|
I am finding it difficult to get mad at Netflix only because Netflix makes up a very large portion of internet traffic and requires a ton of bandwidth.
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
Caged posted:But Netflix pay their providers to carry that traffic already, and those providers make the peering agreements. The only reason people like Comcast are getting pissed off and asking for more cash now (apart from it competing with their own services) is that it's a really easy way to show up a lack of investment in their network. I am assuming Netflix is paying Cogent a boatload of money for a ton of bandwidth, and was previously not paying Comcast or other ISPs any extra for the additional load. In that regard, I cant get mad at Netflix for paying Comcast because Netflix has caused a big increase in bandwidth usage. However, I can get upset at Cogent demanding Verizon pay to upgrade their links because Cogent is being paid a ton of money from Netflix and Verizon is not being paid by Netflix. Maybe I've got this all wrong, but that is how I see it. I can understand websitea.com and websiteb.com not paying extra to the ISP but that is some random website not making up 30% of all internet traffic. The big thing that I am assuming here (and please correct me if I am wrong) is that Comcast probably has to spend a lot of money to ensure that Netflix has enough bandwidth to operate while Netflix was only paying Cogent for service.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Alereon posted:The ISP is already being paid by their subscribers for that traffic, why should they be allowed to double-dip? If you look at it like a phone call, you're suggesting telcos get paid three times: each end should pay their telco for the minutes they use, and then the calling party should also additionally pay the receiving telco a second time for the minutes the recipient used. I consider Netflix a special exception to the rules only because Netflix requires so much data. I am under the impression that Netflix has caused a lot problems and required upgrades for ISPs, is that wrong? VVV If the upgrades were already complete, then I should theoretically be able to watch Netflix in better than 240p at any time with minimal buffering. Either my ISP (Cox) sucks or hasn't upgraded yet. Not Wolverine fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Feb 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Hey guess what tag Time Warner just added to its "$14.99 everyday forever and ever with no restrictions" plan? That is still sooo much better than Cox in my area:  Cheapest Cox is waaay more than $15 and after only 6 months they increase the price $13.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7186243/obama-just-did-the-right-thing-for-the-internet-and-made-life-hell I'm all for treating the internet like a utility. But I will be surprised if this happens, primarily because I believe congress is made up of gray haired old men, most of whom probably don't know the difference between a web browser and a spreadsheet, and they will probably declare that the
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
adorai posted:I know that in my house, I have three options for high speed internet today, and expect at least one more in the next 3 years. For reference, the three are cable, DSL, and 3g/4g (technically I have a choice in carriers there as well). There is plenty of fiber going into the ground all over the place, so I expect some kind of fiber to the premises, or at least fiber to the street scenario soon. Actually, your choices are slow (DSL), medium (cable) and ungodly regulated and limited but sometimes "fast" 3g/4g, with the possibility of fiber unless your cable provider manages to convince your local government that the fiber provider is not playing nice. I am hoping that treating internet like a utility would prevent fast lanes, at least I sure like that better than the other plan of allowing regulated fast lanes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:"Fast lanes" aren't preventable. There's no sensible way to void all the existing in-network CDNs and private routing arragements. Also nobody's really been complainign about them for the past 15 plus years they've existed. Of course 4G is nowhere near as fast as DSL or even cable. I find that unless the moon is in proper alignment, my 4g connection is usually incredibly slow, but there are some rare moments when my 4g connection actually works at a decent speed fast enough for Netflix, that is why I said but sometimes "fast", I will admit that could appear misleading. adorai posted:I can get 25mbps DSL to my house right now, and there is nothing stopping my LEC from bumping that up to 75mbps if they chose to (25mbps with two pair, I have 6 pair coming into my home). My local cable service CURRENTLY offers 100+mbps at what I would consider to be a reasonable price (under $100/mo). 4g service is extremely fast, with serious bandwidth limits. I have no concerns about my local fiber initiatives being hijacked by Comcast. There are more than one in my town, the most prominent of which is an LLC with strong ties to the local city government. Of course, not every city is as well off as yours, hell most cities have pretty lovely choices for internet. Naturally, it's a problem with the local government, and I can do my best to vote but it will not make a difference. I can dream all I want about an end to corruption but if a politician in Kansas doesn't actively bash gays and praise Jesus their career will be over no matter what their other policies are. Not Wolverine fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Nov 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
Yeah it is ironic. . . but if the kids cant play nice, might as well give them rules.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 05:31
|
|