A day in the life of Net Neutrality

[Zoom-boing]

Your inability to comprehend is not my responsibility to even try to repair.

Meanwhile, the point is that net neutrality, pure and simple, ain't a bad thing but festooned like some friggen Portagee Christmas Tree with all sorts of governmental intrusion and monkeying is what has worked so well for North Korea and China.

I guess just one inclusion of [censored] might have been a little too subtle.

oh i see. you think net neutrality means government censorship of content.
you're entitled to be wrong.

No, NN is everyone pays the same -- which means those that use a lot will pay less while those that use less will get jacked. Kind of like those with p/e's getting to pay the same as those without p/e's, even though they are a much higher risk and higher risk should pay more. Who is compensating for the bandwith hogs and p/e's paying 'the same'? Everyone else.

 

[ogibillm]

Your inability to comprehend is not my responsibility to even try to repair.

Meanwhile, the point is that net neutrality, pure and simple, ain't a bad thing but festooned like some friggen Portagee Christmas Tree with all sorts of governmental intrusion and monkeying is what has worked so well for North Korea and China.

I guess just one inclusion of [censored] might have been a little too subtle.

oh i see. you think net neutrality means government censorship of content.
you're entitled to be wrong.

No, NN is everyone pays the same -- which means those that use a lot will pay less while those that use less will get jacked. Kind of like those with p/e's getting to pay the same as those without p/e's, even though they are a much higher risk and higher risk should pay more. Who is compensating for the bandwith hogs and p/e's paying 'the same'? Everyone else.

net neutrality is not 'everyone pays the same'
you are mistaken.
net neutrality is 'everyone's data is treated the same'

 

[HenryBHough]

Net neutrality is not 'everyone pays the same'
you are mistaken.
net neutrality is 'everyone's data is treated the same'

Correct. It simply means that nobody's inputted data gets throttled if they don't pay a ransom. It has no impact on an Internet Service Provider's ability to charge different fees for different classes of service (speed to the home or business) or to also cap the amount of data downloaded before very spendy overage charges kick in.

I can't argue against true net neutrality so long as it isn't used to impose new taxes even if they are disguised as fees of any sort. Or to impose thousands of Obamacare type regulations that will increase ISP costs - all of which will be passed on to we, the end users. Also, no hanging on any government meddling with content! I don't like seeing porn but also can't get upset is someone else does.

Government is too much in our lives already without our asking for more.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Your inability to comprehend is not my responsibility to even try to repair.

Meanwhile, the point is that net neutrality, pure and simple, ain't a bad thing but festooned like some friggen Portagee Christmas Tree with all sorts of governmental intrusion and monkeying is what has worked so well for North Korea and China.

I guess just one inclusion of [censored] might have been a little too subtle.

oh i see. you think net neutrality means government censorship of content.
you're entitled to be wrong.

No, NN is everyone pays the same -- which means those that use a lot will pay less while those that use less will get jacked. Kind of like those with p/e's getting to pay the same as those without p/e's, even though they are a much higher risk and higher risk should pay more. Who is compensating for the bandwith hogs and p/e's paying 'the same'? Everyone else.

net neutrality is not 'everyone pays the same'
you are mistaken.
net neutrality is 'everyone's data is treated the same'

So Netflix data is treated the same as USMB data, even though Netflix uses much more bandwith. But they aren't going to be charged for using more bandwith. Someone will be because it is about money, it's always about money.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Net neutrality is not 'everyone pays the same'
you are mistaken.
net neutrality is 'everyone's data is treated the same'

Correct. It simply means that nobody's inputted data gets throttled if they don't pay a ransom. It has no impact on an Internet Service Provider's ability to charge different fees for different classes of service (speed to the home or business) or to also cap the amount of data downloaded before very spendy overage charges kick in.

I can't argue against true net neutrality so long as it isn't used to impose new taxes even if they are disguised as fees of any sort. Or to impose thousands of Obamacare type regulations that will increase ISP costs - all of which will be passed on to we, the end users. Also, no hanging on any government meddling with content! I don't like seeing porn but also can't get upset is someone else does.

Government is too much in our lives already without our asking for more.

