Enter the Age of Censorship, FCC circumvents Congress to classify internet as Public Utility

[Skylar]

If the prioritization is based on data type only and not the content provider itself....how then could companies like Comcast or Verizon offer the proposed 'super fast lane' for those content providers who are willing to pay extra?

Very easily.

Using a simple example.

I have 20 users, I plug them all in to a SOHO switch with a single uplink to my server.. I'm evil because George Soros says se, so I decide that I'm going fuck with a couple of users.

What do I do? How do I affect their connectivity if they are using anonymous DHCP for IP assignment? The answer is, nothing. I can't tell one data stream from another. I CAN identify content type in packets and block or lower the priority of certain packet types - but I still have no way of knowing what user is what.

A claim that you just admitted is meaningless bullshit right here:

Youtube uses unique encoding, I can and do identify Youtube content - and block it outright.

Then you do have a means of identifying who the content provider is.

Rendering all of your previous claims that you couldn't meaningless bullshit. If Comcast and Verizon had no means of identifying which data comes from Netflix and which from Youtube, they couldn't charge them for the prioritization of that data.

Don't bother claiming that there's no way to identify the content provider when the entire basis of the business model of charging for prioritizing such data is the identification of the content provider.

Grow up.

You can get what you want - you simply have to pay for it.

I do pay for it. I just won't have to pay more for Netflix when Comcast and Verizon try to charge them more so their data doesn't get 'deprioritized'.

I choose what my priorities are. Comcast doesn't.

I've got a better idea, don't fuck with something that has worked flawlessly for over 20 years that you don't have the slightest fucking clue how it works?

Net Neutrality maintains the same rules of equality of data that has gone on for the last 20 years. The pay to play prioritization that Comcast and Verizon have initiated is much more recent. And Net Neutrality simply stops it, bringing us back to the same standard that has worked flawlessly for decades.

You can't have it both ways. If Comcast initiates a 'pay for priority' system, then what has worked for 20 years has been changed significantly. Preventing that and maintaining the status quo isn't 'changing the system'.

So what?

So you've just admitted to the entire Net Neutrality argument. Thank you.

I guarantee that your ISP charges you more for faster service. Why should Netflix be exempt? It's the way grown ups do things. Filet Mignon costs more than chicken nuggets.

Net Flix does pay. Do you think they wish their content onto the internet? Fuck no. They have massive connections transmitting terabits of data. The idea that Netflix doesn't pay for this access is childish fiction. They shouldn't have to pay for it TWICE. Once for bandwidth. And a second time for 'priority'.

All data should be treated equally. With your speeds limited by your bandwidth.

 

[SwimExpert]

Satellite for Internet, sploogy?

Do tell?

OH, OH, OH!!!!! But I thought you were the big fucking expert! I had satellite internet back in 2003, where the fuck have you been!?!

dishNET High-Speed Satellite Internet DISH

Satellite Internet Service Provider - High Speed Broadband from Exede

EarthLink Satellite Internet - download up to 1Mbps 2-way satellite service never ties up your phone.

Home WildBlue Fast Satellite Internet

Satellite Internet HughesNet Gen4 High-Speed Satellite Internet Provider

So how about you sit your ass in the corner like the don't-know-shit moron that you are, before I have to spank you again, mkay?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Satellite for Internet, sploogy?

Do tell?

OH, OH, OH!!!!! But I thought you were the big fucking expert! I had satellite internet back in 2003, where the fuck have you been!?!

dishNET High-Speed Satellite Internet DISH

Satellite Internet Service Provider - High Speed Broadband from Exede

EarthLink Satellite Internet - download up to 1Mbps 2-way satellite service never ties up your phone.

Home WildBlue Fast Satellite Internet

Satellite Internet HughesNet Gen4 High-Speed Satellite Internet Provider

So how about you sit your ass in the corner like the don't-know-shit moron that you are, before I have to spank you again, mkay?

IF you had satellite Internet, then you know it isn't viable.

{
Signal latency[edit]
Latency is the delay between requesting data and the receipt of a response, or in the case of one-way communication, between the actual moment of a signal's broadcast and the time it is received at its destination. The amount of latency depends on the distance travelled and the speed of light. Light including wireless radiation would take about 0.12 seconds to reach a geostationary satellite (at 36,000 km above the equator), so nearly 1/4 second for a round trip. Latency is the main difference between a standard terrestrial based network and a geostationary satellite network. The round trip latency of a geostationary satellite communication's network is almost 20 times that of a terrestrial based network.[10]}

Satellite Internet access - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

IF nothing else is available, it will download, but for anything else it is crap.

 

[Uncensored2008]

A claim that you just admitted is meaningless bullshit right here:

Obviously your only goal is to be a partisan hack.

Then you do have a means of identifying who the content provider is.

Rendering all of your previous claims that you couldn't meaningless bullshit. If Comcast and Verizon had no means of identifying which data comes from Netflix and which from Youtube, they couldn't charge them for the prioritization of that data.

Don't bother claiming that there's no way to identify the content provider when the entire basis of the business model of charging for prioritizing such data is the identification of the content provider.

Thinking is hard, it's why you're a democrat. I can identify certain packet types, if they are unique, I can infer the source, HTML5 is impossible to determine the source of. Might be Roku, might be Hulu, might be Netflix, might be Apple TV, etc.

Again you rely on your ignorance as superior to knowledge

The real problem is that morons like you have input on issues you have no hope of ever understanding.

Bummer, the Internet was a great tool - now the government will fuck it up. You'll blame Republicans of course - as instructed by the hate sites.

 

[SwimExpert]

Satellite for Internet, sploogy?

Do tell?

OH, OH, OH!!!!! But I thought you were the big fucking expert! I had satellite internet back in 2003, where the fuck have you been!?!

dishNET High-Speed Satellite Internet DISH

Satellite Internet Service Provider - High Speed Broadband from Exede

EarthLink Satellite Internet - download up to 1Mbps 2-way satellite service never ties up your phone.

Home WildBlue Fast Satellite Internet

Satellite Internet HughesNet Gen4 High-Speed Satellite Internet Provider

So how about you sit your ass in the corner like the don't-know-shit moron that you are, before I have to spank you again, mkay?

IF you had satellite Internet, then you know it isn't viable.

{
Signal latency[edit]
Latency is the delay between requesting data and the receipt of a response, or in the case of one-way communication, between the actual moment of a signal's broadcast and the time it is received at its destination. The amount of latency depends on the distance travelled and the speed of light. Light including wireless radiation would take about 0.12 seconds to reach a geostationary satellite (at 36,000 km above the equator), so nearly 1/4 second for a round trip. Latency is the main difference between a standard terrestrial based network and a geostationary satellite network. The round trip latency of a geostationary satellite communication's network is almost 20 times that of a terrestrial based network.[10]}

Satellite Internet access - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

IF nothing else is available, it will download, but for anything else it is crap.

Seeing as you've outed yourself as not knowing what you're taking about in the first place, despite your bullshit attempts to make yourself out to be some kind of expert, nothing you say has any relevance anymore. Especially if you have to go run to wikipedia to fill you in.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Seeing as you've outed yourself as not knowing what you're taking about in the first place, despite your bullshit attempts to make yourself out to be some kind of expert, nothing you say has any relevance anymore. Especially if you have to go run to wikipedia to fill you in.

I outed myself did I?

ROFL

You are a shrill and stupid little troll. Satellite Internet is joke, and a bad one.

 

[Skylar]

A claim that you just admitted is meaningless bullshit right here:

Obviously your only goal is to be a partisan hack.

My goal was to point out that yes, Comcast and Verizon can identify the content provider. Their entire business model for charging for 'priority' is being able to indentify the content provider. After all, if Netflix is paying for a 'high speed lane' and Comcast can't tell what traffic belongs to netflix, how can they prioritize it?

And you knew that from the beginning. Making all your claims that Comcast and Verizon couldn't tell who the data belonged to disingenuous bullshit.

Thinking is hard, it's why you're a democrat. I can identify certain packet types, if they are unique, I can infer the source, HTML5 is impossible to determine the source of. Might be Roku, might be Hulu, might be Netflix, might be Apple TV, etc.

So why would any other content provider EVER pay for prioritization if Netflix has already done so? After all, per your latest load of bullshit, Comcast and Verizon can't possibly tell the difference between Hulu, netflix, apple TV, etc.

So they'd all be in the 'fast lane'. With only Netflix being stupid enough to actually pay for it.

Is that your latest rhetorical load?

 

[OnePercenter]

You mean they charge according to what their customers use?

Shocking!

They already do. ISP's want more money for what taxpayers already are paying for.

If you understand how the Internet works, you'll know that ISP's receive their Internet 'feed' from publicly funded organizations. PLUS, all ISP's have been heavily subsidized by public funds. Charging people more for service that costs ISP's NOTHING is profiteering.

 

[Uncensored2008]

My goal was to point out that yes, Comcast and Verizon can identify the content provider.

You failed.

You have zero grasp of the technology and promote ignorant partisanship as superior to knowledge.

Their entire business model for charging for 'priority' is being able to indentify the content provider. After all, if Netflix is paying for a 'high speed lane' and Comcast can't tell what traffic belongs to netflix, how can they prioritize it?

And you knew that from the beginning. Making all your claims that Comcast and Verizon couldn't tell who the data belonged to disingenuous bullshit.

Thinking is hard, it's why you're a democrat. I can identify certain packet types, if they are unique, I can infer the source, HTML5 is impossible to determine the source of. Might be Roku, might be Hulu, might be Netflix, might be Apple TV, etc.

So why would any other content provider EVER pay for prioritization if Netflix has already done so? After all, per your latest load of bullshit, Comcast and Verizon can't possibly tell the difference between Hulu, netflix, apple TV, etc.

So they'd all be in the 'fast lane'. With only Netflix being stupid enough to actually pay for it.

Is that your latest rhetorical load?

Again, there are certain types of content that have placed a massive strain on the infrastructure of the Internet. You are a corporate shill for Netfilx (obviously Soros has an interest in the company) and demand that corporations not be held accountable for the impact they have on systems. No doubt you will demand corporate welfare for Netflix and say the taxpayer should pick up the cost for expanding the backbone of the internet to carry the increased traffic. You may not KNOW that this is what you will demand yet, but it is.

 

[orogenicman]

So the internet wasn't under this ruling until the other day and now it is being treated just like the following:

"Until the 1980s in the United States, the term "telephone company" was synonymous with American Telephone & Telegraph. AT&T controlled nearly all aspects of the telephone business. Its regional subsidiaries, known as "Baby Bells," were regulated monopolies, holding exclusive rights to operate in specific areas. The Federal Communications Commission regulated rates on long-distance calls between states, while state regulators had to approve rates for local and in-state long-distance calls.

Government regulation was justified on the theory that telephone companies, like electric utilities, were natural monopolies. Competition, which was assumed to require stringing multiple wires across the countryside, was seen as wasteful and inefficient. That thinking changed beginning around the 1970s, as sweeping technological developments promised rapid advances in telecommunications. Independent companies asserted that they could, indeed, compete with AT&T. But they said the telephone monopoly effectively shut them out by refusing to allow them to interconnect with its massive network."

Deregulating Telecommunications

(more at link)


If this rule is so good, why did the FCC deregulate AT&T?

ATT wasn't dregulated. It was broken up. And that occurred partially because the technology had advanced that made it possible to allow other industries to compete over the same medium, and partially because of anti-trust lawsuits that ultimately ended in the Supreme Court. But what does that have to do with the net neutrality regulations?

 

[Uncensored2008]

They already do. ISP's want more money for what taxpayers already are paying for.

And what is it that you think "taxpayers" are paying for?

If you understand how the Internet works, you'll know that ISP's receive their Internet 'feed' from publicly funded organizations. PLUS, all ISP's have been heavily subsidized by public funds. Charging people more for service that costs ISP's NOTHING is profiteering.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Is that right...

So, Level 3, TelePacific, Verizon, et al just let ISP's attach to their backbone for free....

Oh my.

 

[orogenicman]

My goal was to point out that yes, Comcast and Verizon can identify the content provider.

You failed.

You have zero grasp of the technology and promote ignorant partisanship as superior to knowledge.

Their entire business model for charging for 'priority' is being able to indentify the content provider. After all, if Netflix is paying for a 'high speed lane' and Comcast can't tell what traffic belongs to netflix, how can they prioritize it?

And you knew that from the beginning. Making all your claims that Comcast and Verizon couldn't tell who the data belonged to disingenuous bullshit.

Thinking is hard, it's why you're a democrat. I can identify certain packet types, if they are unique, I can infer the source, HTML5 is impossible to determine the source of. Might be Roku, might be Hulu, might be Netflix, might be Apple TV, etc.

So why would any other content provider EVER pay for prioritization if Netflix has already done so? After all, per your latest load of bullshit, Comcast and Verizon can't possibly tell the difference between Hulu, netflix, apple TV, etc.

So they'd all be in the 'fast lane'. With only Netflix being stupid enough to actually pay for it.

Is that your latest rhetorical load?

Again, there are certain types of content that have placed a massive strain on the infrastructure of the Internet.

Such as?

You are a corporate shill for Netfilx (obviously Soros has an interest in the company) and demand that corporations not be held accountable for the impact they have on systems. No doubt you will demand corporate welfare for Netflix and say the taxpayer should pick up the cost for expanding the backbone of the internet to carry the increased traffic. You may not KNOW that this is what you will demand yet, but it is.

Oh please. Your right wing paranoia was cute the first time it raised its ugly head. Now it is just sad.

 

[Skylar]

My goal was to point out that yes, Comcast and Verizon can identify the content provider.

You failed.

You have zero grasp of the technology and promote ignorant partisanship as superior to knowledge.

Laughing....you're still trying to argue that Comcast will charge Netflix for 'prioritization' of their data.......but Comcast can't tell what data to prioritize?

Bullshit. You've already admitted they could. Their business model REQUIRES that they be able to tell who the content provider is. Else, how could their data be prioritized?

Again, there are certain types of content that have placed a massive strain on the infrastructure of the Internet. You are a corporate shill for Netfilx (obviously Soros has an interest in the company) and demand that corporations not be held accountable for the impact they have on systems. No doubt you will demand corporate welfare for Netflix and say the taxpayer should pick up the cost for expanding the backbone of the internet to carry the increased traffic. You may not KNOW that this is what you will demand yet, but it is.

Once again, you see the bullshit of your argument so you avoid the question. I didn't ask what data 'puts a strain on the internet'. I asked you why any content provider would bother to pay for 'prioritization' if the Netflix already has?

After all, per your latest round of hapless bullshit, Comcast and Verizon can't tell who the data belongs to. So ANYONE streaming video of the same type would get the boost as Netflix.

So why would any video provider bother to pay Comcast for a 'fast lane', if Netflix already had and Comcast couldn't tell the difference?

If you're not completely full of shit, this will be a remarkably easy question for you to answer. If you're just shucking bullshit again, you'll give us another sidestep. But refuse to answer my question.

Keep running.

 

[orogenicman]

I rather suspect it has everything to do with elitism.

People making their own purchasing decisions is elitism?

Now you are putting words in my mouth. You seem to think, based on what you've said here, that if people aren't happy with their internet service, that that is just tough shit, and they can just opt out instead of complaining about it. So yes, that is an elitist position if ever there was one.

So....are you saying they can't stop buying? That makes not sense.

Are you in the third grade, or is English a second (or third) language for you? I'm saying that too few entities have too much control over a medium that, for all intents and purposes, was built with taxpayer money. I'm saying that over the course of the time since the internet first came to be, there was an expectation by, well, pretty much everybody, that there would be MORE competition, MORE choices of providers, not LESS. Without the net neutrality regulations, that trend of more control by fewer and fewer providers would likely not only continue, it would accelerate.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Such as?

Streaming video.

The traffic on the backbone his increased about 10,000% since 2010 - that is not a typo nor an exaggeration. Yet Soros sends you drones to demand that the corporations causing this not be held accountable.

Oh please. Your right wing paranoia was cute the first time it raised its ugly head. Now it is just sad.

You are a shill for the giant corporation Netflix, working to shield them from responsibility for their acts. You don't question anything, you do as ThinkProgress tells you. But the result of your mindless acts is shilling for Hulu, Amazon Prime, Netflix, et al. You'll demand that the taxpayer pick up the tab for expanding the backbone of the Internet to carry this load.

You may claim otherwise now, but you'll be programmed to demand corporate welfare for Netflix soon enough.

{Soros bought 98,764 shares of Netflix Inc.}

George Soros Top 5 Stock Buys of Q3 - GuruFocus.com

Well lookie there, now we know why you demand corporate welfare for Netflix...

 

[orogenicman]

Erm, mandated? And I suppose the antitrust lawsuit ATT lost has no bearing whatsoever on your silly claim?

You can't really be this stupid.

Wait, you're a leftist - of course you can...

Wow, I see you are living up to your "libertarian radical" moniker. Did you fall off your highchair while reflecting on the above politically motivated drivel? Oh dear.

 

[Uncensored2008]

My goal was to point out that yes, Comcast and Verizon can identify the content provider.

You failed.

You have zero grasp of the technology and promote ignorant partisanship as superior to knowledge.

Laughing....you're still trying to argue that Comcast will charge Netflix for 'prioritization' of their data.......but Comcast can't tell what data to prioritize?

Bullshit. You've already admitted they could. Their business model REQUIRES that they be able to tell who the content provider is. Else, how could their data be prioritized?

Again, there are certain types of content that have placed a massive strain on the infrastructure of the Internet. You are a corporate shill for Netfilx (obviously Soros has an interest in the company) and demand that corporations not be held accountable for the impact they have on systems. No doubt you will demand corporate welfare for Netflix and say the taxpayer should pick up the cost for expanding the backbone of the internet to carry the increased traffic. You may not KNOW that this is what you will demand yet, but it is.

Once again, you see the bullshit of your argument so you avoid the question. I didn't ask what data 'puts a strain on the internet'. I asked you why any content provider would bother to pay for 'prioritization' if the Netflix already has?

After all, per your latest round of hapless bullshit, Comcast and Verizon can't tell who the data belongs to. So ANYONE streaming video of the same type would get the boost as Netflix.

So why would any video provider bother to pay Comcast for a 'fast lane', if Netflix already had and Comcast couldn't tell the difference?

If you're not completely full of shit, this will be a remarkably easy question for you to answer. If you're just shucking bullshit again, you'll give us another sidestep. But refuse to answer my question.

Keep running.

You're a fucking idiot. You attempt to portray ignorance as superior to knowledge.

We know WHY you come in here spewing mindless shit, though:

{Soros bought 98,764 shares of Netflix Inc.}

George Soros Top 5 Stock Buys of Q3 - GuruFocus.com

The owner of the democratic party investing heavily in Netflix, now the FCC makes the Internet a public utility ensuring Netflix doesn't have to pay for bandwidth?

Well what a coincidence....

 

[orogenicman]

Such as?

Streaming video.

