Net neutrality update

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

But nowhere, in all that bluster, is a link to say Comcast was subverting VOICE traffic.

IEEE said Comcast (and others) bought software to subvert VoIP traffic. Comcast bought software but did not use it? Then Skype, et al traffic was suffering quality and connection problems - intermittently but Comcast was not using it. UT knows Comcast does not subvert net neutrality even after caught subverting other traffic.

Voice over IP is not the entire internet. Net Neutrality means all internet functions work properly. Data transporters only transport all data. Content providers remains a separate industry to only provide that data. Then free market competition exists.

Once a company is both data transporter and content provider, then obvious conflicts of interest exist. Free market is compromised. Shenanigans such as packet skewing and data throttling mysteriously happen - and have happened. Net neutrality must be destroyed to make those shenanigans possible and more profitable.

Is net neutrality being subverted? Yes. Does that mean already obscene profits by the data transporters can be even greater. Of course. Is free market competition created by net neutrality. Obviously. Is that free market being subverted by duopolies? Obviously.

UT argues one tiny aspect - VoIP. If only VoIP packets are not being skewed, then net neutrality is not under attack and free markets exist? Nonsense. Right wing extremists (ie Fox News) are openly advocating the destruction of net neutrality and free markets. (Probably because Clinton successfully created it.) UT says that is good because VoIP (temporarily) is probably and currently not being subverted. UT then advocates removal of regulations that stopped VoIP skewing.

Wacko extremist logic is at play. Duopolies are a first step in destruction of net neutrality so that resulting monopolistic policies slowly can be implemented. Already, content providers will be charged for infrastructure that data transporters are suppose to invest in. UT says that is good - because subverting VoIP packets does not always happen.

Step one. Use propaganda to tell extremists what to believe. Net Neutrality was created by Clinton. So it must be evil. Fox News said so. Fox News disciples such as UT know it must be true. Learning facts before having a conclusion is not his strong suit.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

IEEE said Comcast (and others) bought software to subvert VoIP traffic. Comcast bought software but did not use it?

I found the 2006 (!) post where you pointed out the IEEE article

The article points out that Comcast was "a customer" of Narus, the network management company that build VoIP-subverting software. But Narus built a lot of network management software.

The article points out that Narus's software can "secure, analyze, monitor, and mediate any traffic in an IP network" and that "Comcast Corp., in Philadelphia, the country's largest cable company, is already a Narus customer; Narus declined to say whether Comcast uses the VoIP-blocking capabilities."

Which is normal. You don't disclose your customer's interests. This tells us nothing; Comcast bought software that did 100 things, and one of the 100 things was the capability to subvert voice traffic. Big deal. We would need to show they were using it.

But again, that is utterly simple. I've personally done that kind of debugging for Fax over IP calls, at my last job.

All the VoIP providers would have an interest in finding and showing this subversion. It was very much in their interests to do so, in the first rounds of net neutrality discussions. They DID find it at another, smaller ISP. They DID NOT find it at Comcast.

UT knows Comcast does not subvert net neutrality even after caught subverting other traffic.

It was trivial to show that other traffic was subverted. It would have been easy to show that VoIP traffic was subverted. But you can't find a link for that, even when provided a large motivation.

No money for you. 13 years of not being able to prove this. How long are you going to repeat your lie?

[Undertoad]

The 2006 thread is quite a treat

Originally Posted by tw in 2006

If your Skype phone does not work on Comcast, but your Comcast provided phone does, then who will most people blame? Comcast? Of course not. Blame will fall on Skype who in turn loses customers to Comcast. ...
Actions to subvert small VoIP (and other new technology) services suggests that these large IP companies may become so anti-innovative as to cannibalize on smaller fish (ie Skype) rather than grow and live off of innovation

How'd that turn out? Today:
Comcast Voice Services is now Xfinity Voice, with 10 Million customers
Skype, estimated 1.5 Billion customers

Originally Posted by tw in 2006

If Comcast and Verizon, et al were trying to compromise net neutrality, then it would not happen in six months as UT suggests. It would occur slowly over a decade plus.

LOL

Originally Posted by LA Times story from January 2006

Virtually since the Internet’s creation, its most devoted protectors have been wondering how long it would take for the forces of unrestrained commerce to throttle its freedom and innovation.

Now they have a date: Some people believe the breakpoint will come as early as Jan. 6, 2008.

LOL LOL LOL

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I found the 2006 (!) post where you pointed out the IEEE article

After Comcast got investigated for skewing VoIP packets, then Skype stopped suffering periodic service problems. UT conveniently forgets, when suspected or caught, some internet providers stopped subverting internet traffic. Especially during the Obama years when FCC commissioners refused to subvert net neutrality.

We are now in a period where government works to enrich the rich. And lies daily. Even the mythical tax cut resulted in higher taxes to lower income taxpayers. Even FCC regulations to protect the internet in 2015 are now under challenge - to continue the slow subversion of net neutrality.

Why a sharp increase in robo calls? Protecting the public is contrary to an extremist agenda that wants to 'wreck shit'.

No problem. Comcast profits, due to no competition, are so extreme that it now buys SkyTV. And almost bought Fox. Why all this money? Without competition, Comcast charges 'content providers' while charging customers some of the highest internet rates in the industrial world. Plenty of money to invest elsewhere. Being both a 'content provider' and 'data transporter' further entrenches monopolistic strategies - harms free markets.

They got regulations changed to eliminate competition in 2001. Ten years later, that resulted in all but two companies eliminated. UT says that and contempt for free market competition is good. Duopolies now have a president who knows only what is good for him. So extremists are again threatening net neutrality. Encouraging robo calls. Even giving lip service to massive drug price increases. All part of a strategy that also attacks net neutrality. So UT wants to argue only about VoIP.

Narus software was purchased to subvert VoIP traffic here and in may other regions including Middle East nations. Once regulators started investigating, then suddenly Skype started working reliably. UT ignored that part to argue that internet providers never subverted internet traffic. Fox News did not say so. So it never happened?

Net Neutrality makes the internet work. UT refuses to admit that broadband was stifled for 15 years - until 1996 laws created net neutrality and free markets. Those regulations, that created free markets, resulted in massive internet growth for the past 23 years. But UT loves it when Comcast charges $50 for what is inferior to what is found in other industrial nations for $20. UT says those obscene profit margins are good.

He even disputes those prices by citing internet prices in countries such as Benin.

Thank god for monopolies and duopolies. Same extremist reasoning also created / encouraged drug prices in America that are over 40% higher than the rest of the world. Including sudden and sharp increases in insulin prices. Fox News and UT also give lip service that subverted free market. And tax cuts for the rich. UT also views that as acceptable.

As accurately predicted, destruction of net neutrality is a decade plus long strategy. It was halted in the Obama years. And it has now continued despite UT's glib humor.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Without competition, Comcast charges 'content providers' while charging customers some of the highest internet rates in the industrial world.

Charges content providers? Whom?

UT says that and contempt for free market competition is good.

He did? Where?

Including sudden and sharp increases in insulin prices.

And don't forget my quarterly sewer bill went up almost $2, which has just as much bearing on net neutrality.

You're ranting like a Mississippi politician, poor defence, poor.

[Undertoad]

Fox News did not say so. So it never happened?

NO news sources said so. If you had one single news source that said it happened, your charity would be at least $100 richer now.

But since you don't have any sources, ALL YOU HAVE IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY.

[henry quirk]

mebbe in their lil orwellian worlds a free market isn't actually free

mebbe, in their neighborhood, 'free' means 'managed'

if so: they have my sympathy (I, as an austrian, have sympathy for all keynesians: johnny has them flummoxed)

in the world I live in: a free market is where I want X, X is available, I shop 'round till I find X at a price I can tolerate, I buy X

in the world I live in: a free market is where I have/make X, I offer X to customers at a price I can tolerate, I sell x

supply & demand, not 'fairness', rules

bad players (folks who cheat the customer, always an exercise in failing to live up to the terms of implicit or explicit voluntary contract) largely get punished through loss of profit

in egregious cases such bad players lose their livelihood and/or their freedom

this, of course, requires independent arbitration

mostly though, the market itself (customers, actual & potential) punishes the nogoodniks, or it would if folks were left alone to rebalance their individual scales

of course, a free market only operates when folks are free to transact, and -- sorry to say -- free to get bilked

if, instead of adressing breach of contract after the fact (individually) by way of a court of last resort, folks choose to cocoon themselves in prophylactica (protections against & and in advance of bilking) a free market becomes sumthin' other than 'free'

this is fine, if that's what folks want, but this managed market is not free and the competitive forces therein are managed (by someone other than those transacting)

so: what certain folks here argue for is managed markets, managed competition

their real beef is: the system of management is bein' circumvented

in essence: they're miffed cuz certain players wanna exercise a level of control over their product or service, a level of control that is prohibited not by freely entered into contract but by 'management'

ain't that right, tw?

[Undertoad]

Happy one year anniversary of the end of FCC regulations on net neutrality, everybody!

[fargon]

What happened?

[tw]

Originally Posted by fargon

What happened?

Companies like Comcast no longer need invest in their network to provide upgraded service. They now charge Netflix, et al to pay for it.

As UT fails to grasp, such changes take many years or decades to be apparent to consumers.

A continued increase in prices will be paid for by the consumers who paying increased prices for Netflix. Comcast now has excessive cash to buy into more industries. (ie Universal Studios, sport teams, satellites, Fox, mobile phone companies, NBC, real estate (skyscrapers), retail industry).

Destruction of net neutrality massively enriches the data transporters. And protects a duopoly; making it impossible for innovative companies to get into the business. Resulting bad economic effects become obvious 10 and 20 years later. UT would have us believe it should happen in one.

Massively higher rates for internet today are a result of regulation changes in 2001 to enrich / entrench the duopoly. With free market competition, we would have 100 Mb internet for $20 per month. Better service for a lower price. Then Comcast would not be buying up sport teams and TV networks. Instead they would invest in their business.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by fargon

What happened?

Nothing!

[fargon]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Nothing!

That's what I thought.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Just because they can doesn't mean they should.
Just because they haven't doesn't mean they won't.
The reality is we don't know what they are actually doing.
We only know if they are found out, there is no consequences.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Nothing!

How curious. That is exactly what Saddam had. So you finally learned that word.

[Gravdigr]

Business school grads, and emotional children, and business-for-profit, oh my!!