Login   Register
 Login    Register
Net Neutrality
mcmurrin
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 962 | Offline
Joined: Apr 24, 2007
Whitey wrote:Not true, there's evidence that comcast is doing this right now. I don't know if you use bit torrent, but many people do. Comcast is accused of intercepting packets, and sending "disconnect" messages to the clients, forcing it to reconnect and slowing the process immensely. It's estimated that a very high percentage of all internet traffic is used by bit torrent. The actually figures are debatable, but if you use bit torrent, you can easily be downloading/uploading 20-30 gigs per month, while a typical user probably use less than one gig.
The current ISP business model is an "all you can eat buffet" of bandwidth, which I think will probably change. If they change their model to price per gig, then the ISP's will have no reason to complain about the heavy users, and they can just allow all the bits to pass through.

That's true. And it means that if (guessing) 80% of all traffic is torrents done by (guessing) 10% of the users, then the rest of the users are paying for extra bandwidth of the 10%.
A bigger issue may be if Comcast tries to block access to hulu.com, as they are a direct competitor. But as I said before if you don't like it, you can go with dsl, clearwire, satellite (in Japan I believe they also figured out how to provide internet service through the electrial wiring)
Right now, there are taxes on the cable, phone and cell bills for ignorant regulation like this by people who think the internet is a series of tubes. I say get rid of them all.

Whitey
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 4,551 | Offline
Joined: Aug 6, 2007

mcmurrin wrote:That's true. And it means that if (guessing) 80% of all traffic is torrents done by (guessing) 10% of the users, then the rest of the users are paying for extra bandwidth of the 10%.
A bigger issue may be if Comcast tries to block access to hulu.com, as they are a direct competitor. But as I said before if you don't like it, you can go with dsl, clearwire, satellite (in Japan I believe they also figured out how to provide internet service through the electrial wiring)
Right now, there are taxes on the cable, phone and cell bills for ignorant regulation like this by people who think the internet is a series of tubes. I say get rid of them all.

I understand your point, but it's not just THEIR customers we're talking about. When you send an email or go to pornhub.com (recommeded, btw), your internet traffic goes through many ISP's. It's all connected. This is why the companies started proposing this in the first place. Say your youtube.com's ISP, you get to collect some great fees for delivering all that high-bandwidth content. But if it has two go through 2 or 3, there are many services providers in between who get nothing, and are just required to deliver the content.
Try this, just for kicks:
Open a command window and type "tracert www.cnn.com" - It's called a trace route and will display the list of all the servers and hubs between you and any remote server.

mcmurrin
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 962 | Offline
Joined: Apr 24, 2007

Whitey wrote:I understand your point, but it's not just THEIR customers we're talking about. When you send an email or go to pornhub.com (recommeded, btw), your internet traffic goes through many ISP's. It's all connected. This is why the companies started proposing this in the first place. Say your youtube.com's ISP, you get to collect some great fees for delivering all that high-bandwidth content. But if it has two go through 2 or 3, there are many services providers in between who get nothing, and are just required to deliver the content.
Try this, just for kicks:
Open a command window and type "tracert www.cnn.com" - It's called a trace route and will display the list of all the servers and hubs between you and any remote server.

I know about traceroute. :P If YouTube (owned by Google) wants to pay a premium to ensure that high-resolution video gets to your computer with priority, then they should be able to do that. Technically, I don't know how middle tiers will get their share, if they do. It's all just the cost of pushing stuff out to the customer. I still don't see it as a problem.
Except MAYBE if Comcast/etc tried to completely block competitors. But I can think of an easy way around that problem with software.

Hollywood
User avatar
....chubby, fat face, and B cups
 
Rank: User
Posts: 48,060 | Offline
Joined: Jul 28, 2008

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016 ... ainst-fcc/

Court rejected ISP's claim net neutrality infringed on their first amendment rights lol
SharonNeedles wrote:I'm with Jewdo on this one

Hypermotard
User avatar
You done been Hypmotized
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 50,193 | Offline
Joined: Nov 7, 2012

RIP

MAGA
If you never try anything new, you'll miss out on many of life's great disappointments.

