Here it comes! Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility

[Uncensored2008]

You keep making up the statement that Netflix and Apple TV do not pay for the bandwidth they consume. But that is an ABSOLUTE LIE. Why do you keep making this straw-man? Netflix does not have a free pipe to the internet. Nor does Apple. Why make stuff up?

You are a very weird dude.

{Earlier this year, Netflix decided to start paying Comcast an undisclosed but substantial fee to directly connect its network, and, lo, did the download speed suddenly increase. Netflix has since signed other similar agreements. By opting in, Netflix is adding expense which will have to be passed on to customers and which lands squarely in the pockets of ISP executives and shareholders. Apple, to offer competitive quality with Netflix, needs the same deal, even though Apple is thus far more akin to a video-download service rather than a streaming one. So far, these contracts and fees remain outside any requirements of reporting to the public under any FCC rules, and thus there’s no independent way for consumers or regulators to assess their fairness or necessity.}

What Apple s new content delivery network means for net neutrality and for you Macworld

 

[Uncensored2008]

How is metering content consumed by consumers not metering content consumed by consumers?

Metering consumer - you have a 4gb per month allotment, if you go over, we charge you.

Metering the CDS - you have a 50tb per month allotment, if you go over, you must go to the next tier and pay more.

Two different proposals.

No one is proposing to meter consumer usage again - because they can't get away with it.

You're an Apple fanboi, aren't you? That's why your inconsistency and generally absurd behavior on this topic, right?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Holy fuck, you're serious aren't you?

Why do you demand that Apple and Netflix be able to use bandwidth and not pay for it?

 

[RDD_1210]

Actually, the one thing is clear is that you are a corporate shill. You don't give a shit about freedom, innovation or true competition in the marketplace. You care about pleasing your corporate masters and being a good little stooge.

ROFL... you're mentally handicapped aren't you.

It wouldn't say much for you if I was. Because I would still grasp this issue better than you fools can with "normal" mental capacity.

I assure you my mental capacity is far beyond mere mortals. I was writing IP stacks before you knew how to click on a link.

And yet you still argue against Net Neutrality? Hilarious!

I want my government breaking up data carrier monopolies.. I don't want my government mandating metered access to the internet, not to the consumer of products purchased over the internet, or the provider of the products purchased over the internet.

I like liberty, and capitalism... but within the scope of the constitution, that included having our government break up large monopolies on things like "public utilities."

Netflix pays for their side of the pipe on a netflix movie, I pay for my side of the pipe. WRT the pipes in the middle... yeah well that's why the internet is not free. Although we did already pay for most of the pipes in the middle via tax subsidies, but that is a different discussion.

I don't like metered cell bandwidth, but I also don't want government mandating the types of cell contracts I can sign. What I want is for my government to break up monopolies and oligopolies.

If that was even remotely on the table, I'd be in support of it. But it's not unfortunately and now the mess could become that much worse if we allow ISPs to play favorites with the companies that have the deepest pockets. No one wins if that happens besides big business. The one who loses out the most...we the people.

 

[RDD_1210]

Holy fuck, you're serious aren't you?

Why do you demand that Apple and Netflix be able to use bandwidth and not pay for it?

They get free internet access now? Interesting.

 

[RKMBrown]

You keep making up the statement that Netflix and Apple TV do not pay for the bandwidth they consume. But that is an ABSOLUTE LIE. Why do you keep making this straw-man? Netflix does not have a free pipe to the internet. Nor does Apple. Why make stuff up?

You are a very weird dude.

{Earlier this year, Netflix decided to start paying Comcast an undisclosed but substantial fee to directly connect its network, and, lo, did the download speed suddenly increase. Netflix has since signed other similar agreements. By opting in, Netflix is adding expense which will have to be passed on to customers and which lands squarely in the pockets of ISP executives and shareholders. Apple, to offer competitive quality with Netflix, needs the same deal, even though Apple is thus far more akin to a video-download service rather than a streaming one. So far, these contracts and fees remain outside any requirements of reporting to the public under any FCC rules, and thus there’s no independent way for consumers or regulators to assess their fairness or necessity.}

What Apple s new content delivery network means for net neutrality and for you Macworld

ROFL... that's so funny.. Yes, I'm am aware of peer to peer connections over the internet. ROFL Yes, I'm also aware of "caching" data. ROFL

I'll ask again why do you think Netflix has free internet? FYI your links are talking about Netflix paying an "extra" charge over and above the other charge that they pay for their internet pipe.

For example, lets say you wanted to stream a movie from your house to another computer that is on the internet via an ISP connection. You and that other computer exchange ip addresses and you send the stream to the other computer. What these changes are about is saying wait a minute we don't like YOU sending streams of data to another computer on the internet. But yes one way to avoid that is to put a kiosk of cached of movies at your local ISP warehouse.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, charging discriminately for use.

Much like gas stations charge discriminatory prices for gasoline, the more you use, the more you pay.

In a free society, that is how resources are allocated.

Those in favor of a free and open Internet are not socialists.

Those who demand that the government give to each according to his need, instead of placing the product on a free market so that each can purchase what he needs and can afford, absolutely is socialism.

[quite]Those against Net Neutrality are the true socialists[/quote]

You mean advocates of a free market, where goods and services are for sale to those with the means and willingness to buy? That is "socialism" to you?

--corporate socialists that is.

Yes, Net Neutrality will aid Apple and Netflix, ergo you shill for them to get this through - that is true.

Or, if you prefer the shortened version, corporatists.

I prefer free markets and liberty. You prefer to loot, using the implied power of the gun held by the state.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Or in reality, the consumers will continue to pay the cost just as they have been up until now. But no, Verizon and Comcast want to milk both ends of the equation, which opens up a very large door for them providing "priority access" to any big company who wants to pay the fee. It doesn't have to be "bandwidth hogs" like Netflix. It can be anyone who wants to get in bed with and can afford the ISP fees. That means small business loses, competition loses and the public loses.

And you don't give a fuck, because your masters are happy.

Priority access has been a part of the internet since the first day Genie or Compuserve went on line - that was the whole point of those "walled gardens" of the past.

And again you lie about what this is - this is not consumer side at all, this is content provider based. CDS like Amazon and Apple are asked to pay for the service they receive. Because you are a shill for these mega-corporations, you demand that the public bear the cost so that they can be shielded from paying their own way.

 

[RKMBrown]

ROFL... you're mentally handicapped aren't you.

It wouldn't say much for you if I was. Because I would still grasp this issue better than you fools can with "normal" mental capacity.

I assure you my mental capacity is far beyond mere mortals. I was writing IP stacks before you knew how to click on a link.

And yet you still argue against Net Neutrality? Hilarious!

I want my government breaking up data carrier monopolies.. I don't want my government mandating metered access to the internet, not to the consumer of products purchased over the internet, or the provider of the products purchased over the internet.

I like liberty, and capitalism... but within the scope of the constitution, that included having our government break up large monopolies on things like "public utilities."

Netflix pays for their side of the pipe on a netflix movie, I pay for my side of the pipe. WRT the pipes in the middle... yeah well that's why the internet is not free. Although we did already pay for most of the pipes in the middle via tax subsidies, but that is a different discussion.

I don't like metered cell bandwidth, but I also don't want government mandating the types of cell contracts I can sign. What I want is for my government to break up monopolies and oligopolies.

If that was even remotely on the table, I'd be in support of it. But it's not unfortunately and now the mess could become that much worse if we allow ISPs to play favorites with the companies that have the deepest pockets. No one wins if that happens besides big business. The one who loses out the most...we the people.

So we have basically three choices... A) continue with the current situation with some ISPs throttling or boosting some companies, and other ISPs throttling or boosting certain types of protocol stacks like streams, until one of the customers switch away from their ISP provider if they can or the throttled companies pay the ISPs to stop; B) come up with some bloated bureaucracy of a bastardized bill with a bullshit name written to obfuscate it's myriad of purposes that may or may not solve some problem, which, nevertheless, is more likely to create thousands of new problems; or C) my way, which is getting government to do it's damn job.

 

[Uncensored2008]

They get free internet access now? Interesting.

Net Neutrality means that they pay no more for the hundreds of terabytes they transmit each month than a small business does for 2 or 3 gigabytes.

Look, you're just a shill for the mega-corporations of Apple and Netflix, fighting to make sure they don't have to pay their way.

 

[RDD_1210]

Or in reality, the consumers will continue to pay the cost just as they have been up until now. But no, Verizon and Comcast want to milk both ends of the equation, which opens up a very large door for them providing "priority access" to any big company who wants to pay the fee. It doesn't have to be "bandwidth hogs" like Netflix. It can be anyone who wants to get in bed with and can afford the ISP fees. That means small business loses, competition loses and the public loses.

And you don't give a fuck, because your masters are happy.

Priority access has been a part of the internet since the first day Genie or Compuserve went on line - that was the whole point of those "walled gardens" of the past.

And again you lie about what this is - this is not consumer side at all, this is content provider based. CDS like Amazon and Apple are asked to pay for the service they receive. Because you are a shill for these mega-corporations, you demand that the public bear the cost so that they can be shielded from paying their own way.

Up until now, who has received priority access to the internet?

 

[RDD_1210]

It wouldn't say much for you if I was. Because I would still grasp this issue better than you fools can with "normal" mental capacity.

I assure you my mental capacity is far beyond mere mortals. I was writing IP stacks before you knew how to click on a link.

And yet you still argue against Net Neutrality? Hilarious!

I want my government breaking up data carrier monopolies.. I don't want my government mandating metered access to the internet, not to the consumer of products purchased over the internet, or the provider of the products purchased over the internet.

I like liberty, and capitalism... but within the scope of the constitution, that included having our government break up large monopolies on things like "public utilities."

Netflix pays for their side of the pipe on a netflix movie, I pay for my side of the pipe. WRT the pipes in the middle... yeah well that's why the internet is not free. Although we did already pay for most of the pipes in the middle via tax subsidies, but that is a different discussion.

I don't like metered cell bandwidth, but I also don't want government mandating the types of cell contracts I can sign. What I want is for my government to break up monopolies and oligopolies.

If that was even remotely on the table, I'd be in support of it. But it's not unfortunately and now the mess could become that much worse if we allow ISPs to play favorites with the companies that have the deepest pockets. No one wins if that happens besides big business. The one who loses out the most...we the people.

So we have basically three choices... A) continue with the current situation with some ISPs throttling some companies, and other ISPs throttling types of protocol stacks like streams, until one of the customers switch away from their ISP provider if they can or the throttled companies pay the ISPs to stop; B) come up with some bloated bureaucracy of a bastardized bill with a bullshit name written to obfuscate it's myriad of purposes that may or may not solve some problem, which, nevertheless, is more likely to create thousands of new problems; or C) my way, which is getting government to do it's damn job.

Do you really think government can make that much of a change in the way things are? No way.

Especially when you have people like Ted Cruz comparing Net Neutrality to Obamacare and idiots here lapping it up.

I'll take my chances with a bill that says everything should remain the same and no one can throttle speeds, not corporations, not the government.

 

[RKMBrown]

They get free internet access now? Interesting.

Net Neutrality means that they pay no more for the hundreds of terabytes they transmit each month than a small business does for 2 or 3 gigabytes.

Look, you're just a shill for the mega-corporations of Apple and Netflix, fighting to make sure they don't have to pay their way.

HUH?

 

[RDD_1210]

They get free internet access now? Interesting.

Net Neutrality means that they pay no more for the hundreds of terabytes they transmit each month than a small business does for 2 or 3 gigabytes.

Look, you're just a shill for the mega-corporations of Apple and Netflix, fighting to make sure they don't have to pay their way.

The end user already pays. Why do they have to charge on both ends?

This is where you put on your kneepads and suck off Comcast and Verizon.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Up until now, who has received priority access to the internet?

Anyone who paid for it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The end user already pays. Why do they have to charge on both ends?

The major content providers are new - a level of data sent that vastly outstrips anything in the past. Paying for the higher consumption of bandwidth if how free societies deal with demand.

This is where you put on your kneepads and suck off Comcast and Verizon.

If inclined, I can just borrow yours when you finish sucking off Apple and Netflix.

 

[RKMBrown]

I assure you my mental capacity is far beyond mere mortals. I was writing IP stacks before you knew how to click on a link.

And yet you still argue against Net Neutrality? Hilarious!

I want my government breaking up data carrier monopolies.. I don't want my government mandating metered access to the internet, not to the consumer of products purchased over the internet, or the provider of the products purchased over the internet.

I like liberty, and capitalism... but within the scope of the constitution, that included having our government break up large monopolies on things like "public utilities."

