|
Install Windows posted:If the internet was going to be closed from this, it would already be so - this is common practice for the large internet companies. And remember, we don't actually know what the rules are; we just know that a reporter at the Wall Street Journal thinks they're inconsistent with net neutrality. As we saw with Netflix, that perception is not always accurate.
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 09:15 |
|
|
Femur posted:But Comcast customers are the ones consuming these extra bandwidth right? Like what are they paying for if Comcast doesn't pay or peer with L3? What you have to understand is that the model of a "flat" internet, where you can download any information at the speed you pay for, is completely nonsensical. Computer networks, especially large ones built on old infrastructure, simply don't behave that way. ISPs try their hardest to hang little motivational posters over all the technicalities, presenting the abstraction of a single flat internet, but they do not and cannot do a perfect job of it. The fact is, Netflix wants to deliver content in a way that the existing infrastructure cannot handle. If we say Comcast and Verizon shouldn't be allowed to ask for payment, we are saying that Netflix deserves a subsidy at their expense. Maybe they do, but that's not really "net neutrality" anymore.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Is that even what the debate is about though? Everyone understands peerage agreements sometimes involve payments. I thought the question was whether the ISPs are allowed to discriminate in bandwidth availability over the last mile, particularly where (as in the case with Comcast/Hulu and Netflix) the ISP owns a competing service. That's what "net neutrality" is commonly understood to refer to, yes. Netflix's issues are completely unrelated to conventional net neutrality. e: To be clear here, there is no last mile discrimination against Netflix. A lot of people have gotten a misleading impression, but not even Netflix itself claims that any such thing is happening. Amarkov fucked around with this message at 18:42 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Sure mate, just the same way that it has nothing to do with the FCC or Time Warner or legal precedents or anything else. Those are all totally different subjects that have nothing to do with network neutrality. I mean, you can use "network neutrality" to describe a vague idea that everyone ought to have good and cheap Internet connections. And I certainly agree with you that good, cheap Internet connections are something we ought to promote. But that's not what was struck down in the courts, and it's not something the FCC plans to (or even is able to) regulate. Amarkov fucked around with this message at 03:48 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:A much better argument is that, by setting up a paid priority system, there is no incentive to improve performance of those who do not pay-to-play. The FCC can regulate that they can't "hurt" other players by changing the allocations, but they certainly will no longer have any incentive to bother investing in any further interconnects with other ISPs unless they pay (because failing to improve an interconnect is not actively hurting the other player beyond the current baseline). But people have been allowed to set up paid priority systems for decades, and yet base connection speeds have been improving. Why do you expect this to change suddenly?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 09:15 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:http://hothardware.com/News/Enraged-Verizon-FiOS-Customer-Posts-Video-Seemingly-Proving-ISP-Throttles-Netflix/ I doubt this is deliberate throttling, if only because Netflix hasn't tried to claim that it is yet.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 05:26
|
|