PDA

View Full Version : Comcast Hints At Plan For Paid Fast Lanes After Net Neutrality Repeal




DamianTV
11-27-2017, 07:36 PM
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/11/27/2030223/comcast-hints-at-plan-for-paid-fast-lanes-after-net-neutrality-repeal


For years, Comcast has been promising that it won't violate the principles of net neutrality, regardless of whether the government imposes any net neutrality rules. That meant that Comcast wouldn't block or throttle lawful Internet traffic and that it wouldn't create fast lanes in order to collect tolls from Web companies that want priority access over the Comcast network. This was one of the ways in which Comcast argued that the Federal Communications Commission should not reclassify broadband providers as common carriers, a designation that forces ISPs to treat customers fairly in other ways. The Title II common carrier classification that makes net neutrality rules enforceable isn't necessary because ISPs won't violate net neutrality principles anyway, Comcast and other ISPs have claimed.

But with Republican Ajit Pai now in charge at the Federal Communications Commission, Comcast's stance has changed. While the company still says it won't block or throttle Internet content, it has dropped its promise about not instituting paid prioritization. Instead, Comcast now vaguely says that it won't "discriminate against lawful content" or impose "anti-competitive paid prioritization." The change in wording suggests that Comcast may offer paid fast lanes to websites or other online services, such as video streaming providers, after Pai's FCC eliminates the net neutrality rules next month.

Think about Net Neutrality from the other point of view: "Do you want your content to reach our subscribers? Then you have to pay us more money!" They want to make us the things that are for sale, and we are supposed to be just fine with that.

timosman
11-27-2017, 07:40 PM
Will I have to pay more than $10 for Netflix?:mad:

nikcers
11-27-2017, 07:44 PM
Will I have to pay more than $10 for Netflix?:mad:

Nah but the ads will load before the website does- if they pay for the priority.

euphemia
11-27-2017, 09:19 PM
They say this like they give it away now.

nobody's_hero
11-28-2017, 06:51 AM
Comcast is probably the worst provider out there.

specsaregood
11-28-2017, 07:20 AM
Good, I'd happily pay for the fastlane.

phill4paul
11-28-2017, 07:46 AM
Good, I'd happily pay for the fastlane.

If I could actually get it. We still get internet over the phone landline and are far enough off the beaten track that I don't see them running a high speed cable...ever.

angelatc
11-28-2017, 09:34 AM
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/11/27/2030223/comcast-hints-at-plan-for-paid-fast-lanes-after-net-neutrality-repeal



Think about Net Neutrality from the other point of view: "Do you want your content to reach our subscribers? Then you have to pay us more money!" They want to make us the things that are for sale, and we are supposed to be just fine with that.

Your team on this is over at Reddit. History shows again and again and again that deregulation always provides better service at lower prices.

People who do not stream movies and do not play games should not have to support that infastructure.

If, as the left claims, the internet is a utility, then I would remind you that utilities are metered in most municipalities. I know of one here where water isn't. The company who owns the golf course pays the same amount every month as the guy who owns a little house in the village. Guess who supports that arrangement? Don't be that guy.

angelatc
11-28-2017, 09:40 AM
Good, I'd happily pay for the fastlane.

Exactly. We all willingly tripled our monthly internet expense when we were given the choice to go from dial-up to DSL then most of us gleefully abandoned DSL when cable came through. Technology improvements always cost the early adopters more.

Origanalist
11-28-2017, 10:29 AM
Exactly. We all willingly tripled our monthly internet expense when we were given the choice to go from dial-up to DSL then most of us gleefully abandoned DSL when cable came through. Technology improvements always cost the early adopters more.

We did? Im pretty sure I'm on DSL.

angelatc
11-28-2017, 11:24 AM
We did? Im pretty sure I'm on DSL.

Hence the phrase "most of us." I was ok with DSL but those little leeches we call kids wanted moar.

specsaregood
11-28-2017, 11:28 AM
Exactly. We all willingly tripled our monthly internet expense when we were given the choice to go from dial-up to DSL then most of us gleefully abandoned DSL when cable came through. Technology improvements always cost the early adopters more.

Hell, I already pay for it through the nose for a business line, with guaranteed bandwidth, static ips, and 24hour turnaround time if my line goes down. No reason they shouldn't be able to offer me a fastlane as well.

dannno
11-28-2017, 12:00 PM
Nah but the ads will load before the website does- if they pay for the priority.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q66bC-9Okgs

Origanalist
11-28-2017, 03:10 PM
Hence the phrase "most of us." I was ok with DSL but those little leeches we call kids wanted moar.

Damn kids, they're never satisfied. Thankfully mine all have their own to deal with now. He he.

Madison320
11-28-2017, 04:25 PM
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/11/27/2030223/comcast-hints-at-plan-for-paid-fast-lanes-after-net-neutrality-repeal



Think about Net Neutrality from the other point of view: "Do you want your content to reach our subscribers? Then you have to pay us more money!" They want to make us the things that are for sale, and we are supposed to be just fine with that.

I still haven't figured out how a lot of "libertarians" are in favor of net neutrality. Cable companies should be able to charge what they want and offer whatever services they want. Then the customer decides to accept or reject.

nikcers
11-28-2017, 04:29 PM
I still haven't figured out how a lot of "libertarians" are in favor of net neutrality. Cable companies should be able to charge what they want and offer whatever services they want. Then the customer decides to accept or reject.

People don't understand net neutrality there has been a disinformation campaign going on at least since 2007 for the 2008 election. It was one of the things that got people to vote democrat, people thought that the republicans were going to censor internet porn.

nobody's_hero
11-28-2017, 04:42 PM
I still haven't figured out how a lot of "libertarians" are in favor of net neutrality. Cable companies should be able to charge what they want and offer whatever services they want. Then the customer decides to accept or reject.

I'm kind of torn on it, TBH. It's like power companies. You don't really get a choice. I suppose you could go solar if your area's climate supports it.

While on paper, the libertarian argument is that there would be 500 separate competing cable internet lines running between every telephone pole and you just choose the company you want, I'm not sure how practical that is.

It's why I'm not hardcore on private roads either. You won't ever see 20 two-lane roads owned by private entrepreneurs, running parallel to each other 10 feet apart and you just pick the one with the best prices. Not saying the government does a great job, though. I don't think there'd be much grass left if it were left up to private companies.

Swordsmyth
11-28-2017, 04:50 PM
I'm kind of torn on it, TBH. It's like power companies. You don't really get a choice. I suppose you could go solar if your area's climate supports it.

While on paper, the libertarian argument is that there would be 500 separate competing cable internet lines running between every telephone pole and you just choose the company you want, I'm not sure how practical that is.

It's why I'm not hardcore on private roads either. You won't ever see 20 two-lane roads owned by private entrepreneurs, running parallel to each other 10 feet apart and you just pick the one with the best prices. Not saying the government does a great job, though. I don't think there'd be much grass left if it were left up to private companies.

Good points, but the government could allow 3 or 4 competitors for some utilities or provide their own "net neutrality" infrastructure.

nikcers
11-28-2017, 05:00 PM
I'm kind of torn on it, TBH. It's like power companies. You don't really get a choice. I suppose you could go solar if your area's climate supports it.

While on paper, the libertarian argument is that there would be 500 separate competing cable internet lines running between every telephone pole and you just choose the company you want, I'm not sure how practical that is.

It's why I'm not hardcore on private roads either. You won't ever see 20 two-lane roads owned by private entrepreneurs, running parallel to each other 10 feet apart and you just pick the one with the best prices. Not saying the government does a great job, though. I don't think there'd be much grass left if it were left up to private companies.
Lots of the stuff was because ISPS were having to block bit torrent traffic because it was saturating the internet backbones, and the other thing that made people confused is Netflix kept changing their CDN provider to whoever was cheapest and lots of times they would have really cheap bandwidth and they would would point the finger at the ISP.

It basically changed the model of how ISPS monetized their network they were forced by consumers to basically let companies like netflix and youtube install their caching servers directly into the internet providers backbone instead of the internet backbone, and then they would complain when the ISP backbone was full instead of paying to upgrade their own hardware. This was forcing ISPS to have to consolidate to cut the huge amount of losses.

DamianTV
11-28-2017, 05:08 PM
I still haven't figured out how a lot of "libertarians" are in favor of net neutrality. Cable companies should be able to charge what they want and offer whatever services they want. Then the customer decides to accept or reject.

I think what happens is Purposeful Misinterpretation. And its by Design. Just like the "Patriot" Act has absolutely nothing to do with true Patriotism.

So when I hear them say "Net Neutrality", I typically think to myself "what exactly is your definition of Net Neutrality"? Not you, personally, but any time I read mention of it on a news site or hear some tv talking head say it. One thing is for sure, what they want is the exact opposite of what we want. We want an internet where all internet connections are equal, in terms of what they are able to access. What they want is to have a handful of corporations that are in charge of all of the content on the internet. They will want subscribers to pay more to Comcast (or any ISP) if Comcast is to have any access to YouTube or Fedbook. What they won't offer at all is access to RonPaulForums.com ever. We want to be uncensored, they want absolute censorship. They know that the current propaganda machine has suffered greatly as a direct result of an unrestricted internet, and this is what they will do in order to modernize their propaganda machine. They want to be in total control and operate as the "Gatekeepers of Information".

Most people that have read any of my posts know of my idea to absolutely rule humanity comes from three key components: Belief, Money, and Violence. An internet takeover that puts nearly ALL information in the hands of the "Gatekeepers" allows them an absolute monopoloy on the system of Belief. Dont think about right now or even five years from now, if human civilization is around in a thousand years and we somehow have some form of internet, it wont be anything like what we have today, and nearly ALL information that is not directly communicated verbally WILL flow through the Gates of the Gatekeeprs.

They will tell you what to think and what not to think, and know exactly what to do in the event you think things you are not allowed to think. And they will do everything in their power to get what they want, and that includes branding lables on Total Internet Censorship as "Net Neutrality", just like Patriot Act and Patriotism are polar opposites.

Personally, I do agree with your point of view. Allowing access to the internet is the service they can charge what they want from their own customers. Taken a step further, if the companies charge other companies (IE: ISP to any content provider) is things muddy up the concept of Net Neutrality, and why there are different definitions of what Net Neutrality is, depending on who you ask. For example, lets say all physical roads that we drive our cars on are privately owned. When you get on the road, you are only allowed to drive to Walmart, but not to 7-11 because 7-11 has not paid your road owner for you to be allowed access to their road system. Thus, 7-11 is not only expected to pay your road owner, but every road owner out there, in order to get access to your business. What I think it should be is to allow you to go anywhere, and the only time you are restricted access is by either Walmart or 7-11 itself, as they are private, they may decide whom they will grant permission to come on to their property. That should be the Right of every website, and those Rights are being transferred to the ISPs as a means of controlling the flow of information. That is my greatest concern of what real Net Neutrality means.

Oh yeah, where you go in the internet is completely for sale too, because we are the product and have no say so in anything.

nobody's_hero
11-28-2017, 05:09 PM
Good points, but the government could allow 3 or 4 competitors for some utilities or provide their own "net neutrality" infrastructure.

Net neutrality would most likely win. I don't know any customer who wants to pay to be limited and then pay even more to have those limitations relaxed a bit. It's what Comcast wants, though. Nickeling and diming folks.

nikcers
11-28-2017, 07:14 PM
I think what happens is Purposeful Misinterpretation. And its by Design. Just like the "Patriot" Act has absolutely nothing to do with true Patriotism.
Its the stuff they add to the bills that gets you. In some states getting a mmj card means you can't buy a gun now.

devil21
11-28-2017, 08:00 PM
Your team on this is over at Reddit. History shows again and again and again that deregulation always provides better service at lower prices.


Like the California power grid situation that spawned Enron? I think "sometimes" is a better choice of word here than "always".


People who do not stream movies and do not play games should not have to support that infastructure.

Funny you say that since Hulu has become nearly unwatchable on our standard cable connection, right about the time that net neutrality is changing and a fast lane will be offered. I'm sure that problem will be fixed right up as long as we pay for a "fast lane".

I don't oppose deregulation as long as companies are being honest with their services instead of intentionally screwing with their infrastructure to justify charging customers more (like Enron did) to receive the service the customers should have been receiving. The issue is what is preventing a company from manipulating their own service to jack up rates in the first place? Never mind that cable companies have area monopolies and more and more providers are merging every day, leaving less options. Deregulation is supposed to increase competition but the industries are clearly becoming more consolidated instead.

nikcers
11-28-2017, 09:17 PM
Like the California power grid situation that spawned Enron? I think "sometimes" is a better choice of word here than "always".



Funny you say that since Hulu has become nearly unwatchable on our standard cable connection, right about the time that net neutrality is changing and a fast lane will be offered. I'm sure that problem will be fixed right up as long as we pay for a "fast lane".

I don't oppose deregulation as long as companies are being honest with their services instead of intentionally screwing with their infrastructure to justify charging customers more (like Enron did) to receive the service the customers should have been receiving. The issue is what is preventing a company from manipulating their own service to jack up rates in the first place? Never mind that cable companies have area monopolies and more and more providers are merging every day, leaving less options. Deregulation is supposed to increase competition but the industries are clearly becoming more consolidated instead.

Regulation is what was causing the consolidation, its what created the "monopolies" in the first place. There could be lots of competition if there wasn't so much regulation. Ellon Musk said he could send a bunch of low earth orbit satellites that would just need to be replaced every 5 years that could provide low latency INTERNET world wide. Don't get me started with the radio frequencies that are not available for commercial use that would make WIFI go for 10 miles.

devil21
11-28-2017, 09:27 PM
Regulation is what was causing the consolidation, its what created the "monopolies" in the first place.

That was the desired result of the regulation. To create monopolies.


There could be lots of competition if there wasn't so much regulation.

And a complete monopoly in the hands of a very small few is the desired result of the consequent deregulation.

Thesis/antithesis=synthesis. Nothing is ever "fixed". The end result is always what was planned. In this case, the end result is a "deregulated" environment that is devoid of competition so that the consumer is left no choices and any draconian measures (censorship, price gouging, etc) will be unopposed.

nikcers
11-28-2017, 09:33 PM
That was the desired result of the regulation. To create monopolies.



And a complete monopoly in the hands of a very small few is the desired result of the consequent deregulation.

Thesis/antithesis=synthesis. Nothing is ever "fixed". The end result is always what was planned. In this case, the end result is a "deregulated" environment that is devoid of competition so that the consumer is left no choices and any draconian measures (censorship, price gouging, etc) will be unopposed.

I disagree with your idea that there will be no competition because of deregulation, there is no competition because there is still regulation, just not at the FCC. Even with the FCC getting rid of net neutrality you have the AT&T merger getting blocked. Its like when the liberals say that capitalism doesn't work because America is shitting the bed. We don't have capitalism, we don't have deregulation, we have an interventionist economy that is shitting the bed.

devil21
11-28-2017, 09:39 PM
I disagree with your idea that there will be no competition because of deregulation, there is no competition because there is still regulation, just not at the FCC. Even with the FCC getting rid of net neutrality you have the AT&T merger getting blocked.

For the moment it is. Looks like a token bit of opposition thrown in at the last minute to legitimize the appearance of law and order. What comes out of that remains to be seen.



Its like when the liberals say that capitalism doesn't work because America is shitting the bed. We don't have capitalism, we don't have deregulation, we have an interventionist economy that is shitting the bed.

And it was designed to do so from the start. Again, thesis/antithesis=synthesis. If you don't understand what that means, please do research it. You'll quickly see that everything of importance follows that same principle/script.

nikcers
11-28-2017, 09:46 PM
For the moment it is. Looks like a token bit of opposition thrown in at the last minute to legitimize the appearance of law and order. What comes out of that remains to be seen.
Law and order is the government deciding who gets to buy property?

devil21
11-28-2017, 09:57 PM
Law and order is the government deciding who gets to buy property?

That merger is currently blocked on antitrust (aka anti-competition) grounds. If you are in favor of monopolies then feel free to stop dancing around it and say so.

Or we could go down a rabbit hole and discuss how it's allllll bullshit because these same corps have unlimited credit lines from the Fed (via debt markets) to implement their "services", making the entire topic an exercise in futility.

nikcers
11-28-2017, 10:20 PM
That merger is currently blocked on antitrust (aka anti-competition) grounds. If you are in favor of monopolies then feel free to stop dancing around it and say so.

Or we could go down a rabbit hole and discuss how it's allllll bull$#@! because these same corps have unlimited credit lines from the Fed (via debt markets) to implement their "services", making the entire topic an exercise in futility.
What private monopolies are there that have been able to maintain themselves for a long period of time without government assistance?

angelatc
11-28-2017, 11:48 PM
Good points, but the government could allow 3 or 4 competitors for some utilities or provide their own "net neutrality" infrastructure.

Most of us still have choices. We can still choose dial up, DSL, cable, or satellite.

Swordsmyth
11-28-2017, 11:53 PM
Most of us still have choices. We can still choose dial up, DSL, cable, or satellite.

I was replying to a comment that included other utilities like power etc., however the town with the lowest cable rates in the country has 2 cable providers, in my opinion they (and every other government) aught to allow 3 or 4.

angelatc
11-28-2017, 11:58 PM
Like the California power grid situation that spawned Enron? I think "sometimes" is a better choice of word here than "always".


.

Enron was trading energy - it had nothing to do with deregulation. And they were committing fraud, which is already illegal. Finally, look at the wonderful job the government did there.

More government is never the answer.

angelatc
11-29-2017, 12:00 AM
I was replying to a comment that included other utilities like power etc., however the town with the lowest cable rates in the country has 2 cable providers, in my opinion they (and every other government) aught to allow 3 or 4.

Who pays for the infrastructure? I don't think there should be an upper or lower limit on the number of providers in any area.

Swordsmyth
11-29-2017, 12:03 AM
Who pays for the infrastructure? I don't think there should be an upper or lower limit on the number of providers in any area.

Ideally it would be the company/customers, I don't know about that city, It's been too long since I read the article.

nikcers
11-29-2017, 12:17 AM
My cities water taste like shit so everyone I know who can afford it drinks bottled water. Some people say theres something in the water that makes you stupid.

Swordsmyth
11-29-2017, 12:19 AM
My cities water taste like $#@! so everyone I know who can afford it drinks bottled water. Some people say theres something in the water that makes you stupid.

There are filtration systems for that.

angelatc
11-29-2017, 12:20 AM
My cities water taste like shit so everyone I know who can afford it drinks bottled water. Some people say theres something in the water that makes you stupid.

Water is used for things other than drinking.

Swordsmyth
11-29-2017, 12:23 AM
Water is used for things other than drinking.

I wonder if fluoride is absorbed through the skin during bathing?

nikcers
11-29-2017, 12:29 AM
Water is used for things other than drinking.
Yeah but don't you prefer Fiji water?

nobody's_hero
11-29-2017, 01:01 AM
I disagree with your idea that there will be no competition because of deregulation, there is no competition because there is still regulation, just not at the FCC. Even with the FCC getting rid of net neutrality you have the AT&T merger getting blocked. Its like when the liberals say that capitalism doesn't work because America is $#@!ting the bed. We don't have capitalism, we don't have deregulation, we have an interventionist economy that is $#@!ting the bed.

Playing devil's advocate . . .

take for example, the street directly in front of your residence. There's probably just one. In a private market for roads, just how many streets would you need to enjoy efficient transportation routes to and from your house? If someone has the right to build a private street in front of your house, then I should have the right to build another one next to it and offer cheaper toll rates. And of course someone else would have the right to build a 3rd street on the other side of mine and try to undercut me.

I'm not trying to be facetious, but, you really didn't need more than one street connected to your driveway. Sure, now there's competition and you have choices, but all that asphalt around your house now looks like a giant parking lot. And now is it really that much more efficient than the one street you had to begin with?

And don't go anywhere near the power poles, because I'm thinking all those competing power company lines so close as to be lying on top of each other would constantly be shooting sparks.

You're right though, that we don't currently have a free market for a lot of utilities and services. If Georgia Power wants to do anything with their business, they have to go get the Georgia General Assembly's blessing, so it's much closer to corporatism than capitalism. I will say though, that I do have power, and the people in Flint Energy's entirely separate areas of coverage also have power. It ain't pretty by libertarian standards, but it works.

HAVING SAID ALL THAT, when government taxes you for roads and fails to fix the pot-holes in the one street you DO have, that's also a failure which you can't do much about because you have no alternatives. Vote harder I guess. I don't know if one is necessarily better than the other but I'm just not sold on privatization being the alpha and omega type of solution to all problems, simply because the government isn't.

nikcers
11-29-2017, 01:51 AM
privatization being the alpha and omega type of solution to all problems, simply because the government isn't.
Free trade?

kpitcher
11-29-2017, 01:56 AM
Your team on this is over at Reddit. History shows again and again and again that deregulation always provides better service at lower prices.



If this were actually deregulated that'd be a step in the right direction. However by various state and federal laws the telco landscape actually has the country broken up into regional baby bell areas who run the show. If you want to lay more lines you can't without those incumbent telco's permission. (technically they usually have to get permission from the state but that's basically a rubber stamp) If you want to interconnect you have to have their permission. The government has chosen the winners already. Cable is a whole other beast with local governments protecting those monopolies.

The government already has the best interests of those companies in mind. The feds have given a few hundred billion in tax breaks and other incentives to large telcos for fiber everywhere, with service agreements that were never met, yet they never had to pay back those funds. A prior FCC chairmember has been compiling a running tally in regular reports. "The plan was to have America be the first fiber optic country -- and each phone company went to their state commissions and legislatures and got tax breaks and rate increases to fund these 'utility' network upgrades that were supposed to replace the existing copper wires with fiber optics -- starting in 1992." Do a search for 200 billion broadband scandal and copies of the report come up. The author also has interesting info in this thread https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c5e97/eli5_how_were_isps_able_to_pocket_the_200_billion/

In 1996 the telcos were actually partially deregulated by congress, the incumbent telcos were forced to allow other companies to interconnect with them so a phone call / data call could tie into the full system, at competitive rates. Thousands of ISPs and phone companies opened, new phone services started where you could get a flat rate unlimited long distance, free features like voicemail, all those other various goodies we take for granted now, also Internet in smaller areas. So many companies they had to offer better products and services to get and retain customers. The big telcos hated that!

This was rolled back in the early 2000s by the FCC when the large telcos realized the thousands of startups offering Internet were actually catching on. This led to the large telcos wanting to stop allowing competitors in on their government mandated monopolies. They promised if there was no more competition, they'd finally improve broadband. They got their wish, thousands of ISPs closed up shop because of the law changes, and once again the monopolies didn't do any real improvements.

My local electric co-op has been running fiber to their customers as they upgrade their electric lines. It's great that farm houses in rural areas are getting gig fiber, at rates that are better than the big telcos are offering in cities. However that's one of the rare instances where crony capitalism doesn't only offer customers 1 or 2 choices for internet.

Because the government is allowing companies to be defacto monopolies they should have specific rules to make the Internet itself a level playing field. "deregulating" the 'net in this case means the monopolies get to decide on things without customers having a choice for alternatives.

unknown
11-29-2017, 02:11 AM
Most of us still have choices. We can still choose dial up, DSL, cable, or satellite.

Just an FYI, many people do not have choices.

For example, Comcast or Time Warner (are they still around?), one or the other will be the only provider in a certain area/region.

When I lived in Philadelphia, our only choice was Time Warner. Man, I hated those fuckers. Shit service and over priced.

Cant imagine having to pay them more money for slightly less shitty service.

unknown
11-29-2017, 02:14 AM
I don't know if one is necessarily better than the other but I'm just not sold on privatization being the alpha and omega type of solution to all problems, simply because the government isn't.

May not be the "best" solution but its better than our current system or government run anything.

devil21
11-29-2017, 02:19 AM
Enron was trading energy - it had nothing to do with deregulation. And they were committing fraud, which is already illegal. Finally, look at the wonderful job the government did there.

More government is never the answer.

What? ENRON SHUT DOWN THEIR LINES TO CREATE FALSE SCARCITY OF ELECTRICITY! Fraud was legalized by deregulation! But of course the fraud eventually collapsed, the infrastructure was built by theft from investors and then Sarbanes-Oxley sprouted from it, which was MORE REGULATION. That regulation required a lot more work and expense for EVERYONE ELSE! Thesis/antithesis=synthesis. That resulted in MORE GOVERNMENT!

It's the same as how the real estate collapse created Dodd-Frank, more regulation, which has now led to banks being legally able to 'bail-in' depositor's accounts. The 'bail-in' language is what they wanted from the start and will be used in the near future. The old Hegelian Dialectic over and over.

(mucho zippy sockpuppet vibe from this thread)

angelatc
11-29-2017, 08:38 AM
Just an FYI, many people do not have choices.

For example, Comcast or Time Warner (are they still around?), one or the other will be the only provider in a certain area/region.

When I lived in Philadelphia, our only choice was Time Warner. .

No, you only had once choice for cable. But you had several choices - dial-up satellite and DSL.

angelatc
11-29-2017, 08:39 AM
Fraud was legalized by deregulation!

Uhm. No. Again, take your big government nonsense somewhere else.

angelatc
11-29-2017, 08:51 AM
Today I learned that one of the things that led to Enron's demise was the excess of bandwidth created in an unregulated market.


In January 2000 Enron announced its entry into the broadband fiber optic business and created Enron Broadband Services. Enron Online, launched in late 1999, became the largest e-commerce site in the world. Many analysts saw this expansion as a logical extension of Enron's commodity trading and transmission business. However there was an oversupply of capacity, and technological innovation also more than doubled the carrying capacity of fiber already in the ground. Within months of Enron's announcement, there was a glut of "dark fiber" (unused fiber connections) across the country, and numerous Internet startups that had promised to swallow much of the anticipated bandwidth failed, causing prices to fall by fifty percent.

unknown
11-29-2017, 09:01 AM
No, you only had once choice for cable. But you had several choices - dial-up satellite and DSL.

I see your point but at the time, I was in an apartment. Some people did have satellite dishes but my view faced the wrong direction.

Is dial-up even a thing anymore?

I dont know why I wouldnt have gone with DSL simply because of my hate for Time Warner, if for no other reason. I'm thinking that it may not have been an option at the time.

nikcers
11-29-2017, 10:01 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLrrXzQbvcs

angelatc
11-29-2017, 10:07 AM
Yeah but don't you prefer Fiji water?

I have well water.

kpitcher
11-29-2017, 10:57 AM
I see your point but at the time, I was in an apartment. Some people did have satellite dishes but my view faced the wrong direction.

Is dial-up even a thing anymore?

I dont know why I wouldnt have gone with DSL simply because of my hate for Time Warner, if for no other reason. I'm thinking that it may not have been an option at the time.

Dialup is still a thing, barely. It's also not realistic anymore for anything beyond straight up text email. The web has changed to expect a client to have basic broadband. Even basic web ads are huge compared to a decade ago. Youtube or a basic facebook feed would take ages to load. It's like pagers are still a thing. Or horse and buggies. They exist for niche markets, no one really wants to use them daily.

Satellite is a thing, a very slow thing. The current tech has geo sync sats that are so far away the speed of light becomes a noticeable issue. You have a 1/2 second delay round trip at the best, realistically it's longer than that. The average consumer hates this. This is why it's normally only used in areas where there is nothing else as it's better than dialup but not much else. If you're only pulling data then a second delay between clicking play on a video and getting video isn't so horrid. Forget anything interactive. If you try to do a skype call it doesn't work so well. Games, forget it.

You may not have had DSL as an option. It's not universal even in cities depending on the lines.

There have been various tech discussions and work on solar flying drones, blimps, balloons, low earth orbit micro sats, and the like. AFAIK this is how Facebook, google, and others want to hit Africa and other undeveloped areas. Neat in theory, I don't see this being allowed in the US as the telco lobby is strong.

Most people have the duopoly of cable or DSL, typically 2 choices at best.

The US has finally moved into the top 10 countries for broadband speeds of fixed broadband. We're still in the 40s for mobile broadband.

nobody's_hero
11-29-2017, 12:22 PM
No, you only had once choice for cable. But you had several choices - dial-up satellite and DSL.

Those aren't really choices considering the differences in technology. That's like saying "there are many methods of transportation to choose from. You can go with Delta Airlines or even ride a horse." No dial-up service is in any real competition with cable. They might compete with other dial-up providers if any exist any more.

angelatc
11-29-2017, 12:32 PM
Those aren't really choices considering the differences in technology. That's like saying "there are many airline industries to choose from. You can go with Delta Airlines or even ride a horse."

You are sort of correct. It's exactly like saying there are many ways to travel from point A to point B. You can walk, you can ride, you can fly.

nobody's_hero
11-29-2017, 12:54 PM
Free trade?

You gotta be more in-depth with that explanation. Simply saying one or two-word phrases like 'free trade' or 'competition' or 'free enterprise' doesn't lay out how competition works in a utility industry.

Do they get to use the same poles? How many lines do they put on one pole before they have to add more poles? How many lines are too many? Do the lines just zig-zag all over the terrain, telephone poles everywhere? At what point does it become impractical? Are they even allowed to use the same poles since I assume they would be privately owned, or does a separate chain of telephone poles have to be built running right alongside the first one so the competing company can hang their lines to access your home? Then another row of poles for the next competitor?

Swordsmith may be right. 2 or 3 competitors is better than one monopoly, but now you've simply gone from who gets to be the lucky one to the lucky three providers.

kpitcher
11-29-2017, 01:10 PM
You gotta be more in-depth with that explanation. Simply saying one or two-word phrases like 'free trade' or 'competition' or 'free enterprise' doesn't lay out how competition works in a utility industry.

Do they get to use the same poles? How many lines do they put on one pole before they have to add more poles? How many lines are too many? Do the lines just zig-zag all over the terrain, telephone poles everywhere? At what point does it become impractical? Are they even allowed to use the same poles since I assume they would be privately owned, or does a separate chain of telephone poles have to be built running right alongside the first one so the competing company can hang their lines to access your home? Then another row of poles for the next competitor?

Swordsmith may be right. 2 or 3 competitors is better than one monopoly, but now you've simply gone from who gets to be the lucky one to the lucky three providers.

A few municipalities own their own lines and have fixed interconnect rates. Anyone can connect to them, the providers can then be differentiated with service. I've been out of the connection industry for awhile but from what I know they're well liked services.

There was talk about turning the government paid telephone lines into the same sort of arrangement in the 90s but that didn't get far. I could almost get behind this sort of thing. Since the companies with the mandated agreements broke their contracts multiple times, in huge ways, taking over the infrastructure isn't such a bad idea. Make the lines an actual utility that anyone can use. There's no other way we'll ever get 400 billion + back.

Of course realistically this wouldn't turn out well. The lobbyists would get their way to turn things basically back to what we have now under a different name. For awhile, while things were still forcefully deregulated, companies were selling wholesale DSL higher than retail DSL.

nobody's_hero
11-29-2017, 01:31 PM
You are sort of correct. It's exactly like saying there are many ways to travel from point A to point B. You can walk, you can ride, you can fly.

Re-phrased it.

I'm not trying to be dense. Honestly. But I see too many people who just scream "free market!" without actually laying out how the free market would lead to efficiency in certain industries out there. To their credit, I've actually seen some well-laid out plans for privatization of police forces in some of these threads but that's about it. I'm not sure if they actually visualize competing private police forces, though, because when I picture how it would operate, it still seems somewhat impractical to me. And if something is impractical, it will typically fail in a private sector and give way to something else that is more efficient.

Basically my question to the libertarians on the forum is: Can everything exist in a state of competition? (and you gotta be more specific than simply 'yes' for an answer)

My county's fire department, which is government-operated and manned largely by volunteers, is fairly efficient, but it's far from a money-making enterprise (if anything it loses money). When a call goes out, there's no confusion over who responds, or who has the 'right' to fight the fire. If one local county or municipal govt's fire dept. needs help from another, they ask for mutual aid. There's no competition to race to the same fires. No shrugged shoulders and disappointment if someone else gets there first, pack up and go home. No competing command structures (speaking from experience of my time in the fire service, one fire chief on scene is already one too many, lol, C.H.A.O.S. = Chief Has Arrived On Scene). You go there, do your best to put the fire out, save what you can, and go back to station to clean up. Okay, so it's more than fairly efficient, it *IS* efficient.

Now imagine five separate competing companies trying to get to the same fire in order to make a buck. . .

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/early-19-century-firefighters-fought-fires-each-other-180960391/

Does competition always lead to the greatest efficiency?

angelatc
11-29-2017, 01:47 PM
Does competition always lead to the greatest efficiency?

Yes. In your fire department example if the first company that arrived was the one that would get paid, most of the slower companies would soon be financially starved out of the sector. The 2 or 3 that remained would be driven to constantly improve their performance metrics.

Now, mandate governors on fire trucks, ensuring nobody is allowed to drive faster than 45 mph, therefore giving their competitors an even break. Where's the incentive to improve?

nobody's_hero
11-29-2017, 01:53 PM
A few municipalities own their own lines and have fixed interconnect rates. Anyone can connect to them, the providers can then be differentiated with service. I've been out of the connection industry for awhile but from what I know they're well liked services.

There was talk about turning the government paid telephone lines into the same sort of arrangement in the 90s but that didn't get far. I could almost get behind this sort of thing. Since the companies with the mandated agreements broke their contracts multiple times, in huge ways, taking over the infrastructure isn't such a bad idea. Make the lines an actual utility that anyone can use. There's no other way we'll ever get 400 billion + back.

Of course realistically this wouldn't turn out well. The lobbyists would get their way to turn things basically back to what we have now under a different name. For awhile, while things were still forcefully deregulated, companies were selling wholesale DSL higher than retail DSL.

It's a complex issue, indeed. Ideally something either needs to be 100% gov't run or 100% private, otherwise you run into the problem of corporatism. Not everything out there is so cut-and-dry, obviously. Deregulating while leaving the government's (taxpayer's) wallet open for well-connected private industries to use is a TERRIBLE idea, but people with knee-jerk attitudes jump on the opportunity to deregulate just because of the word 'deregulate', as if to automatically assume that it makes things better.

I fear that is where libertarians are falling on the issue of net-neutrality. If you are gonna deregulate without a plan to change over to 100% private simultaneously, it's probably better to just leave things the way they are. Otherwise you've created a corporatist monster.

Even Ron Paul had to admit that Glass-Steagall had some usefulness (he even voted "no" to repeal it in '99). Again, it wasn't ideal by libertarian standards because it was government-initiated regulation, but getting rid of it didn't make everything better simply because 'free-market'.

I'd post a video on Ron Paul's explanation for why he voted no, but . . .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIC8E9Q2pTs

^^^^Apparently some corporations didn't want people to know what Glass Steagall was, and they probably will be relieved when no one remembers what Net-Neutrality was.

Libertarians, this is a bad idea (edit: at least at this particular point-in-time). Please re-evaluate your stances. That's all I've got to say, I cede the floor.

FunkBuddha
11-29-2017, 01:55 PM
Some public utilities are building open-access fiber optic networks where the fiber is essentially a road, allowing small businesses to become ISPs for next to nothing Grant County PUD in Washington State has 24 ISPs using their fiber. Ammon, Idaho has 10-ish I think. The model that we use in most of the US for network access is beyond stupid to anyone who understands how networks work.

A large ISP like Comcast can peer directly with Netflix for free because it benefits them both allowing them to bypass the more expensive commodity internet so its actually waaay cheaper for them to deliver the content to you but they want to charge you more for it.

This is the solution.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/how-internet-co-ops-can-protect-us-from-net-neutrality-rollbacks-20171122

nikcers
11-29-2017, 04:09 PM
A large ISP like Comcast can peer directly with Netflix for free

FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

LibForestPaul
11-29-2017, 08:32 PM
Your team on this is over at Reddit. History shows again and again and again that deregulation always provides better service at lower prices.

People who do not stream movies and do not play games should not have to support that infastructure.

If, as the left claims, the internet is a utility, then I would remind you that utilities are metered in most municipalities. I know of one here where water isn't. The company who owns the golf course pays the same amount every month as the guy who owns a little house in the village. Guess who supports that arrangement? Don't be that guy.

History shows democracy is a farce. The telecom players will continue to pay-off locals to make certain access to the poles are kept as they are. There will be NO competition. Any who try will get a state boot to the face. Unless they pay to play. Get the lube out, cause boobus Americanus wants to take it up, and hard.

EBounding
11-29-2017, 09:29 PM
Who bears the cost to ensure internet traffic is treated neutrally?

r3volution 3.0
11-29-2017, 09:44 PM
I still haven't figured out how a lot of "libertarians" are in favor of net neutrality. Cable companies should be able to charge what they want and offer whatever services they want. Then the customer decides to accept or reject.

Likewise


I disagree with your idea that there will be no competition because of deregulation, there is no competition because there is still regulation, just not at the FCC. Even with the FCC getting rid of net neutrality you have the AT&T merger getting blocked. Its like when the liberals say that capitalism doesn't work because America is shitting the bed. We don't have capitalism, we don't have deregulation, we have an interventionist economy that is shitting the bed.

Well said

And even if some utilities are natural monopolies, there's no reason to suppose that a state monopoly or state regulatory regime would be an improvement. A private monopoly faces no competition, but at least it still faces the demand curve.

nikcers
11-29-2017, 09:47 PM
Who bears the cost to ensure internet traffic is treated neutrally?

Neutrality is a joke, peering isn't free Netflix lost that lawsuit and pays for it. Netflix and YouTube get free bandwidth essentially companies like Amazon who has an internet content delivery network that is the most efficient in the world can't even compete. You can't even get your ISP to fix bad internet routing because they have no incentives to monetize bandwidth. Its got to the point where The left is arguing for YouTube and Netflix to be a utility

nikcers
11-30-2017, 03:21 PM
The left is now threatening violence against people who have no control over net neutrality

In roughly two weeks, the FCC’s three Republican commissioners, led by its chairman, Ajit Pai, will vote to adopt what’s known as the Restoring Internet Freedom Order. As the minority, the two Democrats who serve on the commission, both of which favor net neutrality, will be powerless to stop them.


According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, Angelo allegedly called the Washington, D.C., office of Congressman John Katko, R-Camillus, on Oct. 17 and left a threatening voicemail that included a death threat to Katko and his family if the congressman didn't support net neutrality.

Katko represents New York's 24th District, which includes all of Wayne County.

Syracuse was arrested and charged by criminal complaint with interstate communication of a threat and threatening a federal official, authorities announced. The charges carry a maximum of 10 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000.

Weston White
12-01-2017, 06:12 AM
Exactly. We all willingly tripled our monthly internet expense when we were given the choice to go from dial-up to DSL then most of us gleefully abandoned DSL when cable came through. Technology improvements always cost the early adopters more.

No so much, I was happy being on DSL, worked great. It was only the realization that AT&T kept bumping my cost per month up around $5 a year, then when I realized I was paying close to what a beginner cable package costs, yet is multiple times faster with more bandwidth, and that AT&T has a very cozy relationship with federal spying programs (having greatly benefited from 9/11), I ditched them and left them to go f-themselves.

Madison320
12-01-2017, 01:34 PM
I'm kind of torn on it, TBH. It's like power companies. You don't really get a choice. I suppose you could go solar if your area's climate supports it.

While on paper, the libertarian argument is that there would be 500 separate competing cable internet lines running between every telephone pole and you just choose the company you want, I'm not sure how practical that is.

It's why I'm not hardcore on private roads either. You won't ever see 20 two-lane roads owned by private entrepreneurs, running parallel to each other 10 feet apart and you just pick the one with the best prices. Not saying the government does a great job, though. I don't think there'd be much grass left if it were left up to private companies.

I agree with you about the roads and the power companies. In that case it's much more of a natural monopoly. But I don't think that's the case with the internet. The way I understand it the government maintains the main lines and sells access to those lines, but they don't limit the number of companies that can offer service in any given area. And there's many way to get access to those main lines, you can even do it thru cell towers. Actually I think at some point it'll be cheap enough to use your cell phone as a your ISP. I admit it sucks if you live in a rural area and only have one provider (I've been there), but one important question is "do you have a right to cheap internet access?"

FunkBuddha
12-01-2017, 01:58 PM
I agree with you about the roads and the power companies. In that case it's much more of a natural monopoly. But I don't think that's the case with the internet. The way I understand it the government maintains the main lines and sells access to those lines, but they don't limit the number of companies that can offer service in any given area. And there's many way to get access to those main lines, you can even do it thru cell towers. Actually I think at some point it'll be cheap enough to use your cell phone as a your ISP. I admit it sucks if you live in a rural area and only have one provider (I've been there), but one important question is "do you have a right to cheap internet access?"

Local governments signed franchise agreements granting monopolies to the telephone and cable companies so that they would build infrastructure. In many cases those agreements are expired and not renewed. With fiber and ethernet though, the model can be much more flexible. Watch this video on Ammon, Idaho's open access network.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSQVvFY4lPI

Wireless will never catch up to fiber. 5G is going to require towers every mile to provide decent coverage which isn't feasible for rural people. Through utility and telephone cooperatives rural people were able to get cost of money loans through the USDA to finance electricity and telephony. Several of the telephone cooperatives in rural Tennessee are now deploying fiber to the home and soon many electrical cooperatives will to.

angelatc
12-01-2017, 02:23 PM
A large ISP like Comcast can peer directly with Netflix for free because it benefits them both allowing them to bypass the more expensive commodity internet so its actually waaay cheaper for them to deliver the content to you but they want to charge you more ]

YAY! I want the government to demand free stuff for me!!!!! Yay yay yay yay yay!!!

One of biggest things that started this drama was an offer by Netflix to pay Comcast so their customers would have access to better quality streaming. God forbid.

FunkBuddha
12-01-2017, 02:34 PM
YAY! I want the government to demand free stuff for me!!!!! Yay yay yay yay yay!!!

One of biggest things that started this drama was an offer by Netflix to pay Comcast so their customers would have access to better quality streaming. God forbid.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/why-google-fiber-unlike-comcast-gives-netflix-free-peering/

nikcers
12-01-2017, 10:03 PM
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/why-google-fiber-unlike-comcast-gives-netflix-free-peering/
Why Google Fiber, unlike Comcast, gives Netflix free peering

YouTube's owner would probably like free peering from Comcast, too. Google owns YouTube, the second biggest (http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/watch-out-for-data-caps-video-hungry-cord-cutters-use-328gb-a-month/) online video service in North America in terms of traffic, and has direct interconnection deals (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/see-which-isps-google-microsoft-and-netflix-trade-internet-traffic-with/)with AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and other ISPs. Google hasn't said whether it's paying those companies for the direct interconnections, but it's a good bet that it is making payments.



Comcast and other ISPs have demanded (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/netflix-and-verizon-reach-interconnection-deal-to-speed-up-video/) that Netflix enter "paid peering" agreements to get direct connections to their networks Burgan wrote. "We don’t make money from peering or colocation... change the way we manage our network in any meaningful way—Google's argument is, naturally, a bit self-serving as it is more of a content provider than an ISP Still, Google hasn't complained publicly about its interconnection agreements. Netflix has, asking the Federal Communications Commission (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/03/netflix-says-it-will-pay-tolls-to-more-isps-not-just-comcast/) to protect it from having to pay ISPs.

FunkBuddha
12-01-2017, 10:32 PM
Why Google Fiber, unlike Comcast, gives Netflix free peering

YouTube's owner would probably like free peering from Comcast, too. Google owns YouTube, the second biggest (http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/watch-out-for-data-caps-video-hungry-cord-cutters-use-328gb-a-month/) online video service in North America in terms of traffic, and has direct interconnection deals (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/see-which-isps-google-microsoft-and-netflix-trade-internet-traffic-with/)with AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and other ISPs. Google hasn't said whether it's paying those companies for the direct interconnections, but it's a good bet that it is making payments.

Yes. Interconnecting benefits both parties. Comcast just chose to be a dick about it which is one reason why this whole net neutrality shit show came to be. FWIW I'm a network operator for a provider with about 50,000 end users. Hopefully we're about to enter a peering arrangement in Atlanta to connect us to every major provider at 10 Gb/s for between $500 and $900 a month. Compared to our commodity internet traffic which is around $2 per Mb/s.

I'm not arguing that the government should step in, just that Comcast was trying to extort Netflix in that deal. If they were really interested in providing a better customer experience they'd have done as Google did, but Comcast is a government granted/subsidized monopoly in most places so they don't really give a shit about the customer experience because what are you gonna do, go DSL?

nikcers
12-02-2017, 12:42 AM
Yes. Interconnecting benefits both parties. Comcast just chose to be a dick about it which is one reason why this whole net neutrality $#@! show came to be. FWIW I'm a network operator for a provider with about 50,000 end users. Hopefully we're about to enter a peering arrangement in Atlanta to connect us to every major provider at 10 Gb/s for between $500 and $900 a month. Compared to our commodity internet traffic which is around $2 per Mb/s.

I'm not arguing that the government should step in, just that Comcast was trying to extort Netflix in that deal. If they were really interested in providing a better customer experience they'd have done as Google did, but Comcast is a government granted/subsidized monopoly in most places so they don't really give a $#@! about the customer experience because what are you gonna do, go DSL?
LOL Google is the government tax breaks were given to people to build fiber in places that no one would buy internet service. Google bought it all for pennies on the dollar and then said they could host netflix data for no cost. That's right, Google can do lots of things other companies can't do for no cost. That should be a benefit to google fiber customers though- the government shouldn't force companies to shoulder costs that others don't have to that's the definition of crony capitalism.

FunkBuddha
12-02-2017, 06:37 AM
Here's one Internet Exchange. (https://ix.digitalrealty.com/?_ga=2.183779366.1608592389.1512216920-1073073279.1512216920) All of these companies peer with one another through the exchange. There are hundreds of locations like this around the world where content providers and ISPs peer with one another, usually for a cross connect fee and a relatively small monthly charge. Are you arguing that companies don't do this unless they're Google and Netflix?

FunkBuddha
12-02-2017, 06:44 AM
Here's one Internet Exchange. (https://ix.digitalrealty.com/?_ga=2.183779366.1608592389.1512216920-1073073279.1512216920) All of these companies peer with one another through the exchange. There are hundreds of locations like this around the world where content providers and ISPs peer with one another, usually for a cross connect fee and a relatively small monthly charge. Are you arguing that companies don't do this unless they're Google and Netflix?

A coworker of mine called up a MAJOR CDN the other day to ask them about peering and they said that rather than peer with them, the customer experience would be better if they shipped us a content caching engine and we installed it in our datacenter. Other than the time to fill out paperwork, rack the equipment, and provide power and cooling, it's costing us nothing. We'll be peering with the Internet Exchange that they're a member of as well.

nikcers
12-02-2017, 11:32 AM
Here's one Internet Exchange. (https://ix.digitalrealty.com/?_ga=2.183779366.1608592389.1512216920-1073073279.1512216920) All of these companies peer with one another through the exchange. There are hundreds of locations like this around the world where content providers and ISPs peer with one another, usually for a cross connect fee and a relatively small monthly charge. Are you arguing that companies don't do this unless they're Google and Netflix?
Are you telling me that if ISPS bought more bandwidth from backbone providers there would be more or less backbone congestion? What do you think happens with that pipe while your video is buffered, you think no one else could use that route for just a second?

Are you telling me last mile providers aren't making the internet smaller because they can make a profit by selling internet service that only connects to netflix fast??

I am all for peering but to me its fake internet, its something ISPS do to make their networks appear to be faster then they really are. It reminds me of the speed boosting that ISPS used to do that would make websites load instantly but downloads would take forever. Even that whole article was just an ad for google fiber internet, why do you think it costs them nothing? Do you think that Google search is "free"? Do you think that google mail is free? Why do they always have ads for very specific things in my email?

angelatc
12-02-2017, 11:54 AM
Why Google Fiber, unlike Comcast, gives Netflix free peering

YouTube's owner would probably like free peering from Comcast, too. Google owns YouTube, the second biggest (http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/watch-out-for-data-caps-video-hungry-cord-cutters-use-328gb-a-month/) online video service in North America in terms of traffic, and has direct interconnection deals (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/see-which-isps-google-microsoft-and-netflix-trade-internet-traffic-with/)with AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and other ISPs. Google hasn't said whether it's paying those companies for the direct interconnections, but it's a good bet that it is making payments.

Wow! So because you think it benefits both parties, it should be mandatory. Dude, WTF?

FunkBuddha
12-02-2017, 12:52 PM
Wow! So because you think it benefits both parties, it should be mandatory. Dude, WTF?

Are the two of you smoking crack together? You're both blabbering on about shit you know nothing about.

nikcers
12-02-2017, 01:53 PM
Are the two of you smoking crack together? You're both blabbering on about $#@! you know nothing about.
Okay mister straw man, it seems like your the one that doesn't know how the internet works. Wanna know why the Obamacare website shit the bed when it launched? Internet providers were busy monetizing last mile networks that connect really fast to Netflix because that's what people wanna buy. People change internet providers if their Netflix buffers. Last mile providers have no incentive to monetize real internet bandwidth.

FunkBuddha
12-02-2017, 02:11 PM
Huh? My God you're an moron and I've spent my allotted time for arguing with morons for the next few days.

See if you can find an internet routing for imbeciles class somewhere and sign up. You qualify.

nikcers
12-02-2017, 02:34 PM
Huh? My God you're an moron and I've spent my allotted time for arguing with morons for the next few days.

See if you can find an internet routing for imbeciles class somewhere and sign up. You qualify.
Your only argument was a false talking point because you believe the net neutrality propaganda that was pushed by the people that want to control all of the information. If Netflix wants to save on bandwidth so badly and wants their customers to fully utilize the last mile networks they are paying for why are they not using some sort of swarming software?

FunkBuddha
12-02-2017, 02:38 PM
Your only argument was a false talking point because you believe the net neutrality propaganda that was pushed by the people that want to control all of the information. If Netflix wants to save on bandwidth so badly and wants their customers to fully utilize the last mile networks they are paying for why are they not using some sort of swarming software?

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3682b3245e3515ae6d5ec10ef357c2b1-c

nikcers
12-02-2017, 02:39 PM
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3682b3245e3515ae6d5ec10ef357c2b1-c
Do you ever stop to think for yourself?

angelatc
12-02-2017, 03:06 PM
I'm not arguing that the government should step in, just that Comcast was trying to extort Netflix in that deal.

Netflix approached Comcast.

angelatc
12-02-2017, 03:11 PM
Are the two of you smoking crack together? You're both blabbering on about shit you know nothing about.

LOL - you're the one talking about how the government should make sure playing fields are level while you're on a libertarian forum, so....

Root
12-02-2017, 08:02 PM
Netflix approached Comcast.
True story. There are numerous carrier hotels all over the country where they interconnect for several 1000’s of Gbps in data circuits

FunkBuddha
12-03-2017, 07:24 AM
LOL - you're the one talking about how the government should make sure playing fields are level while you're on a libertarian forum, so....

I've argued that local utilities or cooperatives should build open access networks to increase competition at the last mile and stated that Comcast is a shitty company. Is that what you're alluding to? I've never supported Net Neutrality.

FunkBuddha
12-03-2017, 12:12 PM
Do you ever stop to think for yourself?

I think you're a moron, does that count?

Root
12-05-2017, 07:18 AM
Comcast stock went up 4.92% yesterday.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CMCSA?ltr=1