The traffic on the backbone his increased about 10,000% since 2010 - that is not a typo nor an exaggeration. Yet Soros sends you drones to demand that the corporations causing this not be held accountable.

The above has been possible because of the adoption across the country of fiber optics technology which has not only brought the internet to more customers, it has also brought broadband to millions. So it should not come as a surprise in the least to anyone that we have seen such an increase. It was expected, bubba. The increase is, in fact, what paid for the expansion. So let's see the data that shows this strain on the backbone. As in how many hours of downtime has occurred across the web since 2010 purely as a result of streaming video.

Oh please. Your right wing paranoia was cute the first time it raised its ugly head. Now it is just sad.

You are a shill for the giant corporation Netflix, working to shield them from responsibility for their acts.

Obviously, you are having some sort of breakdown. Take a pill, pal before you go into full out meltdown.

 

[idb]

Such as?

Streaming video.

The traffic on the backbone his increased about 10,000% since 2010 - that is not a typo nor an exaggeration. Yet Soros sends you drones to demand that the corporations causing this not be held accountable.

Oh please. Your right wing paranoia was cute the first time it raised its ugly head. Now it is just sad.

You are a shill for the giant corporation Netflix, working to shield them from responsibility for their acts. You don't question anything, you do as ThinkProgress tells you. But the result of your mindless acts is shilling for Hulu, Amazon Prime, Netflix, et al. You'll demand that the taxpayer pick up the tab for expanding the backbone of the Internet to carry this load.

You may claim otherwise now, but you'll be programmed to demand corporate welfare for Netflix soon enough.

{Soros bought 98,764 shares of Netflix Inc.}

George Soros Top 5 Stock Buys of Q3 - GuruFocus.com

Well lookie there, now we know why you demand corporate welfare for Netflix...

It's simply impossible for you to leave your cartoon partisan politics out of a discussion, isn't it?
Is it because you're incapable of holding your own in an intellectual debate?
That's my vote.

 

[Skylar]

My goal was to point out that yes, Comcast and Verizon can identify the content provider.

You failed.

You have zero grasp of the technology and promote ignorant partisanship as superior to knowledge.

Laughing....you're still trying to argue that Comcast will charge Netflix for 'prioritization' of their data.......but Comcast can't tell what data to prioritize?

Bullshit. You've already admitted they could. Their business model REQUIRES that they be able to tell who the content provider is. Else, how could their data be prioritized?

Again, there are certain types of content that have placed a massive strain on the infrastructure of the Internet. You are a corporate shill for Netfilx (obviously Soros has an interest in the company) and demand that corporations not be held accountable for the impact they have on systems. No doubt you will demand corporate welfare for Netflix and say the taxpayer should pick up the cost for expanding the backbone of the internet to carry the increased traffic. You may not KNOW that this is what you will demand yet, but it is.

Once again, you see the bullshit of your argument so you avoid the question. I didn't ask what data 'puts a strain on the internet'. I asked you why any content provider would bother to pay for 'prioritization' if the Netflix already has?

After all, per your latest round of hapless bullshit, Comcast and Verizon can't tell who the data belongs to. So ANYONE streaming video of the same type would get the boost as Netflix.

So why would any video provider bother to pay Comcast for a 'fast lane', if Netflix already had and Comcast couldn't tell the difference?

If you're not completely full of shit, this will be a remarkably easy question for you to answer. If you're just shucking bullshit again, you'll give us another sidestep. But refuse to answer my question.

Keep running.

You're a fucking idiot. You attempt to portray ignorance as superior to knowledge.

I'm calling you on your bullshit. And worse, you know you're completely full of shit....as you run when I ask you this cartoon simple question:

So why would any video provider bother to pay Comcast for a 'fast lane', if Netflix already had and Comcast couldn't tell the difference?

You're stuck. You know if you answer that question, the entire bullshit premise of your argument, that Comcast and Verizon can't identify content providers data, falls apart.

Keep running. This question isn't going away, no matter how desperately you try to avoid it.