Senate Vote Passes to Save Net Neutrality

aaronspink said:
It was lobbyist BS. Anything that uses the term "edge providers" for internet business is lobbyist BS. Its a term that tries to confuse the difference between ISPs and internet businesses. The entire thing was complete BS that had no actual application to reality.
Click to expand...

So no. You have no rebuttal.
 
Not this thing again. This is nothing but Orwellian doublespeak just like the "Fairness Doctrine" was (or rather, wasn't). If we had this decades ago the internet wouldn't be anything like it is today - just like how wireless tech some 50 years ago was deemed by those in power to be only useful for the military communications and nothing else (I mean, why on earth would any civilian in their right mind want to be able to use wireless communication)? Or the battle between AM and FM radio? A few people in government stepping in to "help" has a long and colorful history of doing the exact opposite.
 
I remember when NN was about censorship too, not 'fast lanes'. But we don't want to go there.
 
fuzzylogik said:
Not this thing again. This is nothing but Orwellian doublespeak just like the "Fairness Doctrine" was (or rather, wasn't). If we had this decades ago the internet wouldn't be anything like it is today - just like how wireless tech some 50 years ago was deemed by those in power to be only useful for the military communications and nothing else (I mean, why on earth would any civilian in their right mind want to be able to use wireless communication)? Or the battle between AM and FM radio? A few people in government stepping in to "help" has a long and colorful history of doing the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

Yet another person pulling fear mongering bullshit and employing the slippery slope fallacy. Here's a hint: There has NEVER been anything stopping the government from screwing around with the internet. Title II is NOT Orwellian. Not even close. Title II is not a perfect option and definitely not a full "solution" but it is a step in the right direction and far better than letting ISPs have full control over everything. The local monopolies need to end but that is a much different battle that would basically take making lobbying illegal and probably replacing damn near every single elected politician.
 
Derangel said:
Yet another person pulling fear mongering bullshit and employing the slippery slope fallacy. Here's a hint: There has NEVER been anything stopping the government from screwing around with the internet. Title II is NOT Orwellian. Not even close. Title II is not a perfect option and definitely not a full "solution" but it is a step in the right direction and far better than letting ISPs have full control over everything. The local monopolies need to end but that is a much different battle that would basically take making lobbying illegal and probably replacing damn near every single elected politician.
Click to expand...

Except the slippery slope fallacy is the very one NN supporters use....With no proof mind you. We do however have prime examples of what Title II does, but most people don't remember Ma Bell. And local monopoly is due to guess what? Government regulation. Government claimed it needed to control and regulate ROWs because if they didn't, a single ISP would buy up all the land and not allow someone else to install lines. Government now only allows one or two ISPs to install lines, which is controlled by local government, doing the exact thing they claimed ISPs would do. Just look at the battle Google has had trying to install cheap fiber and they actually have the legal team and deep pockets to fight to get ROW access, it was so rough and expensive Google actually bought a wireless gigabit tech company to get around last mile installs in ROWs. They were sued and reported by the other ISPs to government for government to regulate their installs as still being installed in the ROW to slow them down if not outright stop them. Regulation can have the BEST intentions, that is seldom, if ever how it works out though.
 
jardows said:
The FCC does not have a broad "anything that has anything to do with communication" powers. They were given powers over specific types of communication. The FCC made a rule that reclassified the Internet as a type of communication they have authority over, something that should have been left to Congress.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, internet was previously classified as title I under FCC authority. also under FCC authority as provided by congress and confirmed by the courts, they can reclassify as title II. FCC ALWAYS has authority. There is ZERO LEGAL QUESTION of that, as confirmed by the courts.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Except the slippery slope fallacy is the very one NN supporters use....With no proof mind you. We do however have prime examples of what Title II does, but most people don't remember Ma Bell. And local monopoly is due to guess what? Government regulation. Government claimed it needed to control and regulate ROWs because if they didn't, a single ISP would buy up all the land and not allow someone else to install lines. Government now only allows one or two ISPs to install lines, which is controlled by local government, doing the exact thing they claimed ISPs would do. Just look at the battle Google has had trying to install cheap fiber and they actually have the legal team and deep pockets to fight to get ROW access, it was so rough and expensive Google actually bought a wireless gigabit tech company to get around last mile installs in ROWs. They were sued and reported by the other ISPs to government for government to regulate their installs as still being installed in the ROW to slow them down if not outright stop them. Regulation can have the BEST intentions, that is seldom, if ever how it works out though.
Click to expand...

More BS. NN have concrete samples of why it is needed and they've already been referenced in this thread. Ma Bell is independent of Title II and in fact Title II was a reaction to Ma Bell. Local monopolies have nothing to due with the FCC or federal government. And you apparently don't understand jack about ROW and the various issues google had with them. Here's a hint, most ROW aren't owned by the local governments at all but are actually rather complicated setups of various agreements between primary and secondary rights holders. If the local government actually owned the ROW in the google case, they could of actually enforced the provisions they passed instead of them being nullified in court.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Except the slippery slope fallacy is the very one NN supporters use....With no proof mind you. We do however have prime examples of what Title II does, but most people don't remember Ma Bell. And local monopoly is due to guess what? Government regulation. Government claimed it needed to control and regulate ROWs because if they didn't, a single ISP would buy up all the land and not allow someone else to install lines. Government now only allows one or two ISPs to install lines, which is controlled by local government, doing the exact thing they claimed ISPs would do. Just look at the battle Google has had trying to install cheap fiber and they actually have the legal team and deep pockets to fight to get ROW access, it was so rough and expensive Google actually bought a wireless gigabit tech company to get around last mile installs in ROWs. They were sued and reported by the other ISPs to government for government to regulate their installs as still being installed in the ROW to slow them down if not outright stop them. Regulation can have the BEST intentions, that is seldom, if ever how it works out though.
Click to expand...

There has been proof posted in this thread multiple times already. ISPs have already proven that they're willing to pull a lot of shit that NN supporters have been saying will happen again. Not everything, of course, I do think people take some of their arguments to an extreme.

Like I said, I don't think Title II is a perfect option. Of course there will be problems and there are other issues that it won't solve. The local monopoly issues is huge, but as long as telecoms have massive superpacs and buy off members of the government there is nothing that can be done. There are a lot of things that are royally fucked due to lobbying.

As it stands, Title II is the only viable (semi-viable?) option there is. Sending all of the ISP violations to court is a lengthy and expensive process. Having it set up so that violations can be dealt with via an investigation from officials and fines levied for violations is a much less costly option than spending millions of dollars on court battles.
 
Mut1ny said:
This is the dumbest thing I've read all week. More traffic happens because the internet and technology is growing. Those streaming services are paying their bills.

ISPs aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing which is IMPROVING THEIR NETWORKS TO HANDLE THE TRAFFIC INCREASE. Derp.
Click to expand...

That is the dumbest thing I have read all week when there are actual studies showing the amount of bandwidth increase specifically because of streaming services...

Source
Source
 
Derangel said:
They take responsibility by paying for the bandwidth that they consume. It is not their fault that ISPs would rather fuck customers raw instead of actually fixing the mess they (and various governments) created. Congestion is solely the fault of ISPs not keeping their networks updated in order to meet the demands of their paying customers. Its not like bandwidth demands shot up over night, ISPs have been ignoring it for many years.
Click to expand...

Except they don't pay for the data they consume, the broadband carrier and the consumer actually pays for that data. That is the whole crux of while Title II is a shit bill. It basically is allowing streaming services to not have to pay anything for clogging up the networks. It puts the entire onus onto the broadband carriers and the consumers. Before Title II, what was actually happening, unlike all the fake sky is falling remarks, was Netflix was paying to put their CDNs at the edge of broadband carriers networks to reduce the load. Netflix wanted to stop having to pay to do that, so they lobbied for changes to the laws. Essentially you have the Services fighting against the broadband carriers and the consumers are getting fucked either way.

If you really want net neutrality you have to redesign the way the entire system works at present. You need to start requiring the larger streaming services set up teaming agreements with the broadband carriers, much like the broadband carriers have between each other.
 
NoOther said:
That is the dumbest thing I have read all week when there are actual studies showing the amount of bandwidth increase specifically because of streaming services...

Source
Source
Click to expand...

Yeah and what fucking caused it?! MORE TECHNOLOGY IN USE!

Jesus Christ...talk about dumb. Good one though trying to turn it around on me only proving my point. Derp.
 
Mut1ny said:
Yeah and what fucking caused it?! MORE TECHNOLOGY IN USE!

Jesus Christ...talk about dumb. Good one though trying to turn it around on me only proving my point. Derp.
Click to expand...

Actually that isn't what caused it. It is funny how you get shown actual literal proof and have to continue with your ignorance.
 
NoOther said:
Actually that isn't what caused it. It is funny how you get shown actual literal proof and have to continue with your ignorance.
Click to expand...

OMFG...what caused the increase of streaming services? Let's start there.
 
Mut1ny said:
OMFG...what caused the increase of streaming services? Let's start there.
Click to expand...

Streaming services did. I am not sure what you are trying to get at here. But when streaming services make up 70% of the bandwidth, almost 40% of that from Netflix alone, they are the main burden on the internet. Yet they do not want to foot any of the bill. Not sure what argument you are trying to make that counters any of those facts.
 
Probably wont pass the house due to the sacks of lobby money involved, one can extrapolate from how much a single lawyer was paid by AT&T ($600k) to lobby on their behalf, or by how much an FCC commissioner's T-Mobile check is:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-fcc-commissioner-to-lobby-for-sprint-merger/

"I'm a Former FCC Commissioner, and I Think the T-Mobile-Sprint Merger Is Great for America."

The author is Robert McDowell, a Republican who served on the Federal Communications Commission from 2006 to 2013. McDowell's position on T-Mobile's $26 billion purchase of Sprint is no surprise because T-Mobile is paying him to help secure government approval of the merger.

"I currently serve as an advisor to T-Mobile," McDowell disclosed in his op-ed.
Click to expand...

Nuff said. It's not even under the table anymore these days and people don't blink - maybe out of cynicism, knowing they can't put their money where their "mouth" is.

Apply this level of "integrity" on the house level and you get the picture.
 
NoOther said:
Streaming services did. I am not sure what you are trying to get at here. But when streaming services make up 70% of the bandwidth, almost 40% of that from Netflix alone, they are the main burden on the internet. Yet they do not want to foot any of the bill. Not sure what argument you are trying to make that counters any of those facts.
Click to expand...

So streaming services increased with no cause? Not more smart TV's, more smartphones, more tablets, MORE TECHNOLOGY?? Also, again, streaming services are paying their bills... The ISP's need to take responsibility and increase their fucking network because it's the fucking future and not 2002. Why are you defending such obvious laziness and cheapness? Could you imagine if roads never got wider and more common as cars became more and more popular? Congestion exists because ISP's aren't holding up their end of the bargain. Derp.
 
NoOther said:
Streaming services did. I am not sure what you are trying to get at here. But when streaming services make up 70% of the bandwidth, almost 40% of that from Netflix alone, they are the main burden on the internet. Yet they do not want to foot any of the bill. Not sure what argument you are trying to make that counters any of those facts.
Click to expand...

That is akin to saying you drive more on public highways so you should pay higher taxes.
 
Derangel said:
Yet another person pulling fear mongering bullshit and employing the slippery slope fallacy. Here's a hint: There has NEVER been anything stopping the government from screwing around with the internet. Title II is NOT Orwellian. Not even close. Title II is not a perfect option and definitely not a full "solution" but it is a step in the right direction and far better than letting ISPs have full control over everything. The local monopolies need to end but that is a much different battle that would basically take making lobbying illegal and probably replacing damn near every single elected politician.
Click to expand...

The only group that generally appears to be doing fearmongering is the group proclaiming that without it is the "end of the internet as we know it" ...and as I believe was previously mentioned, that same group is using "slippery slope" arguments for possible future events while themselves ignoring history.

But then again, who cares that it was AM radio petitioning the FEC for years and the FEC being the reason why FM radio took so long to take hold (directly to the benefit of AM radio). Who cares that the FCC thought wireless communication was only for the military and law enforcement back in the 40ies and they decided that nobody else needs it (Or that some 40 years later it was Ma Bell that commissioned a study that was accepted by the government which further delayed wireless technology for the masses...just because they thought there would be less than a million subscribers by the year 2000 and thus not worth it?... directly to Ma Bells own benefit?). And again, who cares about the "Fairness Doctrine" (which was added to the amended 1954 version of the Communications Act of 1934 (which also created the FCC) which is the same act that they want to put "Net Neutrality" on) - which was intended to protect free speech but ended up stifling it. And never mind that late night comics made this a routine joke some 40 years ago...and that the "Fairness Doctrine" itself was struck down as being unconstitutional.

Besides looking at all the instances in history where government either was paid to, or bungled badly, innovation for decades in the private sector (and specifically this area) - just take a look at the "Net Neutrality" regulation itself: you'll see mentioned some 45 times a group called "Free Press" - co-founded by a fellow named Robert McChesney, who happens to be quite open about what he believes "Net Neutrality" actually means (or heck, just look at who funds the "Free Press."). These are folks who were part of the process of creating this regulation. "Net Neutrality" was and is supposed to be the new version of the "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet - It has nothing to do with being neutral - it's all about about control, power and money.

Heck, it appears that if this regulation was in place in the mid 2000's the iPhone would have never been created. Remember that iPhones were exclusive to one company back then? Apple would not have been able to make the deal under "Net Neutrality" as it was inherently "unfair" to the other telecom companies would would be not be able to support that phone (Even though all those other companies wouldn't agree to Apples terms). Net Neutrality would end up stifling innovation.

And I never said that "Title II" is Orwellian, I said that "Net Neutrality" is Orwellian - specifically "doublespeak" (the ACA fits that perfectly as well - that worked out exactly as intended, right?). I'd be fine with a title that actually described what it was doing rather than using subterfuge. I also never said that Government can't screw things up - in fact, I believe I said that they do. I'd rather we battle it out with imperfect ISPs in what little market we have over trying to do the same with governmental imposed regulations/laws that somehow do the exact opposite of what they say.

There are problems - and thankfully they're getting worked out over time... all without "Net Neutrality." This is more than just bad regulation in search of a problem. What we need are actual solutions to actual problems... and this isn't it.
 
Mut1ny said:
So streaming services increased with no cause? Not more smart TV's, more smartphones, more tablets, MORE TECHNOLOGY?? Also, again, streaming services are paying their bills... The ISP's need to take responsibility and increase their fucking network because it's the fucking future and not 2002. Why are you defending such obvious laziness and cheapness? Could you imagine if roads never got wider and more common as cars became more and more popular? Congestion exists because ISP's aren't holding up their end of the bargain. Derp.
Click to expand...

I am not defending the broadband companies, I am giving actual real world experience for the history of actual network usage and the causes for detrimental performances on networks. Streaming is a huge burden on the network that takes away from ALL the other services on the network. It is dis-proportionally used. Basically the only reason to upgrade, is to cover streaming. So why should a company that causes 40% of the traffic not be responsible at all for helping increase the networks it resides on? Why are broadband companies responsible to cover the usage of that singular application? Why are consumers responsible for covering that single usage, especially if those consumers are not using it?
 
kju1 said:
That is akin to saying you drive more on public highways so you should pay higher taxes.
Click to expand...

No, actually it is not at all the same, and isn't even close to what I am saying.
 
fuzzylogik said:
The only group that generally appears to be doing fearmongering is the group proclaiming that without it is the "end of the internet as we know it" ...and as I believe was previously mentioned, that same group is using "slippery slope" arguments for possible future events while themselves ignoring history.

But then again, who cares that it was AM radio petitioning the FEC for years and the FEC being the reason why FM radio took so long to take hold (directly to the benefit of AM radio). Who cares that the FCC thought wireless communication was only for the military and law enforcement back in the 40ies and they decided that nobody else needs it (Or that some 40 years later it was Ma Bell that commissioned a study that was accepted by the government which further delayed wireless technology for the masses...just because they thought there would be less than a million subscribers by the year 2000 and thus not worth it?... directly to Ma Bells own benefit?). And again, who cares about the "Fairness Doctrine" (which was added to the amended 1954 version of the Communications Act of 1934 (which also created the FCC) which is the same act that they want to put "Net Neutrality" on) - which was intended to protect free speech but ended up stifling it. And never mind that late night comics made this a routine joke some 40 years ago...and that the "Fairness Doctrine" itself was struck down as being unconstitutional.

Besides looking at all the instances in history where government either was paid to, or bungled badly, innovation for decades in the private sector (and specifically this area) - just take a look at the "Net Neutrality" regulation itself: you'll see mentioned some 45 times a group called "Free Press" - co-founded by a fellow named Robert McChesney, who happens to be quite open about what he believes "Net Neutrality" actually means (or heck, just look at who funds the "Free Press."). These are folks who were part of the process of creating this regulation. "Net Neutrality" was and is supposed to be the new version of the "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet - It has nothing to do with being neutral - it's all about about control, power and money.

Heck, it appears that if this regulation was in place in the mid 2000's the iPhone would have never been created. Remember that iPhones were exclusive to one company back then? Apple would not have been able to make the deal under "Net Neutrality" as it was inherently "unfair" to the other telecom companies would would be not be able to support that phone (Even though all those other companies wouldn't agree to Apples terms). Net Neutrality would end up stifling innovation.

And I never said that "Title II" is Orwellian, I said that "Net Neutrality" is Orwellian - specifically "doublespeak" (the ACA fits that perfectly as well - that worked out exactly as intended, right?). I'd be fine with a title that actually described what it was doing rather than using subterfuge. I also never said that Government can't screw things up - in fact, I believe I said that they do. I'd rather we battle it out with imperfect ISPs in what little market we have over trying to do the same with governmental imposed regulations/laws that somehow do the exact opposite of what they say.

There are problems - and thankfully they're getting worked out over time... all without "Net Neutrality." This is more than just bad regulation in search of a problem. What we need are actual solutions to actual problems... and this isn't it.
Click to expand...
But all the arguments you make favor the view that repealing NN is the wrong path, since this is the path desired by huge corporations.. they are not, ' imperfect' isp, nor are they weak or small... Ma bell and Am radio back then was probably the size of a months profit of these corporations. Well exaggerating for effect.
 
NoOther said:
I am not defending the broadband companies, I am giving actual real world experience for the history of actual network usage and the causes for detrimental performances on networks. Streaming is a huge burden on the network that takes away from ALL the other services on the network. It is dis-proportionally used. Basically the only reason to upgrade, is to cover streaming. So why should a company that causes 40% of the traffic not be responsible at all for helping increase the networks it resides on? Why are broadband companies responsible to cover the usage of that singular application? Why are consumers responsible for covering that single usage, especially if those consumers are not using it?
Click to expand...
...aaaaannnnddddd who gives a shit... Netflix pays, i pay, isp do not need more power or control over data.
 
The same companies that support net neutrality are the same companies you all hate because they mine your data (spy on you) so they can push you ads.

The real issue is separating data and the delivery system. We can't do that though because the government made deals with one provider in many areas. BOTH democrat and republican areas.

I have owned two houses serviced by both AT&T and Comcast. Both offer great service... gee I wonder why.

Another thought... maybe stop watching constant shit on TV and get out more then NN wouldn't matter. BUT MUH NETFLX.... needs to be cheap halp government.

Net Neutrality does NOTHING to fix the problems.
 
Uvaman2 said:
...aaaaannnnddddd who gives a shit... Netflix pays, i pay, isp do not need more power or control over data.
Click to expand...

Actually Netflix does not pay, that is the crux of the Title II, which again, is why it is shitty. ISPs actually don't have much power or control over data and if anything Title II only gives ISPs more power. I think you mean broadband companies.
 
NoOther said:
No, actually it is not at all the same, and isn't even close to what I am saying.
Click to expand...

Neflix uses more bandwidth and should pay more.
You drive more you pay more.

The real problem here is that ISPs are fucking liars that sell "Unlimited" connections and then cap them. I am fine with buying a connection that goes X speed up until a certain point for $Y and after that I have to pay $Z per GB/MB etc. But you better be up front and honest about wtf it is your selling me.
 
NoOther said:
Actually Netflix does not pay, that is the crux of the Title II, which again, is why it is shitty. ISPs actually don't have much power or control over data and if anything Title II only gives ISPs more power. I think you mean broadband companies.
Click to expand...

So is Netflix pushing data at consumers without consent, or are consumers using the bandwidth they pay for?
 
Sorry but we saw how the last administration weaponized the IRS and the FBI to punish it's political opponents. I support removing the ability of corrupt federal politicians to use NN to do the same thing. The strength of the internet is it's de-centralization. NN is about centralizing control.

This new bill will never get out of the House. It will never reach the presidents desk. Eliminating NN returns power to control Internet Providers to State and local governements. NN is a slippery slope towards Federal censorship of the internet.
 
kju1 said:
Neflix uses more bandwidth and should pay more.
You drive more you pay more.

The real problem here is that ISPs are fucking liars that sell "Unlimited" connections and then cap them. I am fine with buying a connection that goes X speed up until a certain point for $Y and after that I have to pay $Z per GB/MB etc. But you better be up front and honest about wtf it is your selling me.
Click to expand...

So what about the other users on that network, that do not use Netflix? Yet Netflix is drawing a lot of traffic to that part of the network? Those users should now pay more because extra traffic is being drawn to their network? Remember that traffic can span one network to another. So you might have a large increase in an area where Netflix has a server on a Comcast network, and yet most of the customers are actually coming from AT&T. So since Comcast's network is getting jammed by these requests, the Comcast customers should pay more, even though they aren't the ones using most of the data?

File said:
So is Netflix pushing data at consumers without consent, or are consumers using the bandwidth they pay for?
Click to expand...

See the scenario listed above.
 
tetris42 said:
The President does not have to sign it and it doesn't need a 2/3 majority. If he just lets it sit there for 10 days, it will pass regardless. He has to actually veto it for it to need a 2/3 majority from congress.
Click to expand...

Obviously you failed Civics class. The President HAS to sign it or veto it. A president can only not sign when the legislative session is coming to a close, then it'll be a pocket veto.
 
The Cobra said:
Obviously you failed Civics class. The President HAS to sign it or veto it. A president can only not sign when the legislative session is coming to a close, then it'll be a pocket veto.
Click to expand...

I actually think you failed civics class. tetris42 is correct. If the President fails to sign the legislation within 10 days, it automatically passes. The President doesn't have to do anything.

Also, just to be clear, text from the Constitution (Article 1, Section 7):

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
Click to expand...
 
NoOther said:
So what about the other users on that network, that do not use Netflix? Yet Netflix is drawing a lot of traffic to that part of the network? Those users should now pay more because extra traffic is being drawn to their network? Remember that traffic can span one network to another. So you might have a large increase in an area where Netflix has a server on a Comcast network, and yet most of the customers are actually coming from AT&T. So since Comcast's network is getting jammed by these requests, the Comcast customers should pay more, even though they aren't the ones using most of the data?



See the scenario listed above.
Click to expand...

You clearly don't understand how peering agreements work and possibly even networks. Quite possibly because ISPs have lied to you your entire life.

How is this Netflix, or any other content providers fault? Consumers are the ones consuming the data and generating the traffic. Netflix likely has paid for several very large pipes with guaranteed service rates - a totally different class from what you or I pay for.

Lets put it a way that might be a little more germane to the situation at hand: Do you think Amazon should have to pay extra to allow its packages to be shipped via roads because they ship so much more than everyone else? Because in areas with amazon distribution points we have a lot of extra traffic due to amazon trucks.
 
kju1 said:
You clearly don't understand how peering agreements work and possibly even networks. Quite possibly because ISPs have lied to you your entire life.

