Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Chicago, IL, USA, IL 01/27
Chicago, IL USA, IL 10/19

Regularly scheduled events

Evening Legal Briefs

View
18 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

18. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Dec 19, 2017, 11:39 jdreyer
 
Creston wrote on Dec 19, 2017, 10:58:
If Timmeh ever saw Netflix's or Google's bandwidth bill for a month, his brain would suffer a buffer overflow.

Stop believing this AT&T CEO garbage that "GOOGLE IS RIDING MY PIPES FOR FREE!" It's horseshit. It is indisputably false. Google and Netflix pay millions of dollars to THEIR ISP for the bandwidth they use/deliver to their customers.

The ISPs want to have it three ways. Netflix pays their ISP for delivering data. You pay your ISP for access to get that data. And then the ISP wants ANOTHER fee for sitting in the middle and making that connection (the peering agreement.)

A connection that has already been paid for on both fucking ends.

Netflix did end up paying that third fee. The ISPs had them over a barrel, and the government wouldn't step in. Meanwhile they claim poverty and don't upgrade their infrastructure so people pay $60 per month for 6mbps down and 1mbps up.
 
Avatar 22024
 
Stay a while, and listen.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Dec 19, 2017, 10:58 Creston
 
If Timmeh ever saw Netflix's or Google's bandwidth bill for a month, his brain would suffer a buffer overflow.

Stop believing this AT&T CEO garbage that "GOOGLE IS RIDING MY PIPES FOR FREE!" It's horseshit. It is indisputably false. Google and Netflix pay millions of dollars to THEIR ISP for the bandwidth they use/deliver to their customers.

The ISPs want to have it three ways. Netflix pays their ISP for delivering data. You pay your ISP for access to get that data. And then the ISP wants ANOTHER fee for sitting in the middle and making that connection (the peering agreement.)

A connection that has already been paid for on both fucking ends.
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Dec 18, 2017, 23:01 Orogogus
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Dec 18, 2017, 22:34:
Actually, this is part of the problem. The consumer bandwidth is completely oversold. Comcast may have "sold" me 75m download speed for $49.99 a month. But the reality is if all the people connected on my shared node/region/block/whatever try to stream a HD Netflix film at the same time, we won't be able to. And generally, people want to do this at the same time, after dinner.

Unfortunately, the only real solution to that problem is to bill by usage instead of a flat monthly fee. Which might be reasonable, but isn't likely to happen.

In theory that's true, but there's a sizable body of evidence that the technology and infrastructure advanced far faster than usage while costs dropped, and that the ISPs actually could supply bandwidth for 4K streams on top of gaming and voice and file transfers everywhere except the remote areas that they never hooked up. Traffic maps don't show congestion, the Comcast/Netflix issue was solved legally and not technically, pricing is homogeneous nearly everywhere except where fiber is available, providing actual competition, and ISPs haven't actually upgraded their infrastructure after people paid more for the "oversold" bandwidth.

It's been said that throttling and usage caps exist to make more money with extra fees rather than to shape bandwidth or fund upgrades, and nothing I've seen contradicts this.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Dec 18, 2017, 22:34 Mr. Tact
 
Orogogus wrote on Dec 18, 2017, 22:19:
The natural reaction of anyone not drinking the Kool-Aid is going to be, fuck you Comcast, give me the 105 MB I fucking paid for.
Actually, this is part of the problem. The consumer bandwidth is completely oversold. Comcast may have "sold" me 75m download speed for $49.99 a month. But the reality is if all the people connected on my shared node/region/block/whatever try to stream a HD Netflix film at the same time, we won't be able to. And generally, people want to do this at the same time, after dinner.

Unfortunately, the only real solution to that problem is to bill by usage instead of a flat monthly fee. Which might be reasonable, but isn't likely to happen.
 
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Dec 18, 2017, 22:19 Orogogus
 
That's what Saboth was getting at, I think. If Comcast was having trouble with Netflix using too much bandwidth, then they never had any intention of giving x number of their paying customers the 105 MB downstream they were promised. That 105 MB times x would have congested their network whether it was from Netflix or Wikipedia or the Library of Congress. And no one will be happy at the idea of their ISP selling a 105 MB package for suckers who will only use a tiny bit of it and another, more expensive 105 MB package for people who actually use it. The natural reaction of anyone not drinking the Kool-Aid is going to be, fuck you Comcast, give me the 105 MB I fucking paid for.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Dec 18, 2017, 21:36 jdreyer
 
I think what Timmeh is referring to is how Comcast throttled Netflix in 2013 since the peering agreement had become a bit lopsided: Netflix ISP (Level 3?) was constantly sending much more than it was receiving. Comcast claimed it needed the money to buy more interconnects, but strangely as soon as Netflix paid, Comcast was able to instantly resolve the throttling. This was one of the precipitating events that caused the Obama administration to implement NN rules in the first place.

It's important to note that ISPs have profit margins around 90%. NN was in no way affecting either their profits or monopoly position.
 
Avatar 22024
 
Stay a while, and listen.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Dec 18, 2017, 21:26 jdreyer
 
Pigeon wrote on Dec 18, 2017, 21:00:
Has The Onion started posting satire in the comments sections of random websites? Neat idea, but I worry people might take it seriously.

The Onion went bankrupt over the summer. Reality continually exceeded The Onion's ability to satirize it after Trump was sworn in.
 
Avatar 22024
 
Stay a while, and listen.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Dec 18, 2017, 21:00 Pigeon
 
Has The Onion started posting satire in the comments sections of random websites? Neat idea, but I worry people might take it seriously.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Dec 18, 2017, 20:56 Saboth
 
Timmeh wrote on Dec 18, 2017, 19:08:
there are new "monopolies" all the time.

but you cant have Netflix or Disney hogging up all the bandwidth and them not having to pay for it.

The problem with net neutrality is that it was thought up by progressives. therefore its flawed as hell.

We need to protect free speech and the other things without shielding billion dollar companies from being forced to help foot the bill for the service they are creating a demand for.

there is a lot more to it than that. the point being its got a lot of progressive garbage in it that needs to go.

I already pay Comcast for 105 down. It doesn't matter what I'm using that for. If Comcast can't deliver that speed, they need to take their profits and upgrade their infrastructure. They don't get to charge me for delivering Guardians of the Galaxy 2 to me, then charge Netflix to deliver the content too. The customers are already footing the bill. It's like saying you are going to charge Toyota extra because there are more of their cars on our highways, but also charging me property taxes and tolls to maintain the roads.

It's not up to Netflix to pay Comcast millions to upgrade their equipment so Comcast can provide me with the service I'm already paying for. That's called "the cost of doing business".
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Dec 18, 2017, 20:32 RedEye9
 
Beamer wrote on Dec 18, 2017, 20:23:
I'm actually now against NN.

We could all chip in and pay Timmy's isp to throttle his connection. That'd be satisfying.
Can we use Patreon. /sarcasm
 
Avatar 58135
 
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Dec 18, 2017, 20:31 HorrorScope
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Dec 18, 2017, 20:04:
Timmeh wrote on Dec 18, 2017, 19:08:
there are new "monopolies" all the time.

but you cant have Netflix or Disney hogging up all the bandwidth and them not having to pay for it.
Please explain to me how they are not paying for their bandwidth. Are ISPs providing free Internet access to Netflix and Disney? Now THAT would be a story...

Your comments show you either have no grasp of the actual facts about NN or, more likely, you are just a simple troll.

They pay $125/mo for the top-tier choice in their market, some only have one choice.
 
Avatar 17232
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Dec 18, 2017, 20:23 Beamer
 
I'm actually now against NN.

We could all chip in and pay Timmy's isp to throttle his connection. That'd be satisfying.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Dec 18, 2017, 20:05 Orogogus
 
Timmeh wrote on Dec 18, 2017, 19:08:
but you cant have Netflix or Disney hogging up all the bandwidth and them not having to pay for it.

To expound on Beamer's incredulity -- what do you mean, exactly, "not having to pay for it"?

When you or I subscribe to an Internet service package from Cox or Spectrum, it clearly says you get 10 MB down / 1 MB up, or whatever. If I sign up for file hosting on Dropbox there's a limit on how much bandwidth I can use in a month. If I publish a website and it gets way more traffic than expected, the host will take it down unless I pay for it.

What makes you think Netflix and Disney aren't charged for the bandwidth they use, that they're getting some kind of free ride?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Dec 18, 2017, 20:04 Mr. Tact
 
Timmeh wrote on Dec 18, 2017, 19:08:
there are new "monopolies" all the time.

but you cant have Netflix or Disney hogging up all the bandwidth and them not having to pay for it.
Please explain to me how they are not paying for their bandwidth. Are ISPs providing free Internet access to Netflix and Disney? Now THAT would be a story...

Your comments show you either have no grasp of the actual facts about NN or, more likely, you are just a simple troll.
 
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Dec 18, 2017, 19:40 Beamer
 
They do pay for it. So do we.

Jesus. Really? You think they hog bandwidth without paying?


I can't even argue what kind of ignorance.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Dec 18, 2017, 19:21 RedEye9
 

80 percent of Republican like net neutrality
They just don't realize the people they vote for are not on their side.

This comment was edited on Dec 18, 2017, 19:31.
 
Avatar 58135
 
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Dec 18, 2017, 19:08 Timmeh
 
there are new "monopolies" all the time.

but you cant have Netflix or Disney hogging up all the bandwidth and them not having to pay for it.

The problem with net neutrality is that it was thought up by progressives. therefore its flawed as hell.

We need to protect free speech and the other things without shielding billion dollar companies from being forced to help foot the bill for the service they are creating a demand for.

there is a lot more to it than that. the point being its got a lot of progressive garbage in it that needs to go.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Dec 18, 2017, 19:00 Saboth
 
The Senate vote is just the usual politics. Republicans will vote against it in the name of "free market" (lol, can't have a free market with monopolies), and then Dems will use that fact against them in campaign ads.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo