gut;1709002 wrote:Another person who can't even read and understand what they themselves are posting. And, FYI, that shows a bottleneck and isn't proof of Comcast doing anything nefarious. But to spell it out for you, over the time period in question Comcast is middle of the pack in net change over the time period.

AT&T and Verizon also saw similar dips (for multiple forms of service)....as did - wait for it - Google Fiber although it did not continue such a severe downward trend. This was all a result of Netflix overtaxing the Cogent capability, which was very nicely spelled out in the article I linked. The downward trends reversed when Netflix secured direct access links, and I'm guessing with Cabevision and Cox that went off without a hitch before Cogent became overwhelmed. Your nice little chart shows Cogent was the bottleneck and isn't proof of anything more.

Estimates are Netflix pays ONE PENNY per streamed movie. And this whole direct connect thing is a fraction of that but net neutrality and the future of the internet are at risk? LMFAO, are you frickin' kidding me?!?

Sigh...

http://www.cnet.com/news/cogent-says-comcast-forced-netflix-interconnection-deal-with-clever-traffic-clogging/

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/06/verizon-bandwidth-provider-blame-each-other-for-slow-netflix-streaming/

And before you try and act like this is something COGENT should fix, it's not their job to. So there are two options:
1) Big ISPs upgrate their ports to accommodate more traffic or 2) they don't and force large users to pay a toll to directly connect to "the last mile"

And if you think #2 is ok then you can fuck right off.

Also...

http://www.flashrouters.com/blog/2014/07/25/proof-that-verizon-is-at-fault-in-the-netflix-throttling-battle-2/

Also, none of this would have happened if Verizon hadn't sued for the FUCKING ABILITY TO DO THIS and won. Comcast, AT&T and other ISPs warned them not to, as they were comfortable with the regulatory framework as it was before they took the prior FCC rules to court.

And so Verizon wins, the other ISPs now can throttle/charge for prioritization/basically choose what content is allowed through the last mile, and then we get the ruling we just had.

http://bgr.com/2015/02/26/verizon-fcc-net-neutrality/

http://blog.level3.com/open-internet/observations-internet-middleman/

"That leaves the remaining six peers with congestion on almost all of the interconnect ports between us. Congestion that is permanent, has been in place for well over a year and where our peer refuses to augment capacity. They are deliberately harming the service they deliver to their paying customers. They are not allowing us to fulfil the requests their customers make for content.
Five of those congested peers are in the United States and one is in Europe. There are none in any other part of the world. All six are large Broadband consumer networks with a dominant or exclusive market share in their local market. In countries or markets where consumers have multiple Broadband choices (like the UK) there are no congested peers."

"One final point; the companies with the congested peering interconnects also happen to rank dead last in customer satisfaction across all industries in the U.S.[2] Not only dead last, but by a massive statistical margin of almost three standard deviations."

[video=youtube;Un-9_K-aNaE][/video]

jesus christ

justincredible;1709630 wrote:[video=youtube;Un-9_K-aNaE][/video]

There are no "bad" economics with net neutrality, as "net neutrality" is how we've been operating on the internet until very recently. So to say there are economic negatives with respect to net neutrality is to say that the past 10 years the internet based economy somehow was stunted because of equal access to information.

Now...are there bad economics with respect to lack of competition in terms of ISPs? Yes. But how is a lack of competition with respect to ISPs in any way related to stopping ALL ISPs from being able to intentionally slow your service based on what data you are requesting? They're not related. Tomorrow the FCC/Congress could come out and tear down the barriers to entry/break up oligarchies somehow and Net Neutrality wouldn't stop any new player from entering the game, as it's how the internet has always worked (up until last year).

...and the reason we need government involvement here is.....?

HitsRus;1709696 wrote:...and the reason we need government involvement here is.....?

What are you talking about? We need the U.S. government in every aspect of our lives. Most people cringe at this, and sometimes I do too. And I usually gringe because it's really the U.N. that we need. They are the only fair, mutli-national body that can make fair unbaised decisions regarding our lives.

derek bomar;1709693 wrote:...as "net neutrality" is how we've been operating on the internet until very recently.

Correct, the internet has flourished under net neutrality until very recently when the govt took it over under Title II.

You got hoodwinked by Netflix. LMAO at reactions to this article I've seen around the net - Used. Betrayed. Pawn. Sucker.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/3/8142899/netflix-net-neutrality-flipfl

Another good one:
http://www.insidesources.com/envy-frank-underwood/
"Netflix, known for its innovation in reshaping the entertainment industry, worked to add unprecedented regulations to new Net Neutrality rules that will cement its power, eliminate its current costs and, in turn, pass those costs onto all Internet users to benefit its bottom line."

cruiser_96;1709699 wrote:What are you talking about? We need the U.S. government in every aspect of our lives.

You can never really have enough regulation. It's a jobs creator!

Liberals mugged by Obamanet

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gordon-crovitz-liberals-mugged-by-obamanet-1425252804

QuakerOats;1709730 wrote:Liberals mugged by Obamanet

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gordon-crovitz-liberals-mugged-by-obamanet-1425252804

the old adage of "careful what you wish for" applies

Netflix CEO definitely earned his bonus this year - they got the direct interconnects, and now they won't have to pay for that access while no longer paying the middleman. Winning all the way to the bank.

http://blog.level3.com/open-internet/chicken-game-played-child-isps-internet/

Level 3, a tier 1 network, has some very interesting blog posts about this. The link above is from last year. Certain ISPs played a game of chicken and it backfired on them.

gut;1709714 wrote:Correct, the internet has flourished under net neutrality until very recently when the govt took it over under Title II.

You got hoodwinked by Netflix. LMAO at reactions to this article I've seen around the net - Used. Betrayed. Pawn. Sucker.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/3/8142899/netflix-net-neutrality-flipfl

Another good one:
http://www.insidesources.com/envy-frank-underwood/
"Netflix, known for its innovation in reshaping the entertainment industry, worked to add unprecedented regulations to new Net Neutrality rules that will cement its power, eliminate its current costs and, in turn, pass those costs onto all Internet users to benefit its bottom line."

I like how you linked The Verge. Too bad you didn't link this gem.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/25/5431382/the-internet-is-fucked

Jawbreaker;1709785 wrote:I like how you linked The Verge. Too bad you didn't link this gem.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/25/5431382/the-internet-is-fucked

Yeah, too bad that was written before Verge, like others, realized they got played by Netflix and "net neutrality" to pad the Netflix bottom line. Comcast profit margins have hovered around 10% for years - if they're engaging in nefarious practices to make money hand over fist then they're doing it wrong.

Again, read what you are posting and also read WHO it is being posted from. Cogent and Level 3 - two "middlemen" that get cut out in Netflix direct connect deals ("plenty of other business out there"...LOL, yeah, Netflix is only 1/3 of ALL of it so these articles can't remotely be influenced by your bottom line). I've read several of those links, and in all of them they are vague both about who is doing what and to what level. Now, Cogent and Level 3 have done, errrr, considerably worse on profit margin and what would you suppose happens if they lose large chunks of Netflix business?

Read your link from L3 CEO and the user Mark's comments, this one in particular:
I had a front-row seat for the industry-wide peering spat of 1998. What’s happening now is the same thing that happened then: ISPs on the short end of lopsided peerings want compensation for the difference. The recent Comcast deal may signal that Netflix has had an epiphany. They’ve finally come to understand that when your traffic is heavily lopsided and the bulk of your subscribers are on last-mile ISPs, the more successful model is going to be cutting out the middlemen (e.g., Level 3 and Cogent) and doing direct, settlement-based peerings. As Neflix and others start offloading more traffic across those peerings, the wedged peerings will settle down to something closer to sane and the whole issue will go away, at least until the cycle repeats itself with some other service.

I mean, it's mere coincidence that Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and even Google all saw similar Netflix service degradations around the same time. They got together in a dark room and decided this, or they all just refused to add capacity and coincidentally all had issues cropping up at the same time. Or maybe, just maybe, the problem was Cogent all along. And - shocker of shockers - Cogent and L3 are pointing the finger elsewhere. But they and Netflix have found an ally for their profit margins in Net Neutrality.

gut;1709714 wrote:Correct, the internet has flourished under net neutrality until very recently when the govt took it over under Title II.

You got hoodwinked by Netflix. LMAO at reactions to this article I've seen around the net - Used. Betrayed. Pawn. Sucker.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/3/8142899/netflix-net-neutrality-flipfl

Another good one:
http://www.insidesources.com/envy-frank-underwood/
"Netflix, known for its innovation in reshaping the entertainment industry, worked to add unprecedented regulations to new Net Neutrality rules that will cement its power, eliminate its current costs and, in turn, pass those costs onto all Internet users to benefit its bottom line."

You are insane

derek bomar;1709918 wrote:You are insane

I've given up even debating with them anymore. It's obvious that they already have their narrative despite evidence, "obamanet" etc.... Lunacy.

So you think applying archaic rules and ridiculous regulations to one of the most innovative and productive advances in history is the way to go ---- bizarre. Democrat group think and BIG government overreach at its finest.

QuakerOats;1709939 wrote:So you think applying archaic rules and ridiculous regulations to one of the most innovative and productive advances in history is the way to go ---- bizarre. Democrat group think and BIG government overreach at its finest.

Go back and read Derek's post. He lays it out as to why your argument is a complete fail.

derek bomar;1709693 wrote:There are no "bad" economics with net neutrality, as "net neutrality" is how we've been operating on the internet until very recently. So to say there are economic negatives with respect to net neutrality is to say that the past 10 years the internet based economy somehow was stunted because of equal access to information.

Now...are there bad economics with respect to lack of competition in terms of ISPs? Yes. But how is a lack of competition with respect to ISPs in any way related to stopping ALL ISPs from being able to intentionally slow your service based on what data you are requesting? They're not related. Tomorrow the FCC/Congress could come out and tear down the barriers to entry/break up oligarchies somehow and Net Neutrality wouldn't stop any new player from entering the game, as it's how the internet has always worked (up until last year).

Did you listen to the podcast or did you just read the title?

derek bomar;1709693 wrote:There are no "bad" economics with net neutrality

There is always bad economics with additional regulation. Always. The question is whether the upside is worth these negatives. The answer is no far more often than it is yes. In this case, to coin a phrase, time will tell.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/

But if monopolies are bad, why should we trust the U.S. government, the largest, most powerful monopoly in the world? We’re talking about the same organization that spent an amount equal to Facebook’s first six years of operating costs to build a health care website that doesn’t work, the same organization that can’t keep the country’s bridges from falling down, and the same organization that spends 320 times what private industry spends to send a rocket into space. Think of an industry that has major problems. Public schools? Health care? How about higher education, student loans, housing, banking, physical infrastructure, immigration, the space program, the military, the police, or the post office? What do all these industries and/or organizations have in common? They are all heavily regulated or controlled by the government. On the other hand we see that where deregulation has occurred, innovation has bloomed, such as with telephony services. Do you think we’d all be walking around with smartphones today if the government still ran the phone system?

I don’t like how much power the telecoms have. But the reason they’re big and powerful isn’t because there is a lack of government regulation, but because of it. Government regulations are written by large corporate interests which collude with officials in government. The image of government being full of people on a mission to protect the little guy from predatory corporate behemoths is an illusion fostered by politicians and corporate interests alike. Many, if not most, government regulations are the product of crony capitalism designed to prevent small entrepreneurs from becoming real threats to large corporations. If Net Neutrality comes to pass how can we trust it will not be written in a way that will make it harder for new companies to offer Internet services? If anything, we’re likely to end up even more beholden to the large telecoms than before. Of course at this point the politicians will tell us if they hadn’t stepped in that things would be even worse.

Free speech cannot exist without privacy, and the U.S. government has been shown to be unworthy of guarding the privacy of its citizens. Only the latest revelation of many, Glenn Greenwald’s new book No Place To Hide reveals that the U.S. government tampers with Internet routers during the manufacturing process to aid it’s spying programs. Is this the organization we trust to take even more control of the Internet? Should we believe that under Net Neutrality the government will trust the telecoms to police themselves? The government will need to verify, at a technical level, whether the telecoms are treating data as they should. Don’t be surprised if that means the government says it needs to be able to install its own hardware and software at critical points to monitor Internet traffic. Once installed, can we trust this government, or any government, to use that access in a benign manner?

Internet bandwidth is, at least currently, a finite resource and has to be allocated somehow. We can let politicians decide, or we can let you and me decide by leaving it up to the free market. If we choose politicians, we will see the Internet become another mismanaged public monopoly, subject to political whims and increased scrutiny from our friends at the NSA. If we leave it up to the free market we will, in time, receive more of what we want at a lower price. It may not be a perfect process, but it will be better than the alternative.

Today, it was revealed by FCC commissioner Ajit Pai thatthe proposed Net Neutrality plan the FCC is considering is 332 pages long. It will not be released to the public until after the FCC has voted. Pai claims this regulation will give “the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works.”

Yeah, yeah.

We became the greatest, most innovative, most prosperous, and most generous nation in world history because we began from the premise of LIMITED government and individual liberty. As government has grown BIG in recent decades and freedoms have diminished under crushing regulation, we have begun our decline, particularly relative to the rest of the world.

But many simply cannot see the forest for the trees.