Advocacy Groups Duped Into Fighting Net Neutrality

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by HardOCP News, Jun 11, 2014.

  1. Jagger100

    Jagger100 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,524
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    I detect a meh attempt at sarcasm.

    Do you think you're the only person posting in this thread? Do you really believe with all the posters in this thread and the type of work that overlaps with people who have interest with these forums, there isn't one person who benefits financially from Comcast, either employed or invested, who isn't disclosing their ulterior motive for saying what they're saying?
     
  2. Jagger100

    Jagger100 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,524
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Actually what is probably going on is that they want to get enough money from their Internet service, they don't care about the loss of TV revenue. The problem is that they're charging customers about as much as they can before those who can, leave for DSL or Satelitte, or rely entirely on their phone plan for internet access. Basically take much of what they're paying now for Internet roll it into their data plan and grit and bear it. Ironically the ones most likely to leave are not the ones streaming video and would keep the TV service.

    So how do they get more money out of their customers? Get the providers to pay who will basically charge it back to the ISP's customers
     
  3. teh_chem

    teh_chem [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,474
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Fast lanes are one thing; but this 'pay to play' scheme that ISPs have created out of their decades-old monopolies is a very different thing. Do I care if an email arrives to me a few milliseconds slower than it could at the expense of better quality video streaming (or vice versa, a video stream buffers reasonably longer in order to prioritize something else coming to me? Not really. But the problem isn't throttling as the end-result, it's something like throttling, and then saying, "oh, do you, as a video podcast content creator, want better streaming service to your subscribers? Well, then you can pay us and we'll free up your traffic to our customers." That's the problem with this, it stifles innovation, excludes the 'little guys' and really only lets the strong ones with money to play. Because of situations like that, and the fact that nearly 70% of US internet customers have access to 2 or fewer ISP choices (30% have access to only 1 ISP), all traffic should be treated equally since there's no competition available for better choices to consumers.
     
  4. Stiletto

    Stiletto [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,430
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    There's been what, a few dozen people? Maybe 30-40? And you're assuming one of those somehow works for or is invested in Comcast? The paranoia is strong with you.
     
  5. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,445
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    All craptastic options which shouldn't be the only alternative. And even for phone data plans, these are also often your home/appartment ISP options too like ATT.

    And if you look at US mobile prices, they too are currently the highest in the entire world.

    Our system is broken, and the apologists and vocal cable company employees and the like spreading misinformation and duping groups sure as heck isn't spreading the word.

    Hopefully more peeps watch shows like these that put it in a simple to understand and humerous way:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU
     
  6. McFry

    McFry [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,715
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    You do realize what the subject of this thread was originally about dont you?
     
  7. Nope, there is no inherent value to society to discriminate data. Why? Because with a good enough infrastructure (something that most of the occidental world has, sans the USA) there is no need to differentiate between bits and pieces to get everything, everywhere.

    We aren't talking about a lung, or heart, or any other organ that REQUIRES preference for somebody to live... we are talking about data, with no physical size, that can travel from your home to mine in less time that what will require to write just a paragraph of this very same post.

    The general problem that I think is at work here is... the lack of outside knowledge. I live in a small island, in a country in such deep shit we are part of the PIGS (European countries that required financial aid for bank bail-outs) and there is only ONE wiring infrastructure in place (on this island). Just one. Yet... I have a plethora of companies that can service me no problems***, NONE OF THEM with any sort of data caps in place. Well, I'm lying: if I lived in the country-side and had no physical access to wiring... then, there are services with caps because they are run through satellite. And still, they are nowhere as expensive (talking about rural areas were you won't have any sort of utility. Well, you might have power if you are lucky... if not, generators will do the trick) as you might think, and they offer a pretty good service (they go up to 20Mbps for less than $100 a month).

    WTF I'm talking about? The USA has undoubtedly the worst ISP service the occidental world has ever seen. I'd still boggles me the fact that in some forums you can still see ancients signals, such as "56K warning". 2 years ago I thought it was a joke and all that, and it was simply a means to say that such page was loaded with images and was heavy but, apparently, dial-up is still present in some areas (please let me know if I'm wrong). So, all in all, there is no need for discrimination of data, because all that wording is just a bad excuse for offering a crappy service everywhere... just look at the caps in your connections. Heck, we don't even have hard-caps in our mobile internet services (sans a few super-cheap companies), we just have slower connections once we have eaten our share... but, on internet home (or business) connections? No caps, no nothing.

    All in all, looking into "tiered" speeds regarding traffic allowances, net neutrality and all the stuff related are, to put it bluntly: shitty excuses. In the land of the competition and capitalism it wonders me how such a shitty monopoly regarding the ISP is even allowed in the first place.

    Just remember that data aren't physical pieces that need to be sorted out in order to maximize the efficiency and cost of transport... sure, if we had an incident and a good part of the servers went down, extreme measures such as this would have to be put in place for our own security... but I don't think the discussion had anything to do with regards of server attacks or other shit we don't want to happen... but normal stuff that should work normal during our daily normal lives :cool:

    ***here, we pay 12€ for the infrastructure, to the owner of the wiring... and around 30€ to whoever company is servicing us. And its super duper expensive here (for 10Mbps) when I had 20Mbps 6 years ago, in the capital, for less money. But, at least, we have no caps nor nothing, and when downloading from reliable sources I get 1.2MB/s every day (uploads sucks, though).
     
  8. Stiletto

    Stiletto [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,430
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    ...meaning what? Only Comcast employees discuss how much they hate Comcast? In a tech forum?

    Kay.
     
  9. Stiletto

    Stiletto [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,430
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    The only people I know of that are still on dial-up are elderly people who either don't give a shit, don't know any better, or just don't want to bother calling America Online to cancel. Better infrastructure wouldn't change anything for them.

    And I guess it's true that I haven't suffered as much as Comcast subscribers. I've had Charter, and they've had no throttling, no caps, no bullshit, fairly stable prices(even if their posted speeds are misleading) and pretty good uptime over the last several years. They even topped the Netflix ISP speed chart. So, maybe I'd feel more irate if I had to put up with Comcast, but then, if I had to deal with Comcast, I'd just get internet another way or simply rely on sources like my phone instead. I did the same thing when I was in college, when there was one local provider(CenturyTel) and they raped students for broadband.

    As to how this situation got this way, of course, it's deceptively simple. Local governments gave grants to ISPs to lay cable or fiber all over the place, which they then have sole control over. Competing ISPs have little to no infrastructure to access. Crony capitalism/corporatism strikes again!
     
  10. m heisty

    m heisty Gawd

    Messages:
    638
    Joined:
    May 14, 2014
    Why are monopolies created in industries that require massive infrastructure investments? Gee I can't imagine why. No one would have done anything if they didn't have reasonable expectations that they would ever make any money. The infrastructure isn't free or even just expensive. It is insanely expensive to put up.

    Comparing the US to South Korea in internet speeds is a joke of an argument, South Korea is the size of Maine and has massive population density, thus the ability to support cutting edge networks is there. Here in the USA we have laws that require that "broadband" be available to everyone every where even if they live 20 miles from their nearest neighbor. Could a ISP run a fiber optic line to them? Sure, but the ISP would be reasonably justified in charging that customer 100k a month for their internet as well. Everything is a cost benefit analysis.

    Data does have to be routed and controlled in its movement just like anything else does. You don't merely hit "GO" and the packet magically appears where it is supposed to go. It is routed through various switches and through different networks and ISPs. It isn't like Comcast has a bunch of wires that go everywhere in the country. Network engineering and network management are very complex disciplines, that are routinely explained as a "road" system. Hell I seriously doubt the people who explain networks this way have any idea how complex the real road system is.
     
