asshole obama jumping into net neutrality

[Paendragon]

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

 

[Ishmael]

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

The answer lies in competition, not in "Net Neutrality." NN will automatically impose a 17+% tax on all internet subscribers. A tax for which the subscriber will receive NO value in return.

The Comcast example re. NetFlix is true but what was that squabble all about? NetFlix, a for profit company, and a serious bandwidth hog, was using Comcast's (and every other internet providers, equipment to deliver content at no real cost to NetFlix beyond the bandwidth charge they were paying the backbone provider and trust me that their server farms are sitting right in some backbone providers NOC or in a facility immediately adjacent to same. This could be any one of nine providers and Comcast isn't one of them. (Level3, AT&T, Savis, CenturyLink, SBC, Sprint, Verizon, XO, Cogent.)

The costs associated with the providing of that bandwidth has to be paid for in one of two ways. By the customer or by the for profit content provider. Comcast choose to put the burden on the for profit content provider instead of it's customers.

That being said, the greater problem is the lack of competition at the "last mile" level. A problem that NN does not address at all. In the end someone is going to have to pay for that bandwidth and all NN does is insure that that cost is going to fall on the end user.

Ishmael

 

[Paendragon]

The answer lies in competition, not in "Net Neutrality." NN will automatically impose a 17+% tax on all internet subscribers. A tax for which the subscriber will receive NO value in return.

The Comcast example re. NetFlix is true but what was that squabble all about? NetFlix, a for profit company, and a serious bandwidth hog, was using Comcast's (and every other internet providers, equipment to deliver content at no real cost to NetFlix beyond the bandwidth charge they were paying the backbone provider and trust me that their server farms are sitting right in some backbone providers NOC or in a facility immediately adjacent to same. This could be any one of nine providers and Comcast isn't one of them. (Level3, AT&T, Savis, CenturyLink, SBC, Sprint, Verizon, XO, Cogent.)

The costs associated with the providing of that bandwidth has to be paid for in one of two ways. By the customer or by the for profit content provider. Comcast choose to put the burden on the for profit content provider instead of it's customers.

That being said, the greater problem is the lack of competition at the "last mile" level. A problem that NN does not address at all. In the end someone is going to have to pay for that bandwidth and all NN does is insure that that cost is going to fall on the end user.

Ishmael

I agree re: competition. The fact that I have two choices for Internet, and they are both terrible, is terrible for the consumer. It keeps pricing artificially high and restricts service. And I am lucky that I at least have a choice.

To use a different example, I decided to abandon cable for satellite, and am very happy. The service is excellent, and the people are knowledgeable and responsive . . . because they want to keep me as a customer. They know I have have at least six different options for television, so they give me their best. Not happy that I had to sign a contract, but since it's 50% less than I was paying for cable anyway, I'll deal.

Regarding the Netflix issue, I already pay Comcast for Internet access. By playing their games with Netflix, they knowingly restricted a service that I was paying for for their pissing contest with Netflix, which is bullshit. To use the competition model, Comcast should start their own streaming video service, and let the market decide which is better, not by strangling bandwidth on websites they don't want you to visit. It's bullshit, and it's exactly what I want NN to address.

 

[Ishmael]

I agree re: competition. The fact that I have two choices for Internet, and they are both terrible, is terrible for the consumer. It keeps pricing artificially high and restricts service. And I am lucky that I at least have a choice.

To use a different example, I decided to abandon cable for satellite, and am very happy. The service is excellent, and the people are knowledgeable and responsive . . . because they want to keep me as a customer. They know I have have at least six different options for television, so they give me their best. Not happy that I had to sign a contract, but since it's 50% less than I was paying for cable anyway, I'll deal.

Regarding the Netflix issue, I already pay Comcast for Internet access. By playing their games with Netflix, they knowingly restricted a service that I was paying for for their pissing contest with Netflix, which is bullshit. To use the competition model, Comcast should start their own streaming video service, and let the market decide which is better, not by strangling bandwidth on websites they don't want you to visit. It's bullshit, and it's exactly what I want NN to address.

I understand that, and you do have a valid bitch. The problem still remains that you are going to pay 17+% more and receive nothing of value in return, and that's right out of the box. Further you won't be immune to future increases either. There is also the point that the Comcast/NetFlix tiff was transient and, in the end, resolved in the customers favor. These tiffs have occurred before between the backbone providers but most folks are unaware of them.

It still comes down to the necessity for robust competition for that "last mile" customer. Without it everyone is at the providers mercy with or without NN.

Ishmael

 

[NeverEndingMe]

lets face it, with obama getting into this .... the only thing obama will do is create yet ANOTHER cluster fuck

 

[miles]

Anyone who thinks government interference in the Internet is a good thing is dumber than dirt.

 

[Paendragon]

I understand that, and you do have a valid bitch. The problem still remains that you are going to pay 17+% more and receive nothing of value in return, and that's right out of the box. Further you won't be immune to future increases either. There is also the point that the Comcast/NetFlix tiff was transient and, in the end, resolved in the customers favor. These tiffs have occurred before between the backbone providers but most folks are unaware of them.

