oh SH!T - net neutrality
- Started
- Last post
- 63 Responses
- souljar0010
Ok only just noticed this post and i have just skimmed it over but im i right in saying Obama is on the side of good, Comcast are the darkside, google are hanging out with Verzon in dark seedy motels hatching some plan to f**k everyone over and the politicians are just doing whats best for them???
Oh and we the public are just waiting to get screwed at some point
- SteveJobs0
- Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.MrT
- < lol yupsofakingbanned
- lolgeorgesIII
- abettertomorrow0
^ And yet...they haven't done it yet. And shit seems to be A OK.
- "kinda have to" seems like an overstatementabettertomorrow
- more an understatementhonestIy
- Boz0
This is why FCC is speeding up the rule in order to keep the internet open. They needed 3 democrats to bypass congress and it seems they will do it.
He's to hope they will succeed:
FCC Planning Net Neutrality Rule Vote Dec. 21
http://www.internetnews.com/gove…
- ukit0
@mrghost
Basically net neutrality is what we have now. When you access content online, whether it's Comcast's website, CNN, YouTube, streaming music, Bittorrent, whatever, it's delivered with the same speed by the internet provider right? You might get faster overall speed depending on what kind of connection you paid for, but the speed of individual "stuff" isn't regulated in any way.
Broadband companies would like to move away from that and give themselves the power to speed up or slow down access to different websites or types of content. They say that overall web traffic is getting overloaded to the point where they need to be able to prioritize traffic. People in favor of NN, which includes most people in the tech industry, will respond that a better solution would be to just add more bandwidth, and that the power will inevitably be abused by corporations that might own many of the businesses that are being accessed. There's also the worry that it would prevent the next startup from getting off the ground the way say, YouTube did, because things like streaming video could become prohibitively expensive for a small company.
Comcast actually tested the waters by crippling bit torrent downloads for their customers across the board. The Obama administration took them to court over it, but the court ultimately ruled that the FCC didn't have the authority to regulate broadband (since apparently Congress never gave them that authority). So the logical step would be to pass a bill making net neutrality official. Unfortunately some Democrats and pretty much all Republicans are against it because they are corrupt motherfuckers.
In the meantime, Google made their own "deal" with Verizon that basically guaranteed net neutrality for traditional internet service, but not for wireless internet. People got pissed because they thought this pretty much undermined the entire principle since everything's more or less expected to be wireless someday.
- cliffs:
fire bad!!!
net neutrality goooood!SteveJobs - thank you for explaining that so well!!!mrghost
- Holy cow. You have no idea what you're talking about.VikingKingEleven
- wireless gives you cancer thoughPupsipu
- cliffs:
- honestIy0
what do you mean "they haven't done it"? there are several packages available from comcast for the end customer regarding both upload and download speed. the more you pay the faster your download, pay even more and you're uploading faster. buy the cheapest package and you can barely stream live audio without repeated buffering. pay EVEN more and your business can have priority over other customers allowing your bandwidth to matter most causing other less paying customers to suffer slowed performance as it adjusts for higher paying clientele. this is how cox/roadrunner/comcast have been doing business for years.
- mrghost0
http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/30/…
"Netflix will have to raise its costs, because Level 3 has to raise costs to carry Netflix, and Comcast has to raise its costs to increase its bandwidth," he said. "But ultimately, that means the customers will pay for it."
But cutting through all the bickering, one harsh reality is becoming clear: Everyone's going to have to pay. Comcast will have to raise its fees and Level 3 will have to pay more for its traffic demands. Those fees will be borne by Netflix and Comcast -- and ultimately, they'll be passed onto you.
- drgz0
the sooner that shithole of a country america breaks up, the better for all
its unavoidable anyway, just put an end to it- um, no, i live here?scarabin
- um, fuck yourselfdrgz
- the sooner Norway freezes over... oh, wait - no one will notice.TenaciousG
- noooo... fuck YOU sirscarabin
- we're only addressing issues that have to be addressed eventually by someonescarabin
- norway would have done it if they were huge or importantscarabin
- honestIy0
if every customer base is increasing their load the entire system slows, hence requiring upgrades/maintenance = more $
- georgesIII0
You guys keep raising the bar,
thank you for rewriting the rules of what a democracy is.sincerely, thank you
- mrghost0
i wonder if the cost of internet will affect residency choices in the future.
like I can't live in NYC not because the rent is too damn high but the internet is too damn expensive.
- abettertomorrow0
honestly, the distinction is not regarding different levels of service that you pay for. Everyone is fine with the idea that you can buy 1mbps or 1.5mbps connection. You pay the $50 and know exactly what you are getting.
It;s the idea of speeding up or slowing down specific kinds of traffic, like only bittorrent, only video, or only video from Netflix. And leaving it all in one or two companies' hands to decide.
- bingo.. soon after they would control every piece of content you consume which is the REAL danger.Boz
- monNom0
should it be that all internet access gets more expensive to subsidize netflix, or should netflix get more expensive to pay for all their network load?
only reason they can do $8.99/mo is cause someone else is building the infrastructure they use.
- Thats not how it works though, see the comment belowabettertomorrow
- honestIy0
my point was that money will buy performance. in this case only end users are complaining. if netflix has such a wide base they also have a great commercially viable hold on their customers therefore allowing their traffic special treatment makes sense for those with economic interests. i see no problem with qbn slowing or staying bottlenecked to allow netflix more bandwidth. this is a game of numbers and always has been. imo a site serving millions of users deserve special treatment over a site serving thousands
- Then they just pay more - pretty simple, right?abettertomorrow
- abettertomorrow0
Again, its not like companies don't pay for the bandwidth they use. Netflix gets more customers, sure they pay more. Google pays a small fortune everyday and has something like 100 data centers around the world to serve their website.
The net neutrality principle is that there are different tiers of service, but within those tiers all data is treated equally. It's like you are buying a plane or bus ticket, maybe you paid for a first class ticket or a coach ticket. But they shouldn't be able to give you shittier service just because you are black or a woman or work for the rival airline.
- Boz0
^ so what..the whole economics of internet is Comcast or whatever charging consumers who use Netflix a monthly fee.
So I pay $80 for a 100mbps internet.. Netflix is paying their data farms but they shouldn't pay for Comcast improving their infrustructure.
What kind of logic is that? Millions of people pay Comcast a monthly fee to use bandwith. What content they consume and what site they visit is not Comcast's too control or censor. That's the whole point of Net Neutrality.
If Comcast sees a higher need from it's consumers (like all of us) to consume more bandwith, they can raise the price, improve their infrustructure and allow me to pay them more to use more speed/bandwith. THAT is their business. Nothing else and they shouldn't be allowed to interfere or control anything else..
They don't like it? Bow out, someone else will come in and make the infrustructure that works.
This is the same type of "too big too fail" mentality so we now have to pay the toll because we are being blackmailed by the cable companies. They can go fuck themselves.
- Hombre_Lobo_20
Petition link anyone?
i think its ok to charge for different internet speeds, but to charge for different packages allowing you to access different websites is ridiculous.
Its such a shame that some powerful americans can have this crazy idea, which will undoubtedly if accept will filter down to other countries and eventually the world.
- VikingKingEleven0
You can learn more here.
- honestIy0
ABT, i think i see what you're saying, and i'm not trying to argue, is that netflix should cover the cost to comcast to handle the load their content/subscribers create?
- I think everyone agrees on that - the tricky part comes when Comcast says "we need to raise the rate" and there's no recourseabettertomorrow
- recourse because they pretty much control the internetabettertomorrow