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.

(Fox News)   The GOP warns that FCC net neutrality laws will "derail the internet" and "stifle innovation". Thanks Obama   (foxnews.com) divider line 167
    More: Asinine, Federal Communications Commission, GOP, house republican leaders, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, streaming media  
•       •       •

953 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2014 at 10:31 AM (14 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



167 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-05-15 08:44:13 AM
Can someone explain how not having net neutrality promotes innovation? How can maintaining the status quo by not allowing preferential traffic derail the internet?
 
2014-05-15 09:06:44 AM
Can they show it is doing that now? Didn't think so.
 
2014-05-15 09:19:49 AM

gnosis301: Can someone explain how not having net neutrality promotes innovation? How can maintaining the status quo by not allowing preferential traffic derail the internet?


For the same reason that letting Comcast own all the accesses will promote competition, duh.
 
2014-05-15 09:23:16 AM
The internet is not a truck. Its a series of tubes.
 
2014-05-15 09:35:43 AM
If we can't stifle competition, how can anyone win?
 
2014-05-15 09:41:29 AM
"At a time when technology businesses need certainty to innovate, this is not the time for the FCC to engage in a counterproductive effort to even further regulate the Internet," the lawmakers wrote to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

So they don't want net neutrality. No regulation allows for providers to throttle bandwidth. I am no fan of what the FCC is up to, but the GOP's stance isn't for an open internet, either. The internet is boned. Well, American Internet. The world will give the US the finger if and when Comcast and others get their fingers on it.
 
2014-05-15 09:44:40 AM
This makes about as much sense as Benghazi, so at least they're consistent.
 
2014-05-15 09:46:16 AM

hubiestubert: If we can't stifle competition, how can anyone win?


The powers that be already won. We just haven't caught up to that fact.
 
2014-05-15 09:49:14 AM
Read carefully. The Republicans are opposing the shiatty new rules the industry shill is trying to put in. They don't want companies to be able to discriminate based on content
 
2014-05-15 10:16:49 AM

ArkAngel: Read carefully. The Republicans are opposing the shiatty new rules the industry shill is trying to put in. They don't want companies to be able to discriminate based on content


From the article:

The so-called net neutrality rules would prohibit Internet providers from blocking or slowing down websites but allow them to make deals with content companies for preferential treatment, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Huh, is it actually possible they are on the proper side of an issue?
 
2014-05-15 10:24:01 AM

ArkAngel: Read carefully. The Republicans are opposing the shiatty new rules the industry shill is trying to put in. They don't want companies to be able to discriminate based on content


That's not true. They want the providers to be able to slow or block traffic altogether. The FCC rules simply aren't terrible enough for their tastes.

The Republican ideal is that Comcast should be able to block Netflix unless Netflix pays a premium to allow their traffic that competes with Comcast/NBC content.

It is the exact opposite of promoting a level playing field to foster innovation. It will entrench the already-powerful and create a much higher bar for entry for any entrepreneurial business. It may well become impossible to enter and compete with the FCC rules, it definitely will be impossible with the Republican-backed rules.
 
2014-05-15 10:35:41 AM
Hey FCC, you know what would be really "neutral"?  Not regulating the internet.

/Radical idea:  stop creating monopolies and then telling us you need to regulate them because they're monopolies.
 
2014-05-15 10:35:41 AM
Interesting how the net neutrality regulations that are set to expire were put in place in 2004 by the Bush nominee to the FCC, yet now that the bla man is in office, the GOP is a'gin it!  It's like they would cut off their own feet if they thought it would make Obama look bad.

/Subby
 
2014-05-15 10:36:38 AM
if the GOP is fo it you should be again it...
 
2014-05-15 10:36:58 AM

gnosis301: Can someone explain how not having net neutrality promotes innovation? How can maintaining the status quo by not allowing preferential traffic derail the internet?


Because think of all the price gouging tricks service providers aren't coming up with because they can't mess with Internet traffic..
 
2014-05-15 10:37:13 AM

Marcus Aurelius: This makes about as much sense as Benghazi, so at least they're consistent.


Faster access to Benghazi scandal websites!!!
 
2014-05-15 10:37:40 AM

Garet Garrett: Hey FCC, you know what would be really "neutral"?  Not regulating the internet.

/Radical idea:  stop creating monopolies and then telling us you need to regulate them because they're monopolies.


[notsureifserious.jpg.]
 
2014-05-15 10:38:20 AM
House Republican leaders are calling on the Federal Communications Commission to back off proposed open Internet rules, warning that allowing service providers to control content on their networks threatens to "derail" the Internet.

Isn't this essentially the exact same farking thing that most of you have been shrieking about? And now that the Republicans are saying it and Fox News is reporting it, it's somehow evil?
 
2014-05-15 10:38:49 AM

Garet Garrett: Radical idea:  stop creating monopolies


But monopolies are the end game of Capitalism. Everyone loves unfettered Capitalism, right?
 
2014-05-15 10:39:11 AM
I can't really tell from the article what side the Republicans are on.
 
2014-05-15 10:39:31 AM
Hmmm.  Obama appoints corporate shill to FCC.  Shill shills for corporations.  GOP opposes shill because Obama?
You might have something here.
This could work.
 
2014-05-15 10:39:32 AM

gnosis301: Can someone explain how not having net neutrality promotes innovation? How can maintaining the status quo by not allowing preferential traffic derail the internet?


What's good for Comcast is good for America.  How do you even DARE question that?
 
2014-05-15 10:40:02 AM
I am the only one with reading comprehension fail or the article tried hard to make it vague to understand that what GOPer are saying is the bad position?
 
2014-05-15 10:40:31 AM
At a time when technology businesses need certainty to innovate...

Oh, yea, because if there's one thing that never sparks innovation in the scientific and technology fields it's turmoil and challenge. Remember that period during the Cold War when absolutely nothing farking happened with the computers and networking technologies you're talking about? I mean... aside from their very farking invention?

Are these miserable pukes actually this stupid or have the people they're talking to become so stupid that such obvious lies just don't get caught anymore?
 
2014-05-15 10:41:14 AM

mod3072: Isn't this essentially the exact same farking thing that most of you have been shrieking about?


no
 
2014-05-15 10:41:32 AM

ArkAngel: Read carefully. The Republicans are opposing the shiatty new rules the industry shill is trying to put in. They don't want companies to be able to discriminate based on content


Not quite. Here's the actual letter. There's nothing in there about the new proposed rules; it's a letter urging the FCC not to classify ISPs as utilities. Fox is spinning the letter pretty ridiculously.
 
2014-05-15 10:42:48 AM

mayIFark: I am the only one with reading comprehension fail or the article tried hard to make it vague to understand that what GOPer are saying is the bad position?


They were intentionally vague and even dishonest and contradictory.  Read the comments if you are interested in the general consensus.  If you aren't interested in reading them, they basically say "Obummer's FCC needs to stop trying to regulate everything and give us our freedom!!!!"
 
2014-05-15 10:42:49 AM
It's true. Just look at the way net neutrality has so far stifled the growth of social media.
 
2014-05-15 10:44:02 AM
The fundamental problem here is that ISPs like Comcast refuse to build out their own infrastructure to handle the amount of traffic their clients are requesting.
 
2014-05-15 10:44:06 AM
Right wing douche bags:
Net neutrality is what we have now.  It's now the internet has always existed.
 
2014-05-15 10:44:36 AM

nmrsnr: Garet Garrett: Hey FCC, you know what would be really "neutral"?  Not regulating the internet.

/Radical idea:  stop creating monopolies and then telling us you need to regulate them because they're monopolies.

[notsureifserious.jpg.]


The chemtrails people are serious too, but you don't see anyone giving them the time of day.
 
2014-05-15 10:44:43 AM
Headline does not seem to match article...

On one hand net neutrality is vital to protecting service, on the other some prioritization (namely putting spam and bots second to valid traffic like cat videos and call of duty servers) can maximize the networks health.
The question is, once you allow prioritization, how do you define who gets that priority.
Hence why everyone wants the show to go on hold so they can get their fingers in the pie.

I'd suspect they want the government to define what is priority traffic, which can be as bad as letting the ISP's do it (but at least it would be public record).

/To me it seems to be more a problem of hunting down abusers so all traffic can be treated equally.
/internet is best without giving the ISPs something to screw around with.
 
2014-05-15 10:44:57 AM
COMMON CARRIER?

/please
 
2014-05-15 10:45:18 AM

mayIFark: I am the only one with reading comprehension fail or the article tried hard to make it vague to understand that what GOPer are saying is the bad position?


img.fark.net
 
2014-05-15 10:45:43 AM
I have a really hard time figuring out how opposing net neutrality can benefit the service providers in the long run.  It is my understanding that guidelines would PERMIT providers differentiate traffic streams, but would not REQUIRE them to do so.

So how would an ISP providing a throttled or capped service be able to compete with a non throttled/capped provider?  I know there's not enough competition, but it seems like there are enough options out there where you're not really at the mercy of any 1 provider.  If anything, it would just seem like Comcast/Charter/etc. choosing to throttle traffic would simply hasten the emergence of services like Google Fiber.
 
2014-05-15 10:45:47 AM

gnosis301: Can someone explain how not having net neutrality promotes innovation? How can maintaining the status quo by not allowing preferential traffic derail the internet?


It allows the big players, companies that everyone has already invested in, to innovate without having to worry about ankle biters.

And it also saves the investors from taking unnecessary risks.  Do you want another pets.com?  No?  Then you should favor the stability that a high barrier to entry brings!
 
2014-05-15 10:46:16 AM

mod3072: Isn't this essentially the exact same farking thing that most of you have been shrieking about? And now that the Republicans are saying it and Fox News is reporting it, it's somehow evil?


Either you didn't bother to read the actual letter or you're confused about the immediate state of network neutrality. Which is it?
 
2014-05-15 10:47:06 AM

physt: I can't really tell from the article what side the Republicans are on.


It's a masterful plan.  Appoint someone to the FCC who does what Republicans have been asking for.  Since Obama now supports it, Republicans oppose it and write net neutrality into law.
 
2014-05-15 10:49:12 AM

udhq: I have a really hard time figuring out how opposing net neutrality can benefit the service providers in the long run.  It is my understanding that guidelines would PERMIT providers differentiate traffic streams, but would not REQUIRE them to do so.

So how would an ISP providing a throttled or capped service be able to compete with a non throttled/capped provider?  I know there's not enough competition, but it seems like there are enough options out there where you're not really at the mercy of any 1 provider.  If anything, it would just seem like Comcast/Charter/etc. choosing to throttle traffic would simply hasten the emergence of services like Google Fiber.


lol compete. cute.
 