If NN passes, all of that will happen. Inch by inch.

How is it 'paying a ransom'? They're using more bandwith ... so they're paying for that. ??

 

[ogibillm]

Net neutrality is not 'everyone pays the same'
you are mistaken.
net neutrality is 'everyone's data is treated the same'

Correct. It simply means that nobody's inputted data gets throttled if they don't pay a ransom. It has no impact on an Internet Service Provider's ability to charge different fees for different classes of service (speed to the home or business) or to also cap the amount of data downloaded before very spendy overage charges kick in.

I can't argue against true net neutrality so long as it isn't used to impose new taxes even if they are disguised as fees of any sort. Or to impose thousands of Obamacare type regulations that will increase ISP costs - all of which will be passed on to we, the end users. Also, no hanging on any government meddling with content! I don't like seeing porn but also can't get upset is someone else does.

Government is too much in our lives already without our asking for more.

i'll be right next to you complaining if net neutrality rules are used to impose taxes or content regulation (with one exception - i would not mind a small tax that was earmarked towards improving and developing internet infrastructure)
but that really is a separate argument from net neutrality itself.

 

[ogibillm]

Your inability to comprehend is not my responsibility to even try to repair.

Meanwhile, the point is that net neutrality, pure and simple, ain't a bad thing but festooned like some friggen Portagee Christmas Tree with all sorts of governmental intrusion and monkeying is what has worked so well for North Korea and China.

I guess just one inclusion of [censored] might have been a little too subtle.

oh i see. you think net neutrality means government censorship of content.
you're entitled to be wrong.

No, NN is everyone pays the same -- which means those that use a lot will pay less while those that use less will get jacked. Kind of like those with p/e's getting to pay the same as those without p/e's, even though they are a much higher risk and higher risk should pay more. Who is compensating for the bandwith hogs and p/e's paying 'the same'? Everyone else.

net neutrality is not 'everyone pays the same'
you are mistaken.
net neutrality is 'everyone's data is treated the same'

So Netflix data is treated the same as USMB data, even though Netflix uses much more bandwith. But they aren't going to be charged for using more bandwith. Someone will be because it is about money, it's always about money.

my isp is already charging me for access to that data. i'm assuming that netflix's isp is doing the same. why should netflix have to pay a ransom to the isp because they are popular?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Your inability to comprehend is not my responsibility to even try to repair.

Meanwhile, the point is that net neutrality, pure and simple, ain't a bad thing but festooned like some friggen Portagee Christmas Tree with all sorts of governmental intrusion and monkeying is what has worked so well for North Korea and China.

I guess just one inclusion of [censored] might have been a little too subtle.

oh i see. you think net neutrality means government censorship of content.
you're entitled to be wrong.

No, NN is everyone pays the same -- which means those that use a lot will pay less while those that use less will get jacked. Kind of like those with p/e's getting to pay the same as those without p/e's, even though they are a much higher risk and higher risk should pay more. Who is compensating for the bandwith hogs and p/e's paying 'the same'? Everyone else.

net neutrality is not 'everyone pays the same'
you are mistaken.
net neutrality is 'everyone's data is treated the same'

So Netflix data is treated the same as USMB data, even though Netflix uses much more bandwith. But they aren't going to be charged for using more bandwith. Someone will be because it is about money, it's always about money.

my isp is already charging me for access to that data. i'm assuming that netflix's isp is doing the same. why should netflix have to pay a ransom to the isp because they are popular?

Netflix is paying more to Comcast to obtain a faster lane, which is needed because of the bandwith used streaming movies and such. It isn't ransom, they'r paying more for faster service for their business. Has nothing to do with being popular.

 

[ogibillm]

oh i see. you think net neutrality means government censorship of content.
you're entitled to be wrong.

No, NN is everyone pays the same -- which means those that use a lot will pay less while those that use less will get jacked. Kind of like those with p/e's getting to pay the same as those without p/e's, even though they are a much higher risk and higher risk should pay more. Who is compensating for the bandwith hogs and p/e's paying 'the same'? Everyone else.

net neutrality is not 'everyone pays the same'
you are mistaken.
net neutrality is 'everyone's data is treated the same'

So Netflix data is treated the same as USMB data, even though Netflix uses much more bandwith. But they aren't going to be charged for using more bandwith. Someone will be because it is about money, it's always about money.

my isp is already charging me for access to that data. i'm assuming that netflix's isp is doing the same. why should netflix have to pay a ransom to the isp because they are popular?

Netflix is paying more to Comcast to obtain a faster lane, which is needed because of the bandwith used streaming movies and such. It isn't ransom, they'r paying more for faster service for their business. Has nothing to do with being popular.

that too would be wrong. why should netflix's data get a 'faster lane' than say amazon prime? or vudu? or youtube?

 

[Zoom-boing]

No, NN is everyone pays the same -- which means those that use a lot will pay less while those that use less will get jacked. Kind of like those with p/e's getting to pay the same as those without p/e's, even though they are a much higher risk and higher risk should pay more. Who is compensating for the bandwith hogs and p/e's paying 'the same'? Everyone else.

net neutrality is not 'everyone pays the same'
you are mistaken.
net neutrality is 'everyone's data is treated the same'

So Netflix data is treated the same as USMB data, even though Netflix uses much more bandwith. But they aren't going to be charged for using more bandwith. Someone will be because it is about money, it's always about money.

my isp is already charging me for access to that data. i'm assuming that netflix's isp is doing the same. why should netflix have to pay a ransom to the isp because they are popular?

Netflix is paying more to Comcast to obtain a faster lane, which is needed because of the bandwith used streaming movies and such. It isn't ransom, they'r paying more for faster service for their business. Has nothing to do with being popular.

that too would be wrong. why should netflix's data get a 'faster lane' than say amazon prime? or vudu? or youtube?

Who says Prime, Vudu, or Youtube can't pay for a faster lane if they want a faster lane? If Netflix is using more bandwith and they want to pay more for a faster lane, why shouldn't they be able to do that?

 

[asterism]

And it still doesn't say they have been, plan to or are currently blocking or discriminating. Verizon sued because they felt the FCC had no place in using rules that that made up arbitrarily outside the halls of congress. The 2010 deal was...wait for it...wait for it....unconstitutional. Hence the circuit court decision to remove those items form the FCC power plate.

Dude they SUED for the right to discriminate. Its right in your link. As far as if it ever happened.

This shows that it has. So here are 2 facts for you.

1. Verizon sued to discriminate and
2. Comcast purposefully slowed down the speed of one site and not the others (just like you said they couldnt do).

You can play dumb but you cannot refute facts

It does not show that Comcast purposely slowed down the speed of one site and not the others. It showed that Comcast did experience a slowdown with regards to one site (the chart doesn't list other video streaming services) and then the speed increased without any federal legislation or change in policy.

Verizon sued for the right to charge for increased level of service, not for the right to slow down basic services for consumers.

Read the links I posted about net neutrality:

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1717&context=btlj

The Net Has Never Been Neutral - NationalJournal.com

 

[asterism]

I have two.
Comcast which gives me cable internet and the dish which gives me dial up at the best case.

PM me your zip code and I will find you 10 more withing 10 minutes.

The reality is comcast owns this section of the world and thats just the way it is.
Take New york city. Certain buildings have contracts with certain companies to only support certain providers.
And no moving is not an option. Thats the lazy answer.

When i can move, im looking for google fiber, and saying goodbye to these assholes.

Again, you are a leftist and look at things from the perspective of gains for your party - reality is vastly different than the fantasy you live in. Comcast may be the only backbone provider in your area - but there are many ISP's.

No you won't because I've looked. Comcast owns my street...deal with these facts

You can thank your local government for granting them a monopoly.

Shrug....this is how it is all over the usa...this is why being a startup is next to impossible. Unless you are google.

That's not true in my town (regularly called a "backwater" by left of center types).

Verizon Fios, Bright House, Comcast and Dish are all available as consumer options on my street. If I want professional service, INSTANT T1 Price Quotes of T1 Lines from Nationwide T1 Service Providers of a High-Speed Internet Broadband Connection. has many more options. Of course I wouldn't recommend hosting a website for a startup at home anymore, it's much cheaper and more reliable to do that in a data center. That also makes the choices for broadband largely irrelevant because all a startup owner needs is connectivity to the data center for management of the sites not actually serving all the web queries to customers.

Maybe you need to see why you have so few choices on your street and why other carriers are forbidden from servicing you. It might be a disconnect between demand and supply, but it might be a government regulation that grants one carrier a monopoly.

 

[asterism]

You wake up early, you pick up your iPhone and check your VZ-Connect page, you got 7 VZ-Likes on the cat video you posted, you would have gotten more, but an FCC censor found it objectionable and removed it. Not for the first time, you find yourself yearning for the days of Facebook. But after Verizon was named the exclusive backbone carrier by the FCC, weeks after President Obama issued the Executive Order making the internet a Title II utility. Facebook held on for awhile, but the FCC revoked their netcasting license after repeated violations of the net neutrality seditious content rules. Verizon quickly replaced Facebook with VZ-Connect, which was monitored by FCC content custodians.

You need to send Aunt Martha a thank you note for the sweater she sent you for your birthday. So you log on to VZ-Banking to check your balance. Aunt Martha is half a country away and the long distance charges for an email to her will be in the hundreds of dollars. Your balance is low, but you keep the message down to just a few words to keep the costs down.

A pile of mail is in the corner and you dread your Verizon bill. Opening it you see the usual $200 base charge, along with TTY charges, Baseline services taxes to provide internet to families on assistance. The netuse tax has gone up again, now $73.42 for a month. The tax is needed to pay the FCC regulators. But what you really dread are the long distance charges, email in the same zip code is still free, but a per mile charge for email outside of the zip code adds up quickly.

You are tempted to log on to VZ-Chatter and post a complaint, but last time you complained about your Verizon bill you got a stern letter from an FCC guardian advising you that such complaints have no place on the internet.

On the bright side, hand written letters through postal mail have made a resurgence.

The government initiated and funded the creation of the internet. Government authorities allow for the internet backbone to exist and much of its distribution network just like other utilities or roads. Telecoms have made giant profits from their investments and the governments largess.

Would we allow other utilities to use extortion as a revenue stream?

Can you pay to :

1 lower water pressure to a competing car wash?
2 Dim the lights of a competing retail outlet?
3 Close a bridge to a competing restaurant?

No.

Please explain why people who normally speak of the greatness of free markets want to let giant corporation stifle competition by manipulating a pseudo-government entity (the internet) that was designed to be common carrier.

The government initiated and funded the creation of DARPA, ARPANET, and NSFNet not "the Internet." The government-funded backbone of ARPANET and NSFNet was transitioned to the privately funded Internet due to deregulation of the telecommunication rules that governed wireline and wireless communications.

I don't use Wikipedia as a source often, but in this case it provides a good place to start for those who want the basics and are willing to read the various documentation links.

History of the Internet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Just because the government started it as a defense project doesn't mean they own it by fiat now - should they start to impose new rules on the consumption of Tang today? The government never designed a computer system to be used as a means for consumer commerce and entertainment. Nobody in the government ever envisioned Google, Netflix nor even USMB.

The government tried to regulate telecommunications and always asserted authority over that fiefdom until the citizens demanded something else so much that even a liberal Democrat (in his time) was compelled to sign a Republican bill into law deregulating it. What was the result? The largest talking points Democrats have about how good they are - the dot com revolution.

Smart regulation works, especially when it's mostly deregulation. Net Neutrality is not smart regulation.

 

[asterism]

You wake up early, you pick up your iPhone and check your VZ-Connect page, you got 7 VZ-Likes on the cat video you posted, you would have gotten more, but an FCC censor found it objectionable and removed it. Not for the first time, you find yourself yearning for the days of Facebook. But after Verizon was named the exclusive backbone carrier by the FCC, weeks after President Obama issued the Executive Order making the internet a Title II utility. Facebook held on for awhile, but the FCC revoked their netcasting license after repeated violations of the net neutrality seditious content rules. Verizon quickly replaced Facebook with VZ-Connect, which was monitored by FCC content custodians.

You need to send Aunt Martha a thank you note for the sweater she sent you for your birthday. So you log on to VZ-Banking to check your balance. Aunt Martha is half a country away and the long distance charges for an email to her will be in the hundreds of dollars. Your balance is low, but you keep the message down to just a few words to keep the costs down.

A pile of mail is in the corner and you dread your Verizon bill. Opening it you see the usual $200 base charge, along with TTY charges, Baseline services taxes to provide internet to families on assistance. The netuse tax has gone up again, now $73.42 for a month. The tax is needed to pay the FCC regulators. But what you really dread are the long distance charges, email in the same zip code is still free, but a per mile charge for email outside of the zip code adds up quickly.

You are tempted to log on to VZ-Chatter and post a complaint, but last time you complained about your Verizon bill you got a stern letter from an FCC guardian advising you that such complaints have no place on the internet.

On the bright side, hand written letters through postal mail have made a resurgence.

The government initiated and funded the creation of the internet. Government authorities allow for the internet backbone to exist and much of its distribution network just like other utilities or roads. Telecoms have made giant profits from their investments and the governments largess.

Would we allow other utilities to use extortion as a revenue stream?

Can you pay to :

1 lower water pressure to a competing car wash?
2 Dim the lights of a competing retail outlet?
3 Close a bridge to a competing restaurant?

No.

Please explain why people who normally speak of the greatness of free markets want to let giant corporation stifle competition by manipulating a pseudo-government entity (the internet) that was designed to be common carrier.

You bet that you have to pay the government utilities to:

1. Have higher water pressure than other businesses currently use - try to start a car wash in a town with a public water supply.
2. Have more lights than other businesses use. Check your utility rates. Businesses that use more power pay for it, and that means their customers pay those increased rates.
3. If you think the process for expanding bridges in commercial areas is "bridge neutrality" then I've got a bridge to sell you.

 

[asterism]

Your inability to comprehend is not my responsibility to even try to repair.

Meanwhile, the point is that net neutrality, pure and simple, ain't a bad thing but festooned like some friggen Portagee Christmas Tree with all sorts of governmental intrusion and monkeying is what has worked so well for North Korea and China.

I guess just one inclusion of [censored] might have been a little too subtle.

oh i see. you think net neutrality means government censorship of content.
you're entitled to be wrong.

No, NN is everyone pays the same -- which means those that use a lot will pay less while those that use less will get jacked. Kind of like those with p/e's getting to pay the same as those without p/e's, even though they are a much higher risk and higher risk should pay more. Who is compensating for the bandwith hogs and p/e's paying 'the same'? Everyone else.

net neutrality is not 'everyone pays the same'
you are mistaken.
net neutrality is 'everyone's data is treated the same'

So no traffic shaping, which means that your emails are delayed because your neighbor's kid runs 15 game servers.

No thanks, I'd rather pay for what I consume and have you pay for what you consume. Plus with the way the Title II telecommunications regulations are implemented, I can't invent a new way to make this system work without petitioning the government first.

"Mother may I" is not a successful business strategy.

 

[asterism]

Your inability to comprehend is not my responsibility to even try to repair.

Meanwhile, the point is that net neutrality, pure and simple, ain't a bad thing but festooned like some friggen Portagee Christmas Tree with all sorts of governmental intrusion and monkeying is what has worked so well for North Korea and China.

I guess just one inclusion of [censored] might have been a little too subtle.

oh i see. you think net neutrality means government censorship of content.
you're entitled to be wrong.

No, NN is everyone pays the same -- which means those that use a lot will pay less while those that use less will get jacked. Kind of like those with p/e's getting to pay the same as those without p/e's, even though they are a much higher risk and higher risk should pay more. Who is compensating for the bandwith hogs and p/e's paying 'the same'? Everyone else.

net neutrality is not 'everyone pays the same'
you are mistaken.
net neutrality is 'everyone's data is treated the same'

So Netflix data is treated the same as USMB data, even though Netflix uses much more bandwith. But they aren't going to be charged for using more bandwith. Someone will be because it is about money, it's always about money.

my isp is already charging me for access to that data. i'm assuming that netflix's isp is doing the same. why should netflix have to pay a ransom to the isp because they are popular?

