HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Cable companies tricking people into fighting against net neutrality? Say it isn't so. That just doesn't seem like something they would do. 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Advocacy Groups Duped Into Fighting Net Neutrality
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
westrock2000
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 9,434
Cable companies tricking people into fighting against net neutrality? Say it isn't so. That just doesn't seem like something they would do.
If people were to listen to the WHOLE argument, some might come to conclusion that voting against the "fast/slow lanes" is being tricked.
The model right now is that all people get "unlimited" Internet access. The reality of that model is that not everyone use maximum internet. So if we want to move towards a model where people truly are using all their bandwidth then somewhere that cost is going to have to be absorbed. Either the customers can start using a Tiered model OR Netflix/Youtube/Twitch and other high volume content providers can start paying more.
Also turning the ISP's into a utility will mean much more government red tape, which will mean much less competition because of the cost to get involved. Think about how many energy providers we have in this country. I'm talking about the companies that actually OWN the infrastructure....not all the resalers.
I totally agree that every bit of child porn being sent over the internet is just as worthwhile and important as every bit of health information sent over the internet to help a kid with leukemia in a children's hospital, and that we totally need government to ensure that all bits are treated equally, because they monitor every bit that goes through themselves.
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
Uhh...you remember that time Comcast wanted to buy Time-Warner...way back when. And they justified it to the FCC saying that there was no loss of competition because there was no competition?
Whta is this "competition" you speak of we have now that we would loose?
cdr_74_premium
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,577
The one you can potentially gain if you stop putting government's hands into everything.
Google. community fiber, small upstart ISPs. There is actual competition, just not in the areas where TWC and Comcast operate because they have deals with local government to have a monopoly in their operation areas.
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
Google only exists in 3 cities nationwide? That is your example of competition?
Community fiber efforts have been all but shut down by lobbying from ISPs with monopolistic holds on communities. I know. Time-Warner killed mine years back.
I've never seen "small upstart ISPs". ISPs in just about every region come in two flavors...huge corporations with shitty TOS and awful customer service...and ones with even worse CS and caps/throttling.
Where Comcast and Time-Warner don't operate...and how many neighborhoods does that count for in the USA? 10?
Loss of competition my foot. In most of the US there isn't any competition to start with. Remember why we granted limited monopolies in the first place? Because businessmen didn't see a profit in building out infrastructure because it was to goddamn expensive. Now they have monopolies and it is too goddamn expensive for them to improve their infrastructure to support the load of customers they have. It always was and is and will forever be expensive for small fish to get in as ISPs.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
Yup because that's TOTALLY what it's about, about making sure that really really important stuff gets to where it needs to go faster and has nothing to do with only speeding up services that you feel are advantageous to your company (i.e. your own streaming video service or whomever pays you more money to make their service faster)
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
Or more importantly...fucking over that streaming service that is stealing all your cable-cutting customers.
It totally is not a shakedown.
So are you saying that all data is equal? All the botnet bits are equal to all the SETI@home bits?
Comcast spies are infiltrating! QoS is great when you're a benevolent network administrator that can decide which services you want to prioritize, not when you're an ISP providing open access to the internet where the priority should be whatever the END USER as an individual wants to access, and is paying for access to, at any given time. Moreover, ISP's shouldn't be gatekeepers throttling traffic until major businesses "pay the toll"... and worse off, it can stiffle innovation and competition in the market place, as large businesses may be able to absorb those costs, small startups on the other hand cannot. And so while youtube.com may pay for priority traffic, my metube.com competitor can never get off the ground since I can't afford to pay the mafia.
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
If that was ever in Rand-ian fairy-tale land what this was about...you might have people agree with you.
It is not, and never was. It is about TV studio owners (NBC, Time Warner, etc.) who are also cable-tv providers who are also ISPs wanting their cable-cutting Netflix/Hulu-streaming customers back. Best way to do that? Kill video streaming with QoS rules in their ISP pipes.
Yes, all data is equal, if its the traffic the end user is asking for at any point in time. If you want Comcast to decide for you what is and isn't important to you, and slow down traffic that doesn't pay them a fee... a fee which will be passed on to the consumer so you pay THREE TIMES for a service (once to Netflix for the service, once to Comcast for internet access, and once again to Comcast not to slow down the traffic to the service).
To act like this has anything to do with child porn is what we in the academy refer to as "full retard".
The Netflix argument is a joke. They want the ISPs to bear all of the costs in delivering their product to customers. Guess what, it costs money. If you want your servers in my data center you pay for it. End of story. I couldn't give two shits about who "wins" this debate. Nothing will really change.
Does that "end user" include all the background apps, malicious or otherwise, on the end user's machine requesting data, whether the end user is aware of them or not?
All data is equal huh? What happens if your neighbor is downloading a movie, streaming another, and playing online games while you are desperately trying to get to the poison control website because your kid swallowed a bunch of bleach or ate rat poison. I guess your issue isn't any more important than your neighbors desire to download a movie.
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
Because even with a 56kb modem connection you cannot get on the poison control website?
Is this seriously the best troll you can manage?
If you actually believe scenarios like yours are the reason for QoSing the the entire internet you need your head examined.
Carouselambra
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2014
- Messages
- 559
Either way the customer is going to get screwed
LMAO! Of course they do, they are ISPs! Netflix is a content provider. If I pay UPS to deliver packages to me, they have no right to hold my package ransom until Walmart pays them a fee as well to deliver the package I ALREADY PAID FOR!
This is such common sense double-dipping, it shouldn't require explanation.
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
Right, because that is what Comcast does now.
Net neutrality should allow for both. Both customers are given 50Mbps, both shouldn't have issues getting what they paid for, whatever content they desire within that 50Mbps worth of bandwith.
Plus, what would the poison control website be, a whopping 1KB? Google would likely even pull up the contact number within the search results.
Besides, these "what if arguments" always reek of hyperbole. "What if Jack Bauer was trying to call the President about the end of the world over his VOIP phone but he COULDN'T because of net neutrality and his evil neighbor was flooding his tubes with child pr0n! We better give Comcast and TWC all of our rights, otherwise this will happen!"
Owwww, my brainz. So your defense of net neutrality is that Comcast is just going to monitor the network for malware? That's what you think "fast lanes" and "slow lanes" are for? If it were identified conclusively as malware, it would be blocked entirely, not slowed down. Owwww! *migraine*
You heard it here first folks. The benevolent mega corporations are only battling net neutrality regulation so that they can throttle malware and save your PC. They are on YOUR side. All hail our corporate masters.
You really like using straw men. Too bad it's a fallacy.
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,315
Pointless argument.
If the data is allowed to be transmitted, it is allowed.
If you can discriminate between data that shouldnt be transmitted, then prevent it.
This is not prioritising.
Its not a straw man if you actually made the argument
Besides the fact that the reference to child porn is a reductio ad absurdum, cable companies and telcos get all sorts of government benefits. They get government enforced monopolies, they get to use people's property by force without having to pay them compensation, they purchase exemptions from the laws that others have to follow, and they get taxvictim dollars to the tunes of billions.
Given that the people were forced at gunpoint to :
A.Allow the cable companies and telcos to trespass on their property
B.Pay, via tax extortion, money to the cable companies and telcos
If the cable companies and telcos wish to give up their state-conferred benefits, then I will happily say that they should be allowed to do whatever they want with traffic. But so long as they continue receiving corporate welfare off of the backs of tax victims, we the people have every right to dictate net neutrality.
First of all, I'm not defending net neutrality. Secondly, I don't like Comcast any more than you. Third, you're missing the point, like so many others. Like so many other unspoken truths that we are shamed from speaking, the plain fact is that nobody in their right mind feels that all data is equal. Certain data can get you arrested just for downloading or possessing, or for sharing. Certain data can get other people arrested because it's your private data. We always want certain types of data treated certain ways at the expense of treating other data that way. The whole "all data is equal" line is bullshit.
Allowed neither means equal nor worthwhile.
Really? You're setting one type of data as so unequal as to be prevented entirely from being transmitted at all, but they're both still equal?
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
Net neutrality would in no way prevent ISPs from blocking illegal content. Not sure what net neutrality or non-net neutrality has to do with people accessing your private data.
Yeah, except I didn't. You made up a bullshit argument and implied I made it. That's a prime example of a straw man fallacy. You do that a lot.
9/10. I lol'd
That isn't the reality of the situation. Netflix wants cut out bandwidth movement by putting their servers into ISP data centers. They want the ISPs to shoulder all of the costs of this move. So what Netflix wants is to reduce their costs by moving their servers and then make someone else pay for it.
Lets make a image you might understand. I want to renovate my bathroom because the plumbing isn't up to snuff. I go ahead and do it and then send you a bill for the whole thing with the justification that your water pressure will be slightly better now because of the work I did.
Which Comcast decides, not the customer, right?
What? This isn't complicated. ISPs should not be prioritizing data, and the argument that they should prioritize data to fight malware is assinine, as malware is by definition unwanted traffic. If malware could be positively identified, it would be stopped, not slowed down... Same with child porn, you don't "slow down" child porn, if the ISP were to snoop on your transmissions and identify it it would be blocked if anything not given the slow lane. This is such common sense I have to believe peeps are now either just trolling or work for comcast (or both).
Wouldn't having Netflix servers in their data centers actually save ISPs money on peering?
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
This analogy makes no sense. The homeowner, the end customer of the ISP, isn't putting in infrastructure or sending anyone bills.
Do you have any actual articles about Netflix wanting completely free hosting directly in ISP data centers? Because that's news to me.
You buy a package from Walmart and have it shipped on UPS. Walmart is subsidizing your shipping with the proximity of its fulfillment centers to the UPS hubs. So yea it is exactly the same arguments the ISPs are making. If Netflix wants its servers in ISP data centers then Netflix should have to pay for that.
Nonsense. Comcast was throttling traffic, acting as a gate keeper and bringing connectivity for its customers to the service to a crawl as a means of extortion, and told Netflix that the only "solution" to the problem they are creating that they can think of is to have Netflix pay Comcast to host their servers... for a fee of course.
You act like Netflix hosting their servers at Comcast was somehow:
1) Necessary
2) Their idea
You keep bringing up Comcast. I haven't. I haven't even said who should decide, or if data should be treated equally. I just pointed out that nobody in their right mind really believes that all data is equal, and that is something that most people in the net neutrality debate refuse to admit.
Why? Why shouldn't certain data be prioritized over other data? If you had the ultimate power to choose, would you not give even minor preference to Scientific American over The Superficial?