|
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1455143)
An excellent point, actually. For this is exactly how the internet as a whole (and the world wide web, as a modern-day proxy for the internet) have functioned since their inception.
There was a time when online service providers did strictly limit their users' access to information. Comuserv, Prodigy, AOL, Delphi, and all other such companies were built upon a model of funneling their users into their own proprietary services and information centers. Over time, consumer demand forced them to allow access to Usenet and the Web, and eventually, their users began to defect en masse to generic ISPs which acted as true gateways to the internet, not walled gardens with small windows looking out onto it. Getting riled up about a few service providers talking about offering preferred service packages in the present day is a very short-sighted view of the history of the internet, and demanding government regulation to combat it will have disastrous ramifications in the future. It is the fundamental nature of the internet to be unrestricted, and it does a splendid job of this in the absence of government interference. If you want to know how well granting the government regulatory control over content on the internet works, ask a Chinese person. Just try not to get them jailed for talking to you about it.
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1455088)
The demand for bandwidth always exceeds the supply of bandwidth.
If you genuinely believe that "the bandwidth restriction doesn't exist," then, well, I don't know any polite way to say this... You don't really have a good understanding what you're talking about. Laying new fiber and buying new routers costs money. Someone has to pay for that, and not merely the last-mile portion. What do you suppose happened in February 2014? Comcast suddenly installed a bunch of extra capacity? No, Comcast removed an artificial restriction that they created in order to force Netflix into payment. Throttling certain kinds of content is not the right solution to a bandwidth problem, should one exist.
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1455077)
and: gubmit good! corporations bad! is a good one?
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1455077)
also new flash: wireless networks weren't protected by net neutrality, so about those links you used to as proof...
that's why it mattered that I pointed that out. the Netflix thing was a throttling issue, and a B2B solution that benefited consumers without gov't intervention. |
Originally Posted by Uncle Humjaba
(Post 1455177)
(image)
What do you suppose happened in February 2014? Comcast suddenly installed a bunch of extra capacity? No, Comcast removed an artificial restriction that they created in order to force Netflix into payment. The unfortunate thing about unintended consequences is that they're often not apparent until much later. |
Originally Posted by Uncle Humjaba
(Post 1455177)
Comcast throttling their Netflix until Netflix paid up? Who do you think those costs are being passed on to?
Comcast had bandwidth for their service. (many do/did) Bandwidth costs money. In their internet service agreement with their customers, Comcast capped the amount you can download before being throttled since service is a monthly flat fee and they risked losing money if too many of their users hosted servers or d/led torrents and hogged all the bandwidth. In 2013, Comcast customers started getting on the Netflix streaming services bandwagon, and found their old service agreement and bandwidth cap with the introduction of bandwidth caps didn't mix well. As streaming was taking off faster than the ISP was able to keep up to date. Netflix stepped in and made a deal with Comcast, so Netflix customers using Comcast could still use Netflix services without having to pay more for their internet service. They solved the problem, without government, within a few months, in a manner that benefitted the consumer. The cost were being passed to Netflix. Because, like Netflix PAID FOR THE EXTRA BANDWIDTH USAGE! I can't believe someone arguing for more gov't just asked that fucking question. I still pay for a 2GB data plan for my cell phone, because I don't want to spend the extra $50 a month for the unlimited plan. Crazy huh? |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1455143)
An excellent point, actually. For this is exactly how the internet as a whole (and the world wide web, as a modern-day proxy for the internet) have functioned since their inception.
There was a time when online service providers did strictly limit their users' access to information. Comuserv, Prodigy, AOL, Delphi, and all other such companies were built upon a model of funneling their users into their own proprietary services and information centers. Over time, consumer demand forced them to allow access to Usenet and the Web, and eventually, their users began to defect en masse to generic ISPs which acted as true gateways to the internet, not walled gardens with small windows looking out onto it.
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1455143)
It is the fundamental nature of the internet to be unrestricted, and it does a splendid job of this in the absence of
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Humjaba
(Post 1455182)
This is our fear. How can a Netflix competitor start up when they have to pay each individual ISP a fee on top of their standard hosting and bandwidth fees? How will Netflix survive when Comcast, Verizon, etc own their own content systems? Anticompetitive practices are no joke, and consumers certainly don't win when they're allowed.
that's not for you, or the government to care or do anything about. http://www.techwyse.com/blog/wp-cont.../2014/08/6.jpg |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1455179)
Yes, and that's a problem. It simultaneously deprives all those users who aren't streaming Netflix of bandwidth, while also depriving the carrier of money needed to make infrastructure improvements to increase bandwidth.
The unfortunate thing about unintended consequences is that they're often not apparent until much later.
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1455180)
You're knowingly asking this question in a loaded way.
Comcast had bandwidth for their service. (many do/did) Bandwidth costs money.
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1455180)
In their internet service agreement with their customers, Comcast capped the amount you can download before being throttled since service is a monthly flat fee and they risked losing money if too many of their users hosted servers or d/led torrents and hogged all the bandwidth.
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1455180)
In 2013, Comcast customers started getting on the Netflix streaming services bandwagon, and found their old service agreement and bandwidth cap with the introduction of bandwidth caps didn't mix well. As streaming was taking off faster than the ISP was able to keep up to date.
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1455180)
Netflix stepped in and made a deal with Comcast, so Netflix customers using Comcast could still use Netflix services without having to pay more for their internet service. They solved the problem, without government, within a few months, in a manner that benefitted the consumer.
The cost were being passed to Netflix. Because, like Netflix PAID FOR THE EXTRA BANDWIDTH USAGE! I can't believe someone arguing for more gov't just asked that fucking question. I still pay for a 2GB data plan for my cell phone, because I don't want to spend the extra $50 a month for the unlimited plan. Crazy huh? And even though it was a loaded question, somehow you managed to miss the answer. The cost is being passed to THE CONSUMER when Netflix raises their fee to cover the increased costs. |
Originally Posted by Uncle Humjaba
(Post 1455185)
So throttle the user. Not the service.
because without net neutrality, an ISP could offer a base package at a low cost, then add in a Netflix unlimited bandwidth package to users who only need it. You know, so all users don't have to subsidize a few... But since you're actually for it, you want everyone to pay more, even if they don't need it. Weren't you saying something about "who costs are being passed on to" ? you'd rather see all users pay much more, so that a few can users can have unlimited access under threat of the law. Streaming so heavily was still new at the time, that model really wouldn't hold up today. It was a good solution at the time to allow customers to continue paying for a bandwidth limited internet package, while still able to enjoy unlimited amounts of Netflix bandwidth because Netflix was picking up the tab for Comcast users. The issue was always the cap in general, it only became an issue when Netflix users started hitting it, when using Netflix specifically. Netflix was nice enough to figure out a solution for their customers. And yes, the cap could have come from pornhub or alike, if those users were pegging their limits from porn overload. They problem was, that the majorly of users were quickly hitting it specifically with Netflix because the bandwidth amount is SO much larger than a few 420p 5min gay porn vids. yes, they flipped a switch. so what? The service agreement had a bandwidth cap. and YES bandwidth costs money. Sorry but you're 100% wrong on that point, so THE POINT is invalid. Do you understand how infuriating it is as a Verizon Fios customer to have to pay a local sports and local news TAX, in order to pay for other people to watch the local news and sports? words: My office is on the ground floor of a high rise mix-use building, with offices on the lower floors, and residential condos on the upper floors. The internet speed is smooth during the day, but there's a noticeable dropoff in speed starting around 4pm, when kids get home from school and begin online gaming. It gets progressively worse, until it becomes unbearably slow by 7pm, when everyone's home... and tying up the bandwidth by Netflixing, but before chilling. I'm often at the office until 8pm, sometimes pretending to work while making memes or writing articles like this, and it's really annoying when it takes a whole minute to download a set of blueprints or Fed report (I know, #FirstWorldProblem).
Netflix accounts for over 1/3 of internet bandwidth, 35.2% of all internet traffic in March of 2016, down from 37.1% in 2015, but only because other streaming services, like Amazon Prime, are stealing market share.[1] Netflix streams at ~1 GB for standard video, 3 GB for HD[2]. 1 person streaming Netflix in HD for 1 minute is more than what I download in 1 hour. So the question is, why should I pay the same for internet access, when my drain on the system is less than 1% of someone else who is streaming video? If the ISP can block access to various services and make us pay for them ala cart or via packages, as the meme on the left is accusing, I'd be paying less, and the heavy-user would be paying more. If the heavy-user has a financial incentive to lower their use, say discount rate for non-peak usage, they might plan ahead and download their shows in the middle of the night like I do. Those of you over 30 might remember having to wait until 9pm before making calls on your cellphone, because back then cell capacity was limited, and mobile carriers wanted to encourage people to wait for off-peak hours to make non-essential calls. If they're not allowed to discriminate price, then nobody would wait for 9pm to make calls, jamming up the limited capacity. ISPs will make their money, no matter what. If they can't charge more for access to heavy-bandwidth services or sites, then they'll have to charge everyone under the assumptions that we will be trying up the bandwidth with streaming video. It's like a Buffet of the Internet, you pay the same price no matter what you eat. When have you ever walked out of a buffet, saying "Mmm, I ate a reasonable amount of food." If you had to pay for it item by item, you would likely stop after the 6th helping of ribs. [1] http://variety.com/2016/digital/news...16-1201801064/ [2] http://trf.mncable.net/how-can-you-control-how-much-data-netflix-uses/ See More |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1455087)
Going to your last point, this is actually an interesting comparison. In many major cities, there are two (and sometimes three) separate classes of highway. There are the regular roads that are free* to drive on, then you have the tollways, and in some cities you also have express lanes which run above or between the regular freeway. The latter two categories of service are available to those who wish to pay extra to utilize them. And nobody seems to have a problem with this. The same goes for bus service. In NYC, for instance, the local bus costs the same $2.75 per ride as the subway, but those who wish to reach the outer boroughs faster have the option to pay $6.50 per ride for the express bus, which runs non-stop from Manhattan to the more remote destinations. And nobody seems to have an issue with this. Utilities? Let's look at electrical power. Heavily subsidized, heavily government regulated. And beyond the fact that it's mostly a pay-as-you-go service, you also get charged more based upon the capacity of your service. Want a 200A main breaker in an area in which gas or oil are the predominant sources of heat? You're going to pay a higher connection charge and a higher base service charge. Now if my power company sold light bulbs, appliances, and other electronics and charged me more for electricity if it's used through a competitors product then you can bet your ass people would have a problem with it. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1455188)
so you're actually AGAINST net neutrality?