Netflix pays for their side of the pipe on a netflix movie, I pay for my side of the pipe. WRT the pipes in the middle... yeah well that's why the internet is not free. Although we did already pay for most of the pipes in the middle via tax subsidies, but that is a different discussion.

I don't like metered cell bandwidth, but I also don't want government mandating the types of cell contracts I can sign. What I want is for my government to break up monopolies and oligopolies.

If that was even remotely on the table, I'd be in support of it. But it's not unfortunately and now the mess could become that much worse if we allow ISPs to play favorites with the companies that have the deepest pockets. No one wins if that happens besides big business. The one who loses out the most...we the people.

So we have basically three choices... A) continue with the current situation with some ISPs throttling some companies, and other ISPs throttling types of protocol stacks like streams, until one of the customers switch away from their ISP provider if they can or the throttled companies pay the ISPs to stop; B) come up with some bloated bureaucracy of a bastardized bill with a bullshit name written to obfuscate it's myriad of purposes that may or may not solve some problem, which, nevertheless, is more likely to create thousands of new problems; or C) my way, which is getting government to do it's damn job.

Do you really think government can make that much of a change in the way things are? No way.

Especially when you have people like Ted Cruz comparing Net Neutrality to Obamacare and idiots here lapping it up.

I'll take my chances with a bill that says everything should remain the same and no one can throttle speeds, not corporations, not the government.

Earlier approved changes forced ISPs to not force people to pay for certain types of internet use... but they did allow the ISPs to manage bandwidth, they left it vague.

Obama has mentioned a number of times that he wanted to make sure the poor have equal access or some crap and having to make the rich pay their way. He's demonizing netflix and other internet providers. So you get the Cruz guys saying the opposite.

I just don't trust either the republicans or the democrats to make changes to how the internet works and get it right.

If an ISP wants to provide a caching service that avoids extra use of the internet pipes between the provider and consumer by storing caches of data at hubs where the data is being downloaded... that seems like a good idea. Just let the provider buy a server/cache device at ISP locations and pump that IP address up to the DNS server the ISP is using for their customers, no? I don't see why we need a new law to make that happen.

 

[RKMBrown]

The major content providers are new - a level of data sent that vastly outstrips anything in the past. Paying for the higher consumption of bandwidth if how free societies deal with demand.

What part of the fact that these major content providers are not new and have already been paying for their use of the internet is confusing you?

 

[kaz]

So give me ONE good reason that Netflix and Apple TV should not pay for the bandwidth they consume?

Because the hate sites have programmed you to be a corporate shill is NOT a good reason.

You keep making up the statement that Netflix and Apple TV do not pay for the bandwidth they consume. But that is an ABSOLUTE LIE. Why do you keep making this straw-man? Netflix does not have a free pipe to the internet. Nor does Apple. Why make stuff up?

You're right that they pay for access to the internet, and I'm sure they pay quite a bit considering the speeds they need. However, they don't pay for the bandwidth on the backbone. I've heard at times that Netflix can be up to a quarter of the traffic, that's an incredible amount.

As I understand it though that's not the issue so much as companies that want more bandwidth for faster speeds are not allowed to get it for paying more. That is "Internet neutrality" which requires all traffic to be prioritized the same. Our Marxist liberal friends don't believe anyone but politicians should be getting preferential treatment. The ability to pay more doesn't mean you should be allowed to buy more.

 

[asterism]

Heres what the company CAN do and HAS done. If you want more of this

At least that chart represents the actual question, though I doubt you understand it.

Look at Netflix bandwidth speed with Comcast. Guess what happened when their bandwidth speed went waaaaay down? Netflix wanted their speed the same as others without being singled out to pay more

Guess what happened when their speed went waaay up? Netflix paid and suddenly the practice of purposefully slowing down sites have been restored.

Why would any consumer fight and say "Let the companies decide if they want us to pay more!!"

Keep internet the same

So, you believe that a for-profit company like Netflix, should be granted unlimited bandwidth without having to pay for it? That backbone providers should be obligated to spend billions to increase infrastructure to accommodate the load of Netflix on their own dime?

But Kudos, at least you identified the actual issue at hand.

Verizon Fios made it less convenient to watch Netflix at my house. I switched to Bright House. Problem solved.

But why create the problem to solve it? leave the internet alone and you dont have to find a solution

Granting new authority to the FCC and regulating the Internet as a utility is not leaving it alone. No matter how many times your repeat a lie, it's still a lie.