How is this Netflix, or any other content providers fault? Consumers are the ones consuming the data and generating the traffic. Netflix likely has paid for several very large pipes with guaranteed service rates - a totally different class from what you or I pay for.

Lets put it a way that might be a little more germane to the situation at hand: Do you think Amazon should have to pay extra to allow its packages to be shipped via roads because they ship so much more than everyone else? Because in areas with amazon distribution points we have a lot of extra traffic due to amazon trucks.
Click to expand...

You are right, I clearly don't understand even though I have had to deal with them in the past... I totally have not had to work on the backbone of the internet for many years, nor have any knowledge whatsoever on how Tier 1 providers work... You clearly have shown a great knowledge of the subject by not understanding any of the secondary and tertiary effects of broadband use and traffic...

Please :rolleyes:

I have already described exactly what Netflix has paid for in the past, and what they do not need to pay for under Title II.

And your analogy for Amazon is laughable. Show the statistic where Amazon trucks are taking up 40% of the traffic...I will wait.... Plus Amazon does pay fees for special shipping services. Amazon also invested in using their own delivery services as well. In addition Amazon pays corporate taxes, these taxes go to the infrastructure provided.
 
NoOther said:
You are right, I clearly don't understand even though I have had to deal with them in the past... I totally have not had to work on the backbone of the internet for many years, nor have any knowledge whatsoever on how Tier 1 providers work... You clearly have shown a great knowledge of the subject by not understanding any of the secondary and tertiary effects of broadband use and traffic...

Please :rolleyes:

I have already described exactly what Netflix has paid for in the past, and what they do not need to pay for under Title II.

And your analogy for Amazon is laughable. Show the statistic where Amazon trucks are taking up 40% of the traffic...I will wait....
Click to expand...

Well I am glad you finally admitted it. Thats the first step towards recovery...
 
kju1 said:
Well I am glad you finally admitted it. Thats the first step towards recovery...
Click to expand...

Great response when you continue to have nothing valuable to say or provide except conjecture.
 
NoOther said:
So what about the other users on that network, that do not use Netflix? Yet Netflix is drawing a lot of traffic to that part of the network? Those users should now pay more because extra traffic is being drawn to their network? Remember that traffic can span one network to another. So you might have a large increase in an area where Netflix has a server on a Comcast network, and yet most of the customers are actually coming from AT&T. So since Comcast's network is getting jammed by these requests, the Comcast customers should pay more, even though they aren't the ones using most of the data?



See the scenario listed above.
Click to expand...

Perhaps ATT and Comcast should have used the billions of dollars they get from their internet customers to actually upgrade their networks. You act like streaming went from 0 to 70% overnight. It took years before streaming got to the point it is now. ISPs have had time to get their shit in gear and ensure that their paying customers are provided with an optimal experience for the service they pay for. Instead they pocket the money and allowed the mess to get worse and worse. Then they have the balls to act like they're not at fault and are totally innocent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kju1
like this
Derangel said:
Perhaps ATT and Comcast should have used the billions of dollars they get from their internet customers to actually upgrade their networks.
Click to expand...

They did. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, CenturyLink all provide gigabit internet in various areas where they can build the infrastructure.

And just a note, Comcast isn't a Tier 1 provider, but they do operate a bit like one.
 
NoOther said:
They did.
Click to expand...

Not to the point where it needs to be. If there are still congestion issues (and ISPs claim there are) then the networks are not up to the demands of customers and the ISPs continue to fail to provide the service they promise.
 
NoOther said:
You were the one that started with the snarky, and I continue to provide facts and examples and you continue to provide....vapor.
Click to expand...


Nope all you can provide is traffic stats. That still doesnt make Netflix or any content provider responsible for the traffic because consumers request data. Do you tax Disney because all the roads into Disney are clogged with people getting into there? No you build a toll road and tax the people using the road...

Somehow you think its different for Netflix et al.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top