because without net neutrality, an ISP could offer a base package at a low cost, then add in a Netflix unlimited bandwidth package to users who only need it. Let me try to explain the difference. Please don't just ignore this. There is a difference between limiting ALL bandwidth, and limiting only NETFLIX bandwidth. If I use too much, slow down ALL my traffic or charge me more. But charging more to Netflix to deliver to ALL Netflix customers, regardless of how much they watch, is wrong. |
It's still a bandwidth issue, but I may have misunderstood it, just as you do.
https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/n...-end-slowdown/ Much like Netflix’s ongoing standoff with Verizon FiOS, the drop in speeds wasn’t an issue of the ISP throttling or blocking service to Netflix. Rather, the ISPs were allowing for Netflix traffic to bottleneck at what’s known as “peering ports,” the connection between Netflix’s bandwidth provider and the ISPs. Until recently, if peering ports became congested with downstream traffic, it was common practice for an ISP to temporarily open up new ports to maintain the flow of data. This was not a business arrangement; just something that had been done as a courtesy. ISPs would expect the bandwidth companies to do the same if there was a spike in upstream traffic. However, there is virtually no upstream traffic with Netflix, so the Comcasts and Verizons of the world claimed they were being taken advantage of. ... NET NEUTRALITY? As we’ve pointed out before, the issue of peering was not covered by the recently gutted net neutrality rules. Those guidelines only dealt with whether an ISP deliberately blocked/throttled or unfairly prioritized traffic to a website. The congestion at peering ports occurs further upstream and is a matter of capacity. To use a foodservice analogy. Imagine a restaurant has an incredibly popular dish that everyone wants to order. The kitchen has no problem meeting that demand, but orders aren’t getting to diners’ tables in time. If that slowdown is because the waiters decide customers shouldn’t get that particular menu item, or that there are other menu items that should be delivered in a more timely manner — that’s a net neutrality issue. But if that awesome food is slow to the table because there simply aren’t enough waiters and no off-work waiters are willing to come in for a few hours to help out because it’s their night off — that’s a peering issue. Even with the recent appeals court ruling that neutered net neutrality, Comcast is still required to abide by those guidelines through 2018 as part of the terms of its recent merger with NBC Universal. In 2105, they changed their business model to provide service to customers: Comcast Is Putting a Monthly Data Cap on Home Internet | Credit.com Get ready for your home Internet to feel like your smartphone — bound by data caps, a large overage fee waiting to happen. Comcast gave some users the bad news Thursday. Consumers who exceed 300 GB in a month will have to pay for overages at $10 per 50 GB tier. Not surprisingly, they have the option to pay an extra $30 to get the service they have currently, without caps. “These trials are based on principles of fairness and flexibility,” a representative with Comcast told me Friday. “With 10% of our customers consuming half the data that runs over our network, we think it’s fair that those who use more data pay more and that those who use less data also have a chance to save some money. For light data users on our Economy Plus tier, the can opt in to a program that gives them a $5/month discount if they use less than 5 GB of data per month.” “To put things in perspective, 300 GB is an extremely large amount of data to use. The medium data use for our customers is 40 GB per month; about 70 percent of our customers use less than 100 GB per month. … About 92 percent of our customers will see absolutely no impact on their monthly bills,” said Kramer in an email. “Our data plan trials are part of our ongoing effort to create a fair, technologically-sound policy in which customers who use more data pay more, and customers who use less pay less.” |
Originally Posted by Ryan_G
(Post 1455189)
Now if my power company sold light bulbs, appliances, and other electronics and charged me more for electricity if it's used through a competitors product then you can bet your ass people would have a problem with it.
As an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush-A-Phone Is that how you want internet service to work? |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1455202)
It's still a bandwidth issue, but I may have misunderstood it, just as you do.
https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/n...-end-slowdown/
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1455202)
In 2105, they changed their business model to provide service to customers:
Comcast Is Putting a Monthly Data Cap on Home Internet Credit.com
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1455210)
That's actually pretty close to how the phone company worked during the regulated era. Except that for much of that are, you had no choice but to lease your appliance from the phone company, and were prohibited from purchasing it independently, or even attaching devices to it.
As an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush-A-Phone Is that how you want internet service to work? |
Here is a very good article about peering. Seems to be a complicated issue in the particular case of the Netflix v Comcast issue. My other examples, in the wireless realm, stand. Do you think it's okay for ATT to arbitrarily disallow Skype over its cellular data network, in order to promote its own voice service? Is it okay for Verizon to block Google Pay specifically, so it can promote its own contactless pay service? It's a simple yes or no question. but yes, to answer your question, I think it's okay for AT&T to disallow skype in order to promote its own voice service and I also think it's okay for Verizon to block google pay to promote it's own pay service. Customers will complain, or switch to another cell service provider if they don't like it. They will get bad press and people will vote with their wallets. Again, this was back in like 2008, when stuff like this was new, they made a dumb decision because they an old school player in a fast moving business and self-corrected. |
Originally Posted by Uncle Humjaba
(Post 1455182)
This was possible back in those days because you could use your phone line to connect to one of any number of ISPs... In other words, there was competition. This is no longer the case. By the way, this could happen because phone lines are protected... If they weren't, do you think AT&T (xxx Bell back then) would make it easy for you to connect to a competitor's dial-up service?
The lack of foresight and finally open competition did them in. They used what laws existed back then as the means to hang on for a few more years as monopolies. Finally dereguation and the breakup of the Bells allowed the internet, as we see it today, to come into it’s own.
Originally Posted by Uncle Humjaba
(Post 1455185)
What's it to Comcast if my bandwidth comes from Netflix, or youtube, or pornhub? If i'm using too much, throttle me. If I reach my bandwidth cap, charge me more. Charging Netflix to deliver content to me at the same speed as everything else is extortionate, and there is no technical reason to discriminate against Netflix or any other provider. All bandwidth is the same - net neutrality simply requires it to be treated as such.
But netflix bandwidth does not cost any more than any other bandwidth. The same analogy applies to the Netflix data it takes up a large chunk of capacity vs other data. Sure, Netflix pays for access to the “internet” but not to the owner of the last xx miles. Now, I get my internet through Spectrum [old Time Warner]. I can buy 3 levels of service; Fast, Faster, and Really Fast. I pay for the middle of the road with no cap. If I saw my Netflix streaming suffer I’d call Spectrum and bitch about it. If I saw Netflix increase my cost because Spectrum hit them with a cost I’ll bitch about it and think about dropping. In my area I can also switch to another ISP [used to be a baby bell] and I have switched 2 times over the past 3 years. Competition is good. Stupid regulation is bad. IMO |
I feel like all the Netflix talk is really getting away from 1 good reason EVERYONE IN THE WORLD cares that Flynn lied about a legal meeting.
I'm sure all these people also care about when Cheryl Mills lied to the FBI about ILLEGAL activity? |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1455210)
That's actually pretty close to how the phone company worked during the regulated era. Except that for much of that are, you had no choice but to lease your appliance from the phone company, and were prohibited from purchasing it independently, or even attaching devices to it.
As an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush-A-Phone Is that how you want internet service to work? |
Originally Posted by Braineack
I feel like all the Netflix talk is really getting away from 1 good reason EVERYONE IN THE WORLD cares that Flynn lied about a legal meeting.
I'm sure all these people also care about when Cheryl Mills lied to the FBI about ILLEGAL activity? So, what's your point? |
Originally Posted by bahurd
(Post 1455242)
I think your first question is with the FBI. But, if true they should face the same charges as Flynn and when they string him up...
So, what €™s your point? when the topic came up a few days ago I said: who cares Andrew :inout: said "everyone in the world cares" about Flynn, and I asked for 1 good reason why any one could. still waiting. |
.
|
this site was sold from a private individual who no longer wanted to pay for it. the last owner was great. he then sold it to internet brands who have tried to fit us in a box.
in fact, everything before 2006 was freaking deleted without warning cause he was an ass and didn't care and ran out of space on his cheap server. this site also started a greddy turbo forum :P |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:29 AM. |
|
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands