- Apr 9, 2013
- 4,470
- 0
- 0
Net Neutrality Further Threatened
- Thread starter Virgorising
- Start date
Thebobo
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2006
- 18,574
- 7,672
- 136
Oh great because I use Verizon I might get shittier service? Or I might have to pay Verizon to access Netflix etc?
- Apr 9, 2013
- 4,470
- 0
- 0
I can't answer that. I only know we all need to get off our butts and speak up against that big businesses, with increasing hubris and alacrity are hell bent on reducing competition, and so, OUR OPTIONS......always, with the goal of being able to charge us more.
lxskllr
No Lifer
- Nov 30, 2004
- 60,221
- 10,669
- 126
http://arstechnica.com/information-...ent-for-carrying-netflix-traffic-wsj-reports/
Fuckers want to get paid twice. This model of the internet will stifle innovation, and highly favor large established political contrib... um, companies. The internet should be treated like a dumb pipe. We don't need another AOL, with curated content...
- Apr 9, 2013
- 4,470
- 0
- 0
First, curated content is how all these companies get MONETIZED (that's an actual new word), to become profitable. Starting with Fakekbook.
Next, AOL is no way what it was back in the day. I only got it tested it and started using in 5 years ago. Believe it or not. It afford things my two previous providers did not. Not even close.
Next, important to learn every part of the reality, good to discuss here on our site, but short of acting, celebrating the rights we are still lucky enough to l have .....nothing will change and the foxes will be allowed to not only steal but keep the chicken coops with impunity.
I guess it's a form of Use it or Loose it.
Contact yr Reps, contact the FCC! Email the White House. All that stuff.
- Apr 9, 2013
- 4,470
- 0
- 0
Of course! But WE HAVE TO SPEAK UP TO STOP IT.
MS has spent, and continues to spend an absolute fortune from almost jump fighting anti trust suits all over the world. It is just a part of their budget & cost of doing business for them......litigate, litigate, delay, delay, delay.
Contact everyone..rail intelligently and persist.....including the DOJ.
Oh my god, guys. Seriously?
Netflix has been offering providers free peering with their content delivery network for YEARS. Or, if you don't want that or don't have presence in any of the major IXPs in the US (because Netflix does,) Netflix makes caching boxes ISPs can put on their networks.
Why this is even newsworthy is beyond me.
Netflix has been offering providers free peering with their content delivery network for YEARS. Or, if you don't want that or don't have presence in any of the major IXPs in the US (because Netflix does,) Netflix makes caching boxes ISPs can put on their networks.
Why this is even newsworthy is beyond me.
I imagine (for now) it'd only really be a problem for bandwidth hog apps like Netflix. The Pirate groups are going to go epileptic about this though.
Well, write your congresspeople and tell them to make the FCC accountable for not doing their job.
Allowing service providers (Comcast) to become content providers (buying NBC) is the first step to creating conflicts of interest.
That acquisition never should have been allowed. I wonder how many FCC board members now have cushy jobs waiting for them at Comcast.
So much for Obama ending revolving door politics and crony capitalism.
- Apr 9, 2013
- 4,470
- 0
- 0
Yes, seriously. It's the lead story on Huffington today. See below re someone commenting in response:
I think this is very disturbing. If this becomes an acceptable way for service providers to get special treatment then it will continue with more companies. So individuals who already are forced into a monopoly for internet service will be forced to use certain providers who have the means to pay for it. This is just awful. All service providers should be provided the same bandwidth opportunity. 23 Feb 3:22 PM
Last edited:
- Apr 9, 2013
- 4,470
- 0
- 0
Jeeze, he is one human re the Executive Branch. Have you any clue what that man is up against every single day?
Do you understand the complexity of American government? We fought a bloody revolution to preclude MONARCHS here. Forget what the Founders evolved.
Are you aware that the right wing, Stone Age majority on the High Court decided corporations are people?
Last edited:
Red Squirrel
No Lifer
The entire way the internet works is very broken. A few megacorporations that control TV, phone and internet, and with lot of stuff being able to be done on only the internet they then screw that part over so they can try to make more money.
It's really sad that the whole thing is about money, and not about inovation and accessibility to information. Then there's the whole issue that the ability to run cable is often regulated and not just anyone can do it, so that stops small startups from even attempting to start an ISP, and even if they do, they have to backhaul to one of the bigger ISPs so net neutrality is still going to be out the window. The only way to win is mesh networking but I don't really see that happening any time soon.
It's really sad that the whole thing is about money, and not about inovation and accessibility to information. Then there's the whole issue that the ability to run cable is often regulated and not just anyone can do it, so that stops small startups from even attempting to start an ISP, and even if they do, they have to backhaul to one of the bigger ISPs so net neutrality is still going to be out the window. The only way to win is mesh networking but I don't really see that happening any time soon.
- Apr 9, 2013
- 4,470
- 0
- 0
13Gigatons
Diamond Member
- Apr 19, 2005
- 7,461
- 500
- 126
It's not the Internet, it's Comcast, AT&T and Verizon.
Consider yourself lucky if you connect some other way.
Consider yourself lucky if you connect some other way.
- Apr 9, 2013
- 4,470
- 0
- 0
It would be only for OPENERS! There lurks a huge precedent here! Focus on Big Picture and the Horizon.
Last edited:
- Apr 9, 2013
- 4,470
- 0
- 0
Well, the word has been a word forever, so, YES.....but clearly, I meant the new application which is burgeoning, as per:
In the less than five years since it expanded beyond scholastic audiences, Facebook has not only grabbed the lion’s share of users, it has engaged them like no other platform on the Internet. The average Facebook user visits the site at least once a day and spends an astounding 55 minutes engaging friends and family –- statistics that another Zucker (Jeff) would probably kill for over at NBC.
While translating such popularity into dollars and cents isn’t easy –- especially in an industry whose users have grown accustomed to getting something for nothing –- Facebook could potentially provide a monetization template that would revolutionize social networking as we know it.
I'm going to go look up the definition of "clearly". It must have changed recently.
- Apr 9, 2013
- 4,470
- 0
- 0
WHAT?
CLEARLY....is simply a way of saying OBVIOUSLY. What part of that eludes?http://www.thefreedictionary.com/clearly
Real question is why are YOU always loaded for bear and throwing down?
Last edited:
So me, who's worked in the ISP industry for half a decade, should listen to and trust some commenter on HuffPo?
Mmmhmm.
Look, these types of arrangements are not uncommon. Consider Akamai or any other CDN. It behooves these companies to peer directly to as many people as possible. Why? Because peering agreements are best when they are mutual. When there is a net zero in terms of bandwidth going in each direction, most peering is free (outside of port costs.) For a CDN, that is essential. Hell, there are a lot of regional coop IXPs where presence and interconnects are even free/donation-based.
The more peering on the Internet, the better for consumers. The closer Netflix is to consumers, the better for Netflix and ISPs.
You don't think that CDNs sit in a single datacenter and pay Level 3 or AT&T or Cogent for basic Internet access do you?
- Apr 9, 2013
- 4,470
- 0
- 0
Really? Your take is this was some cavalier loose canon who don get it (but YOU DO) commenting on some ad hoc site?? Try REUTERS, The NY TIMES, the Wall Street Journal.
For OPENERS.
As I said, these types of peering arrangements are not uncommon. This is not news, nor is it new.
Find me some evidence that there's underhandedness going on and then we can talk.
Peering arrangements are not the problem. The problem is that the FCC hasn't been doing its job for a decade or more.
And yes, I know how this shit works.
Some possibly edifying reading for you...not that it'll probably make a difference: https://signup.netflix.com/openconnect
Last edited:
Maybe Google Fiber is providing us with some hope? http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/...-to-34-new-cities/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
On the other hand from what I read our administration wants to "fast track" the Trans Pacific Trade pact http://www.exposethetpp.org/TPPImpacts_InternetFreedom.html
This means debate in the house/senate will be limited & no amendments..
On the other hand from what I read our administration wants to "fast track" the Trans Pacific Trade pact http://www.exposethetpp.org/TPPImpacts_InternetFreedom.html
This means debate in the house/senate will be limited & no amendments..
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter