolutely.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
You mean gouged?


Though "gauged" might be an interesting pun.



I'll donate $100 to a charity of your choice if you ever get to say that to me. ;)
Click to expand...

Okay, I pick the Red Cross.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
But, but, he's an expert on everything!

vvMfeEum.jpg
Click to expand...





You do realize, I am the only one in the thread showing a command of the subject. What have you offered? oh that's right, nothing.
 
Winston said:
Burger King makes pro-net neutrality video | TheHill



$4.99 if you want to wait for your Whopper! But you can get a Whopper NOW for $25.99
Click to expand...

Two things jumped out at me when I watched that video.

1. The guy behind the counter lied to his customers. He said, "It's the law." No...the reason they have their different pricing is because THEY chose to treat their customers that way. The law doesn't make them do it.

2. Why the **** are those people standing there whining, crying and complaining? Demand your money back and walk out. (btw, that's what will happen if IP's try to do the same thing...they'll lose customers)

I don't know...maybe BK thinks everyone who watches this video is an idiot and will believe this, or maybe it's satire directed at those who are smart enough to detect it. Maybe it's both and BK has a split personality.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
There you go with that Trump like bravado. And we know how much Trump really knows.

:lamo:lamo:lamo
Click to expand...



What is peering?

What are transits?

What is the difference between Net Neutrality and net neutrality?


Why does winstons hulu example not fall under the NN debate?

What about the ATT example and how under NN rules it would not be allowed?



You haven't posted **** on the subject but have simply posted dumb one liners and personal attacks. I mean really, your arrogant ignorance is a sight to behold. I can wax NN, nn better than anyone here. While winston can't swim, you are in a kiddie pool thinking you are in the ocean. It's embarrassing.
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
What is peering?

What are transits?

What is the difference between Net Neutrality and net neutrality?


Why does winstons hulu example not fall under the NN debate?

What about the ATT example and how under NN rules it would not be allowed?



You haven't posted **** on the subject but have simply posted dumb one liners and personal attacks. I mean really, your arrogant ignorance is a sight to behold. I can wax NN, nn better than anyone here. While winston can't swim, you are in a kiddie pool thinking you are in the ocean. It's embarrassing.
Click to expand...

OK, Mr. Expert on the net, is the customer paying more to download from a site that pays for fast uploads than from one that doesn't?

or, are we comparing apples and road apples?
 
Dittohead not! said:
OK, Mr. Expert on the net, is the customer paying more to download from a site that pays for fast uploads than from one that doesn't?

or, are we comparing apples and road apples?
Click to expand...




The customer is paying for "up to" a certain speed. In order for the ISP to provide an enjoyable experience for their service they engage in traffic shaping, and peering and transit agreements with other content providers. (Do you understand a word what I said?)
 
One can demonstrate knowledge of a subject but still be shaped by greed and exploitation.
 
Winston said:
I mean that if you're arguing against preserving net neutrality I think you're wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...




Why am I wrong?

and do you mean Net Neutrality of net neutrality?


How can you say I am wrong when you are not in full understanding of how the technology works in the first place to the point you give examples that have nothing to do with either?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Why am I wrong?

and do you mean Net Neutrality of net neutrality?


How can you say I am wrong when you are not in full understanding of how the technology works in the first place to the point you give examples that have nothing to do with either?
Click to expand...

Well, what is stopping the ISP's from changing the peering agreement? I feel like you're telling me how a transmission works and I'm telling you that the Stop signs on the road are there for a reason once the transmission is in a car, lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
The customer is paying for "up to" a certain speed. In order for the ISP to provide an enjoyable experience for their service they engage in traffic shaping, and peering and transit agreements with other content providers. (Do you understand a word what I said?)
Click to expand...

The bottom line is that the customer pays for an internet provider that has, as you said, "up to" a certain speed. If he decides to go to a site where the upload speed is limited, then he can only download from that site at a certain speed.

So, if he goes to, say for example, Amazon, which has paid for higher speeds, then he'll get better internet service than from a competing site that hasn't paid for higher speeds.

No jargon there, but I think that's the gist of it.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Why am I wrong?

and do you mean Net Neutrality of net neutrality?


How can you say I am wrong when you are not in full understanding of how the technology works in the first place to the point you give examples that have nothing to do with either?
Click to expand...

Because the tech isn't the issue. The issue is economic and legal ramifications.

Would it be possible for Netflix to sign an agreement with Comcast so that Netflix gets preferential treatment that would impact a consumers experience?
 
Winston said:
Well, what is stopping the ISP's from changing the peering agreement? I feel like you're telling me how a transmission works and I'm telling you that the Stop signs on the road are there for a reason once the transmission is in a car, lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



SLA's (Service level agreements) prevent this.


Here is an example of one:

https://business.comcast.com/terms-conditions-ent/enterprise_dedicated-internet-psa


You feel this way because as I explained it to you, you are a shark in my ocean, and can't swim. ;)


I don't say that to be mean but to give you an idea how out of depth, 99% of the people discussing this issue are.


Here's a layman's level discussion on it:

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/net-neutrality-missing/


Most people fit this description.
 
iliveonramen said:
Because the tech isn't the issue. The issue is economic and legal ramifications.

Would it be possible for Netflix to sign an agreement with Comcast so that Netflix gets preferential treatment that would impact a consumers experience?
Click to expand...



Are you kidding me? Netflix has peers, in fact netflix has gone full CDN so there are agreements between comcast and netflix. Netflix was never a net neutrality issue but of who was going to pay for more peers, the transit company or netflix for additional physical connection to comcasts equipment. so in effect they already do sign agreements to not get "preferential treatment" but a level of access they need to provide their service.


Read this:

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/net-neutrality-missing/
 
Dittohead not! said:
The bottom line is that the customer pays for an internet provider that has, as you said, "up to" a certain speed. If he decides to go to a site where the upload speed is limited, then he can only download from that site at a certain speed.

So, if he goes to, say for example, Amazon, which has paid for higher speeds, then he'll get better internet service than from a competing site that hasn't paid for higher speeds.

No jargon there, but I think that's the gist of it.
Click to expand...




So here is a scenario. You bought a 100mb internet, so did most people who have your ISP. do you think it's a 1:1 ratio that if I have 10 people with 100mb lines that the isp's pipe (total available bandwith) is 1000mb dividen into 10 equal chunks??


if the ratio was 1:1 you line would be several thousand dollars a month. so no, thats why they sell you up to 100mb and engage in traffic shaping to give everyone the best experience possible.


and no amazon did not pay for higher speeds but paid for peering and transits which is how the internet operates.
 
Winston said:
Modern conservatism revolves around being against liberals. They view them as enemies. So, it follows that if liberals say that NN saves everyone money, even conservatives who like hulu, they must be lying. A central tenet of modern conservatism is "Liberals Are Wrong All The Time."
Click to expand...

Sure. Same but reverse for liberals.

Net neutrality is good. But competition is good too
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
SLA's (Service level agreements) prevent this.


Here is an example of one:

https://business.comcast.com/terms-conditions-ent/enterprise_dedicated-internet-psa


You feel this way because as I explained it to you, you are a shark in my ocean, and can't swim. ;)


I don't say that to be mean but to give you an idea how out of depth, 99% of the people discussing this issue are.


Here's a layman's level discussion on it:

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/net-neutrality-missing/


Most people fit this description.
Click to expand...

And these SLA's are legal binding contracts?

Do you work in the telecom industry?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom