D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
You PAID for your share. Google and NetFlix should PAY for their share, which they didnt because of prior abuse and NN.

Thus you, the consumer, pay the entire cost of internet connectivity. If Google and NetFlix paid their share, then internet wouldnt be as expensive for you the consumer (and tax payer).

Why are you protecting Google and NetFlix? Because they have made threats to pass the costs onto the consumers? Isnt that extortion? From massively profitable companies playing victims...


That Face When: Google and NetFlix extort the general public by telling them that they will charge them more if ISPs charge them for their 'fair share' of usage, and the general public responds by saying "That sounds fair. We as consumers and tax payers should pay the entire cost of internet connectivity ourselves, so that we dont have to pay more". o_O

It shouldn't matter. Who do you think Netflix is going to pass that cost too for more bandwidth? DUH.

This is just a means to direct & control service markets to ones ISP's prefer. And its bullshit. If it means my rates go up, then I'm okay with that. This is just a shit way for Comcast and ISP's to hide how they are padding their bottom line.

But again, I paid for that bandwidth. Don't come to me with that weaksauce that the ISPs are trying to save me money by passing the cost off to a service I use.
 

jamesgalb

Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
565
So you think you should pay extra to use a service that you pay for that uses a service that you pay for?

Wow
You already pay more for your ISP because NetFlix and Google dont pay their fair share.

But you want to continue paying NetFlix/Google's half, because NetFlix/Google have extorted you by threatening to raise your rates if they have to pay their fair share...?

Multi-Billion dollar profit companies play victim while threatening to charge you more if you stop paying for their half, and you are okay with this.... WTF?
 

jamesgalb

Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
565
It shouldn't matter. Who do you think Netflix is going to pass that cost too for more bandwidth? DUH. This is just a means to direct markets to services they prefer. And its bullshit. If it means my rates go up, then I'm okay with that. This is just a shit way for Comcast and ISP's to hide how they are padding their bottom line.
So you are perfectly fine with paying the ISPs for Google/NetFlix's share of usage now? Werent you just upset about the possibility of paying more when you were not aware that you were already paying it? But now you are okay with it, because it hurts/helps the 'sides' you want? wtf.

NN was NetFlix and Google's way of padding their bottom line. And for some odd reason, your concern for 'proper ethics' does not apply to them...

NetFlix telling you they will charge you more when they have to pay their fair share is literally extortion. I guess you are cool with extortion coming from a multi-billion dollar profit company that is playing victim while offloading its costs onto you already?
 

TAP

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
236
Those laws I referenced have been taking on "behemoths" for a long time. The argument that they wouldnt be able to take on Verizon or ATT, when they have in the past, is asinine.

Electricity is not a two way street, so your analogy is failed. When you send a file to me, you are not exempt from uploading fees simply because I paid for download fees.... Google's and NetFlix's are not paying their fair share, and as a result the consumers and tax payers have been paying for both sides of the service for years. You would rather Google and NetFlix not pay for their share, because they are extorting you by telling you they will charge you for something that you are already paying for on the other end...

Give me 1 example that shows precedence that these laws have in the past prevented these types of abuses. Gl with that.

And show me the proof that Netflix and google are not paying their fair share. Where are the ISP financial statements showing HUUGEST losses because of Netflix and Google. If anything Netflix and google are helping drive the ISP business by offering more content and adding even more value to their services. All you've said is blah blah google and netflix are bad but ATT and Verizon are good. Sounds more like a political stance to me rather than a free market stance that I am taking.
 

MMitch

Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
807
Those laws I referenced have been taking on "behemoths" for a long time. The argument that they wouldnt be able to take on Verizon or ATT, when they have in the past, is asinine.

Electricity is not a two way street, so your analogy is failed. When you send a file to me, you are not exempt from uploading fees simply because I paid for download fees.... Google's and NetFlix's are not paying their fair share, and as a result the consumers and tax payers have been paying for both sides of the service for years. You would rather Google and NetFlix not pay for their share, because they are extorting you by telling you they will charge you for something that you are already paying for on the other end...

Please, explain me how does Netflix/Google connect to the internet ? Pretty sure they have an ISP which provide them X GB/S and probably have multiple locations.
Now, they also have to pay a large amount to get those access so why in hell should they pay an upload fee ?

I pay for my internet
They pay for theirs
Our ISP are linked together thru probably internal deals or whatever.

Now if you tell me Google/Netflix pays 0$/year for internet and server... well I guess they should pay something but if they, like most think, pay for their usage... WTH are you talking about again ?
Yes Netflix,etc traffic is massive but again, I pay for 220Mb/s unlimited and they pay probably for way faster in upload unlimited.

Please I really need to understand your reasoning, it doesn't make much sense lol.
If I somewhat understand what you say, I should pay a fee if I send an email to a friend which use a different ISP provider because I do not pay for my use of the other ISP ? We should send checks to all WW ISP ?
 

jamesgalb

Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
565
Give me 1 example that shows precedence that these laws have in the past prevented these types of abuses. Gl with that.

And show me the proof that Netflix and google are not paying their fair share. Where are the ISP financial statements showing HUUGEST losses because of Netflix and Google. If anything Netflix and google are helping drive the ISP business by offering more content and adding even more value to their services. All you've said is blah blah google and netflix are bad but ATT and Verizon are good. Sounds more like a political stance to me rather than a free market stance that I am taking.

Only one example? Good, atleast I dont have to waste much time appeasing your inability to do your own research: https://www.cultofmac.com/197209/iphone-users-sue-apple-for-locking-their-devices-to-att/

You are literally asking for further regulation while claiming to be more free market.... Im going to have to assume that there is no reasoning with you.
 
Last edited:

jamesgalb

Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
565
Please, explain me how does Netflix/Google connect to the internet ? Pretty sure they have an ISP which provide them X GB/S and probably have multiple locations.
Now, they also have to pay a large amount to get those access so why in hell should they pay an upload fee ?

I pay for my internet
They pay for theirs
Our ISP are linked together thru probably internal deals or whatever.

Now if you tell me Google/Netflix pays 0$/year for internet and server... well I guess they should pay something but if they, like most think, pay for their usage... WTH are you talking about again ?
Yes Netflix,etc traffic is massive but again, I pay for 220Mb/s unlimited and they pay probably for way faster in upload unlimited.

Please I really need to understand your reasoning, it doesn't make much sense lol.
If I somewhat understand what you say, I should pay a fee if I send an email to a friend which use a different ISP provider because I do not pay for my use of the other ISP ? We should send checks to all WW ISP ?

Send me a file. I pay to download, you pay to upload. It is not free for either of us just because the other one pays for their service. That is fair, as the internet is a two way street... Google and NetFlix are not exempt from that simply because they extorted you with price hike threats.

They used a number of abuses to keep from paying their fair share, including CDNs and peering and other issues, and tried to use NN as a way to make their current abuses of the system as legal standard....

The costs of content provider abuses have long sense been passed on to the consumers through ISP rates increasing year over year.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,580
You, as the consumer, were already paying for the services that the large mammoth corporations were using and not paying for.

Where do you think the cost of those service was falling? Do you think the ISPs were just eating the losses for years? Why do you think your individual internet and connectivity service have become vastly more expensive over the last decade? The ENTIRETY of the service costs fall on the consumers, because the content providers using the service have weaseled out of it for years.

The naivety of some people blows my mind...


This is a backwards way of thinking about it.

Why should the service providers (like Netflix) pay anything at all for this? The request is coming from my computer, for data to be sent to me. I am paying for an internet connection. This includes the ENTIRE internet, no matter where I request data from, out to the peering sites of my ISP's network. Once I have paid the ISP, it is their responsibility to provide this access. They are responsible for updating their edge routers in their peering sites and make sure I can get what I have paid for. They should not be charging anyone else for this. They owe it to me based on what I have paid.

And no, the ISP's were never losing money. They are just trying to over-inflate returns to their shareholders, and keep their Cable TV services alive amid falling demand. If they can't stay afloat at the obscene prices they charge they don't deserve to be in business.

When community internet providers operated by cities and towns can offer the same services at half the price, you know something is wrong. Sure, the big guys have shareholders and have to offer returns, but they also have economies of scale on their side by virtue of being large, and - in general - better efficiencies due to not being run by city governments. The community internet providers certainly don't resort to paid peering schemes to make up the difference. In fact, they are more often than not paying to access someone else's network. A large ISP won't have this cost.

Long story short, large ISP's have lower costs than community operators, and should be able to offer lower prices, without paid peering schemes. In a healthy competitive market, where shareholders take a ~15% gross profit, pricing should be a fraction of what it is today.

Consumers are being ripped off we are paying for a combination of unjustified returns for investors due to monopolies and keeping outdated TV based entertainment we don't want alive.

When I pay my ISP for access to the internet, they owe me access to the ENTIRE internet without any tiering, shaping or throttling and without any paid peering from the businesses I use the connection I pay for to access. This should be common sense.
 

jamesgalb

Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
565
This is a backwards way of thinking about it.

Why should the service providers (like Netflix) pay anything at all for this? The request is coming from my computer, for data to be sent to me. I am paying for an internet connection. This includes the ENTIRE internet, no matter where I request data from, out to the peering sites of my ISP's network. Once I have paid the ISP, it is their responsibility to provide this access. They are responsible for updating their edge routers in their peering sites and make sure I can get what I have paid for. They should not be charging anyone else for this. They owe it to me based on what I have paid.

And no, the ISP's were never losing money. They are just trying to over-inflate returns to their shareholders, and keep their Cable TV services alive amid falling demand. If they can't stay afloat at the obscene prices they charge they don't deserve to be in business.

When community internet providers operated by cities and towns can offer the same services at half the price, you know something is wrong. Sure, the big guys have shareholders and have to offer returns, but they also have economies of scale on their side by virtue of being large, and - in general - better efficiencies due to not being run by city governments. The community internet providers certainly don't resort to paid peering schemes to make up the difference. In fact, they are more often than not paying to access someone else's network. A large ISP won't have this cost.

Long story short, large ISP's have lower costs than community operators, and should be able to offer lower prices, without paid peering schemes. In a healthy competitive market, where shareholders take a ~15% gross profit, pricing should be a fraction of what it is today.

Consumers are being ripped off we are paying for a combination of unjustified returns for investors due to monopolies and keeping outdated TV based entertainment we don't want alive.

When I pay my ISP for access to the internet, they owe me access to the ENTIRE internet without any tiering, shaping or throttling and without any paid peering from the businesses I use the connection I pay for to access. This should be common sense.

You have the backwards thinking on this.

Send me a file. I pay to download, you pay to upload. It is not free for either of us just because the other one pays for their service. That is fair, as the internet is a two way street... Google and NetFlix are not exempt from that simply because they extorted you with price hike threats.

You claim that ISPs are ripping people off with their ~15% gross profits and should be able to lower costs.... Yet you say nothing about the Googles and NetFlixes making 50%+ gross profits and passing their own expenses onto us by not paying themselves... So dont take an ethics-based approach to this, as again you would be backwards on that.

Want monopolies to end? NN was going to make them worse... and removing NN will allow new competitors to be more competitive by charging lower rates than the current rates that include Google/NetFlix's usage half (yay unregulated free market!).... Easier entry barriers.
 

MMitch

Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
807
You have the backwards thinking on this.

Send me a file. I pay to download, you pay to upload. It is not free for either of us just because the other one pays for their service. That is fair, as the internet is a two way street... Google and NetFlix are not exempt from that simply because they extorted you with price hike threats.

You claim that ISPs are ripping people off with their ~15% gross profits and should be able to lower costs.... Yet you say nothing about the Googles and NetFlixes making 50%+ gross profits and passing their own expenses onto us by not paying themselves... So dont take an ethics-based approach to this, as again you would be backwards on that.

Want monopolies to end? NN was going to make them worse... and removing NN will allow new competitors to be more competitive by charging lower rates than the current rates that include Google/NetFlix's usage half (yay unregulated free market!).... Easier entry barriers.

Still, nowhere you say why you think Google/Netflix isn't paying for the internet ? Any link / article to that which clearly says they pay 0$ for blazing internet..... I would like to sign a deal with their provider euh.
Please, keep all the margin and whatever evil you think they do/did and show me proof they do not pay for their internet and then we'll talk.
 

TAP

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
236
  • Like
Reactions: Fleat
like this

Nobu

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
8,546
You have the backwards thinking on this.

Send me a file. I pay to download, you pay to upload. It is not free for either of us just because the other one pays for their service. That is fair, as the internet is a two way street... Google and NetFlix are not exempt from that simply because they extorted you with price hike threats.

You claim that ISPs are ripping people off with their ~15% gross profits and should be able to lower costs.... Yet you say nothing about the Googles and NetFlixes making 50%+ gross profits and passing their own expenses onto us by not paying themselves... So dont take an ethics-based approach to this, as again you would be backwards on that.

Want monopolies to end? NN was going to make them worse... and removing NN will allow new competitors to be more competitive by charging lower rates than the current rates that include Google/NetFlix's usage half (yay unregulated free market!).... Easier entry barriers.
The reason this is true, is because the ISP I pay maintains and upgrades the end-user portion of the network, and the ISP netflix etc. pay maintain the backbone network. They are two separate networks that are connected via gateways and routers.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,580
You have the backwards thinking on this.

Send me a file. I pay to download, you pay to upload. It is not free for either of us just because the other one pays for their service. That is fair, as the internet is a two way street... Google and NetFlix are not exempt from that simply because they extorted you with price hike threats.

You claim that ISPs are ripping people off with their ~15% gross profits and should be able to lower costs.... Yet you say nothing about the Googles and NetFlixes making 50%+ gross profits and passing their own expenses onto us by not paying themselves... So dont take an ethics-based approach to this, as again you would be backwards on that.

Want monopolies to end? NN was going to make them worse... and removing NN will allow new competitors to be more competitive by charging lower rates than the current rates that include Google/NetFlix's usage half (yay unregulated free market!).... Easier entry barriers.

This is just plain wrong.

In the Netflix example, Netflix WAS paying for their bandwidth. They were paying Cogent. Comcast and Verizon intentionally neglected their peering sites with cogent so they could charge Netflix protection money. They have perverse incentives here. They'd much rather Netflix die in a fire so they can continue to sell their customers 20th century TV service.

Tier 1 networks have no business charging each-other transit fees. Some regulatory measure must be devised to force them to keep up at peering sites and do so without charging any fees from anyone. When I pay Verizon as my ISP I am not paying Verizon for access to their network. I couldn't give a rats ass about Verizon's network. I access very little on their network. I am paying them so that I can both send and receive data across their edge routers and their peering sites from other networks.

Yes, somewhere on the other end the servers I am accessing are paying their Tier 1's for access as well. Charging them again at peering sites is not just double dipping, it is outright extortion, and ought to be illegal.

Furthermore every packet I send out should be completely unmolested by my ISP or any peer network. It shouldn't be shaped, tiered, throttled, tagged, or modified in any way, Likewise with the return traffic.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,580
You have the backwards thinking on this.

Send me a file. I pay to download, you pay to upload. It is not free for either of us just because the other one pays for their service. That is fair, as the internet is a two way street... Google and NetFlix are not exempt from that simply because they extorted you with price hike threats.

You claim that ISPs are ripping people off with their ~15% gross profits and should be able to lower costs.... Yet you say nothing about the Googles and NetFlixes making 50%+ gross profits and passing their own expenses onto us by not paying themselves... So dont take an ethics-based approach to this, as again you would be backwards on that.

Want monopolies to end? NN was going to make them worse... and removing NN will allow new competitors to be more competitive by charging lower rates than the current rates that include Google/NetFlix's usage half (yay unregulated free market!).... Easier entry barriers.


Let's use a phone example.

I pay my phone company for phone service.

Someone who wants to call me pays their phone company for phone service.

Now my phone company wants to turn around and charge the person trying to call me for using their network?

That is absolutely nonsense. These services have already been paid for.
 

MMitch

Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
807
Let's use a phone example.

I pay my phone company for phone service.

Someone who wants to call me pays their phone company for phone service.

Now my phone company wants to turn around and charge the person trying to call me for using their network?

That is absolutely nonsense. These services have already been paid for.

At this point I think he has shares in one of those ISP ... can't believe what jamesgalb is writing. He has to have some incentive to spur such non-sense.
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
You have the backwards thinking on this.

Send me a file. I pay to download, you pay to upload. It is not free for either of us just because the other one pays for their service. That is fair, as the internet is a two way street... Google and NetFlix are not exempt from that simply because they extorted you with price hike threats.

You claim that ISPs are ripping people off with their ~15% gross profits and should be able to lower costs.... Yet you say nothing about the Googles and NetFlixes making 50%+ gross profits and passing their own expenses onto us by not paying themselves... So dont take an ethics-based approach to this, as again you would be backwards on that.

Want monopolies to end? NN was going to make them worse... and removing NN will allow new competitors to be more competitive by charging lower rates than the current rates that include Google/NetFlix's usage half (yay unregulated free market!).... Easier entry barriers.

The rules say we have to play nice. So I won't say it. But you're unreasonable and your arguments circular and not counter to our points. You won't change the majority of people who disagree with you.
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
At this point I think he has shares in one of those ISP ... can't believe what jamesgalb is writing. He has to have some incentive to spur such non-sense.

Well you could go to his profile and look at his other post. That should tell you where he sits and if he's serious or not, or a professional paid troll. (influencer)
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
So you are perfectly fine with paying the ISPs for Google/NetFlix's share of usage now? Werent you just upset about the possibility of paying more when you were not aware that you were already paying it? But now you are okay with it, because it hurts/helps the 'sides' you want? wtf.

NN was NetFlix and Google's way of padding their bottom line. And for some odd reason, your concern for 'proper ethics' does not apply to them...

NetFlix telling you they will charge you more when they have to pay their fair share is literally extortion. I guess you are cool with extortion coming from a multi-billion dollar profit company that is playing victim while offloading its costs onto you already?

BTW: It makes perfect sense. Customers are only willing to pay XYZ before they start raising SHIT about pricing. ISP's already know they are on shaky ground here. Look at what happened to cable TV. They got greedy and now there are alternatives it has cost them their bottom line. So they offload the cost to providers like Netflix.

Netflix also faces a similar problem. The market will only absorb so many price increases before it starts cutting into Netflix's bottom line and then it's Netflix's problem not Verizon's who can blackmail them till they collapse. Meanwhile Verizon can introduce their own content service for the same cost and inferior selection but at full speed fattening their bottom line.

See the f'ing problem now.? Man some people are so f'ing short sited.

But putting the cost back on us it acts as a natural valve to control cost. But it maintains our freedom of choice.
 

jamesgalb

Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
565
This is just plain wrong.

In the Netflix example, Netflix WAS paying for their bandwidth. They were paying Cogent. Comcast and Verizon intentionally neglected their peering sites with cogent so they could charge Netflix protection money. They have perverse incentives here. They'd much rather Netflix die in a fire so they can continue to sell their customers 20th century TV service.

Tier 1 networks have no business charging each-other transit fees. Some regulatory measure must be devised to force them to keep up at peering sites and do so without charging any fees from anyone. When I pay Verizon as my ISP I am not paying Verizon for access to their network. I couldn't give a rats ass about Verizon's network. I access very little on their network. I am paying them so that I can both send and receive data across their edge routers and their peering sites from other networks.

Yes, somewhere on the other end the servers I am accessing are paying their Tier 1's for access as well. Charging them again at peering sites is not just double dipping, it is outright extortion, and ought to be illegal.

Furthermore every packet I send out should be completely unmolested by my ISP or any peer network. It shouldn't be shaped, tiered, throttled, tagged, or modified in any way, Likewise with the return traffic.

NetFlix maxed out Cogent and Level 3 and others connectivity, and thought that AT&T and Comcast should pay for it.

What you arent understanding here is that the same logic of "If you charge NetFlix, the customers will have to pay for it" applies to the ISPs. If the ISPs need to upgrade content-provider created bottlenecks, the cost STILL gets passed on to the consumer.... The question here is: Should NetFlix have to pay their part of it.

NetFlix tried to use lower-rate deals they made with Cognet/Level3 on smaller networks as rate standards to use for how much they should pay for larger networks that ISPs must create in order to handle them.... You say 100% of his cost should go to ISPs and their consumers. I say 100% of this cost should go to NetFlix and their consumers. Which group consists of 100% of people that use the NetFlix bandwidth? 100% of ISP consumers? or 100% of NetFlix consumers?... NetFlix and your NetFlix subscription should not burden my rates as a non-NetFlix subscriber....
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
NetFlix maxed out Cogent and Level 3 and others connectivity, and thought that AT&T and Comcast should pay for it.

What you arent understanding here is that the same logic of "If you charge NetFlix, the customers will have to pay for it" applies to the ISPs. If the ISPs need to upgrade content-provider created bottlenecks, the cost STILL gets passed on to the consumer.... The question here is: Should NetFlix have to pay their part of it.

NetFlix tried to use lower-rate deals they made with Cognet/Level3 on smaller networks as rate standards to use for how much they should pay for larger networks that ISPs must create in order to handle them.... You say 100% of his cost should go to ISPs and their consumers. I say 100% of this cost should go to NetFlix and their consumers. Which group consists of 100% of people that use the NetFlix bandwidth? 100% of ISP consumers? or 100% of NetFlix consumers?... NetFlix and your NetFlix subscription should not burden my rates as a non-NetFlix subscriber....

But they said I could have 15Mbps, or 4G LTE. They TOLD me what is what I am paying for. So basically they lied about what they sold me. Yet they still find the bandwidth for other services at full speed. Imagine the f' that.
 

jamesgalb

Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
565
BTW: It makes perfect sense. Customers are only willing to pay XYZ before they start raising SHIT about pricing. ISP's already know they are on shaky ground here. Look at what happened to cable TV. They got greedy and now there are alternatives it has cost them their bottom line. So they offload the cost to providers like Netflix.

Netflix also faces a similar problem. The market will only absorb so many price increases before it starts cutting into Netflix's bottom line and then it's Netflix's problem not Verizon's who can blackmail them till they collapse. Meanwhile Verizon can introduce their own content service for the same cost and inferior selection but at full speed fattening their bottom line.

See the f'ing problem now.? Man some people are so f'ing short sited.

But putting the cost back on us it acts as a natural valve to control cost. But it maintains our freedom of choice.
Yes. It is those ISPs and their 10-15% profit margins that are the greedy over-reaching ones, not the internet companies and their 50-80% profit margins... *rolls eyes*

You want to burden all ISP users with the costs of NetFlix's internet usage. I want to burden actual NetFlix users with that cost instead... Which do you think is more fair? Legit question...
 

TAP

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
236

jamesgalb

Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
565
But they said I could have 15Mbps, or 4G LTE. They TOLD me what is what I am paying for. So basically they lied about what they sold me.
Yes you can have the 15Mbps downloads you paid for. It doesnt mean that I am paying enough for upload to you at 15Mbps.

What you pay for to download, has nothing to do with what others pay to upload. The internet is a two way street, and you paying to download does not mean I can upload freely at the rate you have paid for.
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
Yes. It is those ISPs and their 10-15% profit margins that are the greedy over-reaching ones, not the internet companies and their 50-80% profit margins... *rolls eyes*

You want to burden all ISP users with the costs of NetFlix's internet usage. I want to burden actual NetFlix users with that cost instead... Which do you think is more fair? Legit question...

Well then I feel sorry for you. (seriously)

Charging the end user directly is the better approach for controlling cost on the consumer side, and is the most business neutral in terms of business competitiveness.
 

jamesgalb

Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
565
Well then I feel sorry for you. (seriously)

Charging the end user directly is the better approach for controlling cost on the consumer side, and is the most business neutral in terms of business competitiveness.

You want the non-NetFlix using normal ISP user to pay the difference on the internet usage NetFlix doesnt pay for, rather than NetFlix and their users being burdened with that NetFlix-created cost...? All so you can save money on one end and be charged it on the other?

......

sigh.
 

jamesgalb

Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
565
And regulation CAN be done to promote free markets. Anti trust laws are a perfect example.
You mean the exact same anti-trust laws that I referenced earlier and proved that NN wasnt actually needed? Yes. Its the over-reaching Title 2 regulations that allow Governments to determine who has a 'license' to provide internet that is the major free-market-sapping regulation here, among others... NN is the Government peeing on you while google and netflix tell you it is rain, as you guys claim "If you are against this than you are pro-drought!"
 
Last edited:

TAP

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
236
You mean the exact same anti-trust laws that I referenced earlier and proved that NN wasnt actually needed? Yes. Its the over-reaching Title 2 regulations that allow Governments to determine who has a 'license' to provide internet that is the major free-market-sapping regulation here, among others... NN is the Government peeing on you while google and netflix tell you it is rain, as you guys claim "If you are against this than you are pro-drought!"

When did you prove that?
 

opfreak

Gawd
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
766
Yes. They also tell you via a text when they plan to start throttling you. I was a high end user for a number of years. Would use 30gb monthly on a lite work month. So, getting throttled fucking sucked...but, I knew when it occurred, mostly. I also understood that my uses are the extreme end. Yes, I pay for unlimited, but not really "unlimited speeds." I would notice during certain hours they would throttle me after 1gb or more with the hour. If I waited an hour, I could do another 1gb before throttling. That last part wasn't clear but was something I picked up on through use.

The answer, obviously, is more competition. These state approved carrier monopolies are not the answer.

I agree with your answer. Which is why I don't think sprint should be allowed to join with tmobile.
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
You want the non-NetFlix using normal ISP user to pay the difference on the internet usage NetFlix doesnt pay for, rather than NetFlix and their users being burdened with that NetFlix-created cost...? All so you can save money on one end and be charged it on the other?

......

sigh.
Yes, here is why: there will not be a next 'netflix' if access to internet infrastructure becomes a high barrier of entry.
Besides so you mean netflix's internet access bill is ZERO.. they dont pay anything to anyone.... Suuuuuuure.
I know if I wanted big business level fiber access around my house, i have to contact the big business access people with the fiber, and pay them 1000s upon 1000s... Most likely millions if one is hitting monstrous bandwith... No i am not paying Comcast directly i imagine.. So you want netflix to pay the big access people who probably pay comcast, then netflix has to pay comcast too..... Or some shit? Thats insane.
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
Again, and again... There was 'no problems' with net neutrality for many years in the past while the internet grew and developed becuase of TECHNOLOGY ISSUES. Net neutrality for years was the natural state of the internet, only because the tools to manipulate traffic were not there, didn't exist... That has been changing and evolving, and tools now are very advanced, ISPs can shape traffic, even insert ads too... Its a big departure from what they could do in the beginning.
 
Last edited:

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
Yes. It is those ISPs and their 10-15% profit margins that are the greedy over-reaching ones, not the internet companies and their 50-80% profit margins... *rolls eyes*

You want to burden all ISP users with the costs of NetFlix's internet usage. I want to burden actual NetFlix users with that cost instead... Which do you think is more fair? Legit question...
10-15% profit margins sure.. but those in many ways are government protected margins damn near government guaranteed... Big ass difference there... Their margins should be .5% or zero for all I care. Internet is a basic service at this point of our life... An argument otherwise is disingenuous.
 

Verado

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 16, 2017
Messages
335
You already pay more for your ISP because NetFlix and Google dont pay their fair share.

But you want to continue paying NetFlix/Google's half, because NetFlix/Google have extorted you by threatening to raise your rates if they have to pay their fair share...?

Multi-Billion dollar profit companies play victim while threatening to charge you more if you stop paying for their half, and you are okay with this.... WTF?


Im not in the US. I have 100mbit unlimited at home for 15 dollars a month and up to 450mbit 10GB/month for 10 bucks on my phone.
I know for a fact that the company(Telenor) is making crazy profits.

I would argue that netflix and google are making our ISP and phone carriers products more desirable.
Without the businesses that create online content the ISPs and phone carriers would not have a product to sell at all.
 

TAP

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
236
10-15% profit margins sure.. but those in many ways are government protected margins damn near government guaranteed... Big ass difference there... Their margins should be .5% or zero for all I care. Internet is a basic service at this point of our life... An argument otherwise is disingenuous.

Exactly. And why does he have sympathy for their margins? As a consumer I could care less. The telecommunications industry needs to be broken up into a thousand pieces so we consumers can actually get the free market environment that is needed. What we have now is a system where a few giant companies buy political influence and get protected profits in return. Hence AT&T throwing $2 million at the POTUS's personal attorney in the middle of a giant merger that has anti trust implications. All I smell here from him are arguments shaped to protect his political tribe.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
779
Want monopolies to end? NN was going to make them worse... and removing NN will allow new competitors to be more competitive by charging lower rates than the current rates that include Google/NetFlix's usage half (yay unregulated free market!).... Easier entry barriers.

in what drug fueled utopian dreamworld do you live in?

certainly not the same one where ATT, VZN, comcast, spectrum and name any other major ISP lives in. im sorry but at this point you are just straight up shillin.
 

Kalabalana

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
1,313
I hope you are trolling and not jsut stupid.

1) The net neutrality rules that were repealed were not binding on mobile broadband.
2) As proof of such, t-mobile at least has been doing this for YEARS. Prior to the change to the rgularions.
3) Every mobile carrier spells this out explicitly in their terms. Even making it into voice over mentions in tv commercials for some.

It's almost as if someone with an agenda was trying to take something that was never part of the issue, and trying to piss off ignorant people pretending they discovered some secret deception.

The deception is that you were fucking oblivious and didn't pay attention previously.

Alternately the deception was they moved form capped plans to ones described as "unlimited" and the same low information people screamed FUCK YEAH UNLIMITED!!!! without reading any of the fine print and found out they might in fact be more limited than they previously were in some ways.

But I'm sure that nobody involved is trying to imply Trump stole your netflix or anything.
Nothing to do with Trump.
 

sparks

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 19, 2004
Messages
3,206
don't feel picked on.
NEXT year this is what you will get on your land line as well.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
520
We pay the most because the entirety of the costs of our internet fall on the consumers... Because service providers like YouTube and NetFlix dont pay for any of it while using the vast majority of it.

How are you not understanding this?

My god...

How do you not understand that if content providers pay up, they will simply hike the price of services, so the consumer still eats the cost. Despite this in Europe they still have Netflix, a gich btw does pay for interconnects.........

How do you not understand this.....?
 

jamesgalb

Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
565
How do you not understand that if content providers pay up, they will simply hike the price of services, so the consumer still eats the cost. Despite this in Europe they still have Netflix, a gich btw does pay for interconnects.........

How do you not understand this.....?

How do you not understand that the consumer already pays this, just on the end of the ISP... You pay for it one way or another.

But we should let NetFlix go without paying their fair share, because they have extorted us by threatening a price hike? Seriously?

People have completely consumed the talking points and have lost all ability to think critically. This is sad.
 
Top