If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   The hope of Net Neutrality took a major blow on Tuesday as 95 of the candidates that pledged support for it lost in the elections   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 233
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

1309 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Nov 2010 at 10:56 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



233 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-11-06 04:15:50 PM
heinekenftw: Chimperror2: Until it gets implemented and then it's just a tool of the government to reward the lobbyists that pay the most.

What do you mean "until it gets implemented?" NN is what we currently have right now. The only necessary regulation is to make sure that it stays that way.


Now, now, you are talking about reality. It's obvious that Chimpemperor has no relation to that.

You are correct. Net neutrality is about keeping the market place free and open as it is now. You pay for access to that market place with your monthly ISP.

If certain users use more, then set caps to access and charge them when they go over, or raise the overall cost of access to counter greater infrastructure costs.

Setting up an internet caste system, like these idiots are suggesting, is about as un American as it gets.
 
2010-11-06 04:20:54 PM
jbuist: Because there are perfectly legitimate reasons to change the priority of network traffic based on the contents or route of it

IPv6 fixes that as part of the protocol. Once ISPs are all on IPv6 your issue disappears. And given that IPv6 routers and such already exist, no real reason for ISPs to not change. Also given the superior routing built into IPv6 it also makes things better for the network over all.
 
2010-11-06 04:22:46 PM
sluck604: Imagine a world where Walmart can pay the State patrol so that the speed limit for anyone going to Walmart is 120mph. However if you want to drive locally owned grocery store your speed limit is 25 mph.

This says nothing about whether or not there happens to be a 4 lane freeway between your house and either location or whether you're driving a ferrari vs riding a bike. Nothing about the size of the parking lot at either store. Or if one is further away than the other.

Network neutrality isn't complicated, it isn't magical. It's not a liberal vs conservative thing.

Until it gets implemented and then it's just a tool of the government to reward the lobbyists that pay the most

The irony in this statement is about to make my head explode. As this is exactly what NN is meant to stop.

Look I'm so sorry you have a hard on for hating government regulation, but really there has got to be a few instances of government regulation you agree with or are you really an anarchist?


Its not that government regulation is all bad, I don't trust that the intention on their part will be to simply protect access. I believe that, whatever law is passed, will be used to benifit the loudest, squeakiest, highest spending wheel that has Congress's ear at the time. They'll simply staple "net neutrality" to the top of the bill. That is the recent history of increased regulation; not protecting all citizens equally, but protecting some citizens at the expense of others.
 
2010-11-06 04:23:02 PM
Chimperror2: That's not what NN is.

Hi. I do networks for a living, have for 15+ years. I'm the senior network engineer in a Fortune 500 company whose products you know and probably have enjoyed. I've worked for Telecoms and ISPs, I've had a RIPE handle, I've worked on default-less routers, I've setup hundreds of BGP peerings on European IXs like DECIX and MAE-F. I make six figures understanding this sh.t.

And that was a very good description of NN. You're wrong.
 
2010-11-06 04:44:38 PM
xtrc8u: I don't trust that the intention on their part will be to simply protect access.

No law needs to be passed to have network neutrality seeing as it's what we have already.
 
2010-11-06 04:54:10 PM
xtrc8u: sluck604: Imagine a world where Walmart can pay the State patrol so that the speed limit for anyone going to Walmart is 120mph. However if you want to drive locally owned grocery store your speed limit is 25 mph.

This says nothing about whether or not there happens to be a 4 lane freeway between your house and either location or whether you're driving a ferrari vs riding a bike. Nothing about the size of the parking lot at either store. Or if one is further away than the other.

Network neutrality isn't complicated, it isn't magical. It's not a liberal vs conservative thing.

Until it gets implemented and then it's just a tool of the government to reward the lobbyists that pay the most

The irony in this statement is about to make my head explode. As this is exactly what NN is meant to stop.

Look I'm so sorry you have a hard on for hating government regulation, but really there has got to be a few instances of government regulation you agree with or are you really an anarchist?

Its not that government regulation is all bad, I don't trust that the intention on their part will be to simply protect access. I believe that, whatever law is passed, will be used to benifit the loudest, squeakiest, highest spending wheel that has Congress's ear at the time. They'll simply staple "net neutrality" to the top of the bill. That is the recent history of increased regulation; not protecting all citizens equally, but protecting some citizens at the expense of others.


Then you should argue against that and argue for implementing it properly not arguing against what is at it's core a sound idea that will encourage competition and encourage a free market.

Monopolies suck, it would be awesome if they didn't exist, but when it comes to something like ISP's or freeways, or water/electrical utilities there isn't a whole lot of leeway for creating competition. So it falls on the government to make sure the people in those positions don't abuse it and then it falls to the people to make sure the government does this.
 
2010-11-06 05:14:17 PM
As I get older my faith in humanity dwindles and my assertion that people are just a bunch of stupid savage imbeciles that don't understand what they do keeps reaffirming. I hate humans, wish you would all die.
 
2010-11-06 07:03:19 PM
Erik_Emune: Chimp

Erik_Emune: Chimperror2: That's not what NN is.

Hi. I do networks for a living, have for 15+ years. I'm the senior network engineer in a Fortune 500 company whose products you know and probably have enjoyed. I've worked for Telecoms and ISPs, I've had a RIPE handle, I've worked on default-less routers, I've setup hundreds of BGP peerings on European IXs like DECIX and MAE-F. I make six figures understanding this sh.t.

And that was a very good description of NN. You're wrong.


Hi, I have 21+ designing telecom equipment, installing networks, configuring large and small LAN and WANs. From installing T1/T3 hardware encrypters to reviewing technical standards on OC-192. From DAA's in analog modems to FibreChannel. Twenty years is the largest maker of semiconductor products in the world. 'll go toe to toe with resume's with anybody, dumbass.

And I am spot on. Let's put it this way: if some engineering person wanted net neutrality on our work network, we would laugh and then pat him on the head and walk him back to his cube. The goal of the network is about performance, not equality. Nobody is going to be happy if a Net Neutrality configured router makes Fox blazing fast and MSNBC slow because of physical implementation. They are going to scream "that's not net neutrality" even though packets are treated the same.

What people want Net Neutrality to be and what it is are two completely different things. And if you read the previous replies you see why I dismissed him.
 
2010-11-06 07:13:43 PM
Chimperror2: Erik_Emune: Chimp

Erik_Emune: Chimperror2: That's not what NN is.

Hi. I do networks for a living, have for 15+ years. I'm the senior network engineer in a Fortune 500 company whose products you know and probably have enjoyed. I've worked for Telecoms and ISPs, I've had a RIPE handle, I've worked on default-less routers, I've setup hundreds of BGP peerings on European IXs like DECIX and MAE-F. I make six figures understanding this sh.t.

And that was a very good description of NN. You're wrong.

Hi, I have 21+ designing telecom equipment, installing networks, configuring large and small LAN and WANs. From installing T1/T3 hardware encrypters to reviewing technical standards on OC-192. From DAA's in analog modems to FibreChannel. Twenty years is the largest maker of semiconductor products in the world. 'll go toe to toe with resume's with anybody, dumbass.

And I am spot on. Let's put it this way: if some engineering person wanted net neutrality on our work network, we would laugh and then pat him on the head and walk him back to his cube. The goal of the network is about performance, not equality. Nobody is going to be happy if a Net Neutrality configured router makes Fox blazing fast and MSNBC slow because of physical implementation. They are going to scream "that's not net neutrality" even though packets are treated the same.

What people want Net Neutrality to be and what it is are two completely different things. And if you read the previous replies you see why I dismissed him.


You've missed the point completely. No one is going to go and make the routing equipment "network neutral" the issue is keeping the ISP's from inspecting the traffic adding equipment to degrade or enhance the performance based on rules coming from the marketing department that has agreements with "content provider X."

I really wish you'd stop trolling.
 
2010-11-06 07:37:11 PM
sluck604: Chimperror2: Erik_Emune: Chimp



You've missed the point completely. No one is going to go and make the routing equipment "network neutral" the issue is keeping the ISP's from inspecting the traffic adding equipment to degrade or enhance the performance based on rules coming from the marketing department that has agreements with "content provider X."


You can't avoid it. It's physical, not routing table based.

Here's an example that if you give to 3 NN folks, you'll get 4 answers.

Example A:
Let's say Time-Warner has a cable network ISP and movie service that competes with Netflix. Because of co-location the latency and bandwidth of that service is 8x faster than Netflix. the routers treat all the packets the same, just the pipe is shorter and larger because of the physical implementation.

Now price that service. Now matter what, prices will react to the performance.

Example B:
Let's say Time Warner starts a hosting service for gamers. Microsoft starts hosting their games their and TW charges them a fee. They offer the same service to Sony but Sony declines. To the end-user, Xbox looks faster, closer, etc. It has nothing to do with the ISP packets being treated differently.

Price that service. Same thing as above. How do "fix" the fact that Xbox would be faster than Playstation on that cable network?

You can argue about the Unicorn of "equal endpoints" but it's not reality.
 
2010-11-06 07:54:55 PM
fuhfuhfuh: Chimperror2: And guess what? In countries where NN has been done, they throttle and block VoIP.

Citation?


Check anything in Europe. They want to treat VoIP as phone service with all the regulation that goes with it.
 
2010-11-06 08:34:17 PM
WhyteRaven74: xtrc8u: I don't trust that the intention on their part will be to simply protect access.

No law needs to be passed to have network neutrality seeing as it's what we have already.


Good. No new regulation is exactly what we need right now.
 
2010-11-06 08:49:42 PM
I'm just worried my ISP might stop access to porn.
 
2010-11-06 08:57:16 PM
jasimo: The regulation itself should be written in plain english as concisely as possible so that those who DO wish to understand it can do so with talking heads getting between them and the truth.

I can do that easily.

*ahem*


DO YOU LIKE THE INTERNET THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW?

GOOD.

THEN YOU ARE FOR NET NEUTRALITY.
 
2010-11-06 09:03:23 PM
Chimperror2: Net Neutrality is...just a tool of the government

Newsflash: The government owns the internet. The government has always owned the internet. The government has owned the internet since 1968, the year the government invented the internet with help from the government (and Al Gore).

We have Net Neutrality right now. The only thing this issue raises is the appropriate legislation that ensures things will stay like this forever.

The internet is a public resource created to improve quality of life, just like parks, roads, fire and police protection.

To allow corporations the ability to siphon parts of the internet that they do not own, and ration content to the highest bidder, is to invite suffering, confusion, misery and death.
 
2010-11-06 09:19:10 PM
Corporations are not persons, no matter what SCOTUS said. They will take any advantage and rape you silly. Stop defending them dumbasses.
 
2010-11-06 09:39:30 PM
The last great argument about net neutrality I read concerned ISPs sharing the same infrastructure. It went something like...

If AT&T owns these fast high-traffic cables, they should be able to charge COMCAST or [local ISP company] to route traffic through them which would theoretically raise the price of your high-speed internet package from [local ISP company] if x amount of their traffic had to be routed through AT&T's infrastructure.

And that, for the most part, makes some sense from a capitalistic point of view;

Until you realize THE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED AT&T TO BUILD THE FARKING INFRASTRUCTURE.
 
2010-11-06 09:48:59 PM
Clarinch: Until you realize THE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED AT&T TO BUILD THE FARKING INFRASTRUCTURE.

Isn't it funny that our friends on the Right have absolutely no problem with these Cadillac driving welfare queens.
 
2010-11-06 11:32:16 PM
Show us your Marx: jbuist: sweetmelissa31: I love when people are opposed to something they know nothing about.

Ever see a Slashdot discussion on the topic? It's not exactly one sided and I'd wager that that demographic knows more about network engineering than the Fark readership.

FWIW I'm against Net Neutrality too.

How come?

/serious question


Because it doesn't allow for reasonable network management. Yes yes, go ahead and raise the canard that they shouldn't be able to do that, but the fact of the matter is without such things as QoS and prioritization, you wouldn't have such things as VoIP.

The NN proposals circulating are nothing more than ill-thought-out kneejerk legislation. I'm for the concept, but not in such horribly flawed execution.

It's kind of like how I'm for people being able to smoke all the hash they want, but prop19 was a big no because it would have prevented employers from enforcing conduct standards on the job.
 
2010-11-07 01:23:59 AM
Chimperror2: fuhfuhfuh: Chimperror2: And guess what? In countries where NN has been done, they throttle and block VoIP.

Citation?

Check anything in Europe. They want to treat VoIP as phone service with all the regulation that goes with it.


So no actual cites, just a "go check blahblahblah" response. How about since you are the one making the assertions, perhaps you should go dig up some cites and links. I'm not your secretary, and until you can prove your assertions it is just you talking out of your ass.
 
2010-11-07 01:34:54 AM
Ishkur: Chimperror2: Net Neutrality is...just a tool of the government

Newsflash: The government owns the internet. The government has always owned the internet. The government has owned the internet since 1968, the year the government invented the internet with help from the government (and Al Gore).

We have Net Neutrality right now. The only thing this issue raises is the appropriate legislation that ensures things will stay like this forever.

The internet is a public resource created to improve quality of life, just like parks, roads, fire and police protection.

To allow corporations the ability to siphon parts of the internet that they do not own, and ration content to the highest bidder, is to invite suffering, confusion, misery and death.


I thought Gooogle was sponsoring it. huh.
 
2010-11-07 01:37:59 AM
Ishkur: jasimo: The regulation itself should be written in plain english as concisely as possible so that those who DO wish to understand it can do so with talking heads getting between them and the truth.

I can do that easily.

*ahem*


DO YOU LIKE THE INTERNET THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW?

GOOD.

THEN YOU ARE FOR NET NEUTRALITY.


Yes. I like my ISP being able to decide which traffic and sites to prioritize based on whatever they deecide is right to do for their customers. That's the way THE INTERNET THE WAY IS RIGHT NOW. Does that help?
 
2010-11-07 01:39:46 AM
fuhfuhfuh: As for those that are using the VoIP canard to argue against, here's the thing with that.

VoIP, unlike standard internet traffic, is in a gray area since many governments, including the US, are still trying to determine how to treat it. Since it is technically a phone service, existing laws concerning equal access, 911 functionality, and all of those fun laws put in place to govern standard telecoms are trying to be enforced on VoIP. Hence the reason you have it prioritized higher, because providers don't want to get a hammer slammed onto them if they failed to allow an emergency call through. There is no "emergency call" to a website.


So when they decide streaming video is "just like TV" so it's a gray area, what happens?
 
2010-11-07 01:43:36 AM
As for those that are using the VoIP canard to argue against, here's the thing with that.

VoIP, unlike standard internet traffic, is in a gray area since many governments, including the US, are still trying to determine how to treat it. Since it is technically a phone service, existing laws concerning equal access, 911 functionality, and all of those fun laws put in place to govern standard telecoms are trying to be enforced on VoIP. Hence the reason you have it prioritized higher, because providers don't want to get a hammer slammed onto them if they failed to allow an emergency call through. There is no "emergency call" to a website.
 
2010-11-07 02:15:16 AM
Shaggy_C: scseth: These are not net neutrality issues.

So let's recap, taking 4 examples:

1) Google blocks users from Comcast from accessing their sites

2) Google offers a tiered system which delivers content to Verizon faster than to other ISPs because Verizon pay a fee

3) The network administrator at the local university blocks users from accessing Google's sites entirely

4) Comcast offers a tiered system which delivers Google data faster to their customers because Google pays a fee

In all cases, the end consumer is going to have issues with getting to content. Either it is slowed down or blocked entirely. But the only place that this is an issue causing such alarm is in case #4. Why?


A lot of good objections have already been raised but let's get really basic here.

1-3 are already ways that users can get screwed out of content (if you want to put it that way) that exist and are totally legal.

All doing away with net neutrality does is add #4 to the mix and gives you absolutely nothing in return.

How does that serve you as a consumer?
 
2010-11-07 02:33:52 AM
whitman00: Flood the internet with stories that liberal media corporations plan to block or slow all access to Foxnews.com, Hotair, and every other right wing site out there because they don't like the message those sites are sending out.

Hell, make it clear that they're not going to be able to get all their derp for one price anymore.

You think foxnews, hotair, the Blaze, and free republic are all going to be on the same "package"? You're going to have to buy the platinum derp package with wharrgarbl and doip options, my friend.
 
2010-11-07 06:41:50 AM
Chimperror2: Yes. I like my ISP being able to decide which traffic and sites to prioritize based on whatever they deecide is right to do for their customers. That's the way THE INTERNET THE WAY IS RIGHT NOW. Does that help?

Yes. But that is a bandwidth issue, not a content issue.

NN is about C-O-N-T-E-N-T.

People have spent this entire thread explaining this over and over to you.
 
2010-11-07 10:56:49 AM
Chimperror2: So when they decide streaming video is "just like TV" so it's a gray area, what happens?

The laws governing Cable TV channels (which streaming video would more than likely fall under, considering it is not a network but a single channel) do not have requirements for service. There is no pressing emergency requirement to send the Super Bowl to your TV. There is a pressing emergency requirement to send that call from someone having a heart attack through.
 
2010-11-07 11:34:15 AM
Chimperror2: sluck604: Chimperror2: Erik_Emune: Chimp



You've missed the point completely. No one is going to go and make the routing equipment "network neutral" the issue is keeping the ISP's from inspecting the traffic adding equipment to degrade or enhance the performance based on rules coming from the marketing department that has agreements with "content provider X."


You can't avoid it. It's physical, not routing table based.

Here's an example that if you give to 3 NN folks, you'll get 4 answers.

Example A:
Let's say Time-Warner has a cable network ISP and movie service that competes with Netflix. Because of co-location the latency and bandwidth of that service is 8x faster than Netflix. the routers treat all the packets the same, just the pipe is shorter and larger because of the physical implementation.

Now price that service. Now matter what, prices will react to the performance.

Example B:
Let's say Time Warner starts a hosting service for gamers. Microsoft starts hosting their games their and TW charges them a fee. They offer the same service to Sony but Sony declines. To the end-user, Xbox looks faster, closer, etc. It has nothing to do with the ISP packets being treated differently.

Price that service. Same thing as above. How do "fix" the fact that Xbox would be faster than Playstation on that cable network?

You can argue about the Unicorn of "equal endpoints" but it's not reality.


NN isn't about fixing the service so that the endpoints respond equally. It's about NOT altering the service so that one is at an advantage to the other. HOW HARD IS THAT TO GRASP? you have to be willfully ignorant.
 
2010-11-07 11:39:16 AM
sluck604: Chimperror2: sluck604: Chimperror2: Erik_Emune: Chimp



You've missed the point completely. No one is going to go and make the routing equipment "network neutral" the issue is keeping the ISP's from inspecting the traffic adding equipment to degrade or enhance the performance based on rules coming from the marketing department that has agreements with "content provider X."


You can't avoid it. It's physical, not routing table based.

Here's an example that if you give to 3 NN folks, you'll get 4 answers.

Example A:
Let's say Time-Warner has a cable network ISP and movie service that competes with Netflix. Because of co-location the latency and bandwidth of that service is 8x faster than Netflix. the routers treat all the packets the same, just the pipe is shorter and larger because of the physical implementation.

Now price that service. Now matter what, prices will react to the performance.

Example B:
Let's say Time Warner starts a hosting service for gamers. Microsoft starts hosting their games their and TW charges them a fee. They offer the same service to Sony but Sony declines. To the end-user, Xbox looks faster, closer, etc. It has nothing to do with the ISP packets being treated differently.

Price that service. Same thing as above. How do "fix" the fact that Xbox would be faster than Playstation on that cable network?

You can argue about the Unicorn of "equal endpoints" but it's not reality.

NN isn't about fixing the service so that the endpoints respond equally. It's about NOT altering the service so that one is at an advantage to the other. HOW HARD IS THAT TO GRASP? you have to be willfully ignorant.


Just to be clear since you're so farking daft. NN doesn't make it incumbent on the ISP to ensure that all websites render at the same speed that would be technologically impossible. NN is about making sure that the ISP's don't degrade the performance or enhance the performance of certain sites just because on party paid a fee to have their traffic given higher priority. And no this is not the same thing as buying more bandwidth or paying for a better connection.
 
2010-11-07 02:29:20 PM
Chimperror2: You can't avoid it. It's physical, not routing table based.

Nobody's insisting that NN somehow forces the ISPs and backbone providers to make all websites load equally fast in all places. That's undoable.

Example A: Let's say Time-Warner has a cable network ISP and movie service that competes with Netflix. Because of co-location the latency and bandwidth of that service is 8x faster than Netflix. the routers treat all the packets the same, just the pipe is shorter and larger because of the physical implementation.

Excellent example. Now imagine TW's movie service posting unsatisfactory results because NetFlix still has the better movie selection and people are OK with waiting 8 minutes for a good movie rather than 1 minute for a mediocre one. Without NN, nothing is keeping TWs network team from policing NetFlix's traffic at a rate they deem more convenient - say, to download times averaging 20 minutes per movie. Turns about people don't want to wait 20 minutes for NetFlix movies, even though they like the movies better. Hey, look at how TW's movie service just increased revenue - and we saved on upstream bandwidth? Win-win!

Oh, the NetFlix clients are unhappy? Not a problem, for just $4.99/month, we'll put them on the Media Access HappyPlan, Improved Access to media-rich environments.

How do "fix" the fact that Xbox would be faster than Playstation on that cable network?

You don't. IP is a best-effort service. Let's keep it that way.

And obviously, there's no such thing as NN on my corporate network. It belongs to my employer, and we'll bloody well decide what traffic gets expedited. Because we're not a common carrier, and as such we're not offering a service to the general public.
 
2010-11-07 07:16:50 PM
Erik_Emune: Chimperror2: You can't avoid it. It's physical, not routing table based.

Nobody's insisting that NN somehow forces the ISPs and backbone providers to make all websites load equally fast in all places. That's undoable.

Example A: Let's say Time-Warner has a cable network ISP and movie service that competes with Netflix. Because of co-location the latency and bandwidth of that service is 8x faster than Netflix. the routers treat all the packets the same, just the pipe is shorter and larger because of the physical implementation.

Excellent example. Now imagine TW's movie service posting unsatisfactory results because NetFlix still has the better movie selection and people are OK with waiting 8 minutes for a good movie rather than 1 minute for a mediocre one. Without NN, nothing is keeping TWs network team from policing NetFlix's traffic at a rate they deem more convenient - say, to download times averaging 20 minutes per movie. Turns about people don't want to wait 20 minutes for NetFlix movies, even though they like the movies better. Hey, look at how TW's movie service just increased revenue - and we saved on upstream bandwidth? Win-win!

Oh, the NetFlix clients are unhappy? Not a problem, for just $4.99/month, we'll put them on the Media Access HappyPlan, Improved Access to media-rich environments.

How do "fix" the fact that Xbox would be faster than Playstation on that cable network?

You don't. IP is a best-effort service. Let's keep it that way.

And obviously, there's no such thing as NN on my corporate network. It belongs to my employer, and we'll bloody well decide what traffic gets expedited. Because we're not a common carrier, and as such we're not offering a service to the general public.


Again, you avoid the obvious. Best effort IP service is the very definition of Net Neutrality. My point is that people will argue what "Best Effort" is. If Netflix and TW are priced differently simply because of physical implementation making TW faster, people will complain that they are getting tiered and preferred service based on price.

Second, what happens if a given network needs to be reconfigured and as a result TW performance is improved but Netflix stays the same or gets worse? Is that okay? None of that is addressed and instead of the ISP providing the service that has steadily improved, it will be paralyzed through regulation.

The NN folks simply think that legislating "best effort" is simple and obvious and it is not. I don't want what I have now to remain static because some lawyer thinks moving from copper to fiber changes "best effort" if they do the local area before improving the equipment that connects them to some server farm from Netflix.
 
2010-11-07 11:28:33 PM
Chimperror2: Erik_Emune: Chimperror2: You can't avoid it. It's physical, not routing table based.

Nobody's insisting that NN somehow forces the ISPs and backbone providers to make all websites load equally fast in all places. That's undoable.

Example A: Let's say Time-Warner has a cable network ISP and movie service that competes with Netflix. Because of co-location the latency and bandwidth of that service is 8x faster than Netflix. the routers treat all the packets the same, just the pipe is shorter and larger because of the physical implementation.

Excellent example. Now imagine TW's movie service posting unsatisfactory results because NetFlix still has the better movie selection and people are OK with waiting 8 minutes for a good movie rather than 1 minute for a mediocre one. Without NN, nothing is keeping TWs network team from policing NetFlix's traffic at a rate they deem more convenient - say, to download times averaging 20 minutes per movie. Turns about people don't want to wait 20 minutes for NetFlix movies, even though they like the movies better. Hey, look at how TW's movie service just increased revenue - and we saved on upstream bandwidth? Win-win!

Oh, the NetFlix clients are unhappy? Not a problem, for just $4.99/month, we'll put them on the Media Access HappyPlan, Improved Access to media-rich environments.

How do "fix" the fact that Xbox would be faster than Playstation on that cable network?

You don't. IP is a best-effort service. Let's keep it that way.

And obviously, there's no such thing as NN on my corporate network. It belongs to my employer, and we'll bloody well decide what traffic gets expedited. Because we're not a common carrier, and as such we're not offering a service to the general public.

Again, you avoid the obvious. Best effort IP service is the very definition of Net Neutrality. My point is that people will argue what "Best Effort" is. If Netflix and TW are priced differently simply because of physical implementation making TW faster, people will complain that they are getting tiered and preferred service based on price.

Second, what happens if a given network needs to be reconfigured and as a result TW performance is improved but Netflix stays the same or gets worse? Is that okay? None of that is addressed and instead of the ISP providing the service that has steadily improved, it will be paralyzed through regulation.

The NN folks simply think that legislating "best effort" is simple and obvious and it is not. I don't want what I have now to remain static because some lawyer thinks moving from copper to fiber changes "best effort" if they do the local area before improving the equipment that connects them to some server farm from Netflix.


You're simply being disingenuous now.
 
Displayed 33 of 233 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report