Um, I work for a Telecom/ISP and yes the Telecom side is very different and more strict. In the first place its designated as a utility and are regulated as such. Due to that we have split the company into two designated companies "dba" with different regulations.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Spectrum Cable Allegedly Intentionally Throttled Online Games to Extort Payments
- Thread starter cageymaru
- Start date
Um, I work for a Telecom/ISP and yes the Telecom side is very different and more strict. In the first place its designated as a utility and are regulated as such. Due to that we have split the company into two designated companies "dba" with different regulations.
Nobu
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 10,169
Seems to me they keep changing constantly, just the changes aren't always front-page material. Gotta keep those lawyers working for their money somehow.
Okay okay, they exist less..
I also work for a Telco / ISP. We also have to do the whole DBA due to the whole ILEC vs CLEC thing (local telephone company vs ISP). What I meant is that in the past few years as data has changed the regulations haven't kept up with them. So regulations today aren't different from what they were 3 years ago. As technology has moved from people needing a phone line to nobody caring about a phone line and only wanting internet regulations have not changed to keep up with that. The rates that ILECs have to charge for dry DSL / fiber are still the same as they were before. you still have to charge for a loop regardless if you are dealing with an landline or a voip phone in an office. ONTs for fiber get into an interesting issue because regulations refer to the NID / DMARK being on the outside of the house / building, so as soon as you go with an indoor ONT there is a whole gray area of if you can report that as company property (and pay taxes on it) like you would a NID or outdoor ONT. Regulations still haven't caught up to the changes there. So in the past 3 - 5 years regulations haven't been getting stricter or stricter in this data centric world. They keep taking away various funding for smaller companies, but that is about the only thing that has really changed in a major way.
The doomsayers stated that we MUST have the "Net Neutrality" regulations, or the sky will fall. They said that if the FCC reversed its earlier decision to re-classify the Internet, that ISP's would be free to engage in all sorts of abusive behavior.
Now, let's do some simple stuff
1. Spectrum is alleged to have engaged in this behavior before, during, and after the re-classification
2. They have a legal complaint by the state of New York AFTER the re-classification was reversed
3. The complaint by the state of New York in no way references, or is related to the prior re-classification ruling of the FCC
4. The complaint by the state of New York revolves around fraud and general abuse, things that were illegal before the FCC re-classification
5. Looking at this from an objective standpoint, the "world is burning" behavior that was predicted if the FCC re-classification was reversed is being dealt with without the FCC re-classification, therefore, there was no need for the FCC re-classification in the first place.
I swear, simple logic evades so many otherwise intelligent people once their emotions have been stirred up.
That I agree with. Not nearly as regulated as the telecom side and full of grey areas. Having our company located in WI has allowed us to apply for numerous grants that helps us roll out fiber in under served areas to offset construction costs and make it financially viable. The only other way for us to grow is snatch up smaller telcos but that requires upgrading those infrastructures as well. Luckily our upper management saw the light several years ago about becoming more data focused so we've had pretty good revenues and growth while seeing land lines drop to nearly nothing. Knock on wood!
Sorry, the post was clear, its is saying the NN under the FCC was not effective. That is not an attack on NN, just the FCC implementation/execution. Because people like to overblow what was lost.
I'm pretty sure you knew it wasn't a defense of Spectrum or an attack on NN. If anyone it was an attack on the FCC or the basic idea the FCC is the correct body to manage something like NN.
We won't know for sure until the court decides.
If they will rule against Spectrum because of the "Net Neutrality" rules being in place at the time, then yes, the sky is probably falling already. Because this means that if an ISP did/does the same thing after "NN" was eradicated, they are not breaking any rules. Although it is clear that they are dicking customers without any of them knowing about it.
With any other decision, it can still be argued whether the sky is falling or not.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
I think everyone needs to take a step back and re-examine.
1) I didn't actually see anyone arguing for Spectrum here. Non-starter there.
2) NN is in no way, shape or form similar to murder, stop trying to equate them.
3) This happened prior to the fake NN laws taking full effect, but even had it occurred during the time they were in effect, they still would not apply here in this situation.
4) Had this happened during the time the fake NN laws were in place, this likely would have been more a sweep under the rug with the company paying a small fine and nothing for the consumers.
5) This lawsuit is about fraudulent business practices as a whole, which is more than just fake NN violations.
6) Stop with the page this page that. The allegations and what they are being sued for are spelled out.
Now as for page 67 that people point to, it clearly is not "throttling" as defined in the fake NN rules. The "throttling" was actually them not having capacity, not that they chose not to use their full capacity. And that was over a peering agreement dispute with another provider.
In any case, Spectrum was kicked out and are being sued for abusing a number of principles of business.
1) I didn't actually see anyone arguing for Spectrum here. Non-starter there.
2) NN is in no way, shape or form similar to murder, stop trying to equate them.
3) This happened prior to the fake NN laws taking full effect, but even had it occurred during the time they were in effect, they still would not apply here in this situation.
4) Had this happened during the time the fake NN laws were in place, this likely would have been more a sweep under the rug with the company paying a small fine and nothing for the consumers.
5) This lawsuit is about fraudulent business practices as a whole, which is more than just fake NN violations.
6) Stop with the page this page that. The allegations and what they are being sued for are spelled out.
Now as for page 67 that people point to, it clearly is not "throttling" as defined in the fake NN rules. The "throttling" was actually them not having capacity, not that they chose not to use their full capacity. And that was over a peering agreement dispute with another provider.
In any case, Spectrum was kicked out and are being sued for abusing a number of principles of business.
If the rest of the government's internet works anything like the Internet does on Fort Huachuca, the US Army's Military Intelligence Training Center, home of Network Command and an entire Signal Brigade .......... then I would never characterize it as high speed lol
I can't watch any streaming anything without boo-quo buffering going on. My home internet through Cox cable, not even their best tier, is far better then what I have access to at work.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
Well that is also because they are actively throttling streaming services.
No they aren't, the bandwidth sucks and there are like too many freaking active layers of network security gumming everything up. It's all slow, just that streaming is more obvious. Our own online training sites that use streaming are just as effected.
EDITED: It seems I must admit defeat on this throttling of streaming services topic.
Last edited:
![Zarathustra[H]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1715876891){kind=avatar}
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 39,053
Don't disagree. You also have to convince those subject to the law that you will enforce it. Even then, some will still break it.
Again, it's only anti competitive if it's a "fast lane for me, not for thee." If everyone has equal access to the fast lane for the same price, then it's just get what you pay for. And again, netflix, Facebook, etc are already monopolies. I dont care if they have to cough up more money. You dont get to pay for things on YOUR terms. It's their network, so they can charge what they want for it, and again, nothing stops them from simply raising prices or setting bandwidth caps. Why don't you people understand this?
[="gusphase, post: 1043756670, member: 305017"]Personally, I dont have any problem with ISPs forcing providers of big content, which are mostly competitive practices, I dont mind.[/QUOTE]
They pay for internet service just like you. The data going over it doesn’t matter. Also it isn’t a “fast lane” if they outright block traffic from these services or slow it to a crawl unless they pay up. This is a slippery slope as this allows Comcast to block any competition to force you to use only their services. It allows at&t to block you from looking at Verizon or sprints sites to look to switch. This practice is 100% anticompetitive.
They pay for internet service just like you. The data going over it doesn’t matter. Also it isn’t a “fast lane” if they outright block traffic from these services or slow it to a crawl unless they pay up. This is a slippery slope as this allows Comcast to block any competition to force you to use only their services. It allows at&t to block you from looking at Verizon or sprints sites to look to switch. This practice is 100% anticompetitive.
Guarana [BAWLS]
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2001
- Messages
- 1,951
While playing, ping other things outside of game, to compare latency. See how they compare.
I do, but at the same time...
I'm paying for bandwidth to use the internet.
Netflix is paying for bandwidth to send stuff out to the internet.
Why does the ISP get to charge them a second time for the bandwidth I'm already paying for from them?
Last edited:
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,089
It's not the regulation that keeps companies in line. It's the enforcement of the regulation.
Because it's their network? Either way, they're going to charge somebody. At least this way they can charge a big monopoly that makes record profits rather than having to make their money entirely from customers.
dpoverlord
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,931
When it was TWC I paid $64.99 for 300 /20, Spectrum takes over and it skyrocketed to $119 for 300 /20. No letters, no messages, no consent given for the increase.
After the change my speeds went from 230 -290 / 20 to 50-100/20.
I called and complained, they said they would reduce my bill to 89.99 as a "courtesy" since TWC lost money and now they needed to "make money" and they would "complimentary upgrade" me as a 1 time courtesy to 400/20.
I argued and explained I was not getting what was promised now and had not given consent to increase my bill...
Good riddance.... I hope since who may replace them could technically be even worse.
After the change my speeds went from 230 -290 / 20 to 50-100/20.
I called and complained, they said they would reduce my bill to 89.99 as a "courtesy" since TWC lost money and now they needed to "make money" and they would "complimentary upgrade" me as a 1 time courtesy to 400/20.
I argued and explained I was not getting what was promised now and had not given consent to increase my bill...
Good riddance.... I hope since who may replace them could technically be even worse.
It seems that people who have great connections for a lower price are upset when they have to pay more. I suggest we do something to promote actual increases in competition. Competition will keep prices lower while maintaining speed. In the cases where a natural monopoly will exist (Rural Unpopulated Areas or 'Diverse' inner city neighborhoods) we regulate to make sure the service is not sub-par.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
I think we need another stop and consider here.
1) "Fast Lanes" are generally dedicated connections between a customer and the provider. These are used for businesses who need a certain capacity above the normal provided by the ISP. When they create a "Fast Lane" for Netflix they are providing a dedicated connection between Netflix and their backbone. This allows more bandwidth for them to connect with their customers.
2) ISPs charge the Company money for "Fast Lanes" because that company is driving more traffic through their network. It isn't just about what the ISPs customers are using, it is about other traffic going through their network from other networks, degrading the performance they have for their customers. Should the ISP up the cost to their customers from what services/people outside their network are using? If all that traffic is being drive by a company, doesn't it make sense to charge that company for adding the extra burden on bandwidth it is causing for the customers of the network?
There are a lot of people that just seem to have a lack of overall knowledge of how the internet works, especially here in the United States. This causes a lot of misconceptions and faux outrage over some simple basic principles.
1) "Fast Lanes" are generally dedicated connections between a customer and the provider. These are used for businesses who need a certain capacity above the normal provided by the ISP. When they create a "Fast Lane" for Netflix they are providing a dedicated connection between Netflix and their backbone. This allows more bandwidth for them to connect with their customers.
2) ISPs charge the Company money for "Fast Lanes" because that company is driving more traffic through their network. It isn't just about what the ISPs customers are using, it is about other traffic going through their network from other networks, degrading the performance they have for their customers. Should the ISP up the cost to their customers from what services/people outside their network are using? If all that traffic is being drive by a company, doesn't it make sense to charge that company for adding the extra burden on bandwidth it is causing for the customers of the network?
There are a lot of people that just seem to have a lack of overall knowledge of how the internet works, especially here in the United States. This causes a lot of misconceptions and faux outrage over some simple basic principles.
Nobu
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 10,169
While I agree, I'm not sure this is what this particular lawsuit is about. I need to read the whole article when I get home from work.
Why not have the state or municipalities take over as the providers for the area? Municipal broadband is often cheaper and faster than what the ISP's provide.
I'm reading this as "doing this right and meeting the letter of the contract is hard and expensive so lets give people who half ass everything a free pass".
Also ISP's bring in tons of money generally so high infrastructure costs usually aren't as big of an issue as its made out to be.
NY is doing this because they've given this ISP several chances or done dealings with them before in the past and they still got burned. There is good reason to believe here that this ISP shouldn't be given another chance at all because of that.
Given past behavior of ISP's there is no reason to give the ISP's the benefit of the doubt nor to use hyperbolic strawmen to try and discredit NN.
Do you also think that murder should be legalized or at least the laws outlawing murder stripped from the books since murders happen anyways each and every day? Or are you an Anarchist perhaps???
Laws are there to discourage behavior that is deemed bad by society, and therefore make society safer and/or more beneficial in some manner, not be a perfect proof against such actions they're regulating. If you're expecting law to be perfect than you're being grossly unreasonable or naive since NOTHING CAN BE PERFECT. Or even close to it really.
Ultimately even if your "logic" is truly simple and all that doesn't make it correct or reasonable. Personally I'm kind've hoping by simple you meant "unintelligent" as a joke or troll trap attempt of some sort. Your post makes more sense that way.
cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 22,120
That's not what is happening. If the same customer that can't watch a Netflix film because it is buffering, subscribes to Spectrum's streaming service, then the same bitrate movie works perfectly. The customer pays for X amount of bandwidth and they should receive X amount of bandwidth. They simply aren't.
Video games such as League of Legends do not need tons of bandwidth. They just need a continuous connection to keep from disconnecting. Spectrum allegedly intentionally disconnected users until Riot Games paid them a sum of money. There was no "speed" or "bandwidth" increase.
The problem with ISPs today is that they used to be able to get away with overselling their service because grandma would load a page with a few pictures and then the connection was severed because that's all they needed for data transfers. Then Joe could use the same connection that grandma was on to load a web page and then another person. You could sell 10,000 people a single connection back in the day. See satellite internet and how it works.
Nowadays people are continuously connected to an ISP as a simple trip to a website like CNET has streaming video 24/7 as you read a news post. Bloomberg Live is a perfect example. Streaming video requires an always on connection and the ISPs tout this always on connection in their literature when selling you service. There is no way to stream to Twitch if your connection is continuously disconnecting. An always on connection is what people are sold today in the USA.
Spectrum seemingly thought they could get away with being the equivalent of an ISP mafia. Want an always on connection to your game? Ha ha F you! Tell your game developer to call us and maybe we will allow you to connect and play. Want to have a gaming tournament in the state of NY? Tell your tournament officials to call me otherwise nobody will be able to watch. Hey other ISP and backbone operators trying to route traffic through our equipment. Want your customers to be able to watch Youtube without buffering every 15 seconds? Pay us $10,000 each and we will let them.
I don't see how you can argue that it wasn't throttling because when Spectrum was paid a fee for a better connection, that entity that paid the fee was rewarded. Also in America each ISP receives a part of a billion dollar fund from the US government to improve their network.
AT&T grudgingly accepts $428 million in annual government funding.
https://arstechnica.com/information...pts-428-million-in-annual-government-funding/
Connect America Fund (CAF)
https://www.fcc.gov/general/connect-america-fund-caf
That is one example. That is annual funding; not a one time occurrence. In addition to Federal funding there are state taxes that fund the roll out of broadband to poor neighborhoods across the state. Again these ISP begrudgingly accept these funds and do absolutely nothing to serve the community. I own a house within a stone's throw of an elementary school and the only ISP here has been rolling out 56K dialup to the community since the early 1990's. They haven't figured out how to make the 1950's telephone wiring accept a 56K connection yet. And they get millions each year to upgrade the service for the community. On the federal government broadband map they reported that we had full DSL broadband in the area when we don't even have the ability to make a 56K connection because of the poor wiring. So I have to rent a home in another area to have internet as satellite is pure crap. Complaining for 25+ years has netted me zero results.
*Edited to say that the ISPs receive money from a fund and not that each receives billions each year as pointed out to me. *
Last edited:
Competition doesn't normally exist in a natural monopoly environment. Its part of the reason why there have always been so few water or electric service providers and why those providers are regulated differently.
First off, let me start by saying that I work for an ISP. I am in charge of our entire customer network. So anything that gives customers internet service (dsl, fiber) I am responsible for keeping that running. So I know how data flows through an ISP.
#1. A dedicated connection is not a fast lane, that is called peering. That is very different from telling somebody that they have to pay you to prevent you from lowing speeds to their servers. If the issue was simply congestion then paying more money to not be throttled wouldn't fix that instantly. That is them lowering the speed to places that they see are the destination of most of their traffic to keep from having to upgrade their network.
#2. I like how you say that Netflix sends traffic to an ISP when zero customers are on Netflix's service. Mind explaining that one? Why is Netflix sending multiple gigabytes of traffic to nobody? Netflix has no control over the amount of bandwidth being pulled. That is 100% the end user. The end user pays for X amount of bandwidth, as an ISP it is your job to make sure that customers that use their service without issues. If you don't have a large enough backbone for your customers then yes you should upgrade that on your own. it doesn't matter if people are surfing Netflix, pornhub, or downloading their entire steam library to a new computer. bits are bits. nothing more than 1s and 0s or pulses of light. 5Mbps being pulled from Netflix eats up just as much of their backbone as does 5Mbps of porn or 5Mbps of games or 5Mbps of torrents. Traffic is traffic all day long. So there is no reason why the end user should have to pay for 100/20 service then every company they connect to for content should turn around and pay their ISP for 100Gbps uplinks and then turn around and also pay the end user's ISP for x amount of bandwidth over that 100/20 connection the end user is paying for.
Agree with your post up till the billions of dollars to each ISP part. Collectively yes billions might be given out through various funds but each of us don't get that much or any period. I wish I had a budget of a billion a year, I would be having miles of fiber put in to every home around the clock.
Even CAF is very very lopsided in how that worked. Started off that first year that only AT&T and Verizon (largest companies) were able to apply for that. Then after a year or so they added the middle companies (CenturyLink, Frontier) then a year or two later decided that us smaller guys could start to apply for some of the funding. Even with that there are still certain rules and loops you have to jump through to get that. We actually haven't bothered with any of those grants or funds as in some cases they make it more of a pain in the ass then what we wanted to deal with for what pennies they might toss our way. Could end up spending $5000 to fill out the paperwork to get $35,000 in funds.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
I was merely explaining fast lanes that people were getting incorrect. Also about the throttling, because I read what they said directly from the complaint. The complaint stated specifically that it was "effective" throttling, not actual throttling. That the issue was because they literally did not have the bandwidth, not that they were turning off or limiting bandwidth.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
#1 I like how you work for an ISP, then start to explain nothing. I work with backbone providers all the time, especially dedicated connections. Peering is not the same as a dedicated connection. Fast Lanes are not the same as peering. So I don't know where you are going with that one. Perhaps I should use "dedicated service" instead, but it usually amounts to the same thing. I have gotten MPLS before where they call it a dedicated connection when it actually isn't strictly dedicated outside of the level of bandwidth being provided over the connection.
#2 I have no idea what you are even talking about here because it has nothing to do with what I said. If you work for an ISP than you should understand this scenario quite well.
ISP A has customers 1, 2, 3
ISP B has customers 4, 5, 6
Netflix has a connection in ISP A
In order for customers 4, 5, 6 to get to Netflix, they have to go through ISP A. There is a lot of traffic coming from ISP A to Netflix. Customers 1, 2, 3 now have less access to the bandwidth on the network because some of it is being taken up by customers 4, 5, 6. This is happening because they want to stream Netflix.
Typically ISP A then charges ISP B per their peering agreement. ISP B declines or there is some disagreement about proportionality. The actual cause in this situation is Netflix services. Netflix customers in both ISP A and B are affected by this. ISP A goes to Netflix and agrees to either create a peering agreement with them, create a dedicated connection through their network to ISP B, or maybe sit a CDN at the boundary.
Last edited:
cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 22,120
My local ISP that has been promising 56K or better internet to the community is CenturyLink. So I was going by what they get from funding.
I didn't mean to imply that every ISP gets billions. But look at the big boys; $400+ million a year and still not enough money to wire every home in their areas.Oh I see it! Again I meant that the fund is in the billions.
Actually guys, Net Neutrality, no matter how you slice it, doesn't have a thing to do with this case. What does have something to do with this case is explicitly listed in the court complaint as filed.
It's exactly as has been argued in the past. Shady fraudulent bullshit is shady fraudulent bullshit no matter how it's perpetrated and laws already exist to protect consumers from it.
It's like arguing that now we have plastic guns so we need new laws to protect us from people murdering us with them.
https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/summons_and_complaint.pdf
It's exactly as has been argued in the past. Shady fraudulent bullshit is shady fraudulent bullshit no matter how it's perpetrated and laws already exist to protect consumers from it.
It's like arguing that now we have plastic guns so we need new laws to protect us from people murdering us with them.
Ok, dedicated connection / MPLS that is different. That is much different from a "fast lane" or pay me and I will allow your traffic to use more of my bandwidth. The fast lane that people keep discussing is not a peering or dedicated circuit from say Netflix right to ISP B in your example. it is simply I will limit you to only 2% of my backbone unless you pay me $250,000 a month at which case you have normal priority like any other site would.
Looking at your example there. That still isn't Netflix's issue. If Netflix has ISP A as their internet provider and ISP A has a connection between themselves and IPS B that is the responsibility of ISP A and ISP B to work out a deal on what they are going to charge each other for data, that is the responsibly of A to make sure that if they sold 10000000000 Gbps of data throughput to customers that they can handle that much throughput or at the very least whatever their peak time is. Think about this in the reserve, people bitch about data caps and how that is bullshit because you are paying for a service. Now you are saying that everyone should pay for their service and get zero data. then on top of that they should pay per kb of data they use because they are now eating up bandwidth that could be used by somebody else. customers 1, 2 and 3 could be into some really crazy bestiality porn and be uploading and download all day long maxing out their connection 24x7 causing just as much of a bottle neck as Netflix is on the network of ISP A.
What you are describing are not issues of the end user of either side. This is no different than telephone calls. Every time one of my customers uses that phone on the wall to call somebody else anywhere I have to hand that call to another company, who then hands the call to another company, who might have to hand it off again to get it to where it is going. Now every channel that is in use is one less channel that could be used. Should AT&T charge my end customer extra money because my end customer keeps calling AT&T land lines thus eating up circuits in their network? no, that is what originating and terminating minutes for carrier trunks is for. My customer pays me X amount per minute, I then turn around and pay the next person up stream Y amount per call, who then in turns pay so much per call to the next company. So in the end say 6 cents might end up with me getting 3 cents and everyone else getting 1 cent each. Same goes for data. Our customers pay us for service, with that money we buy various connections to carrier hotels and peer with a dozen or so other companies handing all other traffic over to a larger tier 1. I would never expect the other side to pay us because of what our customers do. We are of the mindset that 1 bit is equal to another. Don't care what you are using your 1s and 0s for (as long as we aren't getting notified by the FBI, CIA, or another other government alphabet group), you are paying for X amount of bandwidth and we will make sure that we can supply whatever our need is no matter where it is going.
My local ISP that has been promising 56K or better internet to the community is CenturyLink. So I was going by what they get from funding.
Oh I see it! Again I meant that the fund is in the billions.
Wait, you live somewhere that CenturyLink is promising at least 56kbps speeds and reaching that speed? How did you get that lucky?
Ok, thanks for proving my point about lack of logical thinking. You and others have made the false equivalence to murder. This isn't murder. Not even close. The only thing that Spectrum's alleged activity has in common with murder is that they are both illegal.
Now, since we are on that, let me try to go a bit slower, maybe the emotionally compromised here will be able to understand what I am saying.
What Spectrum is alleged to have done, including the "pay for access" is something that is being investigated based on laws that were in force before the "Net Neutrality" regulations. "Net Neutrality" regulations have nothing to do with New York's complaint, yet one of the things that Spectrum is accused of doing is exactly what people said would happen without the "Net Neutrality" reclassification of the Internet. Spectrum is being held accountable for anti-consumer practices without the "Net Neutrality" regulations in place. So what were those regulations needed for anyway?
And before you come back with the idea that they would be accountable on a Federal level, losing the TWC merger and losing access to the New York markets will hurt Spectrum far more than any federal action (would be slap-on-the-wrist fines) would.
So again, I ask, what were the "Net Neutrality" regulations needed for, since the actions everyone said would happen without them, is being fully prosecuted against a company without the regulations in place?
TLDR - Title 2 Classification of the Internet, ala "Net Neutrality" != net neutrality.
cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 22,120
I used to be able to get ISDN from Centurylink, but they had to stop that because the lines degraded more to the point where making a phone call was pure static. The average dialup connection I was able to get was around 14.4k or so. Before I gave up and moved I wasn't able to connect at all. Oh and to use a cellphone required that you stand on the hood of a car. I only really discovered a use for cellular phones after I moved. Where I rent there is only Verizon and US Cellular, but they do exist! If you come around here dreaming of T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, etc, you're going to be SOL with no connection.
Where I rent there is only Verizon and US Cellular, but they do exist! If you come around here dreaming of T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, etc, you're going to be SOL with no connection.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
I disagree, fast lane is not much more different than MPLS. MPLS involves QoS, just like fast lanes. Fast Lanes is merely dedicating priority to a service. There actually isn't any real stringent definition of it since it is more a buzz word. But the intent is that a certain service such as Netflix would get a certain QoS priority. There are tons of things that go into Priority traffic for ISPs. My point was that saying Fast Lanes should be equal completely defeats the point of Fast Lanes. Nor is there any particularly good reason why Fast Lanes should be removed entirely.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
I don't think you really understand the point. If you have traffic coming from another network, to your network or through it, and it is taking up more bandwidth than you can provide to the users in your network, it is a problem. This is typically a peering problem, I mentioned that. The problem gets extended to the user and to Netflix when there is a disagreement in the peering payment and the providing of more service. The bandwidth is saturated, the users now don't have enough bandwidth to get to Netflix or other services, the network can't or won't upgrade until the other side of the peering pays up.
In this situation to guarantee they can deliver service to Netflix for their customers, or even to customers of the other network, they give Netflix some options. That money they charge is then used to fulfill one or more of those options. The things you are saying have nothing to do with what I am saying.
Most places where people live are not a natural monopoly environment. They become a monopoly environment due to utility regulation and politics. Most suburban and urban residential areas can easily support multiple communications utilities. They just don't.
Last edited:
We should pass a law making it illegal to provide bad internet or charge more than the cost of a gallon of milk for that fast internet. We should also pass a law against outages; make the executives criminally liable for any downtime. Then we should pass a law to stop the spread of malicious viruses. We should also pass laws to prevent bad people from doing bad things on the internet. We should also tax profits of telecoms at 105% to pay for free internet services to help homeless people get online. Then we can pass laws preventing robots from taking anyone's job. Also a law to make phones have 7 days of battery life so we stop having to charge them constantly. Then we should pass a law to ban release of television programs until the entire series is produced. I am tired of shows getting cancelled just as I start to get into them. We should also regulate pings so gaming is better. No ping should be greater than 5. If they would just listen to me we would have great cheap fast internet filled with excellent content.