2014-05-15 10:49:14 AM

Garet Garrett: Hey FCC, you know what would be really "neutral"?  Not regulating the internet.

/Radical idea:  stop creating monopolies and then telling us you need to regulate them because they're monopolies.


Netflix is already paying tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year for bandwidth with its ISP. Its ISP has peering arrangements with other ISPs. If they don't like those peering agreements, they can presumably renegotiate them.

Ending net neutrality would effectively be double-billing companies like Netflix.
 
2014-05-15 10:50:00 AM
And once again, the GOP displays its particular brand of libertarianism.
 
2014-05-15 10:50:26 AM

udhq: but it seems like there are enough options out there where you're not really at the mercy of any 1 provider


Except there aren't. Cable, fiber and DSL are not equivalent and that's the "option" the relatively few people who have any option at all have. I can choose DSL instead of cable, but it's not much of a choice. It's like saying I can choose McDonald's over a five star meal. Sure, they're both technically food, but they're not really like things when it comes right down to it.

Real competition would mean I could choose 10mbit cable from multiple cable providers or I could choose 100mbit fiber from multiple fiber providers. It doesn't mean I can settle for a 2mbit phone line if I don't like my 5x faster cable company's service for some reason.
 
2014-05-15 10:50:55 AM

CPennypacker: udhq: I have a really hard time figuring out how opposing net neutrality can benefit the service providers in the long run.  It is my understanding that guidelines would PERMIT providers differentiate traffic streams, but would not REQUIRE them to do so.

So how would an ISP providing a throttled or capped service be able to compete with a non throttled/capped provider?  I know there's not enough competition, but it seems like there are enough options out there where you're not really at the mercy of any 1 provider.  If anything, it would just seem like Comcast/Charter/etc. choosing to throttle traffic would simply hasten the emergence of services like Google Fiber.

lol compete. cute.


Well, it's not like cable is the only, or even the best means to access the internet anymore.
 
2014-05-15 10:51:11 AM

udhq: I have a really hard time figuring out how opposing net neutrality can benefit the service providers in the long run.  It is my understanding that guidelines would PERMIT providers differentiate traffic streams, but would not REQUIRE them to do so.

So how would an ISP providing a throttled or capped service be able to compete with a non throttled/capped provider?  I know there's not enough competition, but it seems like there are enough options out there where you're not really at the mercy of any 1 provider.  If anything, it would just seem like Comcast/Charter/etc. choosing to throttle traffic would simply hasten the emergence of services like Google Fiber.


They want to be able to shake down both their end users and individual websites.

"Hey Amazon, give us $100k a year or we'll throttle all traffic to your site from the state of California."
 
2014-05-15 10:51:47 AM

elchip: physt: I can't really tell from the article what side the Republicans are on.

It's a masterful plan.  Appoint someone to the FCC who does what Republicans have been asking for.  Since Obama now supports it, Republicans oppose it and write net neutrality into law.


The Republicans are trying to end net neutrality (regulations currently on the books set to expire), not write net neutrality into law.
 
2014-05-15 10:53:05 AM

udhq: I have a really hard time figuring out how opposing net neutrality can benefit the service providers in the long run.  It is my understanding that guidelines would PERMIT providers differentiate traffic streams, but would not REQUIRE them to do so.

So how would an ISP providing a throttled or capped service be able to compete with a non throttled/capped provider?  I know there's not enough competition, but it seems like there are enough options out there where you're not really at the mercy of any 1 provider.  If anything, it would just seem like Comcast/Charter/etc. choosing to throttle traffic would simply hasten the emergence of services like Google Fiber.


The problem is that there isn't multiple providers at your house. You have, typically, one cable. If comcast owns that cable, they're not obligated to allow some other provider to use that.

Common carrier in the Telco sense would require that they share that infrastructure.

There is no competition today. Zero, and the large providers are working very hard to ensure it stays that way while simultaneously working to eliminate competition for the entertainment services and any upstart that could change the rules on them. They are lobbying to codify their dominance into law and basically, turn the internet into the same washed-out landscape as broadcast TV or Cable forcing the consumer to eat a diet of only what they feel like serving you.
 
2014-05-15 10:55:01 AM

udhq: CPennypacker: udhq: I have a really hard time figuring out how opposing net neutrality can benefit the service providers in the long run.  It is my understanding that guidelines would PERMIT providers differentiate traffic streams, but would not REQUIRE them to do so.

So how would an ISP providing a throttled or capped service be able to compete with a non throttled/capped provider?  I know there's not enough competition, but it seems like there are enough options out there where you're not really at the mercy of any 1 provider.  If anything, it would just seem like Comcast/Charter/etc. choosing to throttle traffic would simply hasten the emergence of services like Google Fiber.

lol compete. cute.

Well, it's not like cable is the only, or even the best means to access the internet anymore.


The only realistic, superior option to cable is fiber, but if (like me) no one's bothered to run fiber lines to your residence, it's not really an option, eh?
 
2014-05-15 10:55:02 AM
Are these stupid motherf*ckers ever right about anything? Jesus f*cking CHRIST.
 
2014-05-15 10:55:27 AM
Liars.
 
2014-05-15 10:55:38 AM

hawcian: ArkAngel: Read carefully. The Republicans are opposing the shiatty new rules the industry shill is trying to put in. They don't want companies to be able to discriminate based on content

Not quite. Here's the actual letter. There's nothing in there about the new proposed rules; it's a letter urging the FCC not to classify ISPs as utilities. Fox is spinning the letter pretty ridiculously.


This isn't spin. This is a flat out lie.
 
2014-05-15 10:56:21 AM

Satanic_Hamster: They want to be able to shake down both their end users and individual websites.

"Hey Amazon, give us $100k a year or we'll throttle all traffic to your site from the state of California."


I don't know who Amazon's ISP is, but Amazon is already giving them absurd amounts of money for the huge amounts of bandwidth they consume.

But the ISPs want to be able to screw us all over in at least 3 new ways.

1) Tell Amazon, "Okay, you're paying us for 100 Gbps of bandwidth, but unless you pay us more, the only thing that will get 100 Gbps is videos of John Boehner fellating the CEO of Comcast."

2) Tell Amazon's ISP, "Okay, we have peering agreements with you, and Amazon is paying out the nose for their bandwidth as it is.  But screw those peering agreements.  We're not going to let Amazon send anything across our network unthrottled (except videos of John Boehner fellating the CEO of Comcast) unless they directly pay us more... even though we're not their ISP.

3) Tell Amazon's customers, "Okay, you're paying for 50 Mbps of bandwidth, and Amazon is paying out the nose for their bandwidth, but that's not enough.  We're not going to allow anything to flow to you at 50 Mbps (except videos of John Boehner fellating the CEO of Comcast) unless you pay more for our deluxe package.
 
m00
2014-05-15 10:58:00 AM
Trust me when I say this isn't a right or left issue. Every consumer who uses the Internet should passionately want Net Neutrality.

It's a monopoly issue. The same reason we didn't allow the companies who owned the railroads to use their monopoly to acquire steel interests by refusing to ship anyone's steel but their own, and using this position to cheaply acquire the steel companies. Monopolies stifle innovation when they are used to create other monopolies.

Another analogy is if Microsoft didn't allow any browsers other than IE to be installed on your Windows machine. If you tried to install another browser, windows would block it. Or even earlier when Microsoft wanted to create a closed Internet and make it so Windows machines could only access the MS Internet. Hopefully, you can see how if these had been allowed to happen, they would have stifled innovation.

The problem in this case is that ISPs are acting as both a service provider and a content provider. This is directly analogous to the railroad example. For example, Comcast makes a VOIP phone. If Net Neutrality didn't exist, Comcast could (and will) simply block all skype and gtalk traffic and if you go to skype.com, it will redirect you to Comcast's VOIP phone sales page. Comcast is in the television and radio broadcast business. If Net Neutrality didn't exist, Comcast could (and will) simply block all of those free radio/podcast sites and redirect you to Comcast's site. Unless you have enough money to pay the ransom.

This is using a monopoly to create other monopolies, and also there's no point in making the next innovative product on your free time, if the railroads refuse to ship it. Imagine if Comcast simply blocked google search from the get-go, because it was competing with AltaVista which Comcast had purchased.
 
2014-05-15 10:58:00 AM

Satanic_Hamster: They want to be able to shake down both their end users and individual websites.

"Hey Amazon, give us $100k a year or we'll throttle all traffic to your site from the state of California."


Yeah, I understand that much.  My question is, if the competitive advantage that cable has is speed and un-metered bandwidth, why would any company pay them?

If youtube or netflix don't work as well on Comcast, then in the long run that's going to hurt Comcast more than anyone else.
 
2014-05-15 10:58:13 AM
Watching the live feed of the FCC Commission?

I am.

"The future of the internet is the future of everything..."

Mind blown.
 
2014-05-15 10:59:47 AM

Garet Garrett: Hey FCC, you know what would be really "neutral"?  Not regulating the internet.

/Radical idea:  stop creating monopolies and then telling us you need to regulate them because they're monopolies.


Exactly!

The telecoms should be able to charge whatever they want, or throttle bandwidth however they want!

That's freedom.
 
2014-05-15 11:00:22 AM

elchip: I don't know who Amazon's ISP is, but Amazon is already giving them absurd amounts of money for the huge amounts of bandwidth they consume.

But the ISPs want to be able to screw us all over in at least 3 new ways.

1) Tell Amazon, "Okay, you're paying us for 100 Gbps of bandwidth, but unless you pay us more, the only thing that will get 100 Gbps is videos of John Boehner fellating the CEO of Comcast."

2) Tell Amazon's ISP, "Okay, we have peering agreements with you, and Amazon is paying out the nose for their bandwidth as it is. But screw those peering agreements. We're not going to let Amazon send anything across our network unthrottled (except videos of John Boehner fellating the CEO of Comcast) unless they directly pay us more... even though we're not their ISP.

3) Tell Amazon's customers, "Okay, you're paying for 50 Mbps of bandwidth, and Amazon is paying out the nose for their bandwidth, but that's not enough. We're not going to allow anything to flow to you at 50 Mbps (except videos of John Boehner fellating the CEO of Comcast) unless you pay more for our deluxe package.


Oh, it's not even just that.

Let's say you're living in California, ordering from Amazon, who's servers are in Chicago.  You're going through 10-20 different servers/routers/ISPs/etc to get to Amazon's site, IN ADDITION to your ISP and Amazon's ISP.

Getting rid of net neutrality allows every business that doesn't have a business relationship with Amazon the ability to shake down you and Amazon for money.
 
2014-05-15 11:00:57 AM

m00: Trust me when I say this isn't a right or left issue. Every consumer who uses the Internet should passionately want Net Neutrality.

It's a monopoly issue. The same reason we didn't allow the companies who owned the railroads to use their monopoly to acquire steel interests by refusing to ship anyone's steel but their own, and using this position to cheaply acquire the steel companies. Monopolies stifle innovation when they are used to create other monopolies.

Another analogy is if Microsoft didn't allow any browsers other than IE to be installed on your Windows machine. If you tried to install another browser, windows would block it. Or even earlier when Microsoft wanted to create a closed Internet and make it so Windows machines could only access the MS Internet. Hopefully, you can see how if these had been allowed to happen, they would have stifled innovation.

The problem in this case is that ISPs are acting as both a service provider and a content provider. This is directly analogous to the railroad example. For example, Comcast makes a VOIP phone. If Net Neutrality didn't exist, Comcast could (and will) simply block all skype and gtalk traffic and if you go to skype.com, it will redirect you to Comcast's VOIP phone sales page. Comcast is in the television and radio broadcast business. If Net Neutrality didn't exist, Comcast could (and will) simply block all of those free radio/podcast sites and redirect you to Comcast's site. Unless you have enough money to pay the ransom.

This is using a monopoly to create other monopolies, and also there's no point in making the next innovative product on your free time, if the railroads refuse to ship it. Imagine if Comcast simply blocked google search from the get-go, because it was competing with AltaVista which Comcast had purchased.


Great points.

Netscape Navigator suffered from that MS monopoly early on.  But that led to MS being put under the microscope, and had that not taken place, we'd not have Chrome, Firefox, etc.
 
2014-05-15 11:01:15 AM

PreMortem: Can they show it is doing that now? Didn't think so.


They are trying to figure out how the information gets through the tubes then they will get back to you.
 
2014-05-15 11:01:31 AM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Are these stupid motherf*ckers ever right about anything? Jesus f*cking CHRIST.


Welcome to Fox News.
 
m00
2014-05-15 11:01:38 AM

udhq: If youtube or netflix don't work as well on Comcast, then in the long run that's going to hurt Comcast more than anyone else.


www.neontommy.com
 
2014-05-15 11:02:25 AM

elchip: Garet Garrett: Hey FCC, you know what would be really "neutral"?  Not regulating the internet.

/Radical idea:  stop creating monopolies and then telling us you need to regulate them because they're monopolies.

Netflix is already paying tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year for bandwidth with its ISP. Its ISP has peering arrangements with other ISPs. If they don't like those peering agreements, they can presumably renegotiate them.

Ending net neutrality would effectively be double-billing companies like Netflix.


Is Netflix still the scrappy underdog that we should root for?

Or is it a giant, fat media company that we would want to see pay?
 
2014-05-15 11:02:25 AM

sendtodave: Garet Garrett: Hey FCC, you know what would be really "neutral"?  Not regulating the internet.

/Radical idea:  stop creating monopolies and then telling us you need to regulate them because they're monopolies.

Exactly!

The telecoms should be able to charge whatever they want, or throttle bandwidth however they want!

That's freedom.


So you're saying the problem is the FTC and FCC allowing companies like Comcast and AT&T from buying other companies...heading off these monopolies at the beginning?
 
2014-05-15 11:02:54 AM

udhq: then in the long run that's going to hurt Comcast more than anyone else


No... it's not. Most people don't have an alternative. And even if they did, it's not like you can go to the store and compare the two before you buy one.

I don't understand where you think Comcast's customers are going to go if they're unsatisfied with Comcast. Very few have any other option.
 
2014-05-15 11:04:11 AM

elchip: Satanic_Hamster: They want to be able to shake down both their end users and individual websites.

"Hey Amazon, give us $100k a year or we'll throttle all traffic to your site from the state of California."

I don't know who Amazon's ISP is, but Amazon is already giving them absurd amounts of money for the huge amounts of bandwidth they consume.

But the ISPs want to be able to screw us all over in at least 3 new ways.

1) Tell Amazon, "Okay, you're paying us for 100 Gbps of bandwidth, but unless you pay us more, the only thing that will get 100 Gbps is videos of John Boehner fellating the CEO of Comcast."

2) Tell Amazon's ISP, "Okay, we have peering agreements with you, and Amazon is paying out the nose for their bandwidth as it is.  But screw those peering agreements.  We're not going to let Amazon send anything across our network unthrottled (except videos of John Boehner fellating the CEO of Comcast) unless they directly pay us more... even though we're not their ISP.

3) Tell Amazon's customers, "Okay, you're paying for 50 Mbps of bandwidth, and Amazon is paying out the nose for their bandwidth, but that's not enough.  We're not going to allow anything to flow to you at 50 Mbps (except videos of John Boehner fellating the CEO of Comcast) unless you pay more for our deluxe package.


It is less about the providers controlling packet rates as it is about controlling what those packets are. They want to direct viewers to specific source content and make money off of that. They would do this in a way that allows them to charge protection money to the likes of Amazon, but that real goal is for Comcast to make sure that when you watch a video, that you're watching their video and seeing their ads. It is very much ComCast ensuring that they introduce their model from the cable world (you pay for a slate of channels that they deliver even if you don't watch them) and you watch their advertisements.

They need to control what you can see to ensure that they can maximise the amount of revenue derived from that stream. If you go off and watch some shiat they don't control, they cannot advertise as effectively, they can't make money from the viewing or residuals.

They simply want all of the money, all of the time.

All of it.
 
2014-05-15 11:05:12 AM

udhq: Satanic_Hamster: They want to be able to shake down both their end users and individual websites.

"Hey Amazon, give us $100k a year or we'll throttle all traffic to your site from the state of California."

Yeah, I understand that much.  My question is, if the competitive advantage that cable has is speed and un-metered bandwidth, why would any company pay them?

If youtube or netflix don't work as well on Comcast, then in the long run that's going to hurt Comcast more than anyone else.


When Netflix doesn't work well on Comcast, people don't cancel their Comcast subscription, they cancel their Netflix subscription. Comcast's position as a monopoly and role as the gatekeeper largely protects it from any negative blowback about service quality.
 
2014-05-15 11:05:44 AM
It is almost as if the GoP looks at any issue and thinks "how can we be wrong about this?".

Then they are.

Obviously I am exaggerating, but it is staggering how they can be so completely wrong about so much yet almost half the nation votes for them.
 
2014-05-15 11:05:48 AM

FinFangFark: sendtodave: Garet Garrett: Hey FCC, you know what would be really "neutral"?  Not regulating the internet.

/Radical idea:  stop creating monopolies and then telling us you need to regulate them because they're monopolies.

Exactly!

The telecoms should be able to charge whatever they want, or throttle bandwidth however they want!

That's freedom.

So you're saying the problem is the FTC and FCC allowing companies like Comcast and AT&T from buying other companies...heading off these monopolies at the beginning?


No.  What I'm saying is... "img.fark.net"
 
2014-05-15 11:06:12 AM

sendtodave: elchip: Garet Garrett: Hey FCC, you know what would be really "neutral"?  Not regulating the internet.

/Radical idea:  stop creating monopolies and then telling us you need to regulate them because they're monopolies.

Netflix is already paying tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year for bandwidth with its ISP. Its ISP has peering arrangements with other ISPs. If they don't like those peering agreements, they can presumably renegotiate them.

Ending net neutrality would effectively be double-billing companies like Netflix.

Is Netflix still the scrappy underdog that we should root for?

Or is it a giant, fat media company that we would want to see pay?


You must have invested in douche futures.
 
2014-05-15 11:06:16 AM

sendtodave: Is Netflix still the scrappy underdog that we should root for?

Or is it a giant, fat media company that we would want to see pay?


I'm not rooting for Netflix, I'm rooting for me. I paid for a certain level of access, I should get what I paid these assholes for regardless of what bits I'm transferring without having to worry about whether or not the source of those bits paid their protection money.
 
2014-05-15 11:07:05 AM

m00: udhq: If youtube or netflix don't work as well on Comcast, then in the long run that's going to hurt Comcast more than anyone else.

[www.neontommy.com image 599x430]


But if Comcast throttles the speed of it's connections, then what's the reason to choose cable over something like DSL or one of the emerging over-air services like freedom spot as the technology improves?

They're basically risking the ONLY reason anybody has for doing business with them.  They're betting the wedding band on a pair of twos.
 
2014-05-15 11:08:04 AM

jst3p: It is almost as if the GoP looks at any issue and thinks... Obviously I am exaggerating...


Obviously.
 
2014-05-15 11:08:27 AM
Net neutrality is one of those things that makes conservatives confused. Their free-market angel whispers sweet-nothings in one ear about free enterprise, innovation and global dominance, while their free-market devil coos about rent, profit and board seats in the other.

WHAT DO??

Definitely avoid calling the internet a utility. But carefully craft regulations that will pay lip service to net neutrality while giving lobbyists loopholes that will effectively crush it.

If Wheeler had a conscience and a spine, he'd classify the internet a communication service like the telephone.
 
2014-05-15 11:08:44 AM

m00: udhq: If youtube or netflix don't work as well on Comcast, then in the long run that's going to hurt Comcast more than anyone else.

[www.neontommy.com image 599x430]


Seriously. How many people live in places (like single-ISP buildings; which I know wouldn't change absent common-carrier rules) where they can't change?

My building has ~130 units (13/floor, 10 floors). If all of them have to pay an extra ~$50/month for unthrottled access, or ~$100 for the "premium package" that allows you total access to the internet, or tiered pricing (the most likely outcome - 3 price points: for access, bandwidth or both, perhaps further graduated), Comcast is looking at an extra $78,000 per year.

Roughly the cost of implementing metering software on their end, I'd guess - and if not, how many other 130-unit "captured" buildings does Comcast have in DC alone? With 650,000 people, probably several. More than enough to cover the nationwide cost of implementing and maintaining the control programs, and the rest is pure profit - for doing nothing to add value to consumers.
 
2014-05-15 11:08:53 AM

sendtodave: FinFangFark: sendtodave: Garet Garrett: Hey FCC, you know what would be really "neutral"?  Not regulating the internet.

/Radical idea:  stop creating monopolies and then telling us you need to regulate them because they're monopolies.

Exactly!

The telecoms should be able to charge whatever they want, or throttle bandwidth however they want!

That's freedom.

So you're saying the problem is the FTC and FCC allowing companies like Comcast and AT&T from buying other companies...heading off these monopolies at the beginning?

No.  What I'm saying is... "[img.fark.net image 64x14]"


gotcha...I'm listening to the commission hearing live, so just scanning this thread.
 
2014-05-15 11:08:59 AM

skozlaw: sendtodave: Is Netflix still the scrappy underdog that we should root for?

Or is it a giant, fat media company that we would want to see pay?

I'm not rooting for Netflix, I'm rooting for me. I paid for a certain level of access, I should get what I paid these assholes for regardless of what bits I'm transferring without having to worry about whether or not the source of those bits paid their protection money.


Sure.  You pay for a certain level of access and speed.   You get that.  You should still get that.

Your content provider (Netflix) would have to pay more.  Is that a problem, if you don't?
 
2014-05-15 11:09:43 AM

skozlaw: udhq: then in the long run that's going to hurt Comcast more than anyone else

No... it's not. Most people don't have an alternative. And even if they did, it's not like you can go to the store and compare the two before you buy one.

I don't understand where you think Comcast's customers are going to go if they're unsatisfied with Comcast. Very few have any other option.


But but but, they could go with Verizon's cellular internet.  It's awesomely slow and you get a honking massive 5GB data cap for ONLY $60 a month and only $10 a GB after that!!!!!  You can almost even stream a youtube video with that blazing speed!!!
 
2014-05-15 11:10:12 AM

skozlaw: jst3p: It is almost as if the GoP looks at any issue and thinks... Obviously I am exaggerating...

Obviously.


Well played.
 
2014-05-15 11:10:18 AM

rzrwiresunrise: If Wheeler had a conscience and a spine


If he had either, he wouldn't have been confirmed as head of the FCC.
 
2014-05-15 11:10:19 AM

udhq: as the technology improves


If that happens we can revisit your point. Until then, enjoy trying to stream anything on low-throughput DSL and high-latency satellite services.

I don't know if you're intentionally being obtuse or not, but there's no competition. Choice between a porterhouse the chef shiat on and a bowl of cat food is not a choice in any meaningful sense.
 
2014-05-15 11:10:25 AM

dr_blasto: sendtodave: elchip: Garet Garrett: Hey FCC, you know what would be really "neutral"?  Not regulating the internet.

/Radical idea:  stop creating monopolies and then telling us you need to regulate them because they're monopolies.

Netflix is already paying tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year for bandwidth with its ISP. Its ISP has peering arrangements with other ISPs. If they don't like those peering agreements, they can presumably renegotiate them.

Ending net neutrality would effectively be double-billing companies like Netflix.

Is Netflix still the scrappy underdog that we should root for?

Or is it a giant, fat media company that we would want to see pay?

You must have invested in douche futures.


Lots of sandy vagoos that need it.  I can only see the value of douche going up.
 
2014-05-15 11:11:14 AM
This "don't regulate the Internet" logic is  bullshiat. We are positioned with a choice: the Internet can be regulated by the public for the public good, or the Internet can be regulated by private interests for their own benefits. Given telecommunications are an absolutely vital utility, we should focus on ensuring access, which is not always going to align with public interests.

What we absolutely don't want is last-mile providers using their customers as hostages to extort payments from service operators on the other side of the Internet, which is what the fast-lane proposal allows- "Oh, you want to communicate with our customers at a reasonable speed? That's gonna cost you." It's classic rent-seeking behavior, and if there's one thing we should use regulation to exterminate, it's that kind of abusive business model.
 
2014-05-15 11:12:10 AM

sendtodave: Sure.  You pay for a certain level of access and speed.   You get that.  You should still get that.


Um, except you don't get that, because Comcast is deliberately throttling Netflix?

What you're saying the optimal arrangement is:

You pay a monthly fee to Netflix for access to their streaming library.
You pay a monthly fee to Comcast for internet access.
You pay a monthly fee to Comcast in order to get a service you've already paid for via a service you've already paid for.
 
2014-05-15 11:12:12 AM

skozlaw: No... it's not. Most people don't have an alternative. And even if they did, it's not like you can go to the store and compare the two before you buy one.

I don't understand where you think Comcast's customers are going to go if they're unsatisfied with Comcast. Very few have any other option.


Well, I think my conclusion is that I'm spoiled living in a city with a fairly robust municipal wifi service.

I had cable internet for 6 months when I first moved in, then I got rid of it for the municipal internet at 1/10th of the cost, and while it's not quite as fast, it's definitely more stable, and it meets my needs.  I can stream video alright, but I don't know if it would be good enough to do any online gaming.
 
2014-05-15 11:12:18 AM

sendtodave: Your content provider (Netflix) would have to pay more. Is that a problem, if you don't?


yes
 
2014-05-15 11:13:27 AM

sendtodave: skozlaw: sendtodave: Is Netflix still the scrappy underdog that we should root for?

Or is it a giant, fat media company that we would want to see pay?

I'm not rooting for Netflix, I'm rooting for me. I paid for a certain level of access, I should get what I paid these assholes for regardless of what bits I'm transferring without having to worry about whether or not the source of those bits paid their protection money.

Sure.  You pay for a certain level of access and speed.   You get that.  You should still get that.

Your content provider (Netflix) would have to pay more.  Is that a problem, if you don't?


You don't think that Netflix would raise their rates to account for the additional cost?
 
2014-05-15 11:14:00 AM

CJHardin: sendtodave: skozlaw: sendtodave: Is Netflix still the scrappy underdog that we should root for?

Or is it a giant, fat media company that we would want to see pay?

I'm not rooting for Netflix, I'm rooting for me. I paid for a certain level of access, I should get what I paid these assholes for regardless of what bits I'm transferring without having to worry about whether or not the source of those bits paid their protection money.

Sure.  You pay for a certain level of access and speed.   You get that.  You should still get that.

Your content provider (Netflix) would have to pay more.  Is that a problem, if you don't?

You don't think that Netflix would raise their rates to account for the additional cost?


Netflix has already raised their rates to account for the additional cost.
 
2014-05-15 11:14:17 AM

udhq: But if Comcast throttles the speed of it's connections, then what's the reason to choose cable over something like DSL or one of the emerging over-air services like freedom spot as the technology improves?

They're basically risking the ONLY reason anybody has for doing business with them. They're betting the wedding band on a pair of twos.


Most places have limited to no choices on high speed access.  And most people won't know that the ISP's are doing it.
 
2014-05-15 11:15:00 AM

sendtodave: You should still get that.


Except, of course, I won't. If the bits slow down starting at MY circuit than I'M the one that's not getting the speed, now aren't I?
 
m00
2014-05-15 11:15:07 AM

jst3p: Obviously I am exaggerating, but it is staggering how they can be so completely wrong about so much yet almost half the nation votes for them.


Honestly?

Go find a conservative position where there is no clear right or wrong answer. Doesn't matter what the position is, as long as it's logically consistent. Treat it like a "debate team" assignment, where you don't get to pick what side of the position you're on. Have citations ready from generally accepted sources.

Then find a relevant Fark thread and politely state the case. Your experience will answer your question.
 
2014-05-15 11:15:31 AM

udhq: skozlaw: No... it's not. Most people don't have an alternative. And even if they did, it's not like you can go to the store and compare the two before you buy one.

I don't understand where you think Comcast's customers are going to go if they're unsatisfied with Comcast. Very few have any other option.

Well, I think my conclusion is that I'm spoiled living in a city with a fairly robust municipal wifi service.

I had cable internet for 6 months when I first moved in, then I got rid of it for the municipal internet at 1/10th of the cost, and while it's not quite as fast, it's definitely more stable, and it meets my needs.  I can stream video alright, but I don't know if it would be good enough to do any online gaming.


Sure, but surely you realize that's not a workable option for most people, because their municipality doesn't do that. Additionally, remember that there are states that are actively outlawing that sort of public internet service.
 
2014-05-15 11:15:31 AM

gnosis301: Can someone explain how not having net neutrality promotes innovation? How can maintaining the status quo by not allowing preferential traffic derail the internet?


I think it's Opposite Day, because letting the shiat that is threatening to come down the pipe happen will stifle innovation and "derail the internet". Dammit, and here I am without my Opposite Day Tshirt.
 
2014-05-15 11:17:00 AM

CJHardin: sendtodave: skozlaw: sendtodave: Is Netflix still the scrappy underdog that we should root for?

Or is it a giant, fat media company that we would want to see pay?

I'm not rooting for Netflix, I'm rooting for me. I paid for a certain level of access, I should get what I paid these assholes for regardless of what bits I'm transferring without having to worry about whether or not the source of those bits paid their protection money.

Sure.  You pay for a certain level of access and speed.   You get that.  You should still get that.

Your content provider (Netflix) would have to pay more.  Is that a problem, if you don't?

You don't think that Netflix would raise their rates to account for the additional cost?


And McDonald's would raise the rates on hamburgers to pay for higher wages.

I figure if Netflix is using a large percentage of available bandwidth, they should have to pay accordingly.  If they have to raise rates to do so, oh well.

The customer demanding super cheap media doesn't mean that the telcos should get shafted.

Why doesn't anyone root for the telcos?
 
2014-05-15 11:17:09 AM

dr_blasto: rzrwiresunrise: If Wheeler had a conscience and a spine

If he had either, he wouldn't have been confirmed as head of the FCC.


Sad and true.
 
2014-05-15 11:17:12 AM

udhq: skozlaw: No... it's not. Most people don't have an alternative. And even if they did, it's not like you can go to the store and compare the two before you buy one.

I don't understand where you think Comcast's customers are going to go if they're unsatisfied with Comcast. Very few have any other option.

Well, I think my conclusion is that I'm spoiled living in a city with a fairly robust municipal wifi service.

I had cable internet for 6 months when I first moved in, then I got rid of it for the municipal internet at 1/10th of the cost, and while it's not quite as fast, it's definitely more stable, and it meets my needs.  I can stream video alright, but I don't know if it would be good enough to do any online gaming.


Just wait till when all of the services you subscribe to jump their prices up to compensate for the cost of going through comcast's bullshiat, essentially effecting you whether you use comcast or not.

Comcast also wants to buy TWC. Essentially, it will be impossible for a packet to not go through a ComCast-owned circuit if it is sourced or the destination is in the North American continent.
 
2014-05-15 11:17:21 AM

CJHardin: You don't think that Netflix would raise their rates to account for the additional cost?


Do you think that prices actually work that way? If Netflix charges $10, and I get $10 of value out of Netflix, when Netflix raises its prices to $12, am I going to pay $12 for $10 of value, or am I going to cancel my subscription? This is ECON-101 stuff, here. Prices are driven by what the consumer will  pay, not by the costs of production.

That, by the way, is why the whole "raising the minimum wage/taxes just passes the costs down to the consumer" logic is bullshiat. While raising the costs of production can have seriously negative impacts on the economy, it  doesn't have a direct increase in the price.

And regardless, this sort of rent-seeking scheme is a bald admission that Comcast cannot provide the service it promises to its customers, and needs to get a third party to subsidize their services because they can't properly manage the relationship between infrastructure spending and pricing.
 
2014-05-15 11:18:49 AM

skozlaw: sendtodave: You should still get that.

Except, of course, I won't. If the bits slow down starting at MY circuit than I'M the one that's not getting the speed, now aren't I?


Are you getting the speeds that your provider promises you?

Oh, well, they don't really promise, do they?

Do you get "up to" the speeds that your telco advertises?  Then you are getting what you pay for.
 
2014-05-15 11:19:34 AM

Mikey1969: gnosis301: Can someone explain how not having net neutrality promotes innovation? How can maintaining the status quo by not allowing preferential traffic derail the internet?

I think it's Opposite Day, because letting the shiat that is threatening to come down the pipe happen will stifle innovation and "derail the internet". Dammit, and here I am without my Opposite Day Tshirt.


Just turn your current one inside out.   At least you'll fit in with those that feel there shouldn't be any time of protection for the consumer.
 
2014-05-15 11:19:40 AM

skozlaw: At a time when technology businesses need certainty to innovate...

Oh, yea, because if there's one thing that never sparks innovation in the scientific and technology fields it's turmoil and challenge. Remember that period during the Cold War when absolutely nothing farking happened with the computers and networking technologies you're talking about? I mean... aside from their very farking invention?

Are these miserable pukes actually this stupid or have the people they're talking to become so stupid that such obvious lies just don't get caught anymore?


Just ran downstairs to make the exact same argument, plus if you're so much of a pussy that you have to wait to the skies are clear and the forecast is 70s for the next decade economically wise your "innovation" probably doesn't add up to all that much in the first place.
 
2014-05-15 11:19:42 AM

t3knomanser: That, by the way, is why the whole "raising the minimum wage/taxes just passes the costs down to the consumer" logic is bullshiat.


I just said that.
 
2014-05-15 11:22:03 AM

qorkfiend: CJHardin: sendtodave: skozlaw: sendtodave: Is Netflix still the scrappy underdog that we should root for?

Or is it a giant, fat media company that we would want to see pay?

I'm not rooting for Netflix, I'm rooting for me. I paid for a certain level of access, I should get what I paid these assholes for regardless of what bits I'm transferring without having to worry about whether or not the source of those bits paid their protection money.

Sure.  You pay for a certain level of access and speed.   You get that.  You should still get that.

Your content provider (Netflix) would have to pay more.  Is that a problem, if you don't?

You don't think that Netflix would raise their rates to account for the additional cost?

Netflix has already raised their rates to account for the additional cost.


Also noteworthy is this type of throttling will ensure that only corporations like ComCast can enter the market. Netflix will never see a competitor like the big providers did when Netflix broke into the market.

Eliminating net neutrality will ensure existing players stay and see no future competition. Existing players will eventually buy each other out, leaving fewer and fewer sources.

Also, too, is the importance of varied voices. Soon the internet will be as pastel and bland as NBC or CBS, with no room provided for alternative art or views. Imagine making the whole internet as interesting and varied as a Thomas Kinkade collection.
 
2014-05-15 11:22:53 AM
fc09.deviantart.net

Everyone celebrate!
 
2014-05-15 11:23:39 AM

sendtodave: CJHardin: sendtodave: skozlaw: sendtodave: Is Netflix still the scrappy underdog that we should root for?

Or is it a giant, fat media company that we would want to see pay?

I'm not rooting for Netflix, I'm rooting for me. I paid for a certain level of access, I should get what I paid these assholes for regardless of what bits I'm transferring without having to worry about whether or not the source of those bits paid their protection money.

Sure.  You pay for a certain level of access and speed.   You get that.  You should still get that.

Your content provider (Netflix) would have to pay more.  Is that a problem, if you don't?

You don't think that Netflix would raise their rates to account for the additional cost?

And McDonald's would raise the rates on hamburgers to pay for higher wages.

I figure if Netflix is using a large percentage of available bandwidth, they should have to pay accordingly.  If they have to raise rates to do so, oh well.

The customer demanding super cheap media doesn't mean that the telcos should get shafted.

Why doesn't anyone root for the telcos?


We keep coming back to Netflix and the amount of bandwidth they eat up.  My understanding is the idea of no net neutrality goes beyond that.   Seeing as Comcast owns Universal, and a large chunk of content, there is the ability for Comcast to throttle your bandwidth if you want to watch Netflix, or non-Comcast owned content, yet if it's HuluPlus and NBC programming, then by all means, let's open that flood gate.

So, Comcast will effectively have the power to control what you watch...seeing as you cut the "Cable cord" so to speak in terms of the their TV services, so they can recoop that back.

Sorry if I'm a bit disjointed, but I'm listening in to the FCC meetings, and trying to follow along, and at this point, it's commissioners just doing the "I'm the lone voice, the others are r-tards!" speeches.
 
2014-05-15 11:24:00 AM

sendtodave: And McDonald's would raise the rates on hamburgers to pay for higher wages.


t3knomanser: raising the minimum wage/taxes just passes the costs down to the consumer" logic is bullshiat


You two do realize that labor costs are the cheapest costs in most large businesses right?  The biggest expense companies like McDonalds face is facilities and supply expenses.

Minimum wage hikes won't affect prices of a cheeseburger but by maybe a few cents.  Tell McDonalds that since they use so much electricity that they will have to start paying double what they pay to keep service, and the prices of the burger would skyrocket.  You think that McDonalds will just eat that price hike?  I mean, you can just go to Burger King right?  Oops, BK had their power throttled as well.
 
2014-05-15 11:24:18 AM

sendtodave: Do you get "up to" the speeds that your telco advertises?  Then you are getting what you pay for.


But now the question is- why am I getting less than the basic promised speed? If it's just network congestion and load- hey, I understand. But if it's because my last-mile provider is selectively deciding which traffic it wants to reach me in a timely fashion, well then I might just get upset.
 
2014-05-15 11:24:25 AM

dr_blasto: Eliminating net neutrality will ensure existing players stay and see no future competition. Existing players will eventually buy each other out, leaving fewer and fewer sources.


And a stable stock market.
 
2014-05-15 11:24:40 AM

t3knomanser: Do you think that prices actually work that way? If Netflix charges $10, and I get $10 of value out of Netflix, when Netflix raises its prices to $12, am I going to pay $12 for $10 of value, or am I going to cancel my subscription? This is ECON-101 stuff, here. Prices are driven by what the consumer will  pay, not by the costs of production.



You should revisit Econ 101.

An increase in the cost of inputs will cause a supply curve shift to the left which will lead to an increase in prices. This is called "cost push inflation".
 
2014-05-15 11:25:18 AM

sendtodave: And McDonald's would raise the rates on hamburgers to pay for higher wages.


You are aware that Netflix has already raised their streaming rates this year, yes?

sendtodave: I figure if Netflix is using a large percentage of available bandwidth, they should have to pay accordingly.  If they have to raise rates to do so, oh well.

The customer demanding super cheap media doesn't mean that the telcos should get shafted.

Why doesn't anyone root for the telcos?


Why don't the telcos build out their infrastructure to handle the service volume that their clients are paying for?
 
2014-05-15 11:25:50 AM

Mantour: gnosis301: Can someone explain how not having net neutrality promotes innovation? How can maintaining the status quo by not allowing preferential traffic derail the internet?

What's good for Comcast is good for America.  How do you even DARE question that?


Comcast is people my friend!
 
2014-05-15 11:26:13 AM

t3knomanser: sendtodave: Do you get "up to" the speeds that your telco advertises?  Then you are getting what you pay for.

But now the question is- why am I getting less than the basic promised speed? If it's just network congestion and load- hey, I understand. But if it's because my last-mile provider is selectively deciding which traffic it wants to reach me in a timely fashion, well then I might just get upset.


Seems the "why" shouldn't matter.  You should get the service that you were promised.

Which is probably why they don't promise certainspeeds.  They promise "up to" certain speeds.
 
2014-05-15 11:26:46 AM

sendtodave: skozlaw: sendtodave: You should still get that.

Except, of course, I won't. If the bits slow down starting at MY circuit than I'M the one that's not getting the speed, now aren't I?

Are you getting the speeds that your provider promises you?

Oh, well, they don't really promise, do they?

Do you get "up to" the speeds that your telco advertises?  Then you are getting what you pay for.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-05-15 11:27:01 AM

m00: Have citations ready from generally accepted sources.

Then find a relevant Fark thread and politely state the case.


Find a Fark thread where that happens. Maybe you can argue that they're just trolls, but Fark's "conservatives" rarely have sources for anything; when they do it's almost always op-eds, special interest think tanks and talk radio; and even when you objectively prove them wrong through immutable sensory and mathematical evidence on certain things they just disappear and lay low for a bit then come right back later and resume the argument like nothing happened.

The fact is that conservatism in this country has become a matter of refusing to admit error, refusing to change opinions based on new information and winning elections at any cost. Look around the world at conservatives in other modern societies and then compare them to what we have here. Other countries have conservatives that are very much like what we had in the early 70s. But since then conservatism in the U.S. has morphed into this weird, "win-at-any-cost" mentality that doesn't even care about being right or governing for the benefit of the nation.

I mean, Jesus Christ... we're talking about a country where the Right side of the argument on abortion can't even seem to agree with itself that rape is a bad thing. If you present math to them to prove a point they just cut the front 2/3 of the chart off and claim your math DISPROVES it.

Conservatism in this country is farked. It's not that conservatism is inherently a bad thing or that Fark really has anything against it, it's that the way conservatism is practiced in America really has nothing to do with being conservative. It's just an adopted label at this point that's used by people who only care about their own ridiculously self-serving ends and it's out of control.
 
2014-05-15 11:27:10 AM

CJHardin: Minimum wage hikes won't affect prices of a cheeseburger but by maybe a few cents.


You're missing the point- minimum wage hikes wouldn't affect the price of a cheesburger at all. They'd reduce the  profit margin on a cheesburger. The price of the cheesburger is set  by the market- McDonald's sells it for the highest price they can get away with, for the volume of units they hope to sell. If they raised the price, they wouldn't make more money- they'd sell fewer units. It's the median price theorem, and it's the most basic principle of market economics.

Which brings us back to the key point: if Comcast double-bills Netflix, Netflix cannot rely on price hikes to recoup that cost, because if they hike the price, they'll lose subscribers, and hence make  less money.
 
2014-05-15 11:28:08 AM

FinFangFark: sendtodave: CJHardin: sendtodave: skozlaw: sendtodave: Is Netflix still the scrappy underdog that we should root for?

Or is it a giant, fat media company that we would want to see pay?

I'm not rooting for Netflix, I'm rooting for me. I paid for a certain level of access, I should get what I paid these assholes for regardless of what bits I'm transferring without having to worry about whether or not the source of those bits paid their protection money.

Sure.  You pay for a certain level of access and speed.   You get that.  You should still get that.

Your content provider (Netflix) would have to pay more.  Is that a problem, if you don't?

You don't think that Netflix would raise their rates to account for the additional cost?

And McDonald's would raise the rates on hamburgers to pay for higher wages.

I figure if Netflix is using a large percentage of available bandwidth, they should have to pay accordingly.  If they have to raise rates to do so, oh well.

The customer demanding super cheap media doesn't mean that the telcos should get shafted.

Why doesn't anyone root for the telcos?

We keep coming back to Netflix and the amount of bandwidth they eat up.  My understanding is the idea of no net neutrality goes beyond that.   Seeing as Comcast owns Universal, and a large chunk of content, there is the ability for Comcast to throttle your bandwidth if you want to watch Netflix, or non-Comcast owned content, yet if it's HuluPlus and NBC programming, then by all means, let's open that flood gate.

So, Comcast will effectively have the power to control what you watch...seeing as you cut the "Cable cord" so to speak in terms of the their TV services, so they can recoop that back.

Sorry if I'm a bit disjointed, but I'm listening in to the FCC meetings, and trying to follow along, and at this point, it's commissioners just doing the "I'm the lone voice, the others are r-tards!" speeches.


The control of what you watch is the whole point of the push to end net neutrality. Comcast owns NBC/Universal. If they don't have something you like, well, too bad. Pay moar!

The providers need to be regulated as fark. They need to treat every packet the same. Leave the discrimination to the customer and the best content will win.

If I pay my ISP for a service, they're ripping ME off if they throttle something I watch because that provider isn't paying their extortion money. fark that shiat.
 
2014-05-15 11:28:11 AM
This is the same GOP that said that de-regulating telecom was going to lead to more competition and lower prices... how about we stop listening to them on this (and every other) topic?
 
2014-05-15 11:28:27 AM

t3knomanser: sendtodave: Do you get "up to" the speeds that your telco advertises?  Then you are getting what you pay for.

But now the question is- why am I getting less than the basic promised speed? If it's just network congestion and load- hey, I understand. But if it's because my last-mile provider is selectively deciding which traffic it wants to reach me in a timely fashion, well then I might just get upset.


Let's remember it may not even be your last-mile provider's fault. There could be a lot of providers between you and whatever it is you're downloading. Each and every one of them might decide they don't particularly like that data.
 
2014-05-15 11:28:39 AM

sendtodave: Seems the "why" shouldn't matter. You should get the service that you were promised.

Which is probably why they don't promise certainspeeds. They promise "up to" certain speeds.


Which is kind of bullshiat and should not be legal, because you know goddamn well they are 'Implying' that is the speed you will get.

Unless you think, say, someone driving 40 miles below the speed limit in the left lane is also OK? After all, it's a speed LIMIT! You can go UP TO  that speed!
 
2014-05-15 11:29:28 AM

sendtodave: dr_blasto: Eliminating net neutrality will ensure existing players stay and see no future competition. Existing players will eventually buy each other out, leaving fewer and fewer sources.

And a stable stock market.


The stock market doesn't matter any more than the gambling floor of Mandalay Bay. Same shiat.
 
2014-05-15 11:29:39 AM

sendtodave: Do you get "up to" the speeds that your telco advertises? Then you are getting what you pay for.


You're right on that point. It's a whole other thing that should be outlawed. I assume that's your point, right? There's too little regulation and the providers are abusing consumers as a result?
 
2014-05-15 11:29:41 AM

t3knomanser: Netflix cannot rely on price hikes to recoup that cost, because if they hike the price, they'll lose subscribers, and hence make  less money.


Netflix doesn't seem to share your reasoning, as they've already hiked the price.
 
2014-05-15 11:29:56 AM

dr_blasto: FinFangFark: sendtodave: CJHardin: sendtodave: skozlaw: sendtodave: Is Netflix still the scrappy underdog that we should root for?

Or is it a giant, fat media company that we would want to see pay?

I'm not rooting for Netflix, I'm rooting for me. I paid for a certain level of access, I should get what I paid these assholes for regardless of what bits I'm transferring without having to worry about whether or not the source of those bits paid their protection money.

Sure.  You pay for a certain level of access and speed.   You get that.  You should still get that.

Your content provider (Netflix) would have to pay more.  Is that a problem, if you don't?

You don't think that Netflix would raise their rates to account for the additional cost?

And McDonald's would raise the rates on hamburgers to pay for higher wages.

I figure if Netflix is using a large percentage of available bandwidth, they should have to pay accordingly.  If they have to raise rates to do so, oh well.

The customer demanding super cheap media doesn't mean that the telcos should get shafted.

Why doesn't anyone root for the telcos?

We keep coming back to Netflix and the amount of bandwidth they eat up.  My understanding is the idea of no net neutrality goes beyond that.   Seeing as Comcast owns Universal, and a large chunk of content, there is the ability for Comcast to throttle your bandwidth if you want to watch Netflix, or non-Comcast owned content, yet if it's HuluPlus and NBC programming, then by all means, let's open that flood gate.

So, Comcast will effectively have the power to control what you watch...seeing as you cut the "Cable cord" so to speak in terms of the their TV services, so they can recoop that back.

Sorry if I'm a bit disjointed, but I'm listening in to the FCC meetings, and trying to follow along, and at this point, it's commissioners just doing the "I'm the lone voice, the others are r-tards!" speeches.

The control of what you watch is the whole point of the push to en ...


And that's my point.  I just keep seeing Netflix being brought up, as they should just raise their rates to offset the increased cost to ISP.  But I've always seen it as just more than that, as Comcast owns a ton of content, and have a stake in what you're watching.
 
2014-05-15 11:30:02 AM

t3knomanser: CJHardin: Minimum wage hikes won't affect prices of a cheeseburger but by maybe a few cents.

You're missing the point- minimum wage hikes wouldn't affect the price of a cheesburger at all. They'd reduce the  profit margin on a cheesburger. The price of the cheesburger is set  by the market- McDonald's sells it for the highest price they can get away with, for the volume of units they hope to sell. If they raised the price, they wouldn't make more money- they'd sell fewer units. It's the median price theorem, and it's the most basic principle of market economics.

Which brings us back to the key point: if Comcast double-bills Netflix, Netflix cannot rely on price hikes to recoup that cost, because if they hike the price, they'll lose subscribers, and hence make  less money.


Once again, you are wrong. Consensus among economists seems to be that increasing minimum wage does contribute to inflation. To what degree is what they debate.
http://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2002/october /i nflation-factors-rise

Cost-push inflation, on the other hand, occurs when prices of production process inputs increase. Rapid wage increases or rising raw material prices are common causes of this type of inflation. The sharp rise in the price of imported oil during the 1970s provides a typical example of cost-push inflation (illustrated in Chart 2). Rising energy prices caused the cost of producing and transporting goods to rise. Higher production costs led to a decrease in aggregate supply (from S0 to S1) and an increase in the overall price level because the equilibrium point moved from point Z to point Y.
While the differences in inflation noted above may seem simple, the cause of price level changes observed in the real economy are often much more complex. In a dynamic economy it can be especially difficult to isolate a single cause of a change in the price level. However, knowing what inflation is and what conditions might cause it is a great start!
 
2014-05-15 11:30:10 AM

qorkfiend: The fundamental problem here is that ISPs like Comcast refuse to build out their own infrastructure to handle the amount of traffic their clients are requesting.


Why would they given the normal pattern is that they don't invest in their infrastructure, customers and businesses start complaining louder and louder, then government gives them billions to build out their infrastructure to temporarily catch up with the rest of the world, then they go back to not investing while stiffing their customers.
 
2014-05-15 11:30:46 AM

qorkfiend: Sure, but surely you realize that's not a workable option for most people, because their municipality doesn't do that. Additionally, remember that there are states that are actively outlawing that sort of public internet service.


Of course.  And I don't want to give the impression that I don't support net neutrality; I do.  I just don't see how trying to use the law to screw over your own customers is a viable long-term business plan.  People are smart, they'll find a workaround eventually.

Wasn't Google Fiber supposed to scare these guys into cleaning up their act?  What ever happened to that, or is it just rolling out very slowly?
 
2014-05-15 11:31:12 AM

qorkfiend: sendtodave: And McDonald's would raise the rates on hamburgers to pay for higher wages.

You are aware that Netflix has already raised their streaming rates this year, yes?

sendtodave: I figure if Netflix is using a large percentage of available bandwidth, they should have to pay accordingly.  If they have to raise rates to do so, oh well.

The customer demanding super cheap media doesn't mean that the telcos should get shafted.

Why doesn't anyone root for the telcos?

Why don't the telcos build out their infrastructure to handle the service volume that their clients are paying for?


Because building new infrastructure is cheap.   Customers need to actually pay for it.  Right now, the customers are paying for the existing stuff.

Want more?  Pay business rates for your business class speeds.

Spoiled people.  If 28K dial up was worth $10 per month, 3MB should cost, what, around $1000?
 
2014-05-15 11:31:45 AM

qorkfiend: Why don't the telcos build out their infrastructure to handle the service volume that their clients are paying for?


Because their business model is to provide the worst possible service that people will still use and charge the highest price the customer can afford. Since they've created local monopolies, there is zero competition to drive quality up.
 
2014-05-15 11:32:18 AM

qorkfiend: t3knomanser: Netflix cannot rely on price hikes to recoup that cost, because if they hike the price, they'll lose subscribers, and hence make  less money.

Netflix doesn't seem to share your reasoning, as they've already hiked the price.


People forget that more and more folks have cut the cord and use Netflix and Hulu for all of their TV and movie watching.  Their alternative is to go back to cable at 4 times the price if they cancel the streaming services, and then guess who they have to go back to!  Win/win for Comcast!
 
2014-05-15 11:32:22 AM

udhq: qorkfiend: Sure, but surely you realize that's not a workable option for most people, because their municipality doesn't do that. Additionally, remember that there are states that are actively outlawing that sort of public internet service.

Of course.  And I don't want to give the impression that I don't support net neutrality; I do.  I just don't see how trying to use the law to screw over your own customers is a viable long-term business plan.  People are smart, they'll find a workaround eventually.

Wasn't Google Fiber supposed to scare these guys into cleaning up their act?  What ever happened to that, or is it just rolling out very slowly?


VERY slowly is an understatement.  It was announced in Austin last year, and many areas that were promised the service in are still waiting for a timetable.
 
2014-05-15 11:33:31 AM

jst3p: t3knomanser: CJHardin: Minimum wage hikes won't affect prices of a cheeseburger but by maybe a few cents.

You're missing the point- minimum wage hikes wouldn't affect the price of a cheesburger at all. They'd reduce the  profit margin on a cheesburger. The price of the cheesburger is set  by the market- McDonald's sells it for the highest price they can get away with, for the volume of units they hope to sell. If they raised the price, they wouldn't make more money- they'd sell fewer units. It's the median price theorem, and it's the most basic principle of market economics.

Which brings us back to the key point: if Comcast double-bills Netflix, Netflix cannot rely on price hikes to recoup that cost, because if they hike the price, they'll lose subscribers, and hence make  less money.

Once again, you are wrong. Consensus among economists seems to be that increasing minimum wage does contribute to inflation. To what degree is what they debate.
http://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2002/october /i nflation-factors-rise

Cost-push inflation, on the other hand, occurs when prices of production process inputs increase. Rapid wage increases or rising raw material prices are common causes of this type of inflation. The sharp rise in the price of imported oil during the 1970s provides a typical example of cost-push inflation (illustrated in Chart 2). Rising energy prices caused the cost of producing and transporting goods to rise. Higher production costs led to a decrease in aggregate supply (from S0 to S1) and an increase in the overall price level because the equilibrium point moved from point Z to point Y.
While the differences in inflation noted above may seem simple, the cause of price level changes observed in the real economy are often much more complex. In a dynamic economy it can be especially difficult to isolate a single cause of a change in the price level. However, knowing what inflation is and what conditions might cause it is a great star ...


FARKING THIS^^^^^^^
 
2014-05-15 11:33:56 AM

Felgraf: sendtodave: Seems the "why" shouldn't matter. You should get the service that you were promised.

Which is probably why they don't promise certainspeeds. They promise "up to" certain speeds.

Which is kind of bullshiat and should not be legal, because you know goddamn well they are 'Implying' that is the speed you will get.

Unless you think, say, someone driving 40 miles below the speed limit in the left lane is also OK? After all, it's a speed LIMIT! You can go UP TO  that speed!


Exactly.

If the real problem is that the customer may not get "promised" speeds, because of rate hikes upstream or whatever, we should focus on that.
 
2014-05-15 11:34:10 AM

t3knomanser: Do you think that prices actually work that way? If Netflix charges $10, and I get $10 of value out of Netflix, when Netflix raises its prices to $12, am I going to pay $12 for $10 of value, or am I going to cancel my subscription? This is ECON-101 stuff, here. Prices are driven by what the consumer will pay, not by the costs of production.

That, by the way, is why the whole "raising the minimum wage/taxes just passes the costs down to the consumer" logic is bullshiat. While raising the costs of production can have seriously negative impacts on the economy, it doesn't have a direct increase in the price.


It's a difference in scale, no? Workers' wages make up an insignificant of the costs of a restaurant doing business, but Comcast extorting (I can't seem to find the actual number, but I'm guessing that divided by $7, it comes out to millions of Netflix subscribers) from Netflix is a much more significant number.

Increase the costs of doing business, and you increase the cost of the goods that business produces. Not all increases are the same.
 
2014-05-15 11:34:52 AM

jst3p: An increase in the cost of inputs will cause a supply curve shift to the left which will lead to an increase in prices.


It  may lead to a supply side shift- but in the case where the supply is unbounded (like digital delivery of media content), that doesn't really apply, now does it?

sendtodave: Seems the "why" shouldn't matter.


The "why" absolutely matters. Just because the speed limit on a highway is 55mph doesn't mean I can reasonably expect to constantly drive at 55mph. It's a commons, which means there's other traffic that I have to contend with, plus weather conditions and other ambient factors. A certain variability in speeds is to be expected. In the Internet, this is extra-problematic because a lot of the traffic coming to my house originates on other networks- Comcast can guarantee me 25Mbs down, but if a remote server only has 10mbs upstream, there's no way Comcast can deliver 25mbs from that host, and it's not Comcast's fault. Measuring network speed is very complex, and there are tradeoffs between bandwidth (bits-per-second) and latency on the network (if I'm playing an online game, I'm less interested in the bandwidth speed promised, and far more interested in the latency).

So if Comcast delivers  all traffic as quickly as it can, to the best of its ability, then we don't really have a problem. I'll probably see an average speed less than the promised speed, but so long as we're in the ballpark, it doesn't matter.

The problem is if Comcast purposefully delivers  some traffic slower than it is capable of. The very idea of saying "well, there's a fast lane" means that Comcast is capable of delivering traffic very quickly. Netflix doesn't buy bandwidth from Comcast,  I do. So why is Comcast inserting itself into my business relationship?
 
2014-05-15 11:35:04 AM

sendtodave: qorkfiend: sendtodave: And McDonald's would raise the rates on hamburgers to pay for higher wages.

You are aware that Netflix has already raised their streaming rates this year, yes?

sendtodave: I figure if Netflix is using a large percentage of available bandwidth, they should have to pay accordingly.  If they have to raise rates to do so, oh well.

The customer demanding super cheap media doesn't mean that the telcos should get shafted.

Why doesn't anyone root for the telcos?

Why don't the telcos build out their infrastructure to handle the service volume that their clients are paying for?

Because building new infrastructure is cheap.   Customers need to actually pay for it.  Right now, the customers are paying for the existing stuff.

Want more?  Pay business rates for your business class speeds.

Spoiled people.  If 28K dial up was worth $10 per month, 3MB should cost, what, around $1000?


How about you get the advertised rate for the service you pay for?
 
2014-05-15 11:35:31 AM

sendtodave: qorkfiend: sendtodave: And McDonald's would raise the rates on hamburgers to pay for higher wages.

You are aware that Netflix has already raised their streaming rates this year, yes?

sendtodave: I figure if Netflix is using a large percentage of available bandwidth, they should have to pay accordingly.  If they have to raise rates to do so, oh well.

The customer demanding super cheap media doesn't mean that the telcos should get shafted.

Why doesn't anyone root for the telcos?

Why don't the telcos build out their infrastructure to handle the service volume that their clients are paying for?

Because building new infrastructure is cheap.   Customers need to actually pay for it.  Right now, the customers are paying for the existing stuff.

Want more?  Pay business rates for your business class speeds.

Spoiled people.  If 28K dial up was worth $10 per month, 3MB should cost, what, around $1000?


I know. It's not like the backbone and infrastructure development wasn't heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Because that would make it look like the ISPs are just corporate welfare queens looking for laws to make it impossible to compete with them.
 
2014-05-15 11:36:57 AM

qorkfiend: Netflix doesn't seem to share your reasoning, as they've already hiked the price.


And they hemorrhaged subscribers when they did it.
 
2014-05-15 11:37:40 AM

t3knomanser: jst3p: An increase in the cost of inputs will cause a supply curve shift to the left which will lead to an increase in prices.


It  may lead to a supply side shift- but in the case where the supply is unbounded (like digital delivery of media content), that doesn't really apply, now does it?


You compared it to cheeseburgers. In that scenario you are incorrect.
 
2014-05-15 11:38:20 AM

dr_blasto: Because that would make it look like the ISPs are just corporate welfare queens looking for laws to make it impossible to compete with them.


Of course they are!

That's a given.

What, that's bad?
 
2014-05-15 11:38:33 AM

t3knomanser: qorkfiend: Netflix doesn't seem to share your reasoning, as they've already hiked the price.

And they hemorrhaged subscribers when they did it.


But why did they hike prices?


Hint: The input costs (content providers) increased.
 
2014-05-15 11:39:28 AM

t3knomanser: The "why" absolutely matters. Just because the speed limit on a highway is 55mph doesn't mean I can reasonably expect to constantly drive at 55mph. It's a commons, which means there's other traffic that I have to contend with, plus weather conditions and other ambient factors.


Where I live, the highway has a dedicated toll lane.
 
2014-05-15 11:41:07 AM

jst3p: t3knomanser: qorkfiend: Netflix doesn't seem to share your reasoning, as they've already hiked the price.

And they hemorrhaged subscribers when they did it.

But why did they hike prices?


Hint: The input costs (content providers) increased.


To be more clear: This is exactly what happened: Input costs went up, price went up so quantity demanded decreased, just like the Econ 101 you claim to have been to:

www.frbsf.org
 
2014-05-15 11:41:08 AM

t3knomanser: qorkfiend: Netflix doesn't seem to share your reasoning, as they've already hiked the price.

And they hemorrhaged subscribers when they did it.


That was the 2011 hike, and yes, they lost a bunch of subscribers. However, that didn't stop them from doing it again this year. They're doing a phased roll-out, precisely in order to avoid the price shock that caused them to lose so many subscribers in 2011, but none of that changes the fact that Netflix has increased their streaming price.
 
2014-05-15 11:42:20 AM

t3knomanser: And they hemorrhaged subscribers when they did it.


Suggesting that this modest price hike that won't even affect current customers for 2 years is similar to the 60% increase and fundamental change in how the service operates that occurred in 2011 is entirely dishonest.
 
2014-05-15 11:42:48 AM

sendtodave: Where I live, the highway has a dedicated toll lane.


Roadways are not neutral networks. Parcel systems, Title II telecommunications systems, and until recently, the Internet  are.

jst3p: You compared it to cheeseburgers. In that scenario you are incorrect.


Fine, my irrelevant analogy used only to make a simple illustration did not accurately capture the situation.


jst3p: But why did they hike prices?


Hint: The input costs (content providers) increase


And the end result is that they lost money, and thus were  worse off after the hike than they were before it. So they made a bad business decision to hike prices, because they attempt to preserve profit margins by passing on the costs resulted a loss of profitability.
 
2014-05-15 11:43:57 AM

jst3p: jst3p: t3knomanser: qorkfiend: Netflix doesn't seem to share your reasoning, as they've already hiked the price.

And they hemorrhaged subscribers when they did it.

But why did they hike prices?


Hint: The input costs (content providers) increased.

To be more clear: This is exactly what happened: Input costs went up, price went up so quantity demanded decreased, just like the Econ 101 you claim to have been to:

[www.frbsf.org image 288x240]


I think they attended ECON 001
 
2014-05-15 11:45:37 AM
GUBMINT BAD - REGULATION COMES FROM GUBMINT SO IT BAD - GUBMINT ENEMY - FREE MARKET WHARRGARBL DERP Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: ANY LAWS = SOSHALISMZ

/Sorry
 
2014-05-15 11:46:12 AM

sprawl15: mod3072: Isn't this essentially the exact same farking thing that most of you have been shrieking about?

no


So we DO want content providers to control access to content on their networks?
 
2014-05-15 11:46:38 AM
#BothSidesAreSameLULZ
 
2014-05-15 11:46:49 AM

t3knomanser: And the end result is that they lost money, and thus were  worse off after the hike than they were before it. So they made a bad business decision to hike prices, because they attempt to preserve profit margins by passing on the costs resulted a loss of profitability.


Or the costs they were charging were not profitable at all because of the rise in costs of inputs so they were forced to increase prices to remain profitable at all even if it were with fewer subscribers.
 
2014-05-15 11:48:05 AM

mod3072: sprawl15: mod3072: Isn't this essentially the exact same farking thing that most of you have been shrieking about?

no

So we DO want content providers to control access to content on their networks?


no
 
2014-05-15 11:48:47 AM
 
2014-05-15 11:50:42 AM
Who would expect anything different from the an-American filth that is the GOP these days?

Is there one GOP congress thing that doesn't hate the US?
 
2014-05-15 11:50:59 AM

gnosis301: Can someone explain how not having net neutrality promotes innovation? How can maintaining the status quo by not allowing preferential traffic derail the internet?


With net neutrality, ISPs won't have the freedom to innovate new ways to f*ck their customers with expensive, sub-par service.
=Smidge=
 
2014-05-15 11:53:00 AM
tvcolumnist.files.wordpress.com

Stifle....stifle.
 
2014-05-15 11:55:55 AM
Because if they can throttle the internet, they can throttle ideas.
Ideas like Obummacare.
Man they would have throttled the shait out of any site for it.
And their own FW; FW; FW; FW; FW; FW; FW; FW; FW; FW; FW; FW; sites?
Those will get the fast lane.
They want to lay the foundation of censorship controlled by fundamentalists. accent on the "mental"
The only proper response is for each and every American citizen to kick any and all members of the republican party in the nards as hard as possible and as often as possible.
It is your civic duty as an American to do it.
Do it often, too.
See that dude with the flag pin gladhanding over there? Walk right up. Extend your hand, and kick him. Hard.
Tell him that's for being a farking asshole.
Tell him you stand for free speech, civil rights for everyone, and the constimotherfarkingtution and if he knows what's good for him, he's going to STFU and whimper and not be an asshole anymore.
The problem with lib is they are all a bunch of sensitive ponytail wearing yoga mat carrying bleeding hearts and don't have the gumption to stand up and kick an asshole in the nuts once in a while.
Now when I say kick them in the nuts, do I mean literally? or is it a metaphor?
I don't know. Could be a bit of both. But you aren't going to fix things by allowing this kind of herp derp to go unchallenged and unchallenged forcefully. Maybe you need a bull horn and just stop what you are doing, look at them, raise it up and yell, BULLSHAIT! You LIE! Knock it OFF, ASSHOLE!
Really. Try it. Maybe more people will stand up to these morans.
 
2014-05-15 12:05:31 PM

qorkfiend: udhq: CPennypacker: udhq: I have a really hard time figuring out how opposing net neutrality can benefit the service providers in the long run.  It is my understanding that guidelines would PERMIT providers differentiate traffic streams, but would not REQUIRE them to do so.

So how would an ISP providing a throttled or capped service be able to compete with a non throttled/capped provider?  I know there's not enough competition, but it seems like there are enough options out there where you're not really at the mercy of any 1 provider.  If anything, it would just seem like Comcast/Charter/etc. choosing to throttle traffic would simply hasten the emergence of services like Google Fiber.

lol compete. cute.

Well, it's not like cable is the only, or even the best means to access the internet anymore.

The only realistic, superior option to cable is fiber, but if (like me) no one's bothered to run fiber lines to your residence, it's not really an option, eh?


the subcontractors are working along the curb this am,
installing the goony google breakfast fiber
funny thing is though none of them speak english

/  300.00 one time construction fee/ no monthly = basic internet, 2 year period - googles?
// 120.00 a month high speed + tv  - googles (2 year contract required)?
/// 110.00 a month tv+phone+medium pace -  time warner (no contract)?

I just want a girl with a short skirt and a long jacket
 
m00
2014-05-15 12:10:28 PM

t3knomanser: The problem is if Comcast purposefully delivers some traffic slower than it is capable of. The very idea of saying "well, there's a fast lane" means that Comcast is capable of delivering traffic very quickly. Netflix doesn't buy bandwidth from Comcast, I do. So why is Comcast inserting itself into my business relationship?


Comcast lobbies government to sell them I-95 for cheap, and then covers it with tolls. Then they start manufacturing cars. Want to drive on I-95? Better use a Comcast Car which costs you $500,000, gets 5MPG, and constantly breaks down. Don't like it? Find another way to get from DC to New York. What, there are other ways to get from DC to New York? Then Comcast merges with Time-Warner and owns ALL the roads. Then they go to Ford, Toyota, Honda, GM... pay us a lot of money or we won't allow people driving your cars to get from DC to New York PERIOD. Startup car company? NOPE!
 
2014-05-15 12:10:29 PM

CJHardin: JUST FARKING GREAT!

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/15/fcc-appro ve s-plan-to-allow-for-paid-priority-on-internet/?wpsrc=AG0003336


Woo!  I win!

And everybody loses!
 
2014-05-15 12:12:45 PM

jst3p: jst3p: t3knomanser: qorkfiend: Netflix doesn't seem to share your reasoning, as they've already hiked the price.

And they hemorrhaged subscribers when they did it.

But why did they hike prices?


Hint: The input costs (content providers) increased.

To be more clear: This is exactly what happened: Input costs went up, price went up so quantity demanded decreased, just like the Econ 101 you claim to have been to:

[www.frbsf.org image 288x240]


Oh yeah? Well here's what I think of your chart

img.fark.net

I think we can clearly see how painful it will be.
 
2014-05-15 12:15:22 PM
The gop once again proves to be masters of Quantum Wrongness. Batting 1000.
 
2014-05-15 12:15:44 PM

Garet Garrett: Hey FCC, you know what would be really "neutral"?  Not regulating the internet.

/Radical idea:  stop creating monopolies and then telling us you need to regulate them because they're monopolies.


Oh that's funny you think if their are no rules things will just magically work their way out.

And you proof is that it's something you really want to believe, so you believe it? - That's called faith and a religion.
 
2014-05-15 12:20:09 PM

bdub77: jst3p: jst3p: t3knomanser: qorkfiend: Netflix doesn't seem to share your reasoning, as they've already hiked the price.

And they hemorrhaged subscribers when they did it.

But why did they hike prices?


Hint: The input costs (content providers) increased.

To be more clear: This is exactly what happened: Input costs went up, price went up so quantity demanded decreased, just like the Econ 101 you claim to have been to:

[www.frbsf.org image 288x240]

Oh yeah? Well here's what I think of your chart

[img.fark.net image 288x240]

I think we can clearly see how painful it will be.


LOL, yup!  There is a reason that you have been highlighted in green for quite some time.
 
2014-05-15 12:27:48 PM

sprawl15: mod3072: sprawl15: mod3072: Isn't this essentially the exact same farking thing that most of you have been shrieking about?

no

So we DO want content providers to control access to content on their networks?

no


Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2014-05-15 12:28:14 PM

ArkAngel: Read carefully. The Republicans are opposing the shiatty new rules the industry shill is trying to put in. They don't want companies to be able to discriminate based on content


No they want NO rules in place.

The Democrats want the rules in place for net neutrality with one sucky piece that lets them sometimes negotiate a "fast lane".

Republicans want 100% shiat - Where ISP can make ANY deals they want. Including blocking totally.

Democrats want 10% shiat. - Where in limited situations they  can offer faster services.

It's a big difference
 
2014-05-15 12:34:44 PM

mod3072: sprawl15: mod3072: sprawl15: mod3072: Isn't this essentially the exact same farking thing that most of you have been shrieking about?

no

So we DO want content providers to control access to content on their networks?

no

Thanks for clearing that up.


you're welcome
 
2014-05-15 01:28:46 PM

bdub77: jst3p: jst3p: t3knomanser: qorkfiend: Netflix doesn't seem to share your reasoning, as they've already hiked the price.

And they hemorrhaged subscribers when they did it.

But why did they hike prices?


Hint: The input costs (content providers) increased.

To be more clear: This is exactly what happened: Input costs went up, price went up so quantity demanded decreased, just like the Econ 101 you claim to have been to:

[www.frbsf.org image 288x240]

Oh yeah? Well here's what I think of your chart

[img.fark.net image 288x240]

I think we can clearly see how painful it will be.


Well done.
 
2014-05-15 08:15:49 PM

dr_blasto: That's not true. They want the providers to be able to slow or block traffic altogether. The FCC rules simply aren't terrible enough for their tastes.


No, you're actually completely wrong.
 
2014-05-15 08:26:12 PM

Lsherm: dr_blasto: That's not true. They want the providers to be able to slow or block traffic altogether. The FCC rules simply aren't terrible enough for their tastes.

No, you're actually completely wrong.


Feel free to explain.
 
2014-05-16 01:57:42 AM

skozlaw: udhq: but it seems like there are enough options out there where you're not really at the mercy of any 1 provider

Except there aren't. Cable, fiber and DSL are not equivalent and that's the "option" the relatively few people who have any option at all have. I can choose DSL instead of cable, but it's not much of a choice. It's like saying I can choose McDonald's over a five star meal. Sure, they're both technically food, but they're not really like things when it comes right down to it.


It's actually worse than that.
In this scenario, cable isn't even really one of the options.  Cable owns their own "last mile" infrastructure -- between the cable provider's equipment office and your house.  But after that?  They lease space in the phone company central offices and send your data along the phone company's fiber network just like everyone else.  Not to mention, the DSL and Fiber are likely being offered by the same company -- you're going to have access to U-Verse or FiOS, but probably not both, so those aren't separate choices either.

The other problem is that NOBODY owns the entire infrastructure between your ISP's gateway and whatever server you're trying to access.  Your traffic is passing through AT&T's, Verizon's, and whoever else's fiber networks to get where it needs to go.  In principle, without any network neutrality rules any of those providers could toll, or even block, your traffic that passes through their networks if they felt it was in their best interests, or consistent with any policies they enacted to promote their own services (as opposed to the ones you're trying to access).

After all, what motivation would Verizon have to sell Netflix a "fast lane" if they were trying to promote their own video on demand service?  They'd give their own service all the bandwidth it needs, though.  And switching ISPs wouldn't do squat since whatever ISP you pick is going to make use of Verizon's network anyway.
 
Displayed 167 of 167 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report