Google/Verizon. The end of the internet as we know it.

[Gunslinger08]

This can go 2 ways. Content providers will pay service providers fees for "premium access" and the service provider may also charge consumers a fee for "premium access." I'll let you guess which way will actually happen:
1. Service providers will use this extra cash to provide extra bandwidth to premium content providers. Your speeds to non-premium content providers will remain the same as net neutral speeds.
2. Service providers will throttle bandwidth to non-premium content providers. Your speeds to premium content providers will remain the same as net neutral speeds and your speeds to non-premium content providers will be slower than net neutral speeds.

What do you think is going to happen?

 

[KeithTalent]

While that's true, there's a big diff between companies who cap at 500K/1MB/2MB vs 2/5/15 (mine). I'd be pretty pissed if I was capped at 1 or less.

Then go to a different provider. Is Verizon the only internet provider in your area?

KT

 

[Anubis]

Google Denies talks with VZ

http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...Verizon_to_end_Net_neutrality_?taxonomyId=152

 

[SpanishFry]

Google Denies talks with VZ

http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...Verizon_to_end_Net_neutrality_?taxonomyId=152

from your article:

"However, the Wall Street Journal reported today that Verizon confirmed that it has been in ongoing talks with Google and the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for 10 months."

 

[spidey07]

This is AWESOME! It allows you to have high quality voice and video on your internet connection. It could even LOWER consumer prices because it allows providers to make more efficient use of their capacity not to mention the content providers are paying more therefore the ISP can charge the end user less.

This is great news. No more stuttering video!

 

[SP33Demon]

Then go to a different provider. Is Verizon the only internet provider in your area?

KT

No, I don't use Verizon. My cable company has 2/5/15 and I have the 15. I'd be pissed if I was capped at 1MB/sec or less, can't even play a game online without lagging at that speed.

 

[KeithTalent]

No, I don't use Verizon. My cable company has 2/5/15 and I have the 15. I'd be pissed if I was capped at 1MB/sec or less, can't even play a game online without lagging at that speed.

That's fine, but the only thing stopping you from upgrading is a little extra money, same with most businesses.

I guess I just don't see the issue at all; if it were my company I would be trying to do something similar.

KT

 

[AMCRambler]

Wouldn't Verizon be shooting themselves in the foot though? They've spent all this money to invest in improving their network with fiber optic so they could get the edge over the cable companies right? And now that they have it, they're going to throttle content? That's just gonna drive people right back to the cable company for internet. This would be a really stupid move for one company to make. They'd all have to implement this for it to work.

 

[spidey07]

b-b-b-b-b-b-ut spidey07 said this would never happen and net neutrality laws were unnecessary

No, I predicted this was the future of The Internet. It's where we've been going for a long time. Quality voice, video and data on a single IP network.

Just say no to crappy video on your Internet connection. Net Neutrality is a terrible idea and move the internet backwards.

 

[Phokus]

No, I predicted this was the future of The Internet. It's where we've been going for a long time. Quality voice, video and data on a single IP network.

Just say no to crappy video on your Internet connection. Net Neutrality is a terrible idea and move the internet backwards.

I remember you saying this type of bullshit would never happen because the FCC would strike it down and no laws were necessary

 

[spidey07]

Wouldn't Verizon be shooting themselves in the foot though? They've spent all this money to invest in improving their network with fiber optic so they could get the edge over the cable companies right? And now that they have it, they're going to throttle content? That's just gonna drive people right back to the cable company for internet. This would be a really stupid move for one company to make. They'd all have to implement this for it to work.

nobody is going to trottle anything, stop the fear mongering people.

All it means is the ISP will mark youtube as video and as it makes it's way along the path the packets will be delivered in a constant stream instead of the start/stop you get with best effort delivery. It's not going to slow any other traffic down at all. It just has to do with how packets are ordered when a router routes them. This is a GOOD thing. You WANT this.

 

[spidey07]

I remember you saying this type of bullshit would never happen because the FCC would strike it down and no laws were necessary

I said we were moving to an end to end quality of service model, this is just the glorious start.

If Verizon actually harms the delivery of others then the FCC will most certainly smack them down and has done exactly that in the past. People get all in a tizzy because even this article doesn't understand what he's talking about. It's not that youtube would get priority, it's that it would get reliable delivery, it's not stepping on others precious traffic.

I build this shit, I know exactly where the internet is going.

 

[silverpig]

That's fine, but the only thing stopping you from upgrading is a little extra money, same with most businesses.

I guess I just don't see the issue at all; if it were my company I would be trying to do something similar.

KT

This isn't capping your pipe, it's capping the content.

The way it works is: Google pays Verizon $50m to get youtube going fast on their network. I go to youtube and get fast video.

KeithTalent.net can't afford pay Verizon anything. I go to KeithTalent.net and the site is slow as seagull shit sliding down a hot rock on a summer day. It doesn't matter that I've paid for the 20down/2up connection from my ISP, Verizon filters your stuff into the slow ass category. Unless you can pay of course.

 

[spidey07]

This isn't capping your pipe, it's capping the content.

The way it works is: Google pays Verizon $50m to get youtube going fast on their network. I go to youtube and get fast video.

KeithTalent.net can't afford pay Verizon anything. I go to KeithTalent.net and the site is slow as seagull shit sliding down a hot rock on a summer day. It doesn't matter that I've paid for the 20down/2up connection from my ISP, Verizon filters your stuff into the slow ass category. Unless you can pay of course.

The FCC would not allow that and has stopped providers that tried.

 

[oogabooga]

Google/Verizon are denying it but other new outlets are reporting it and verifying the NYT report.

Google/Verizon are stating they were in talks, but not about this specifically. (though something like it?)

 

[silverpig]

nobody is going to trottle anything, stop the fear mongering people.

All it means is the ISP will mark youtube as video and as it makes it's way along the path the packets will be delivered in a constant stream instead of the start/stop you get with best effort delivery. It's not going to slow any other traffic down at all. It just has to do with how packets are ordered when a router routes them. This is a GOOD thing. You WANT this.

Sometimes, when I drive around town in the evening, I get stuck sitting at a green light, even with no other traffic around. It's because the cops are giving a diplomatic escort to an entourage of foreign dignitaries from the airport to the embassy. They block all the cross streets for several blocks, let the entire entourage go through, then move on. It takes me longer to get where I'm going. How is this different?

 

[Phokus]

Spidey's glorious internet right here:

 

[Phokus]

I said we were moving to an end to end quality of service model, this is just the glorious start.

If Verizon actually harms the delivery of others then the FCC will most certainly smack them down and has done exactly that in the past. People get all in a tizzy because even this article doesn't understand what he's talking about. It's not that youtube would get priority, it's that it would get reliable delivery, it's not stepping on others precious traffic.

I build this shit, I know exactly where the internet is going.

Well if the pipes get saturated then by definition, other services get harmed while google/youtube gets to travel in the carpool lane.

 

[spidey07]

Sometimes, when I drive around town in the evening, I get stuck sitting at a green light, even with no other traffic around. It's because the cops are giving a diplomatic escort to an entourage of foreign dignitaries from the airport to the embassy. They block all the cross streets for several blocks, let the entire entourage go through, then move on. It takes me longer to get where I'm going. How is this different?

This is different because the traffic lights would intermingle the normal traffic with the escort so everybody moved smoothly and got where they were destined in the most efficient means possible.

 

[child of wonder]

nobody is going to trottle anything, stop the fear mongering people.

All it means is the ISP will mark youtube as video and as it makes it's way along the path the packets will be delivered in a constant stream instead of the start/stop you get with best effort delivery. It's not going to slow any other traffic down at all. It just has to do with how packets are ordered when a router routes them. This is a GOOD thing. You WANT this.

And we should all just trust Comcast not to place traffic to NBC.com, Universal.com, etc. into a higher QoS bucket while any websites that go against their agenda are placed in the low QoS bucket?

If you think companies won't use the absence of Net Neutrality to their advantage at the expense of consumers, you are a massive tool. I predict Comcast internet will not go down ONE PENNY if Net Neutrality is gone.

NOT ONE FUCKING PENNY.

 

[silverpig]

The FCC would not allow that and has stopped providers that tried.

If you create two tiers and call one "premium", preferentially filtering content into it, and leave the rest as "unfiltered", it is no different then creating a lower tier and filtering slow stuff into it.

 

[KeithTalent]

This isn't capping your pipe, it's capping the content.

The way it works is: Google pays Verizon $50m to get youtube going fast on their network. I go to youtube and get fast video.

KeithTalent.net can't afford pay Verizon anything. I go to KeithTalent.net and the site is slow as seagull shit sliding down a hot rock on a summer day. It doesn't matter that I've paid for the 20down/2up connection from my ISP, Verizon filters your stuff into the slow ass category. Unless you can pay of course.

Ahh, ok, that's different, though it does not really change my opinion at all.

KT

 

[silverpig]

This is different because the traffic lights would intermingle the normal traffic with the escort so everybody moved smoothly and got where they were destined in the most efficient means possible.

Isn't that what we have now? Let the diplomats drive around the timed lights like everyone else.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I warned you all about Google. Don't blame me.

Hi troll, how are you today? Has Jobs given you your troll food yet, or are you hungry which is why you're trolling?

 

[Patranus]

Sometimes, when I drive around town in the evening, I get stuck sitting at a green light, even with no other traffic around. It's because the cops are giving a diplomatic escort to an entourage of foreign dignitaries from the airport to the embassy. They block all the cross streets for several blocks, let the entire entourage go through, then move on. It takes me longer to get where I'm going. How is this different?

So the diplomats being the minority users (Bittorrent) hog the road (Bandwith) and generate traffic for everyone?

Got it.