Because the rate you currently pay is based on the market demand for data, which cannot accommodate 24/7 streaming of Netflix for most consumers of your ISP. You are paying the rate that the market will bear. Netflix disrupted that market so things have to change. Part of that change is you potentially paying more for Netflix if you want to cut the cord (or have more options). Instead of everyone paying more for data, you are paying more if you subscribe to Netflix.

Traffic shaping and peering arrangements are more efficient than government rules in my opinion. But then again, I remember the old days when it was against the law to use the phone lines to make voice calls over the Internet. The technology existed for years, but "online" services could not port phone numbers to packet-switched routing devices until 1996. Only POTS providers were allowed to do that.

Anybody remember when The Well had this functionality in 1987? I do.

 

[Politico]

Again you reveal you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about concerning this issue. As much as would you like to think that this issue is political I can assure it is not. This fear mongering is at least comical.

You were born well after the FCC mandated monopoly of Ma Bell was dissolved, weren't you?

I've seen FCC Title II regulations before, which I described.

I remember those days. You know back when phone service was $6 a month

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Again you reveal you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about concerning this issue. As much as would you like to think that this issue is political I can assure it is not. This fear mongering is at least comical.

You were born well after the FCC mandated monopoly of Ma Bell was dissolved, weren't you?

I've seen FCC Title II regulations before, which I described.

I remember those days. You know back when phone service was $6 a month

And milk was a quarter for a gallon. You know.

 

[ClosedCaption]

But this isnt about only Netflix this is about should the internet stay the way it is or should the companies be allowed to block competing websites and charge ANYONE (not just Netflix) to pay for faster delivery of their websites.

Currently all websites, from blogs to NBC is offered on the same level playing field.

This has been told to you before but your act remains the same

The two bolded conflict.

Should the internet stay the way it is? Yes, and if some want to charge more for those gobbling up lots and lots of bandwith, no problem.

I repeat they want to charge anyone willing to pay, bandwidth has nothing to do with it

Currently all websites are offered on the same level playing field

. Currently Comcast can charge Netflix more for a faster lane because Netflix gobbles up more bandwith than say, the USMB ... which is not, according to the left, a 'level playing field'.

Why shouldn't those who consume/use much more bandwith pay more for using more?

Again, I repeat, they want to offer a "faster lane" to anyone willing to pay it. NO MATTER HOW MUCH BANDWIDTH THEY USE.

And they want us, the consumer, to believe that once the pay for play internet is approved then we'd still be able to access all the other independent sites quickly and without them blocking it even tho THEY SUED TO BE ABLE TO DO JUST THAT.

People who make this about Netflix have no idea. They sued to be able to block websites and put their product first.

For example: Type in Google.com. You will be offered Bing at "high speed" OR you can just wait.....and wait....for Google to show up. Then wait....and wait....for the search results.

Thats what they sued to do...you can look that up

 

[ClosedCaption]

net neutrality is not 'everyone pays the same'
you are mistaken.
net neutrality is 'everyone's data is treated the same'

So Netflix data is treated the same as USMB data, even though Netflix uses much more bandwith. But they aren't going to be charged for using more bandwith. Someone will be because it is about money, it's always about money.

my isp is already charging me for access to that data. i'm assuming that netflix's isp is doing the same. why should netflix have to pay a ransom to the isp because they are popular?

Netflix is paying more to Comcast to obtain a faster lane, which is needed because of the bandwith used streaming movies and such. It isn't ransom, they'r paying more for faster service for their business. Has nothing to do with being popular.

that too would be wrong. why should netflix's data get a 'faster lane' than say amazon prime? or vudu? or youtube?

Who says Prime, Vudu, or Youtube can't pay for a faster lane if they want a faster lane? If Netflix is using more bandwith and they want to pay more for a faster lane, why shouldn't they be able to do that?

And remember those fees will not *chuckle* be passed onto the consumer because *giggle* comcast has some of the best service in the world (voted worst company in the US over Monsanto) and offers us lightening speed innovation. (Slower than a ton of other nations)