|
I'm a ok with no net neutrality as long as speeds don't decrease. if it's doing what Microsoft is doing and shifting their update servers physically into the same space as the network provider, that's only going to speed it up. It doesn't necessitate slowing other things down. Thats fine, company wants to pay for a better product? company can pay for a better product. what I won't accept is the intentional bottle necking of bandwidth to customers of certain websites in order to 'coax' said companies to buy internal rack space. That poo poo is anti competitive and brings up a whole host of issues.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
Ocrassus posted:what I won't accept is the intentional bottle necking of bandwidth to customers of certain websites in order to 'coax' said companies to buy internal rack space. That poo poo is anti competitive and brings up a whole host of issues. lol if you think it will be anything but this the lesson here is that nothing comes between an MBA and the money they think they deserve
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 09:02
|
|
|
man who gives a poo poo theres not a single person that wouldnt pay more for a nonshitty internet, especially in the net hellhole thats called america
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
every time I think im close to figuring this out shaggar or stymie says something and im like welp back to start
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
Cat Face Joe posted:every time I think im close to figuring this out shaggar or stymie says something and im like welp back to start "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." --H.L. Mencken 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
Cat Face Joe posted:every time I think im close to figuring this out shaggar or stymie says something and im like welp back to start it's basically: - the internet is a series of networks, that are all interconnected - ISPs own their own networks - if content is on your own network, it's faster, due to the design of the internet - ISPs are happy to let people pay to put stuff on the ISPs' networks - net neutrality advocates (the companies) don't want to have to pay - net neutrality advocates (the people) think that ISPs are going to make the internet into a tiered cable TV-like package, due to the companies in the previous point
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
computer parts posted:- net neutrality advocates (the people) think that ISPs are going to make the internet into a tiered cable TV-like package, due to the companies in the previous point and it just happens that language that opposes that would allow these fuckers who aren't paying to host their data where it's actually used to keep not paying, so they're trumping up fears of the tiered internet scenario? is that about the size of it? cause holy gently caress i thought comcast were evil geniuses but thats some masterstroke poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
CrashCat posted:so they're not actually asking for that because nobody would be insane enough to agree, but if the language ends up getting worked out in a way that allows it, we're supposed to trust that they won't? yeah, because the internet doesn't work that way like, from the isp perspective all they really care about is the path and quantity of the data, not which company is using that path. that's why right now you're seeing fights between peering companies and ISPs instead of companies (the one exception being netflix but they're quietly solving that with direct peering and their amount of data is incredible) the other major difference is that tv studios are much more...centralized, for lack of a better term, while the internet is not like, the top 10 tv stations are owned by probably 2-3 companies (and a lot of the other ones are owned by these same companies), whereas the top 10 websites are owned by vastly different corporations, some of which aren't even on the same continent (baidu and qq, specifically). even if you just limit it to english language websites, there's enough disparity that it's really hard to lockdown the content, and if some website suddenly blows up you have to scramble to renegotiate everything basically the internet is a chaotic mess and it probably will be for at least the near future
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:
in much the same way that charging taxes on walmart to have a store in your city limits is double dipping since they already have a store they're paying taxes on in the city down the road
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
all transmission lines must be nationalized http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/17/how-chattanooga-beat-google-fiber-by-half-a-decade/ (and all nobles must hang)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:You do know the new "2014 Net Neutrality" FCC Proposal allows for prioritization, right? and the prioritization means allowed are the exact same things that have already been allowed and in use for the past 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
pooning newbs as usual from my posting throne
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:there's no co-location gimmick going on, really there is no double dip - internet businesses either choose a general transit provider to pay for access to a network, or they can pay the network directly and connect directly. there is no double payment, because they stop paying one party if they switch to the other. again, this has been done for decades
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:You do know the new "2014 Net Neutrality" FCC Proposal allows for prioritization, right? prioritization is good and I want my streaming video and VoIP taking priority over your idiot porn torrents
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
can a mod change the thread title please? tia
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
ArmZ posted:all transmission lines must be nationalized Even if the big telcos lack a presence, some cities are already served by smaller cable companies that work just fine for most people. drag all isp execs into the street and burn them alive
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
ISPs (mostly cable cos) building out their own national networks is probably the single driver behind lower internet costs + higher bandwidth. Its gotten them away from being dependent on lovely transit companies like level3 and also allows them to guarantee service levels to consumers for companies who connect directly to them or host stuff inside the ISP networks. The primary backers of the net neut side are companies like level3 who's business is negatively impacted by the better service ISP networks provide and companies like google who have shotgun income. They provide "content" to loads of users but only a tiny percentage pay for it (through ad clicking). No consumer in the world is going to pay google money for google services, so they want to try to negate these negative value customers by throwing the costs onto those customer's ISPs. They jump on the network neutrality bandwagon to try to convince naive consumers that they are being screwed by their ISPs, when the reality is the opposite. None of these companies give any shits about network prioritization in terms of service types (ex: prioritizing voip over torrents). They just want to pay less for access to ISP networks which in the end would cost you and I more. gently caress that and gently caress them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
i too believe my own personal reasons for having a fast internet connection are objectively important