  11. Catalan

    Catalan Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    317
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Yep, gonna say this thread is proof of Comcast shilling. These arguments against net neutrality were lame when they were first made 10 years ago, by better debaters who probably weren't payed off.
     
  12. m heisty

    m heisty Gawd

    Messages:
    638
    Joined:
    May 14, 2014
    Net neutrality isn't really even a thing, its just catchy phrase. It is all about doom and gloom, has any of the end of the internet thing that were predicted actually happened?
     
  13. Stiletto

    Stiletto [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,430
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Remember when anyone who argued one side of an issue was immediately called "Communist!" for disagreeing?

    Letters ain't changed much.
     
  14. Spidey329

    Spidey329 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,676
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Just reading some of your past threads. You sure do like to defend cable companies.

    Just saying .. it's sorta why people are claiming you're a shill.
     
  15. Wierdo

    Wierdo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,782
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    How's internet in New York vs South Korea eh? Excuses.

    It's a broken market, simple as that. Look at how AT&T's service speeds go up over 20 fold and drop prices by over half wherever Google Fiber goes, quite telling of potential vs reality.
     
  16. Stiletto

    Stiletto [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,430
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    So now you're a shill if you recognize basic facts about the business of internet service delivery? Apart from his opinions about those facts, what did he state that was incorrect?
     
  17. bacon

    bacon [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,301
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    All electricity is not equal either because you might use yours to do something illegal. Did you know if you electrocuted a cat you could get arrested.

    It should be a dumb pipe. Its a utility calling it anything else is wrong. I would be fine with metered costs so long as they were reasonable rates.
     
  18. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,445
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Which has been explained in a myriad of ways but isn't sinking in. That's certainly the simplest analogy.

    In reality though, it is a dumb pipe, and all the ISP is doing is seeing who it comes to and extorting businesses for money by double-dipping.

    It'd be like if FedEx sold shoes, but you'd prefer to buy your shoes from Amazon online. You've already paid FedEx to deliver shoes to you, but FedEx doesn't like the fact that you're buying from Amazon instead of them in the first place and that they have a local monopoly so you can't get anyone else to deliver shoes from Amazon to you.

    So rather than promptly deliver your shoes from Amazon, they take two weeks to send it to you, and this makes you pissed off at Amazon when its FedEx screwing you over. Amazon bitches to FedEx to stop screwing around and deliver your shoes at the promised speed of everything else to the customer, but FedEx tells Amazon that the only way to get the shoes shipment to the customer in a reasonable time is if they get a cut of the action... so now not only are you already paying FedEx for the shipment but Amazon has to pay FedEx for the same shipment again. That's double-dipping, and now the cost is passed on to the consumer, and the consumer may just say well I can get shoes faster and cheaper from FedEx.

    You'd have to be retarded to think this business model is good for anyone but FedEx (the ISP), and to compare that to malware or child porn or any such nonsense is rediculous and has nothing to do with this.
     
  19. TwistedAegis

    TwistedAegis [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,958
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2009
    Exactly. I'm paying my ISP to deliver me boxes of X size. Whatever is in that box is up to me and shouldn't be the ISPs concern. If they can't handle boxes of X size, they should not sell that product; not try and then force a sender of boxes to pay them as well.
     
  20. Stiletto

    Stiletto [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,430
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    The electricity itself is not illegal. What you did with it was illegal. Data itself can be illegal to possess. Electricity cannot.
     
  21. McFry

    McFry [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,715
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    For starters there is now a monopoly in place and providers are throttling their competitors traffic. Pretty much exactly what we said would happen and it's going to get worse. Where have you been?
     
  22. Who said anything about Korea? USA has a shitty internet infrastructure and services even compared to... Spain. Yes, Spain is more densely populated (like 2.5x more than the USA... so, not that big of a difference), but go compare the internet services and their prices.

