WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a content company is willing to pay for it, according to people briefed on the proposals.
The proposed rules are a complete turnaround for the F.C.C. on the subject of so-called net neutrality, the principle that Internet users should have equal ability to see any content they choose, and that no content providers should be discriminated against in providing their offerings to consumers.
The F.C.C.'s previous rules governing net neutrality were thrown out by a federal appeals court this year. The court said those rules had essentially treated Internet service providers as public utilities, which violated a previous F.C.C. ruling that Internet links were not to be governed by the same strict regulation as telephone or electric service.
Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE
The proposal, to be introduced by Tom Wheeler, the chairman of the commission, will prohibit broadband companies from blocking any sites or services from consumers.F.C.C. Seeks a New Path on ‘Net Neutrality’ RulesFEB. 19, 2014
Verizon challenged the rules set by the Federal Communications Commission, arguing that the commission had overstepped the authority granted to it by federal telecommunications laws.Bits Blog: The Nuts and Bolts of Network NeutralityJAN. 14, 2014
Tom Wheeler of the F.C.C. said it might appeal.Rebuffing F.C.C. in ‘Net Neutrality’ Case, Court Allows Streaming DealsJAN. 14, 2014
The new rules, according to the people briefed on them, will allow a company like Comcast or Verizon to negotiate separately with each content company – like Netflix, Amazon, Disney or Google – and charge different companies different amounts for priority service.
That, of course, could increase costs for content companies, which would then have an incentive to pass on those costs to consumers as part of their subscription prices.
Proponents of net neutrality have feared that such a framework would empower large, wealthy companies and prevent small start-ups, which might otherwise be the next Twitter or Facebook, for example, from gaining any traction in the market.
The F.C.C. plans were first reported online Wednesday by The Wall Street Journal.
The new proposals, drafted by the F.C.C.'s chairman, Tom Wheeler, and his staff, will be circulated to the other four commissioners beginning Thursday, an F.C.C. spokeswoman said. The details can be amended by consensus in order to attract support from a majority of the commissioners. The commission will then vote on a final proposal at its May 15 meeting.
Heres what net neutrality means:
Now for those who don't know what Net Neutrality is and what bad things would happen would be like.....
Here is a video explaining it perfectly
Yeah so. Discuss. I guess. I mean this is a pretty big issue.
So instead of fixing their regulations, they're just going to let service providers price gouge everyone? I'd say I'm surprised by I'm not. Net neutrality could only go for so long.
LordofHats wrote: So instead of fixing their regulations, they're just going to let service providers price gouge everyone? I'd say I'm surprised by I'm not. Net neutrality could only go for so long.
Well. The thing is that net neutrality should be kept. In fact the primary benefits would be gone. And would stagnant all competition but to a bare few companies.
I have yet to see any good reasons for them to pass it apart from its a Capitalist system. Well, then shouldn't everyone have an equal playing field? I mean it isn't like this is america. Oh wait...
Queue a million people misunderstanding what Net Neutrality is, followed by a million different corporations explaining what their redefined version of the term is to 'help' elucidate the matter.
daedalus wrote: Queue a million people misunderstanding what Net Neutrality is, followed by a million different corporations explaining what their redefined version of the term is to 'help' elucidate the matter.
These million people are actually quite smart. They brought up excellent points. They all are fairly well organized and have a website and what is actually going on and understand what net neutrality is.
What's amazing to me is that this hysteria fails to take into account is that the internet has remained perfectly open and free for many years without the implementation of net neutrality, and there is no reason to expect that to change now.
Keep in mind that most ISP providers built the infrastructure on their own.
whembly wrote: What's amazing to me is that this hysteria fails to take into account is that the internet has remained perfectly open and free for many years without the implementation of net neutrality, and there is no reason to expect that to change now.
I don't think anyone legitimately thinks the internet will implode. But the cost of using the internet is going to go up. New business is going to be stifled, but probably not in a way most of us will ever notice. Comcast and the cable companies will happily go on being dicks to everyone while getting richer than ever, and the world keeps turning
whembly wrote: What's amazing to me is that this hysteria fails to take into account is that the internet has remained perfectly open and free for many years without the implementation of net neutrality, and there is no reason to expect that to change now..
1.) It's already starting to change now, with the Netflix payoff, and
2.) it hasn't changed previously at least partially because Comcast is under a voluntary consent decree.
whembly wrote: What's amazing to me is that this hysteria fails to take into account is that the internet has remained perfectly open and free for many years without the implementation of net neutrality, and there is no reason to expect that to change now.
Keep in mind that most ISP providers built the infrastructure on their own.
Yes but did they create the infrastructure.(As much as providing a lettuce piece to a cheese burger at mcdonalds) Do you force artists to conform to a style because someone gave you the paint brush and the frame. Do we say what we want them to paint exactly and claim that was your work and no one elses? No. Well thats basically what is happening. The ISPS believe they built everything yes that is correct but they didn't fill it. The internet did that, they lead the charge but they just left it to grow. If it continues to grow it will become better and give more competition. As it stands currently companies have to fight for quality, not quantity. What gets better service? Quality products. What doesn't? Quantity products. Because who wants a hundred hamburgers that are made terribly and taste horrible compared to a great crafted hamburger made out of sirloin steak?
whembly wrote: Keep in mind that most ISP providers built the infrastructure on their own.
Sure, except for the billions of dollars of tax breaks. That lost revenue didn't come out of thin air, it came out of taxpayer pockets. The "we built this" line is just as bs in this case as it was in R-Money's.
whembly wrote: Keep in mind that most ISP providers built the infrastructure on their own.
Sure, except for the billions of dollars of tax breaks. That lost revenue didn't come out of thin air, it came out of taxpayer pockets. The "we built this" line is just as bs in this case as it was in R-Money's.
whembly wrote: Keep in mind that most ISP providers built the infrastructure on their own.
Sure, except for the billions of dollars of tax breaks. That lost revenue didn't come out of thin air, it came out of taxpayer pockets. The "we built this" line is just as bs in this case as it was in R-Money's.
So basically they see the internet as cable. Because everyone is moving to the internet because its cheaper and the consumers are getting smarter.... Wouldn't everyone find a way to beat the system? You know we make our own cable company and do the same thing and don't offer any problems or money. We just offer broadband and support. We are run by the government and are run by tax payer dollars. All broadband companies would be disbanded and merged into this one company.
whembly wrote: Keep in mind that most ISP providers built the infrastructure on their own.
Sure, except for the billions of dollars of tax breaks. That lost revenue didn't come out of thin air, it came out of taxpayer pockets. The "we built this" line is just as bs in this case as it was in R-Money's.
And that's different from any other large companies in the US? Should GM start massively discounting their products simply because taxpayers bailed out the company?
The current structure of the cable market is one where the cable companies have no incentive to offer a superior service. Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon, just carve out their own little corners and built regional monopolies for their service.
While I've advocated a government run internet provided before, I don't think such a thing is politically viable right now. Maybe in a few years when people really start getting tired of being gouged but not now.
whembly wrote: Keep in mind that most ISP providers built the infrastructure on their own.
Sure, except for the billions of dollars of tax breaks. That lost revenue didn't come out of thin air, it came out of taxpayer pockets. The "we built this" line is just as bs in this case as it was in R-Money's.
And that's different from any other large companies in the US? Should GM start massively discounting their products simply because taxpayers bailed out the company?
Yes. Because it shows how inadequate of a company they are. That they can mess things up so much that they buggerize everything. If those companies go down all of them because of some nation wide depression, then we will not have the internet in the United States.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: The current structure of the cable market is one where the cable companies have no incentive to offer a superior service. Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon, just carve out their own little corners and built regional monopolies for their service.
While I've advocated a government run internet provided before, I don't think such a thing is politically viable right now. Maybe in a few years when people really start getting tired of being gouged but not now.
whembly wrote: And that's different from any other large companies in the US? Should GM start massively discounting their products simply because taxpayers bailed out the company?
The cable companies wouldn't exist at all without tax payer money. Comparing the money poured into the cable and internet infrastructure of the US over the last four decades to a single bail out of the auto industry is comparing a bowl of rice to the beach.
Asherian Command wrote: We are run by the government and are run by tax payer dollars. All broadband companies would be disbanded and merged into this one company.
Asherian Command wrote: We are run by the government and are run by tax payer dollars. All broadband companies would be disbanded and merged into this one company.
Asherian Command wrote: We are run by the government and are run by tax payer dollars. All broadband companies would be disbanded and merged into this one company.
But that would be socialism!
Yes a economic system that is also apparent in police forces, and all groups that help us to live.
You know its kind of funny, my political science teachers all make fun of conservative looks. I mean every single one of them, I go to a republician college. they laugh when they call socialism evil. And hit them over the head with economics and political agendas. Socialism is as evil as mercantilism or you know a toaster. It helps me but it burns to the touch. So I better not touch and just put my toast in there so I don't burn my hand and have awesome food.
LordofHats wrote: The current structure of the cable market is one where the cable companies have no incentive to offer a superior service. Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon, just carve out their own little corners and built regional monopolies for their service.
While I've advocated a government run internet provided before, I don't think such a thing is politically viable right now. Maybe in a few years when people really start getting tired of being gouged but not now.
The "NSA scare" doesn't help the situation with government run electronic facilities either.
Fafnir wrote: Although, as a far left democratic socialist, I do have to admit that it is deliciously evil.
Hey, evil is fun. We get dental and we get the cool cars. And we get to say to the hero. "Goodbye Mr. Bond. (INSERT PUN OF IMPENDING DEATH WITH CERTAIN MACHINE)."
The "NSA scare" doesn't help the situation with government run electronic facilities either.
The government running their own service wouldn't really change anything in that department. Anyone hooked up to an modem and with enough processing power can collect all the metadata they want. Who owns the cables and assigns the IPs or whatever is kind of meaningless on that front.
And to be frank, every single company in the world, is doing what the NSA did. People have been saying this for nearly 20 years (same people who suspected the NSA was doing it). It's as old as the internet itself. every corporation on the planet has metadata on you, as well as personal data. They do it constantly, and no one cares, but the government does it, and
The "NSA scare" doesn't help the situation with government run electronic facilities either.
The government running their own service wouldn't really change anything in that department. Anyone hooked up to an modem and with enough processing power can collect all the metadata they want. Who owns the cables and assigns the IPs or whatever is kind of meaningless on that front.
The problem is that the public at large doesn't know and doesn't care.
People talk about fairness and making sure the next generation of start ups are given fair access and all that, and those are really good arguments. But for some reason I can't get my head past the idea that these companies are trying to turn internet subscription in to the next confusopoly, where instead of being able to make easy price comparisons between different companies offering different speeds and total monthly downloads for a given price, I'll instead have to troll through hundreds of big brand websites figuring out if its worth paying a slightly higher price for faster speed netflix, or if I should go with some cheaper service that's giving me higher speed Apple TV.
Simple, straight forward technology is turned all weird and confusing so that companies can build business models that prevent direct competition forcing the consumer to pay a premium.
The "NSA scare" doesn't help the situation with government run electronic facilities either.
The government running their own service wouldn't really change anything in that department. Anyone hooked up to an modem and with enough processing power can collect all the metadata they want. Who owns the cables and assigns the IPs or whatever is kind of meaningless on that front.
Well, assuming the people you're wanting to snoop on are using your services, or you have said modem and processing power in a closet of said service you've strongarmed into compliance, or you're doing something nefarious to route traffic. The internet isn't just some magic pool of traffic where I can see your traffic and you can see mine.
I think there would probably be positive net gain if the government took over the distribution and infrastructure portions of the US networks that make up our portion of the internet. I agree completely that the government running it wouldn't make the spying worse, but there'd be an even bigger perception of impropriety there though.
And to be frank, every single company in the world, is doing what the NSA did. People have been saying this for nearly 20 years (same people who suspected the NSA was doing it). It's as old as the internet itself. every corporation on the planet has metadata on you, as well as personal data. They do it constantly, and no one cares, but the government does it, and
*snip*
It just kind of makes me laugh.
As an apologist for authority, I would imagine it does.
You can opt out of companies. Facebook only gets picture of me and my personal information if I make the mistake of giving it to them. Facebook also can only collect information sent to Facebook. I have to assume that the NSA collect any information sent anywhere. Again, you don't just vomit information in every direction possible every time you open a web browser. Or, at least, you shouldn't.
Facebook can't throw me in jail or make me part of secret investigations based upon any "metadata" they happen to collect either.
daedalus wrote: I think there would probably be positive net gain if the government took over the distribution and infrastructure portions of the US networks that make up our portion of the internet. I agree completely that the government running it wouldn't make the spying worse, but there'd be an even bigger perception of impropriety there though.
Oh yeah. Its just that to me, the internet is like the Interstate system. It makes sense for the government to be placed in control of managing the infrastructure to some degree and providing a basic level of service. I'm not really interested in completely cutting out the private sector, but a bare bones internet service suitable for basic news and email is something I'd like to see come to be with the private sector selling the premium services themselves.
As an apologist for authority, I would imagine it does.
It's not so much apologism as it is annoyance at how selective people are with what they freak out about and how they freak out about it. In the end what the NSA did was illegal and that's all that matters, but that people can be so carefree about multi-billion dollar corporations doing the same thing, which registers nary a comment in public discourse, baffles me.
Facebook can't throw me in jail or make me part of secret investigations based upon any "metadata" they happen to collect either.
It's not like Samsung pretty much runs South Korea or anything People should be just afraid of blugeoning power of corporations in the world as they are of the government, but they're not. Daily, corporations probably do more to harm us than the government does (other individual citizens do more to harm us), but there are people so much more obsessed about government doomsday than they are about the things that are actually out there doing damage to people right now, so yeah. I kind of become a dick about it That's why a put an adorable bunny in my sig
It will be interesting to see if the Internet does actually have an expiry date in the end. Will it become more trouble than it's worth? Perhaps even have it running like cable. You sign up to Virgin, but all you have access to is stuff hosted on the Virgin cloud, each operator has their own "cloud" and none actually talk to each other anymore.
I know corporations are easily as dangerous, if not more.
To me, a lot of the problem is that the situation is asynchronous. You (as a hypothetical corporation) know my data, but I know neither my data nor your data. I think it's that asynchrony that makes the situation injust.
My proposal is that we just dump EVERYTHING. Thermonuclear mutually assured destruction with data as the payload. Make everything 100% public.
It'll sting for everyone, but afterwards:
- People will know whether there was any reason to freak out about what the government knows about them.
- Everyone knows everything bad about each other.
- People learn what companies have been watching the things they have no business sticking their noses into.
It'll never happen, and would probably destroy the current civilized world economy in the short term, but it would be the "right" thing to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfstan wrote: It will be interesting to see if the Internet does actually have an expiry date in the end. Will it become more trouble than it's worth? Perhaps even have it running like cable. You sign up to Virgin, but all you have access to is stuff hosted on the Virgin cloud, each operator has their own "cloud" and none actually talk to each other anymore.
On a side note, I you want to understand net neutrality I would recomend checking out the Network Neutrality FAQ. This is by Tim Wu, they guy who coined the phrase, and has quite a few academic papers there too.
On a side note, I you want to understand net neutrality I would recomend checking out the Network Neutrality FAQ. This is by Tim Wu, they guy who coined the phrase, and has quite a few academic papers there too.
I've read that actually. Quite informative. Which is referenced in the Extra Credits video. (Though not on the video surprisingly)
Also I laugh at everyone here. Because one of the main reasons why I have put this thread up is to spread awareness of the issue and to do something about it. We can't just sit idlely by while an idiot pokes at something beyond their understanding. I mean all it takes is a simple letter or email to your congressmen saying. "I Support net neutrality and so should you," Then explain to them what net neutrality is. Tell them benefits of staying the current system. Tell them all the good things. I did that and I mean we stopped SOPA and APA from occuring from barging down the entire system with emails and letters.
daedalus wrote: I know corporations are easily as dangerous, if not more.
To me, a lot of the problem is that the situation is asynchronous. You (as a hypothetical corporation) know my data, but I know neither my data nor your data. I think it's that asynchrony that makes the situation injust.
My proposal is that we just dump EVERYTHING. Thermonuclear mutually assured destruction with data as the payload. Make everything 100% public.
It'll sting for everyone, but afterwards:
- People will know whether there was any reason to freak out about what the government knows about them.
- Everyone knows everything bad about each other.
- People learn what companies have been watching the things they have no business sticking their noses into.
It'll never happen, and would probably destroy the current civilized world economy in the short term, but it would be the "right" thing to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfstan wrote: It will be interesting to see if the Internet does actually have an expiry date in the end. Will it become more trouble than it's worth? Perhaps even have it running like cable. You sign up to Virgin, but all you have access to is stuff hosted on the Virgin cloud, each operator has their own "cloud" and none actually talk to each other anymore.
Well that's interesting and I can see the Internet splitting off into something like this. You're average "Joe" gets fed up with slow connection speed and problems with hacking & viruses, they could quite easily sign up for a one stop shop of a service. Get a fixed line speed that allows them to game on line, connect via social media, use ebay and watch TV & movies. How many of us know people who just do that now? I know my dad does and there are a lot of "dad" characters out there.
Well that's interesting and I can see the Internet splitting off into something like this. You're average "Joe" gets fed up with slow connection speed and problems with hacking & viruses, they could quite easily sign up for a one stop shop of a service. Get a fixed line speed that allows them to game on line, connect via social media, use ebay and watch TV & movies. How many of us know people who just do that now? I know my dad does and there are a lot of "dad" characters out there.
Back in the day, you were basically limited to consuming services. It was pretty much interactive TV. I don't remember it very well, being about 6-7 years old when we had Prodigy, but I remember bits and pieces. You could only use what was in Prodigy's walled garden. Compuserve had their own walled garden, and so on.
The sad thing is that for most people, it would probably be perfectly great. Most people don't have to get worried they're close to exceeding the max open ports on their routers. I'd find it appalling.
LordofHats wrote: The current structure of the cable market is one where the cable companies have no incentive to offer a superior service. Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon, just carve out their own little corners and built regional monopolies for their service.
While I've advocated a government run internet provided before, I don't think such a thing is politically viable right now. Maybe in a few years when people really start getting tired of being gouged but not now.
Smug people often do that. I would laugh at how no one here is as good looking as I am, but then I remember I'm also the Must Humble Dakkanaught, three years running.
Smug people often do that. I would laugh at how no one here is as good looking as I am, but then I remember I'm also the Must Humble Dakkanaught, three years running.
He said while manly giggling at all those not as humble as himself
LordofHats wrote: The current structure of the cable market is one where the cable companies have no incentive to offer a superior service. Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon, just carve out their own little corners and built regional monopolies for their service.
While I've advocated a government run internet provided before, I don't think such a thing is politically viable right now. Maybe in a few years when people really start getting tired of being gouged but not now.
Smug people often do that. I would laugh at how no one here is as good looking as I am, but then I remember I'm also the Must Humble Dakkanaught, three years running.
EU has passed the Net Neutrality policies. The EU will not follow the United States in that regard. Mostly because the United States should of become an Observer in the EU so they could see why they should pass net neutrality and any thing. Like it or not. The United States is a European Power. Don't believe me. 80% of the people here are European descendant. Founded by European power and also follows a European system. No matter how much we try in the States, we will always be apart of Europe.
I do laugh at people. Not because of that. But because its the internet and I need a good laugh now and again. Especially on the subject of the United States believing it is a hegemonic power, which is sadly not the case, it has been losing its powers and has become more of a power struggle between multiple countries or states. As we can see that the EU will take the cloak of leadership and moves towards a more united group of individual states. The US has been struggling with many of its policies and has become inadqueate in actually dealing with world affairs so the EU will take its place. As it is the second to the united states. If not more powerful if it pooled its resources together.
This is part of the subject by the way mostly due to the fact that net neutrality voted in the united states affects other countries. The United States, doesn't understand that those people in the EU actually put time into investigating and figuring out how things work and what to do best, so they saw net neutrality as the best solution. The US likes to shoot off laws and ask questions later. And then it takes decades to repeal those laws. The only thing the american population can do is email their congressmen, which is not that hard, as they actually listen to us as we are their voters. They cant scrub off a well informed citizen, because well informed citizens are usually intelligent and with that they hold a suitable amount of power over a larger degree of people. They can't brush you away or else they will lose a majority of their voters. That's how this system works. I bet if everyone who is on this website that is an american voted during a state election we would swing the vote single handily. I've actually talked to a Congressmen and they literally say they want to hear from people, they want to talk to informed citizens on these issues. They want to talk to IT people, they want to understand what Net Neutrality is and have it explained to them.
