|
Stymie posted:it is bad because it will benefit google and other large online companies at the expense of customers yeah. congrats you idiots. hope you enjoy paying google for poo poo you don't want.
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 06:47 |
|
|
wyoak posted:why would i pay google anything, i'm the product you will pay through increased ISP subscription costs. however, its still highly likely that this just causes ISPs to abandon new infrastructure improvements at their edges. either way its a terrible day for the internet.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
wyoak posted:yes those ISP's were certainly diligent about infrastructure upgrades before quote:for real though if the pipes get too clogged with porn wouldn't this just make the big providers lease more space in carrier datacenters for CDN's and junk quote:also does any of this have any chance of changing anything in the next 5 years
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
also make sure you get in touch with your local councilman so you can discus kickbacks and how best to shovel unlimited municipal bonds into your new networking company.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:public networks aren't companies and are instead called "public services" which tend to have a bit more transparency and accountability than some corporate stockholders' board lmao
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
qirex posted:the following are both true according to verizon and comcast: they undercut on price by borrowing unlimited funds since debt isn't a problem for government organizations.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Busta Chimes.wav posted:still a better outcome than the current situation of isp agreements carving the country into local monopolies most of the time that only happens in cities and its because the local city gov is being paid to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
pagancow posted:Not clear if this ruling disallows private companies from sticking a CDN directly on an ISP's network and pay for it. yes. that's a fast lane and since it would provide better service to customers its banned under net neut.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
qirex posted:80% of the US population lives in a "city" I mean real cities where isp competition should be a thing but isn't. in the vast majority of places where there is little competition it is entirely due to the costs of establishing a network and the low return on a small population and not laws preventing competition. qirex posted:the government gave the isps two hundred billion earth dollars in tax breaks and local monopoly power in exchange for serving rural areas and they not only didn't do it they asked for more actually they did exactly what they were asked to do and made broadband (defined as 768k+) available to the majority of the us as well as establishing the massive cell data network that we have now. more money would of course be needed to serve those out in the boonies. personally I think they should move to civilization instead of demanding someone else pay for it. Beeftweeter posted:lmao no they dont lol. net neuts cant deal with the fact that isps have massively increased the size and capacity of their networks so they have to shove their heads in the sand to pretend it isn't real
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
SYSV Fanfic posted:can the FCC force ISPs to allow resellers like for pots networks under these rules? this was already tried and doesn't work because surprise surprise networks actually cost money to build and maintain and are not unlimited magic like net neuts would have you believe
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:does not prevent it. hosting closer to the end user is already the status quo, regardless of the fcc ruling. oh so they're going to prevent stuff that has never happened from happening? cause it sounds like they're trying to classify legitimate peering arrangements like the Netflix thing as bad which would be hilariously stupid. so its a good thing they're not doing that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
until we see the rules all we know is what they've said which is a bunch of really stupid poo poo. so maybe they aren't going to actually do anything and we'll end up worrying about nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:also allowing cities to bust thru state law on settin up they own muni broadband this is so loving dumb and idk why y'all want your town to go into massive debt building a poo poo network when they cant fund schools.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
A Wheezy Steampunk posted:goalposts: *whooooooooooosh* if everything is staying status quo that would mean the fcc is doing nothing and the rules are blank. obviously that's not the case but we wont know how bad it is until the actual rules come out. if its as bad as the fcc has said it is then it will be bad. hopefully it is not that bad
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Hed posted:I still haven't heard any compelling reason why we needed any of this poo poo because google said so and because lots of pirates don't want to get throttled
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:iirc all this poo poo started when level3 underbid comcast for the cdn contract with netflix, which meant that comcast would have had to start paying level3 for the peering disparity as well as upgrade their peering links, and in response comcast throttled netflix for ~1month. and then shtf level3 has always been poo poo and they oversell their networks and get all confused when people avoid them. they put out some bullshit a while back where they were all "look we have all this capacity and Comcast wont use it!!!" when the reality is Comcast didn't want to use them because they were less reliable and more expensive than other routes. that's how that poo poo works. then Netflix realized their original mistake and peered directly with Comcast which means more network capacity for all of comcasts customers (after offloading Netflix to their own pipes) and better service for Comcast's Netflix users. and the only people who had to pay for it were the people using Netflix (although not really since rates didn't increase). litterrallly everyone won that one and its the #1 thing people talk about when they talk about "fast lanes". its how this stuff should work and its completely equitable and banning it would be really really stupid. but who knows if that's actually what the fcc means by banning fast lanes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:whoa things can get congested if it's never upgraded??? in the case of level3s Netflix traffic over Comcast, level3 was sending something like 6 times the amount of traffic Comcast was. that's why Comcast asked them to pay up. there was no reason for Comcast to upgrade anything since it would only benefit level3 and not Comcast or Comcast customers. it was up to level3 to make those network improvements and they would have had to charge Netflix more to do it so Netflix finally gave up and did what they should have done originally which is peer directly to Comcast. its cheaper for everyone in the long run and it doesn't penalize Comcast users who don't use Netflix. in the end network upgrades were performed by the party who required network upgrades and customers on both sides received better service than before.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
level3 is the least reliable transit I've ever used that wasn't an ilec. and im not contradicting myself. Comcast didn't want to send any traffic over level3 because the income loss from increasing parity with level3 wasn't worthwhile when they could just send that traffic somewhere else for less. this is before the Netflix/Comcast peering arrangement.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
lol our ilec was Verizon and the maine PUC kicked them out of the state for wanting to roll out fios and then allowed Verizon to sell the old poo poo copper to a bankrupt company. way to go utility regulators!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
the Netflix customers want that traffic. not all Comcast customers are Netflix customers and it would be wrong of Comcast to charge all Comcast customers for the usage of just the Netflix customers. the final result of all of this is that the Netflix customers who wanted the upgrades got the upgrades and they(through Netflix) paid for them. This is correct and fair. if fios was unbundled you'd be able to get service through a 4th tier network like earthlink and you would suffer worse congestion from their garbage networks. TWC customers have been able to get unbundled service ever since the TWC/AOL merger and it didn't do anything because the backhaul is not the problem.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
this is so terrible and wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Hed posted:reminder: this is also really stupid and anyone who posts it seriously has no idea how the internet works. lol tiered networks are more likely under net neut as ISPs abandon the internet and switch back to private internal network services like how AOL used to work
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
SYSV Fanfic posted:wtf shaggar. Please explain how this is remotely possible in markets with competition? prior to net neut there were incentives to expand networks even if you are serving areas you dominate. your national network (net neut only affects backhaul and has no effect on last mile) benefits greatly from having many paths for sending traffic so you can optimize your bandwidth costs. Being able to negotiate with a heavy usage provider like Netflix makes those upgrades well worth while. post net neut theres no reason to do it. theres no reason to peer with Netflix if netflix doesn't have to pay their share. There is, however, a huge incentive to then bring the content that netflix serves inside your network so you dont have to go to netflix to get it. These guys will go direct to the content owners and start building out their own cable-like private content networks. since the contract for the content is between the content owner and the isp, and not the ISP and another network, theres no threat of hosed up net neut regulations. The content owners then realize that its a way better deal to sell the content over and over to each ISP instead of selling just to netflix. They can also work with these ISPs to start bundling content so it cant be bought in its entirety or a la carte netflix then cant compete because they cant acquire content anyone wants. ISPS who were stupid enough to expand their networks after net neut instead of playing it safe with internal networks go out of business because no one wants service that doesn't have the content consumers want. at this point the internet is mostly dead. the Content owners then force the ISPs to tier the content and cause you cant get it anywhere else you pay for it. net neut is taking us back to cable tv.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
xfinity was basically Comcast hedging against the threat of net neut and they're gonna make out ok because of it. consumers are gonna get screwed, tho.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
nationalization would be the best way to destroy the internet
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
SYSV Fanfic posted:I still can[t work this out. ISPs are not going to make their own steams, their own twitters, their own gmails. People will want access to what the other services have. The larger a user base, the better the content. I can't imagine a comcast competitor with SA or Reddit. Its the reason the original dial up services connected to the internet in 1993. twitter and gmail aren't relevant to any of this cause no one cares or would even notice if they never upgrade their networks. the most valuable content is also the bandwidth intensive content. pre-net neut ISPs were happy just being networks and serving that valued content through Netflix. post net neut that kind of business wont be viable so they will abandon it and try to bring the content in-network directly from the owners. xfinity is exactly this. its content delivered directly from the content owners to the ISP customers without a Netflix middleman. SYSV Fanfic posted:I agree. I'd prefer to see a lot more competition though. well then you don't want title II regulation. you want something that will encourage new network expansion.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
SYSV Fanfic posted:I mean, all netflix has done up to this point was use a disruptive method to broadcast other people's content. what Netflix did was convince the content owners that streaming could be viable. that was the hard part. the ISPs were more than happy to help them upgrade networks to get that content to their customers, but now that's all up in the air. now that streaming is no longer a dirty word, its worth it to ISPs to look to them for future revenue in the absence of new networking revenue.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:because online content is limited to streaming video. you wont have a choice in the future after net neut destroys all your pipes to the rest of the internet.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
SYSV Fanfic posted:I don't understand. I thought the problem with netflix was the ISPs wanted to leverage their local duopolies to squeeze money from netflix. This was to protect their traditional businesses from cord cutting. The outcry was if they could do it to netflix, then they could do it to any new usage of the internet to squeeze a little more money. they weren't squeezing anything from Netflix. Netflix decided they could get better service for less by going directly to Comcast instead of going thru level3. the reason most isps don't do their own streaming stuff(aside from Comcast) is that they were happy to just be network companies up until net neut makes just being the network unmaintainable. if/when that happens they will have to expand out of networking to make money. also the reason Comcast has their own streaming service is because they are also a content owner. net neut will probably make them double down on that and even if the twc deal isn't approved I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to sell twc some of their stuff. the narrative that ISPs did anything wrong to Netflix is complete and utter bullshit on every level.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:If you believe that you're delusional. lol net neuts cant accept reality
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 06:47 |
|
|
the difference between then and now is someone sat the Netflix bigwigs down and explained the internet to them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 21:12
|
|