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 (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



167 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 167 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report