Digital Blackface wrote:why are you all so stupid?


OldSnake
User avatar
stupid moron with an ugly face & a big butt
 
Rank: User
Posts: 16,059 | Offline
Joined: Dec 5, 2011

fuck off

ISPs are going to throttle services like Netflix, not anything political. The fact that MAGA idiots like Breitbart are rooting this on just goes to show you how devoid of an intellectual direction they have, if something can be vaguely related to Trump it's good, that's it.
wbeaumo wrote:Clearly, this place is crawling with posters whose unofficial leader is that cockroach P.O.

Digital Blackface
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 2,136 | Offline
Joined: Sep 12, 2017

Great, now this will be the only image that loads fast
Image

OldSnake
User avatar
stupid moron with an ugly face & a big butt
 
Rank: User
Posts: 16,059 | Offline
Joined: Dec 5, 2011

pssssssssssssssssssst
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... continetti
Comcast is a Democrat group, not Republican. If they're hindering anyone, it's the GOP. The rest are pretty ambiguous but the by far largest ISP provider is true blue all the way.
wbeaumo wrote:Clearly, this place is crawling with posters whose unofficial leader is that cockroach P.O.

Digital Blackface
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 2,136 | Offline
Joined: Sep 12, 2017

Well that sounds like good news for you

Pssssssssssssssssssst

The internet existed fine before June 2016

OldSnake
User avatar
stupid moron with an ugly face & a big butt
 
Rank: User
Posts: 16,059 | Offline
Joined: Dec 5, 2011

"why do regulations happen?" for 200, Alec
wbeaumo wrote:Clearly, this place is crawling with posters whose unofficial leader is that cockroach P.O.

Digital Blackface
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 2,136 | Offline
Joined: Sep 12, 2017

“why regulations are terrible and give centralized government more power for $600, Alex”

I don’t give a fuck about regulations and neither does any true blue conservative no matter how much you try to scare them into thinking they need them

OldSnake
User avatar
stupid moron with an ugly face & a big butt
 
Rank: User
Posts: 16,059 | Offline
Joined: Dec 5, 2011

what was bad about net neutrality? Before it, sites were being hindered
wbeaumo wrote:Clearly, this place is crawling with posters whose unofficial leader is that cockroach P.O.

OldSnake
User avatar
stupid moron with an ugly face & a big butt
 
Rank: User
Posts: 16,059 | Offline
Joined: Dec 5, 2011

Hollywood wrote:http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/net-neutrality-and-title-ii-win-in-court-as-isps-lose-case-against-fcc/

Court rejected ISP's claim net neutrality infringed on their first amendment rights lol


Remember when Jewdo liked Net Netruality before Trumpism ate away his brain?
wbeaumo wrote:Clearly, this place is crawling with posters whose unofficial leader is that cockroach P.O.

Digital Blackface
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 2,136 | Offline
Joined: Sep 12, 2017

Which sites? Verizon tried to get paid by Netflix, good thing we passed net neutrality so that Netflix wouldn’t have to raise their prices

Oh wait, they raised prices anyway....twice

Great argument

OldSnake
User avatar
stupid moron with an ugly face & a big butt
 
Rank: User
Posts: 16,059 | Offline
Joined: Dec 5, 2011

Digital Blackface wrote:Which sites? Verizon tried to get paid by Netflix, good thing we passed net neutrality so that Netflix wouldn’t have to raise their prices

Oh wait, they raised prices anyway....twice

Great argument


What? They couldn't hinder Netflix's streaming service, and that's bad? Verizon's prices are completely unrelated. Some other examples
2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.
2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.
2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)
2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace
2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)
2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.
2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.
wbeaumo wrote:Clearly, this place is crawling with posters whose unofficial leader is that cockroach P.O.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LeykisMan! and 2 guests