themindiswatching: Network neutrality died a long time ago. The court throwing out those rules is a formality.
Dinki: themindiswatching: Network neutrality died a long time ago. The court throwing out those rules is a formality.Yes, that's why Verizon is going through all the expense of a court fight, because they already won....
themindiswatching: Dinki: themindiswatching: Network neutrality died a long time ago. The court throwing out those rules is a formality.Yes, that's why Verizon is going through all the expense of a court fight, because they already won....Do you really think the FCC was all that serious about net neutrality? It's run by former Verizon/AT&T people. This whole thing is pretty clever of them, actually, because now they'll have something in case law that precludes any future administration from ever instituting net neutrality./Congress could fix it, but have you seen them lately?
mrlewish: I suggest that google and wiki and others of similar use stop responding to .gov queries.
themindiswatching: /Congress could fix it, but have you seen them lately?
MrEricSir: themindiswatching: I guess what I'm saying is that I want congress to produce a set of internet user's legal rights, and I want it in the form of animated cat gifs.
themindiswatching: Do you really think the FCC was all that serious about net neutrality? It's run by former Verizon/AT&T people
JPSimonetti: I read this stuff, and can't help but think it's a ton of wasted man hours. This is a really simple issue: You don't double-dip, you don't fark with the mail, and why can't it be both an information service and a communication service at the same time? If not, most of the clicks in a browser have to do with communicating - be it facebook, email, or asking a company for services. Even the information domains have comments sections or direct links to post them on your Facebook/Twitter/whatever. How have they managed to make it so infinitely complex?
K3rmy: Welcome to FIOS!Wait! You thought we were going to let you have a way to utilize that bandwidth. Ha ha ha. Nope! Pay extra!Netflix. That's a fee.Youtube. That's a fee.iTunes. That's a fee.They might as well just come right out and charge per megabyte.If they do come out with a fee for this, make sure to hook up a gigabit router and stream the hell out of EVERYTHING! You won't make a dent in their profits, but if you are lucky, they might try to throttle you which, if it happens to enough people, will allow for a nice class action lawsuit.
K3rmy: They might as well just come right out and charge per megabyte.
K3rmy: Welcome to FIOS!Wait! You thought we were going to let you have a way to utilize that bandwidth. Ha ha ha. Nope! Pay extra!Netflix. That's a fee.Youtube. That's a fee.iTunes. That's a fee.
serial_crusher: These articles always reek of oversimplifying a complex problem. I admit, I don't understand the full intricacies of how peering arrangements work, and I emplore the great experts of Fark to help me out on this one.Consider Netflix's OpenConnect CDN:ISPs can directly connect their networks to Open Connect for free. ISPs can do this either by free peering with us at common Internet exchanges, or can save even more transit costs by putting our free storage appliances in or near their network.Basically, Netflix wants to give ISPs a box that they can run locally that handles all Netflix streaming, thereby preventing the need to send all that traffic over the Internet at large. End users are happy because they get faster Netflix. ISPs, they claim, save money by not paying for that traffic. Netflix gets to deliver a better user experience and doesn't pay as much for the traffic either. Win/win for everybody right?Well, there's still the cost of installing and maintaining Netflix's presence in Verizon's network. Who pays for that? Netflix is asking Verizon to. Sure, they're providing the hardware and software, but Verizon takes on the operational costs of keeping that hardware running within their network.If you were Verizon, you'd want to push that cost onto Netflix, or to the Netflix users who demanded you install that custom hardware, right? Is that what's at stake here?I can kind of see an argument in Verizon's favor in that case.Users are demanding Verizon take action and spend money to provide a faster Netflix experience. Would it be wrong to offload that cost to the users who asked for it?Netflix is asking the same thing of Verizon, so maybe Verizon could ask them not only to provide free hardware, but to cover operational costs as well?Don't just think of this as Verizon vs. Netflix here.One side is Netflix and hundreds of smaller video sites, which is why the ISPs wouldn't want to take on the added operational costs. Netflix might be worth ...
MindStalker: Of course Verizon can charge users extra for running a exclusive cache if they want to, what they can't do is charge Netflix.
xria: Of course in reality what the end of net neutrality would look like is not the consumer paying more fees, but the consumer would pay less
K3rmy: if it happens to enough people, will allow for a nice class action lawsuit.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Mar 30 2017 04:06:57
Runtime: 0.178 sec (177 ms)