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:yes, telecom providers absolutely want you to keep not buying their lovely $80/mo tv package and to keep using that streaming internet video that they get almost nothing out of in comparison cool conspiracy theory, br0
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:yes, telecom providers absolutely want you to keep not buying their lovely $80/mo tv package and to keep using that streaming internet video that they get almost nothing out of in comparison actually ISPs make a lot of money off services like Hulu that are edge cached within the ISP's network.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:prioritization is good and I want my streaming video and VoIP taking priority over your idiot porn torrents who torrents porn
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:yes, telecom providers absolutely want you to keep not buying their lovely $80/mo tv package and to keep using that streaming internet video that they get almost nothing out of in comparison you get a lot out of streaming internet video when you own major tv and movie production studios and distribution networks, hth thats why its hilarious when idiots like you think comcast of all companies is incapable of making money from online video. also you're so stupid you don't know that any cable internet package is massively more profitable and easier for a cable co to sell to you and maintain than a cable tv package where significant chunks are paid directly out to networks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Squinty Applebottom posted:who torrents porn dads and teens
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
reminder that comcast makes money for every single person who watches hulu or subscribes to hulu plus, since as owner of NBC they're owners of 32% of Hulu company. that's just one example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
wait does that mean that comcast can see what torrents i'm downloading
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:wait does that mean that comcast can see what torrents i'm downloading hahaha yes absolutely. do you guys not remember when they were experimenting with deep inspection hardware years ago where they injected reset packets in to your torrent data to disrupt and throttle your downloads?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
oh no what about my ip address
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
cable tv is so hosed because the contracts are mutually destructive. Cable cos cant offer individual channels because the content owners wont allow it and content owners cant offer those channels over the internet cause cable cos wont allow it. cable cos fight price increases, but its a losing battle and the result is everyone abandons cable tv (unless they want their regional sports channel). Getting rid of analog cable has really helped with this because it massively decreases costs + increases capacity for all of their services. docsis 3 makes it even better. still its a hard problem to solve.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:oh no what about my ip address totally broadcasted bro
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
yes it is. level3 is mad that Netflix is peering directly with Comcast because it cuts level3 out of the traffic. its good for consumers and bad for level3 which means its win win. the uninformed are taking level3's side and think its unfair that Netflix is paying to peer w/ Comcast for a "fast lane"
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:Getting rid of analog cable has really helped with this because it massively decreases costs + increases capacity for all of their services. docsis 3 makes it even better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
whoops sorry for shymiemeching the thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:Cable cos cant offer individual channels because the content owners wont allow it and content owners cant offer those channels over the internet cause cable cos wont allow it. cable cos fight price increases, but its a losing battle and the result is everyone abandons cable tv (unless they want their regional sports channel). what about the channel-specific "click here and watch our entire tv lineup" sites that every network seems to run for free? off the top of my head i know global, ctv, cbc, city & slice all let me watch shows that aired last week/month or a few hours ago by clicking a button and tolerating their crashy video player
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
CrashCat posted:plus digital cable has the added benefit that you can give your customers a lovely compressed sd version of local air channels and then charge them an extra $10 a month to get the same hd version they could get with an antenna for grandma who has an sd tv this is good. that $10 is the entire hd tier that she doesn't need.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:for grandma who has an sd tv this is good. that $10 is the entire hd tier that she doesn't need. please die grandma
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:what about the channel-specific "click here and watch our entire tv lineup" sites that every network seems to run for free? those aren't real networks. also your taxes pay for cbc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
and global & ctv (and maybe city) are "local programming" so they may not compete as aggressively with the cableco/isp monoliths, but lots of other channels behind the cableco's paywall are watchable online for "free" someone has to be paying for that somehow quote:those aren't real networks hm interesting quote:In addition to these licensed networks, the two main private English-language over-the-air services, CTV and Global, are also generally considered to be "networks" by virtue of their national coverage, although they are not officially licensed as such. CTV was previously a licensed network, but relinquished this licence in 2001 after acquiring most of its affiliates, making operating a network licence essentially redundant (per the above definition). so i've learned my thing for today because shaggar is right flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:you're describing network peering agreements the peering agreements and in-bounds caching are the actual prioritization. and the companies with them already have the highest possible speeds into and out of the isp networks that they can possibly obtain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:and global & ctv (and maybe city) are "local programming" so they may not compete as aggressively with the cableco/isp monoliths, but lots of other channels behind the cableco's paywall are watchable online for "free" do they got ads. the ads pay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
in the us some channels are offered over the internet to cable subscribers and require a cable account to login and use. some provide these directly on their site (nbcsports) and others are provided thru the cable co via apps or w/e. They're considered part of the subscription and you cant buy access to only the channel, you have to have a full cable sub that includes the channel. wrt those local programs they're just streaming as an extension of the open air broadcasts they likely already do. This is not common in the us because every local channel is its own franchise with their own programming and the content rights negotiations to get those channels up and streaming would probably be a nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 17:10
|
|