This is part of the subject by the way mostly due to the fact that net neutrality voted in the united states affects other countries. The United States, doesn't understand that those people in the EU actually put time into investigating and figuring out how things work and what to do best, so they saw net neutrality as the best solution. The US likes to shoot off laws and ask questions later. And then it takes decades to repeal those laws. The only thing the american population can do is email their congressmen, which is not that hard, as they actually listen to us as we are their voters. They cant scrub off a well informed citizen, because well informed citizens are usually intelligent and with that they hold a suitable amount of power over a larger degree of people. They can't brush you away or else they will lose a majority of their voters. That's how this system works. I bet if everyone who is on this website that is an american voted during a state election we would swing the vote single handily.
I... when you talk about the US, you're referring to the United States, right?
I've actually talked to a Congressmen and they literally say they want to hear from people, they want to talk to informed citizens on these issues. They want to talk to IT people, they want to understand what Net Neutrality is and have it explained to them.
"I wish I had more bright eyes youngsters like you coming up to me and showing enthusiasm for the issues they care about. I'm very interested in what your concerns are, and I wish to represent you in taking them to a higher authority. Next year, vote Quimby."
On a side note, I you want to understand net neutrality I would recomend checking out the Network Neutrality FAQ. This is by Tim Wu, they guy who coined the phrase, and has quite a few academic papers there too.
I've read that actually. Quite informative. Which is referenced in the Extra Credits video. (Though not on the video surprisingly)
Also I laugh at everyone here. Because one of the main reasons why I have put this thread up is to spread awareness of the issue and to do something about it. We can't just sit idlely by while an idiot pokes at something beyond their understanding. I mean all it takes is a simple letter or email to your congressmen saying. "I Support net neutrality and so should you," Then explain to them what net neutrality is. Tell them benefits of staying the current system. Tell them all the good things. I did that and I mean we stopped SOPA and APA from occuring from barging down the entire system with emails and letters.
Have you read The Master Switch? It's very informative.
So, AM. You are moving to the EU? Yes or no? I don't need to read your diatribe. I'm just curious that you're leaving to join the better internet league. Do you have a job lined up?
This is part of the subject by the way mostly due to the fact that net neutrality voted in the united states affects other countries. The United States, doesn't understand that those people in the EU actually put time into investigating and figuring out how things work and what to do best, so they saw net neutrality as the best solution. The US likes to shoot off laws and ask questions later. And then it takes decades to repeal those laws. The only thing the american population can do is email their congressmen, which is not that hard, as they actually listen to us as we are their voters. They cant scrub off a well informed citizen, because well informed citizens are usually intelligent and with that they hold a suitable amount of power over a larger degree of people. They can't brush you away or else they will lose a majority of their voters. That's how this system works. I bet if everyone who is on this website that is an american voted during a state election we would swing the vote single handily.
I... when you talk about the US, you're referring to the United States, right?
I've actually talked to a Congressmen and they literally say they want to hear from people, they want to talk to informed citizens on these issues. They want to talk to IT people, they want to understand what Net Neutrality is and have it explained to them.
"I wish I had more bright eyes youngsters like you coming up to me and showing enthusiasm for the issues they care about. I'm very interested in what your concerns are, and I wish to represent you in taking them to a higher authority. Next year, vote Quimby."
"I don't care about your computer gak, nonvoter."
Which one sounds better?
The Top one We are talking about the United States. Its quite interesting I was talking to people in the government about this and they are quite happy to talk to people about stuff.
Are you talking to me or Asherian Command?
Where? Sorry so many questions!
Have you read The Master Switch? It's very informative.
I'll add it to my to read list.
So, You are moving to the EU? Yes or no? Do you have a job lined up?
No Idea. I was planning on moving out of the states if my job requires me to do so, once I get my degree in game design I don't know. Because my school is quite well known for hiring everyone in the entire class out of college for some strange reason.
kronk wrote: So, AM. You are moving to the EU? Yes or no? I don't need to read your diatribe. I'm just curious that you're leaving to join the better internet league. Do you have a job lined up?
Edit: Added who I'm talking to.
Goddamned hard to do that. I tried to get a transfer over to a job in London a few years ago, but they didn't want to pay the relo.
The "NSA scare" doesn't help the situation with government run electronic facilities either.
The government running their own service wouldn't really change anything in that department. Anyone hooked up to an modem and with enough processing power can collect all the metadata they want. Who owns the cables and assigns the IPs or whatever is kind of meaningless on that front.
And to be frank, every single company in the world, is doing what the NSA did. People have been saying this for nearly 20 years (same people who suspected the NSA was doing it). It's as old as the internet itself. every corporation on the planet has metadata on you, as well as personal data. They do it constantly, and no one cares, but the government does it, and
Spoiler:
It just kind of makes me laugh.
Because it's our government and they have rules to follow
The fact that it took a "traitor" to show everyone what they were doing behind closed doors doesn't matter to you?
Because it's our government and they have rules to follow
I even called it Illegal
I just want people to use some damn sense. Why do they only care when the government has all that information, but not when practically every corporation on the face of the earth has it? Why is distrust so heavily focused on a single entity in the world rather than on the numerous other ones guilty of just as many if not more damaging acts to our lives?
There's a lot of tyranny in the world but the only tyranny any gives a damn about is the hypothetical government kind of tyranny. While corporations were doing their own PRISM programs for nearly two decades, no paid any mind until the NSA did it, because corporations have apparently never done anything to harm anyone ever.
Because it's our government and they have rules to follow
I even called it Illegal
I just want people to use some damn sense. Why do they only care when the government has all that information, but not when practically every corporation on the face of the earth has it? Why is distrust so heavily focused on a single entity in the world rather than on the numerous other ones guilty of just as many if not more damaging acts to our lives?
There's a lot of tyranny in the world but the only tyranny any gives a damn about is the hypothetical government kind of tyranny. While corporations were doing their own PRISM programs for nearly two decades, no paid any mind until the NSA did it, because corporations have apparently never done anything to harm anyone ever.
For sake of your argument...
It's because corporations want your business. Why does the government need it?
It's because corporations want your business. Why does the government need it?
I can think of as many uses for various kinds of information gather on the part of the government as for corporations (Metadata is less useful to the government, except to agencies like the CDC and the Census Beauru), but that's not really my point.
A government is beholden to voters to an extent. They can get away with a lot of gak if people don't care but if they rile the mob to much the mob throwns them out. It's a slow process but it works.
Look at the death of net neutrality as an example. The cable companies basically have a government permission to build monopolies, receive huge tax breaks and subsidies to build those monopolies, and now they're managed to goad the FCC into allowing them to charge GM for making cars that go on the highway, and you for driving that car. The FDA has been running a similar scheme between big pharma and food manufacturers for a long time.
People need to stop worrying so much about the hypothetical government doomsday and get their heads on straight. Corporations have gained so much political power they can practically write legislation (like big pharma and the ACA), and unlike politicians, we can't vote shout coroporations out of office. At most they knock the guy on top off the pyramid, apologize, and go back to doing what they were doing.
Because it's our government and they have rules to follow
I even called it Illegal
I just want people to use some damn sense. Why do they only care when the government has all that information, but not when practically every corporation on the face of the earth has it? Why is distrust so heavily focused on a single entity in the world rather than on the numerous other ones guilty of just as many if not more damaging acts to our lives?
There's a lot of tyranny in the world but the only tyranny any gives a damn about is the hypothetical government kind of tyranny. While corporations were doing their own PRISM programs for nearly two decades, no paid any mind until the NSA did it, because corporations have apparently never done anything to harm anyone ever.
Again though, a lot of us DO hate it too. There's people out there who don't have facebook accounts, who don't show up on the first 3+ pages of google if you search by their name. Not just old people.
You're reading text from one such person right now.
It's because corporations want your business. Why does the government need it?
I can think of as many uses for various kinds of information gather on the part of the government as for corporations (Metadata is less useful to the government, except to agencies like the CDC and the Census Beauru), but that's not really my point.
A government is beholden to voters to an extent. They can get away with a lot of gak if people don't care but if they rile the mob to much the mob throwns them out. It's a slow process but it works.
Look at the death of net neutrality as an example. The cable companies basically have a government permission to build monopolies, receive huge tax breaks and subsidies to build those monopolies, and now they're managed to goad the FCC into allowing them to charge GM for making cars that go on the highway, and you for driving that car. The FDA has been running a similar scheme between big pharma and food manufacturers for a long time.
People need to stop worrying so much about the hypothetical government doomsday and get their heads on straight. Corporations have gained so much political power they can practically write legislation (like big pharma and the ACA), and unlike politicians, we can't vote shout coroporations out of office. At most they knock the guy on top off the pyramid, apologize, and go back to doing what they were doing.
NGOs (IGOS?) are quite powerful as of now. They didn't used to be, we only let them gain too much power.
It's because corporations want your business. Why does the government need it?
I can think of as many uses for various kinds of information gather on the part of the government as for corporations (Metadata is less useful to the government, except to agencies like the CDC and the Census Beauru), but that's not really my point.
A government is beholden to voters to an extent. They can get away with a lot of gak if people don't care but if they rile the mob to much the mob throwns them out. It's a slow process but it works.
Look at the death of net neutrality as an example. The cable companies basically have a government permission to build monopolies, receive huge tax breaks and subsidies to build those monopolies, and now they're managed to goad the FCC into allowing them to charge GM for making cars that go on the highway, and you for driving that car. The FDA has been running a similar scheme between big pharma and food manufacturers for a long time.
People need to stop worrying so much about the hypothetical government doomsday and get their heads on straight. Corporations have gained so much political power they can practically write legislation (like big pharma and the ACA), and unlike politicians, we can't vote shout coroporations out of office. At most they knock the guy on top off the pyramid, apologize, and go back to doing what they were doing.
We can vote with whom we choose for our ISP right now... you may not get what you want, but there are options.
But if you actually read the proposal, the FCC will still require the content providers to:
“to offer a baseline level of service to their subscribers, along with the ability to enter into individual negotiations with content providers,” the official said by email. “In all instances, broadband providers would need to act in a commercially reasonable manner subject to [FCC] review on a case-by-case basis.”
The whole bit about Netflix entering into a commercial peering arrangement with Comcast makes a sense as the cost of doing business. As you can imagine, the Netflix bandwidth ain't anything to sneeze at.
The whole bit about Netflix entering into a commercial peering arrangement with Comcast makes a sense as the cost of doing business. As you can imagine, the Netflix bandwidth ain't anything to sneeze at.
But Netflix already pays for the bandwidth they use.
The whole bit about Netflix entering into a commercial peering arrangement with Comcast makes a sense as the cost of doing business. As you can imagine, the Netflix bandwidth ain't anything to sneeze at.
But Netflix already pays for the bandwidth they use.
Not quite...
This isn't a simple issue where Netflix pays for "x" bandwidth like you do when you pay your monthly cable bill.
My carrier (Charter) actually host some of Netflix's contents as part of their business model to help keep the uptime for streaming high.
EDIT: tell you what... I'm going fishing this weekend with a couple Charter engineer monkeys... what questions do you have?
How much bandwidth does Netflix average during peak hours?
How much of the above bandwidth comes out of the servers at the colo, and how much of that comes from Netflix's other servers, wherever they might be?
How much bandwidth does a service have to eat up before Charter tries to get the service to engage in one of these agreements?
Should the service refuse, what's the alternative?
How much bandwidth does Netflix average during peak hours?
How much of the above bandwidth comes out of the servers at the colo, and how much of that comes from Netflix's other servers, wherever they might be?
How much bandwidth does a service have to eat up before Charter tries to get the service to engage in one of these agreements?
Should the service refuse, what's the alternative?
Will do!
Look at it this way... (this is how I understand it)...
The net neutrality rule is an attempt to impose “common carrier” regulation, like that imposed on traditional telephone companies, on ISPs.
Such common carrier regulation requires providers to treat all customers equally.... which means not only you and me... but also private content providers (ie, netflix, amazon, espn, etc...).
But the FCC was previously determined by that appellate court case that broadband Internet service is not a common carrier service.
As a result, broadband service providers cannot be subjected to the same common carrier rules.
The ISP is providing a server to NOT only their consumers, but also to OTHER businesses wanting access to those customers.
It's because corporations want your business. Why does the government need it?
I can think of as many uses for various kinds of information gather on the part of the government as for corporations (Metadata is less useful to the government, except to agencies like the CDC and the Census Beauru), but that's not really my point.
A government is beholden to voters to an extent. They can get away with a lot of gak if people don't care but if they rile the mob to much the mob throwns them out. It's a slow process but it works.
Look at the death of net neutrality as an example. The cable companies basically have a government permission to build monopolies, receive huge tax breaks and subsidies to build those monopolies, and now they're managed to goad the FCC into allowing them to charge GM for making cars that go on the highway, and you for driving that car. The FDA has been running a similar scheme between big pharma and food manufacturers for a long time.
People need to stop worrying so much about the hypothetical government doomsday and get their heads on straight. Corporations have gained so much political power they can practically write legislation (like big pharma and the ACA), and unlike politicians, we can't vote shout coroporations out of office. At most they knock the guy on top off the pyramid, apologize, and go back to doing what they were doing.
We can vote with whom we choose for our ISP right now... you may not get what you want, but there are options.
But if you actually read the proposal, the FCC will still require the content providers to:
“to offer a baseline level of service to their subscribers, along with the ability to enter into individual negotiations with content providers,” the official said by email. “In all instances, broadband providers would need to act in a commercially reasonable manner subject to [FCC] review on a case-by-case basis.”
The whole bit about Netflix entering into a commercial peering arrangement with Comcast makes a sense as the cost of doing business. As you can imagine, the Netflix bandwidth ain't anything to sneeze at.
Unfortunately it really depends on your area. In the suburbs yes you can choose sometimes. But not all the time. Because the two ISPs collide with each other for bandwidth which is actually really low for everyone.
It is the only argument I have seen on the opposing side. The argument is flawed in that it assumes that we have that choice in the first place. Most of the time we are confined to one provider, because that one provider rules over certain areas.
It's because corporations want your business. Why does the government need it?
I can think of as many uses for various kinds of information gather on the part of the government as for corporations (Metadata is less useful to the government, except to agencies like the CDC and the Census Beauru), but that's not really my point.
A government is beholden to voters to an extent. They can get away with a lot of gak if people don't care but if they rile the mob to much the mob throwns them out. It's a slow process but it works.
Look at the death of net neutrality as an example. The cable companies basically have a government permission to build monopolies, receive huge tax breaks and subsidies to build those monopolies, and now they're managed to goad the FCC into allowing them to charge GM for making cars that go on the highway, and you for driving that car. The FDA has been running a similar scheme between big pharma and food manufacturers for a long time.
People need to stop worrying so much about the hypothetical government doomsday and get their heads on straight. Corporations have gained so much political power they can practically write legislation (like big pharma and the ACA), and unlike politicians, we can't vote shout coroporations out of office. At most they knock the guy on top off the pyramid, apologize, and go back to doing what they were doing.
We can vote with whom we choose for our ISP right now... you may not get what you want, but there are options.
But if you actually read the proposal, the FCC will still require the content providers to:
“to offer a baseline level of service to their subscribers, along with the ability to enter into individual negotiations with content providers,” the official said by email. “In all instances, broadband providers would need to act in a commercially reasonable manner subject to [FCC] review on a case-by-case basis.”
The whole bit about Netflix entering into a commercial peering arrangement with Comcast makes a sense as the cost of doing business. As you can imagine, the Netflix bandwidth ain't anything to sneeze at.
Unfortunately it really depends on your area. In the suburbs yes you can choose sometimes. But not all the time. Because the two ISPs collide with each other for bandwidth which is actually really low for everyone.
It is the only argument I have seen on the opposing side. The argument is flawed in that it assumes that we have that choice in the first place. Most of the time we are confined to one provider, because that one provider rules over certain areas.
You're confined to one cableprovider simply because of logistic. Not because there's these fatcats twisting their mustache bribing the localties impose regional monopolites.
Building ISPs isn't cheap and plus they need to have access to "right of ways" of those utility lines. Can you imagine the logistical nightmares on those poles if the local jurisdictions allowed any cable companies to offer services?
The funny thing I've found is that Cable Providers do NOT compete among another. The work together to implement industry standards and such... (Cablelabs is the non-profit group... I think)
They compete against other technologies (ie, Verizon WiFi, Bell DSL, Google Fiber Network™, etc...).
If that Time Warner Cable and Comcast merger get approved, you'll see Comcast will sell many of the TimeWarner regional cable areas to other cable providers. (simply because they don't want the market). For instance, I believe TimeWarner has the Dallas market... Comcast isn't anywhere near there... but, Charter has the FortWorth area... I can see Charter buying the Dallas asset from Comcast. (I may have the cities wrong, but you get my drift).
We can vote with whom we choose for our ISP right now... you may not get what you want, but there are options.
No. There aren't. In most places there are only two options, one of them being a major cable company or a smaller company that uses a major cable company's cables. The other option is usually DISH for TV, or DSL for internet, and both of those services are terrible even for the low cost. Where I live, its Comcast or nothing, because many community organizations find dishes tacky and ban them, or are paid by a major cable company to keep the competition out. Unless you're in a metro area or the surrounding suburbs and towns, you're unlikely to have any options.
So no. There are no options. Comcast and Verizon have spent a lot of time ensuring there aren't.
We can vote with whom we choose for our ISP right now... you may not get what you want, but there are options.
No. There aren't. In most places there are only two options, one of them being a major cable company or a smaller company that uses a major cable company's cables. The other option is usually DISH for TV, or DSL for internet, and both of those services are terrible even for the low cost. Where I live, its Comcast or nothing, because many community organizations find dishes tacky and ban them, or are paid by a major cable company to keep the competition out. Unless you're in a metro area or the surrounding suburbs and towns, you're unlikely to have any options.
So no. There are no options. Comcast and Verizon have spent a lot of time ensuring there aren't.
Wait??? Communities ban dishes??? O.o. That's some f'ed up HOA?..
Hopefully cellular wifi will become more prevalent.
You'd be surprised what neighborhood associations can and can't tell you what to do with your property (it's mostly in suburbs and some 'hip' rural areas). It's officially done to keep property values up, because they say that a dish brings value down, but a lot of times the association is just being paid or cut a deal to keep competition out.
EU parliament enacted the first stage of law around this earlier this month.
They are looking to make it "illegal" for ISPs to do this. It isnt finalised of yet as there are several more legislative stages to go through but we shall see.
Ratius wrote: EU parliament enacted the first stage of law around this earlier this month.
They are looking to make it "illegal" for ISPs to do this. It isnt finalised of yet as there are several more legislative stages to go through but we shall see.
Yeah. I think the united states should follow the EU on this. Seeing as the EU is multitudes of countries, and it might make them seem weak. Plus the united states will always be a european power.
Important to note though, that there seems to be way more choice for ISPs in the EU than US (I cannot substantiate this, only from reading interwebz).
Even in Ireland in relatively remote locations with limited BB infrastructure you will have a choice of 2-3. Might not seem a lot but with legislation to limit monopolies and unfair practice it does mitigate somewhat the problem.
I can see the problem in the US where in more rural locations you have to go with company X or connect a string to a cup.
Ratius wrote: EU parliament enacted the first stage of law around this earlier this month.
They are looking to make it "illegal" for ISPs to do this. It isnt finalised of yet as there are several more legislative stages to go through but we shall see.
Yeah. I think the united states should follow the EU on this. Seeing as the EU is multitudes of countries, and it might make them seem weak. Plus the united states will always be a european power.
Historically speaking, the US has its closest cultural and social connections to Europe. In this sense when talking about 'European Powers' the US is a reasonable inclusion.
Though in a broad sense, I fail to see why that means we should adopt any given policy simply because others have done it.
Granted the EU at least gets to keep their sensible net management laws, while the res to of are probably in for a few kidney shankings in coming years.
Ratius wrote: EU parliament enacted the first stage of law around this earlier this month. They are looking to make it "illegal" for ISPs to do this. It isnt finalised of yet as there are several more legislative stages to go through but we shall see.
Yeah. I think the united states should follow the EU on this. Seeing as the EU is multitudes of countries, and it might make them seem weak. Plus the united states will always be a european power.
wat?
Ahem. Welcome to world politics. I will be your guide for today.
The United States Contray to popular belief is not a new or global power, it was born from european states, with european ideals, and european systems. Its inhabitants are mostly european and they speak the common language. The United States is european techinically. Like it or not America is New Europe.
LordofHats wrote: Historically speaking, the US has its closest cultural and social connections to Europe. In this sense when talking about 'European Powers' the US is a reasonable inclusion.
Though in a broad sense, I fail to see why that means we should adopt any given policy simply because others have done it.
Granted the EU at least gets to keep their sensible net management laws, while the res to of are probably in for a few kidney shankings in coming years.
Basically. The EU is getting close to becoming unified at least 15% of Europe identifies with being European not the individual states/countries they are in. They are having argument currently whether it should be unified like the united states or separate as it currently is.
Plus the EU has this whole Social system progression going on. That is only thanks to the devastation caused by WW2.
Ratius wrote: EU parliament enacted the first stage of law around this earlier this month.
They are looking to make it "illegal" for ISPs to do this. It isnt finalised of yet as there are several more legislative stages to go through but we shall see.
Yeah. I think the united states should follow the EU on this. Seeing as the EU is multitudes of countries, and it might make them seem weak. Plus the united states will always be a european power.
wat?
Ahem. Welcome to world politics. I will be your guide for today.
The United States Contray to popular belief is not a new or global power, it was born from european states, with european ideals, and european systems. Its inhabitants are mostly european and they speak the common language. The United States is european techinically. Like it or not America is New Europe.
LordofHats wrote: Historically speaking, the US has its closest cultural and social connections to Europe. In this sense when talking about 'European Powers' the US is a reasonable inclusion.
Though in a broad sense, I fail to see why that means we should adopt any given policy simply because others have done it.
Granted the EU at least gets to keep their sensible net management laws, while the res to of are probably in for a few kidney shankings in coming years.
Basically. The EU is getting close to becoming unified at least 15% of Europe identifies with being European not the individual states/countries they are in. They are having argument currently whether it should be unified like the united states or separate as it currently is.
Plus the EU has this whole Social system progression going on. That is only thanks to the devastation caused by WW2.
We're not European...
Still... if the EU's policy is sound, the FCC may take it up as well. But, it isn't an automatic thing.
Plus the EU has this whole Social system progression going on. That is only thanks to the devastation caused by WW2.
Well, not so sure about that but we digress.
Hey its more than the US. Thanks to the bombing done by the allies, they had to rebuild everything. Roads, cities, bridges. They also had to have social reforms.
Italy I don't know much about other than it changes governments more frequently than a government should. But I digress.
Anyway. The united states should do what the EU did.
Ratius wrote: EU parliament enacted the first stage of law around this earlier this month.
They are looking to make it "illegal" for ISPs to do this. It isnt finalised of yet as there are several more legislative stages to go through but we shall see.
Yeah. I think the united states should follow the EU on this. Seeing as the EU is multitudes of countries, and it might make them seem weak. Plus the united states will always be a european power.
wat?
Ahem. Welcome to world politics. I will be your guide for today.
The United States Contray to popular belief is not a new or global power, it was born from european states, with european ideals, and european systems. Its inhabitants are mostly european and they speak the common language. The United States is european techinically. Like it or not America is New Europe.
Europeans are all just lost and confused Africans who wandered too far from home some amount of time ago.
Ratius wrote: EU parliament enacted the first stage of law around this earlier this month.
They are looking to make it "illegal" for ISPs to do this. It isnt finalised of yet as there are several more legislative stages to go through but we shall see.
Yeah. I think the united states should follow the EU on this. Seeing as the EU is multitudes of countries, and it might make them seem weak. Plus the united states will always be a european power.
wat?
Ahem. Welcome to world politics. I will be your guide for today.
The United States Contray to popular belief is not a new or global power, it was born from european states, with european ideals, and european systems. Its inhabitants are mostly european and they speak the common language. The United States is european techinically. Like it or not America is New Europe.
Europeans are all just lost and confused Africans who wandered too far from home some amount of time ago.
Africans are all humans.
All umans are evolved from other creatures.
By your logic, we are all protozoa.
Your move.
What? I am talking politically and historically, not scientifically..... North = European or developed countries (which are mostly european) and then the south = south americas, central america, africa, middle east, pacific (minus australia and new zealand)
What? I am talking politically and historically, not scientifically..... North = European or developed countries (which are mostly european) and then the south = south americas, central america, africa, middle east, pacific (minus australia and new zealand)
Where would you consider Spain on this dichotomy?
I'm interested to hear whether it's Spain, the U.A.E., or somewhere in Africa that you consider to be the father of modern Argentinian politics and history.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And the point I was trying to make earlier with my scientific comparison is that if you choose to, you can pull out the philosophical scalpel and divide humanity at any point along any lines convenient to your particular wishes.
I would argue that we were no longer European when we became independent from a European power. At that point, we continued to have (relatively) close ties with Europe as a whole, keeping the evolution of our politics and culture relatively similar, but still significantly different.
What? I am talking politically and historically, not scientifically..... North = European or developed countries (which are mostly european) and then the south = south americas, central america, africa, middle east, pacific (minus australia and new zealand)
Where would you consider Spain on this dichotomy?
I'm interested to hear whether it's Spain, the U.A.E., or somewhere in Africa that you consider to be the father of modern Argentinian politics and history.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And the point I was trying to make earlier with my scientific comparison is that if you choose to, you can pull out the philosophical scalpel and divide humanity at any point along any lines convenient to your particular wishes.
I would argue that we were no longer European when we became independent from a European power. At that point, we continued to have (relatively) close ties with Europe as a whole, keeping the evolution of our politics and culture relatively similar, but still significantly different.
Hey if it was my way, the UN would rule the entire planet as a supranational power. Where instead we identify as humanity and not just individual countries/states. But sadly that is not the case as it is now.
What? I am talking politically and historically, not scientifically..... North = European or developed countries (which are mostly european) and then the south = south americas, central america, africa, middle east, pacific (minus australia and new zealand)
Where would you consider Spain on this dichotomy?
I'm interested to hear whether it's Spain, the U.A.E., or somewhere in Africa that you consider to be the father of modern Argentinian politics and history.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And the point I was trying to make earlier with my scientific comparison is that if you choose to, you can pull out the philosophical scalpel and divide humanity at any point along any lines convenient to your particular wishes.
I would argue that we were no longer European when we became independent from a European power. At that point, we continued to have (relatively) close ties with Europe as a whole, keeping the evolution of our politics and culture relatively similar, but still significantly different.
Hey if it was my way, the UN would rule the entire planet as a supranational power. Where instead we identify as humanity and not just individual countries/states. But sadly that is not the case as it is now.
Never going to happen...
At least, not until the Vulcans make their presence known...
What? I am talking politically and historically, not scientifically..... North = European or developed countries (which are mostly european) and then the south = south americas, central america, africa, middle east, pacific (minus australia and new zealand)
Where would you consider Spain on this dichotomy?
I'm interested to hear whether it's Spain, the U.A.E., or somewhere in Africa that you consider to be the father of modern Argentinian politics and history.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And the point I was trying to make earlier with my scientific comparison is that if you choose to, you can pull out the philosophical scalpel and divide humanity at any point along any lines convenient to your particular wishes.
I would argue that we were no longer European when we became independent from a European power. At that point, we continued to have (relatively) close ties with Europe as a whole, keeping the evolution of our politics and culture relatively similar, but still significantly different.
Hey if it was my way, the UN would rule the entire planet as a supranational power. Where instead we identify as humanity and not just individual countries/states. But sadly that is not the case as it is now.
Never going to happen...
At least, not until the Vulcans make their presence known...
It might happen that there is a supranational state. But its not like we will get rid of the country system currently.
But anyway. Lets change topics back to the internet.
What? I am talking politically and historically, not scientifically..... North = European or developed countries (which are mostly european) and then the south = south americas, central america, africa, middle east, pacific (minus australia and new zealand)
Where would you consider Spain on this dichotomy?
Bull killers.
Poor bulls! Do they even make steak out of them? They're probably not even properly Genetically modified corn fed.
How much bandwidth does Netflix average during peak hours? How much of the above bandwidth comes out of the servers at the colo, and how much of that comes from Netflix's other servers, wherever they might be? How much bandwidth does a service have to eat up before Charter tries to get the service to engage in one of these agreements? Should the service refuse, what's the alternative?
Okay... back from my fishing trip.
Here's the dealio with the Netflix / Comcast ordeal.
Netflix for years used Comcast as a backbone infrastructure without paying for it.
Essentially, what was happening was that Netflix was steaming content thru Comcast's network that were going to non-Comcast customers. That was costing Comcast serious money.
Since MSO (ISPs) are just peer-to-peer networks, these "incestuous" situations occurs all the time... but when it's one of the big boppers on the 'net like NetFlix... then the ISPs will have issues.
Keep in mind, these ISP own their infrastructures. If there was ever any tax breaks / subsidies... they're minisculed compared how much these companies invested their own money (or financed).
I've read what you say. Something that bothers me here is that EVERYONE does that, effectively. If I sent an email to someone in the UK, hypothetically, it doesn't just go from me to Charter to the UK isp and then be done, it has to route through several other providers along the way. No one has had an issue up to this point with that; it's just been the "cost of doing business". Netflix got huge. I'll admit that. The problem is that the terms are all negotiated behind closed doors. How big did Netflix have to get before this became justified? Where are the numbers? If I saw that, I'd probably feel better about it. It doesn't help that there's an obvious conflict of interest in Netflix vs Charter/Comcast here.
Both sides are interesting, and I can see arguments on either side. I'm just bothered by the lack of cold hard numbers defending this action. There are plenty of holes in the Netflix side of things too, and that chart doesn't show some data that I think would be very interesting, like the number of users on Comcast as a comparison.
As far as the subsidies go, I've found stuff from different websites on either side of the argument as well, but both sides sport websites a little too off their meds for me to take seriously.
daedalus wrote: Hope your trip went well. Where did you guys go?
We went to Norfork, AK. Cabin was right on the stream.
Only caught one trout . But, the dam was generating most of the time, so we mainly putz around, BS'ing...
I've read what you say. Something that bothers me here is that EVERYONE does that, effectively. If I sent an email to someone in the UK, hypothetically, it doesn't just go from me to Charter to the UK isp and then be done, it has to route through several other providers along the way. No one has had an issue up to this point with that; it's just been the "cost of doing business".
That's not quite comparible. You pay for your internet access to send/recieve emails and the reciepient ALSO paid for internet access as well.
Netflix did not pay for that bandwidth usage across Comcast's network that were going to non-Comcast customers.
They do now as evidenced by their Open Connect partners contracts.
Netflix got huge. I'll admit that. The problem is that the terms are all negotiated behind closed doors. How big did Netflix have to get before this became justified? Where are the numbers? If I saw that, I'd probably feel better about it. It doesn't help that there's an obvious conflict of interest in Netflix vs Charter/Comcast here.
The only conflict of interest is if Charter/Comcast were also streaming content... which, they both do.
Everyone's is worried about ISPs double dipping... and rightly so. But the brouhaha between Netflix and Comcast isn't this. It's completely different.
Both sides are interesting, and I can see arguments on either side. I'm just bothered by the lack of cold hard numbers defending this action. There are plenty of holes in the Netflix side of things too, and that chart doesn't show some data that I think would be very interesting, like the number of users on Comcast as a comparison.
As far as the subsidies go, I've found stuff from different websites on either side of the argument as well, but both sides sport websites a little too off their meds for me to take seriously.
Not sure if we can see the hard numbers yet... I'm interested in them too. But, it's proprietary information that we won't see unless one of them sues in court (where it would be see during a discovery process).
FWIW: I'm a Netflix fanboi... I really want them to succeed and be around. But, in this specfic case, I believe Comcast was in the right.
Keep in mind, Comcast makes oodles of money (just think... over 30 millions subscribers paying an avg of $100 / month? That's a lotta jack... Jack) I can tell you that Comcast isn't fighting for it's life, needing some money for some small infraction here.
Isn't there a danger of it all fragmenting as well? In the UK you used to pay your TV licence and you got the BBC channels and the commercial ones, a one stop shop. The problem is now that this is no longer the case. You have Sky with their bundles, but you then have Netflix and Amazon producing shows. You will then be having to have multiple subscriptions so that you can get to watch your favorite show. The only other option would be torrent sites.
Wolfstan wrote: Isn't there a danger of it all fragmenting as well? In the UK you used to pay your TV licence and you got the BBC channels and the commercial ones, a one stop shop. The problem is now that this is no longer the case. You have Sky with their bundles, but you then have Netflix and Amazon producing shows. You will then be having to have multiple subscriptions so that you can get to watch your favorite show. The only other option would be torrent sites.
I'm not exactly sure what the UK situation...
We've always been sorta fragmented.
We generally have an account for our cable/satellite TV.
We have another account for our internet access.
We have another account for our landline phone.
We also have different accounts for the various content providers (ie, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Netflix, etc...).
It's only recently within the last 5 years or so that some of these products are "bundled together". IE, my cable providers offers TV, internet and IP telephony (landline). Often their "bundled" together for a better rate.
Only think I've bundled is just my TV and internet.
Traditionally would had the terrestrial setup, which was the two BBC channels, ITV, C4 & C5. Then came along Sky and they started to grab subscribers with movies & sport. They then were the only ones getting hold of alot of the American shows. When Freeview built up steam, channels like C5 started grabbing a chunk the US broadcasting rights, with C5 being the main one over here.
What's happening now is that not only do we have them but the there has been a flood of other providers. Virgin is really just a duplicate of Sky, same as BlinkBox & BT, but now have Netflix & Amazon producing their own shows. If the poor viewer likes a show / shows that these two produce, then they will have sign up to two more subscriptions. This could meant that Joe public is paying for his TV licence, Sky (because the y want HBO and the footie), Netflix (for House of Cards) and Amazon (for Black Sails). It's starting to get really crazy out there for the viewer.
On the other hand, there is some degree of cross-pollination so you're not often entirely left out.
But yeah, there's loads of different internet/phone companies here. - I'm pretty sure I could choose from Sky , EE , Plusnet , BT or Talktalk or any of those with or without Fibre.
There is, potentially Virgin broadband or cable there too. Ultimately, (please correct me if I'm wrong) a lot of these various companies end up 'renting the line' from BT who own most of the physical cables.
However, Virgin lay their own cables and, BT is heavily regulated by Ofcom (according to Wikipedia) to make sure they're not favouring any of the various companies renting the line from them.
Of course, most of these various companies charge 'Line Rental' as part of your phone/broadband package.
I remember the last thread about Net Neutrality, and there were quite a few folks proclaiming that NN being struck down meant nothing, or simply wasn't needed.
Grab your dinner plate and eat your words. If the big ISPs moved to strike down NN, then its obvious they wanted to further pad their pockets despite what they claimed a few months ago.
socialism! 
. But, the dam was generating most of the time, so we mainly putz around,