It still comes down to the necessity for robust competition for that "last mile" customer. Without it everyone is at the providers mercy with or without NN.

Ishmael

Competition isn't coming. In fact, it's going the opposite direction.

I'm old enough to remember Comcast being a regional provider. I've watched them gobble up the competition to the point that it's them or DSL. That's the unfortunate direction the market has taken.

You say we'll pay 17+% more. I say same old same old. We already are paying more than we should. And we can still be bent over the barrel everytime Comcast or AT&T wants to strongarm another website. I didn't notice my Comcast bill going down when Netflix paid out, did you? Where did that money go that I paid for with my aggravation and time wasted, on top of the money I pay for a service, on both ends I might add, that Comcast stole from me?

To use a quote from you a couple of threads ago, "fuck 'em."

 

[NeverEndingMe]

America needs competition ....


Our eduction system needs competition as teachers are lazy and administrators are incompetent

 

[Ishmael]

Competition isn't coming. In fact, it's going the opposite direction.

I'm old enough to remember Comcast being a regional provider. I've watched them gobble up the competition to the point that it's them or DSL. That's the unfortunate direction the market has taken.

You say we'll pay 17+% more. I say same old same old. We already are paying more than we should. And we can still be bent over the barrel everytime Comcast or AT&T wants to strongarm another website. I didn't notice my Comcast bill going down when Netflix paid out, did you? Where did that money go that I paid for with my aggravation and time wasted, on top of the money I pay for a service, on both ends I might add, that Comcast stole from me?

To use a quote from you a couple of threads ago, "fuck 'em."

It didn't go up brother.

That last mile CAN be opened up. But it takes action at the local level. Get involved, bitch at your city councilcritter, county commissioner, state rep., because that's where the problem is. Those are the folks that own the utility easements and determine who can and can't use them. Those are the folks granting virtual monopolies. DC can't solve that problem and the bad that comes along with NN is not worth the Pyrrhic victory you'd enjoy just because you want to get back at Comcast (or fill in the black ISP).

Don't focus on revenge, work the problem. The only reason the FCC is touting NN is they want to get their hands on the 17+% excise tax. If congress were to pass a law tomorrow saying those monies would flow to the general fund those bastards at the FCC would be singing a completely different tune.

Ishmael

 

[someoneyouknow]

You're a liar.



An ISP (Internet Service Provider) simply provides internet service to customers...

...wiki currently hosts 125 pages of "Internet service providers of the United States" and even those don't contain all the ISPs in America; eg, the last two ISPs I've done business with aren't included.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_service_providers_of_the_United_States



A lie can render no legitimate "result" of any kind...

...you lied, therefore you FAIL.



Another outright lie.

Here's a hot interactive graphic; hover your pointer over any country and you can instantly see what its average Internet speed is. Scroll down a bit further and the world's countries are ranked in order.

http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/

Why do pieces of shit like you have to lie and make this shit politically partisan all the time?

Fuck you and fuck your "net neutrality" Party line...

...Internet independence is what this war will be fought over, and there will be absolutely no compromise.

Nice to see you have an open mind. Oh wait, that's why you don't.

Nothing I said was a lie and you know it. Those supposed ISPs you made note of, they run through the big boys. They pay Verizon/Comcast/et al for access. They do not connect directly to the backbone.

As to internet speeds, try again. The big boys out there keep constant monitoring and provide daily reports of who has what. That is why they keep putting out the same result: the U.S. ranks near dead last in the industrialized world for broadband speed.

Further, you didn't even read the link you provided. Here, let me quote from them directly:

Only tests taken within 300 miles of the server are eligible for inclusion in the index.

WTF? Only within 300 miles of the server? That's an awfully small area to check speeds.

However, since you pointed it out, as I look at the list the U.S. is 26th, behind Iceland (11th and someone I have already pointed out), Taiwan (14th and like Iceland, an island), Latvia (15th and part of the former Soviet Union), France (18th) and Romania (4th and also part of the former Soviet Union). Based on your own link the U.S. lags behind former Communist nations in broadband speed!

I talk with people around the world and they are astounded when they hear how slow things are considering we're supposed to be the world superpower and the folks who invented the Net. It's even worse when they hear how much we have to pay for this slow speed.

But please, keep making the fool of yourself. It's not as if the people on this board don't know it already. This country's broadband sucks, period.

Net neutrality, treating every piece of data equally, would be a fantastic first step to have this country close the gap with the rest of the industrialized world, immediately followed by forced opening of competition. Unlike the faux crap we have now where Comcast, attempting to buy Time Warner, openly admits they don't compete with them so there wouldn't be an issue with buying them.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/12/net-neutrality-is-a-lousy-idea

 

[eyer]

Nice to see you have an open mind. Oh wait, that's why you don't.

Nothing I said was a lie and you know it. Those supposed ISPs you made note of, they run through the big boys. They pay Verizon/Comcast/et al for access. They do not connect directly to the backbone.

Yet, every single one of them are Internet Service Providers - you know, ISPs like you lied there were only 4 of.

Now you want to change-up and refer to "the big boys"? Are your "big boys" the same "4" you previously stated were the only ones existing? The only "4" that "connect directly to the backbone"?

Come on, now - get your "4" crap all in a nice, neat pile so you can be called-out on it again...

...the U.S. ranks near dead last in the industrialized world for broadband speed.

First it was "the slowest internet speeds in the industrialized world", now you walk it back a bit with, "ranks near last"...

...and you're still flat-out lying.

Of the 194 countries listed, the US ranks 26th at just less than 32Mbps, which is also faster than the G8 average of a little over 27Mbps, and the EU average of 26.6Mbps; the world average is just 21.45Mbps..

...here are some "industrialized world" countries with slower speeds than the US - many of them remarkably slower (all speeds Mbps):

- United Kingdom 29.08
- Portugal 28.37
- Germany 27.58
- Israel 27.06
- Spain 26.65
- Russia 25.66
- Austria 25.66
- Ireland 24.46
- Canada 24.15
- Communist China 23.40
- New Zealand 23.20
- Japan 21.80
- Australia 15.76
- Brazil 13.22

Now, of the 25 of 194 listed with faster speeds than the US...

...can you enlighten us with your bigotedly partisan crap about the relative areas of coverage we're speaking of there compared to the United States?

Eg: Hong Kong, a special administrative region of Communist China, leads the list @ 97.57Mbps - 3x faster than the US; HK comprises 426 sq mi and somewhere around 7 million people...

...while the US hosts over 316 million people and totals over 3.8 million square miles.

Fact of the matter is, bozo...

...there is no larger industrialized nation in the world with faster Internet speeds than the United States.

But, you just go ahead and keep on lying...

...so you can serve faithfully on your knees your partisan political agenda.

 

[Paendragon]

It didn't go up brother.

It will.

That last mile CAN be opened up. But it takes action at the local level. Get involved, bitch at your city councilcritter, county commissioner, state rep., because that's where the problem is. Those are the folks that own the utility easements and determine who can and can't use them. Those are the folks granting virtual monopolies. DC can't solve that problem and the bad that comes along with NN is not worth the Pyrrhic victory you'd enjoy just because you want to get back at Comcast (or fill in the black ISP).

Don't focus on revenge, work the problem. The only reason the FCC is touting NN is they want to get their hands on the 17+% excise tax. If congress were to pass a law tomorrow saying those monies would flow to the general fund those bastards at the FCC would be singing a completely different tune.

Ishmael

I live in California. Because of the tech industry, and the start-up machine that is the Bay Area, NN is a huge issue. Local activism has been hitting the FCC hard on the FCC "pay to play" model they floated earlier this year, and will continue to do so. I was vocal on that issue as well.

I wouldn't be surprised if the state comes up with it's own version of NN.

On the private enterprise front, there is a local ISP called Sonic.net that may make the whole thing moot. Right now they are tiny, but offering one gig per second fiber optic services. It may take years for them to be a viable alternative. And that's the problem.

 

[Ishmael]

It will.


I live in California. Because of the tech industry, and the start-up machine that is the Bay Area, NN is a huge issue. Local activism has been hitting the FCC hard on the FCC "pay to play" model they floated earlier this year, and will continue to do so. I was vocal on that issue as well.

I wouldn't be surprised if the state comes up with it's own version of NN.

On the private enterprise front, there is a local ISP called Sonic.net that may make the whole thing moot. Right now they are tiny, but offering one gig per second fiber optic services. It may take years for them to be a viable alternative. And that's the problem.

Ameritech, before it was snapped up by SBC and then subsequently by AT&T, had a pilot project going in Naperville IL.(?) to run fiber to every home. I have no idea as to what became of that effort.

Ameritech was one of the original seven baby bells and already had access to the "last mile."

Ishmael

 

[Paendragon]

Ameritech, before it was snapped up by SBC and then subsequently by AT&T, had a pilot project going in Naperville IL.(?) to run fiber to every home. I have no idea as to what became of that effort.

Ameritech was one of the original seven baby bells and already had access to the "last mile."

Ishmael

That's the fear. Will they stay independent, or sell out to one of the big ISP? They always seem to sell, and there goes the competition.

We'll see.

 

[Libsam]

November 20 there will be a Net Neutrality Town Hall with EFF & FCC in San Francisco, CA.

 

[Ishmael]

That's the fear. Will they stay independent, or sell out to one of the big ISP? They always seem to sell, and there goes the competition.

We'll see.

That's a problem too, but if they don't sell the shareholders would sue the dog shit out of them. Comcast is reaching that "too big to fail" size though.

If something needs to be done I prefer that it originate in congress rather than a group of unelected bureaucrats being able to impose a 17+% tax on the consumer.

Ishmael

 

[Paendragon]

That's a problem too, but if they don't sell the shareholders would sue the dog shit out of them. Comcast is reaching that "too big to fail" size though.

If something needs to be done I prefer that it originate in congress rather than a group of unelected bureaucrats being able to impose a 17+% tax on the consumer.

Ishmael

I agree. I'd love to see congress take the lead on this. Not sure that's realistic, though. I don't see it being high on the agenda.

Hopefully, we can get enough people on board to force the issue.

Oh, and since this is a political discussion "insert insult here".