    Also, you are wrong about one thing: data caps aren't the norm. Except for the USA. And I have no idea why you say anything about "15 years ago you couldn't send a photo over the internet". Mmmmmmm, I have had dial-up since 20 years ago, and 15 years ago you could get 1Mbps for an affordable price.

    And that in a little island in the Mediterranean sea.

    Seriously, there is no excuse for the shitty ISP price and service the USA gets. None.
     
  23. m heisty

    m heisty Gawd

    Messages:
    638
    Joined:
    May 14, 2014
    Bandwidth is being throttled to Netflix because everyone wants to watch it at the same time. Network wide bandwidth is not the same as bandwidth to a specific backbone connection. The points of connection for Netflix have capacities. The capacity can be upped for a cost. That is how the second market in the internet works. The fact that everyone associates the fact that they pay for internet should mean that everything should work exactly the way they want it to at any time is one of the major problems here. Everything costs money. It's honestly a sad state of affairs in the world when everyone freaks out about having to wait for a couple extra seconds for their movie to buffer when America is unjustifiably droning American citizens. Yes let us all freak out about having to wait ten more seconds to watch an episode of mad men.
     
  24. CRaschNet

    CRaschNet Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    189
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    But Comcast consumers have already paid for that bandwidth. When someone pay's extra for increase speed, they are also paying for the amount of data they are using. That is part of the agreement. The hole point of peering is so your paying customer to provide or get to the content they want. Netflix should be paying for these peer agreements, Level 3 and Comcast should be. The thing is that Comcast created a false level of supply so they can get more money. If all you care is about profit, then go right ahead and allow these monopolies raise the price on you.
     
  25. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,445
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Technically, OVERpaid, since Americans pay more for a given internet speed than virtually anywhere else.

    But, but, Comcast can't afford to offer quality service at reasonable prices... oh wait: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast

    Huge profit margins and around $19 million alone spent on lobbying Washington last year, employing multiple former US Congressmen as lobbyists, and representing the world's seventh largest lobby. Not to mention that is just ONE of the ISPs, and Comcast of course also has multiple executives on the board of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, which spent another near $20 million in the same year, and they are members of many other groups, not to mention the numerous PACS they have created to grease the palms of local officials around the US on a state level. Comcast spent the most money of any organization in support of the Stop Online Piracy and PROTECT IP bills, spending roughly $5 million to lobby for their passage.

    And yet despite the world's highest average internet bills, the US ranks 35th in average internet speed... but glad to know major ISP employees here on the forum are explaining to us that double-dipping charging not only the customer for access to the internet but the internet for access to its customers is required and we aren't paying enough and should stop asking for stuff for free.
     
  26. jon666

    jon666 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    241
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2013
    I don't know how the internet works but if this was how things worked then why did my download speeds dramatically increase after streaming through a vpn? The vpn server was in Seattle so most likely comcast had to deal with the traffic either way. Why would speeds be okay after this? If all the pipes going from comcast to netflix I would assume I would have been shit out of luck no matter what I did.
     
  27. Because greed. And throttle, too.
     
  28. rudy

    rudy [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,589
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    No because you and I all know for damn sure that scientific data is not going to be prioritized. The biggest companies like Netflix, facebook and others who mostly service the brain dead recreational activities are the ones with the money to get priority.

    Everyone outside of possible the military and or core structural services should have to get in line, first in first out period. And pay for bandwidth. Want more bandwidth pay for it. Want lower ping? Put your servers closer to your customers just like everyone has been doing for decades.
     
  29. schoolslave

    schoolslave Gawd

    Messages:
    606
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    So, if infrastructure is really so important/expensive to maintain certain tiers of speeds then why has TWC increased my speed from 30 to 100 in a week (Austin, probably due to Google Fiber)?

    In fact, Comcast did the same thing when I lived in State College, my internet speed went from 50 to 100, and I still payed the same monthly rate. Doesn't this in effect prove that the entire bandwidth, speed, and infrastructure expense "excuse" to charge more is just that, a reason to charge consumers more?