Mooney44Cards;1708540 wrote:Sorry justin, but I think you either don't understand the issue or are just disagreeing from an ideological rather than logical standpoint.

I know people hate government regulation of business but to call it bad across the board (which many people do, see: libertarians) is naive. The idea that a free and open market regulates itself has been proven wrong time and time again.

The fact is that the ISPs, the majority of which are also cable companies, saw the writing on the wall that cable was dying and that the future of all entertainment was internet-based. This prompted them to attempt to fuck over the consumer in the same way the cable companies have for years: hold highly-sought-after features hostage unless the consumer pays up. And bundle those sought-after features with a bunch of garbage no one wants to try to justify the huge jump in price! ("Yes, you must buy this premium tier to get the NFL Network, but look how many other channels you get! Underwater Basketweaving TV! The Pony Channel! The Grass Growing Network!")

The fact is, nobody should be able to control what I can and cannot access with my internet connection, as long as its not breaking the law. Not the government, and certainly not a huge shitty corporation like Comcast or Time Warner.

But fucking over the consumer was only the end by-product. This was an attempt by the ISPs to shakedown Netflix and other content providers for a piece of the pie. "Because we can" has never been a good excuse for a company to do anything, and the ISPs fighting Net Neutrality failed to come up with a compelling argument against it other than "We want to make more money but not provide any additional services, but in fact actually limit the services we currently provide."

Mooney44Cards;1708543 wrote:justin,

Look at it from this perspective.....what if Time Warner Cable sent you a letter saying they were going to restrict access to Ohio Chatter for any Time Warner user unless you paid them a substantial fee.

That is EXACTLY what they were attempting to do with Netflix and other content providers. If you think that should be legal to do, then I don't know what to tell you.

ernest_t_bass;1708544 wrote:Will this affect my pr0n?

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1708535 wrote:No that's the whole point of regulation so you can stop this.

Mooney44Cards;1708543 wrote: That is EXACTLY what they were attempting to do with Netflix and other content providers. If you think that should be legal to do, then I don't know what to tell you.

ernest_t_bass;1708546 wrote:Can you imagine the time it would take them to sift through all of our active users?

gut;1708563 wrote:No it isn't. This boogeyman argument has been nothing more than that to date.

Netflix was experiencing bottlenecks on the backend, and wanted to circumvent that with direct access to Comcast and others. That sure sounds like a premium service, that sure is good for everyone and sure is worth money.

The Netflx issue has never been about net neutrality. It was a pissing contest between two giants over who should bear the infrastructure cost. In a more competitive market that's likely never an issue for Netflix...although maybe not as you don't get to cut-out the middle man for free, which is what Netflix was trying to do.

Here's a pretty good explanation of the Netflix issue:
http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/

QuakerOats;1708568 wrote:What do you think they built this for:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/01/seven-stats-to-know-about-nsas-utah-data-center-as-it-nears-completion/


This is massive government overreach yet again---- what a disgrace. We cannot get rid of obama and his radical appointees soon enough.

QuakerOats;1708568 wrote:What do you think they built this for:
This is massive government overreach yet again---- what a disgrace. We cannot get rid of obama and his radical appointees soon enough.

Mooney44Cards;1708569 wrote:what are you talking about? Not only is that exactly what those companies did to Netflix, Netflix actually paid up. They've been paying for over a year.

Mooney44Cards;1708574 wrote:The result, had these Internet fast lanes been allowed to exist, would have been so anti-competitive and so destructive to start ups that it would have the net result of raising streaming prices across the board while blocking any start ups from being able to compete with Netflix, Amazon, etc.

Mooney44Cards;1708570 wrote:They can't prove that so they fucked them a different way.

Jawbreaker;1708566 wrote:Gut, I am guessing you have stock in Comcast, TWC, and Verizon.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/10/study-comcast-and-verizon-connections-to-cogent-dropped-below-0-5mbps/

gut;1708576 wrote:Did you read the link or just not understand it?

ernest_t_bass;1708544 wrote:Will this affect my pr0n?

gut;1708586 wrote:LMAO, yes, any time someone with a little common sense and knowledge comes down on the side of "big business" they must be on the payroll.

Did you read and understand my link (which explains in some detail the anecdotal data you posted)? Did you even read and fully understand your own link?
" The dispute continued until Netflix started delivering traffic to ISPs directly, taking the stress off Cogent's connections with ISPs."

The whole Netflix thing was about Netflix wanting to PROFIT for superior service, since they would be avoiding those interconnection fees with direct links while relieving capacity stress on those intermediary providers.