Net neutrality update
Rules dropped two months ago
~ Nothing happened ~
End of update, see you in the fall
Rules dropped two months ago
~ Nothing happened ~
End of update, see you in the fall
What rules? Where they at to read?
There are no rules. There were some, but they were dropped. This led an entire set of people to say the sky would fall. You can't prove a negative, but so far the sky remains above.
To be fair, large-scale corporatization does take a while. Social Security numbers were issued with the staunch vow that they would never be used as personal identification for anything but your Social Security funds, and the people who feared it would lead to a nationwide ID system, which would then lead to tracking of our finances and the ability to steal someone's identity--they were called Chicken Littles, too. They were 100% right, but it took about 40 years before their predictions came true, and by then no one cared.
That's what this will be. In forty years we will all be paying for website bundles from our service providers--I bet they'll even call the lowest tier "basic" just like "basic cable"--and we'll just be cool with it because the progression was slow and that's how it is. And I don't even know if it's a bad thing, or if there was ever really a chance of avoiding it in the long run anyway. It wouldn't hurt for us to swing at least a little back toward a model where people expect to pay for quality information. But I'm 100% confident that there will come a day, before the two of us die, where websites are blocked by service providers and there is a complex but completely legal process by which CNN and AT&T have to negotiate over how much of AT&T's "news bundle subscription" price will be passed on to CNN--just like Netflix/Hulu/Amazon currently pay their content creators and demand exclusivity in certain contracts.
Remember when you could get any cable TV channel by pointing a big satellite dish at them, but then they scrambled it so you had to get a de-scrambler, or pay for the Cable companies box, but at least it was ad-free (because we were paying for it directly), but then they started airing ads, but at least the content was really good and interesting, so they crammed it full of ads, but then the content started to decline in quality, and anyway... now there is over 9000 channels full of rapid-fire ad cycles, its not even as good as FREE broadcast TV used to be, and they make a billion gazillion dollars from it.
But "I'm sure" they won't do that with the internet, because they're just gonna "be cool" and decide NOT to make another billion gazillion dollars.
Everyone has the cable model in mind. The cable model is broken. It's not going to work on the Internet.
Now that the cable box is two-way, the vast percentage of our time is spent on websites that we ourselves build. The channels are us, and limiting availability to them hurts the channels!
You could say that, for example, Youtube (which is millions of times larger and more important than CNN) would be in a position to make a deal with ATT. Suppose half of ATT subscribers do not have access to YouTube. That in turn means that YouTube loses all the revenue that it generates from those subscribers. It ALSO means that it loses all the content providers who use AT&T and don't want to pay. So now it is losing money on AT&T subscribers and non-AT&T subscribers.
Everything is different, now!
I believe that large-scale content providers are sophisticated enough to negotiate licensing deals with the regional ISP monopolies.
So as long as you're a million times more powerful than CNN, you'll be fine!
Sounds like AT&T has them over a barrel in your example. AT&T also is one of the companies that opposed net neutrality, while Google supported it.
While, outside of your example, Google probably has enough market dominance to mitigate that issue, AT&T certainly can exert the kind of pressure you describe on smaller and/or newer companies.
Sounds like AT&T has them over a barrel in your example
The power of YouTube: by limiting access to YouTube, or charging for it, AT&T loses a third of their subscribers to other providers.
We all know. We are not on the Intenet because of the name on the cable box/router. We are on the Internet because of YouTube. If we can switch, we will. If switching becomes important to a good chunk of us, new providers will arrive immediately.
CNN now uses YouTube to reach and monetize non-cable subscribers. Everything's different, now and far more interconnected. There is not much game in limiting. The game is in providing more and better services. MORE access to the YouTubes of the world.
Switch to whom? Verizon? Comcast? Most people may not even have access to all three of those, let alone others. And AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast can charge newcomer ISPs to connect to them.
Plus, you know, my second paragraph. Google or Netflix might be able to threaten to take away a third of AT&T's subscribers, but can Vimeo?
This is a basic disagreement about what market forces do.
Either they are designed to "provide better stuff," or to "make money."
There is not much game in limiting. The game is in providing more and better services. MORE access to the YouTubes of the world.
But then how come I have to have Hulu to get some of my shows? Netflix would love to give me access to that content, but Hulu offered them more for an exclusive deal. Soon, I'm going to have to have a separate Disney streaming service, too, if my kids want to watch any of those movies, because Disney is banking that we'll pay a premium once their content is restricted more than it is now.
If AT&T cut off YouTube for the hell of it, then sure, we could switch to Spectrum internet instead. But what happens when AT&T negotiates an exclusivity contract that says the
other guys can't have YouTube?
T-mobile.
Why would Vimeo limit their ability to build their channel? Why would any smaller website?
But then how come I have to have Hulu to get some of my shows?
That is the limited game in limiting the audience: in things that are already monetized by intellectual property and already limited in that way.
Why would Vimeo limit their ability to build their channel? Why would any smaller website?
Because they can actually make money from distributors who pay for content, and not the people watching for free with adblockers installed.
Not ETA: I do see some value in monetizing by limiting things with a limited time-frame: fresh content that is not already widely distributed, like news, shows, etc. Otherwise: we killed the music industry for a full decade and a half when they were too greedy.
Because they can actually make money from distributors who pay for content, and not the people watching for free with adblockers installed.
We killed the music industry by distributing the content ourselves. We'll do it again. Witness, the complete
American Hot Wax!
[YOUTUBE]_viO-iTa2v4[/YOUTUBE]
And AT&T doesn't have to overtly charge their customers to watch Vimeo, they can charge Vimeo for access to AT&T customers, or for a fast lane, or AT&T can not charge their customers for data on AT&T's streaming site, but demand that Vimeo pay if they want to be part of that deal. Then it's up to Vimeo to decide whether they want to lose a third of their customers, or pay the extortion.
(Oh shit, check that out! Thanks!)
Vimeo can filter too! It's two-way, this Internet. Why doesn't YouTube charge AT&T for its content?
Vimeo can filter what? Not sure what you're getting at. Vimeo could demand that AT&T pay Vimeo in order to provide AT&T customers with Vimeo content? And if AT&T laughs at them and says "no, you pay us?"
Yeah. I mean, I will filter all of AT&T's net blocks in about a half a day if they are trying to extort me. I don't think AT&T wins anything out of this proposition.
T-Mobile
Also: Please note that the exclusivity deals are an issue but are NOT the net neutrality issue. It's annoying that you have to subscribe to a million streaming services to get all the shows, but that's separate. Net neutrality proponents are not demanding that "Jessica Jones" be available on HULU.
Net neutrality is about ISPs charging content providers for access to the ISP's customers, even though the content providers are already paying their ISPs.
edited to add: The concept of exclusivity deals can get intertwined with net neutrality when the ISP also owns a content provider, and gives it preferential treatment.
Yeah. I mean, I will filter all of AT&T's net blocks in about a half a day if they are trying to extort me. I don't think AT&T wins anything out of this proposition.
Your initial example was that Youtube would not want to risk half their customers by blocking AT&T.
If you were an up and coming streaming content provider, and you reached the size where AT&T decided they wanted a cut, would you risk half your customers by refusing and/or preemptively blocking them? Even if their demand was only half of the money you would lose by doing so?
I would hope so, and I would hope that enough companies would join you, but I have little confidence that a privately held company would do so, and even less confidence that a publicly held one would. With net neutrality, they wouldn't have to make that decision.
So all those guys with business degrees will be so busy trying to out-maneuver each other, that they'll never be able to figure out how to extract more money from consumers, and/or build a business model that favors large-scale content providers and disregards guys with a web server in their basement?
And while we're busy debating this, they won't be quietly censoring political speech just like they were already doing before net neutrality?
Pretty much how it is now
If you decided to take the doors off of a prison, would the inmates walk out, or stay inside? Regulations are a thing that stops business from doing what you *know* its gonna do. Maybe not in two months..
I'm in favor of regulating what we know will happen... and against regulating what we "just know" will happen. We are not smart enough for that game.
This sort of for-pay access to ISP customers never happened *before* net neutrality was introduced. If you liked the Internet in 2015? I mean Comcast was throttling p2p for a while, that was a rough patch, but we got through it.
True: we are not smart enough to regulate capitalism. We should be, we could be, but we're not. I think this issue is just a litmus test of how you feel about capitalism, market forces, and the role of government.
Aside from the suppression of political speech aspect, which nobody really seems to care about as much.
ETA: Personally I think a capitalist system has legitimate motivation to suppress political speech, also.
Let us see how it all plays out. I expect there will be violations of some sort. Innovations too. We can catalogue them here.
Market forces: either they are designed to "provide better stuff," or to "make money."
In an unrestrained market (nuthin' more than you and me and him and her transacting) you provide better stuff to make money. If you make with the shoddy, you shaft yourself.
Unfortunately we don't have an unrestrained (Austrian) market: we got (Keynesian) state capitalism.
As things stand: net neutrality/no net neutrality amounts to the same thing.
Let us see how it all plays out.
George Jr created tax cuts in 2001. When did it do damage? Well after 2005. Damage, created by recently destroying net neutrality, will take years to be quantified by economics. But we know this. The first destruction of net neutrality almost 20 years ago means the many internet providers were eliminated; most only have two. A duopoly. No way around that reality. Now that duopoly, that already has excessive profits, can start collecting money from even more sectors of the economy.
The destruction of net neutrality means no more innovative internet companies. Duopolies can keep increasing charges.
Show me anyone who can have 100 Mbits for $20 per month. Not in America where attacks on net neutrality over a decade ago have resulted in America no longer in the top five nations for internet access. We already see damage due to damage to net neutrality well over a decade ago. It will only get worse since those rule changes only entrench duopolies.
Market forces happen instantly. The government reaction happens months lAter.
xoxoxoBruce
This sort of for-pay access to ISP customers never happened *before* net neutrality was introduced.
Zero-rating preferred content providers did, though.
In rural America this does not matter one bit because...
Internet speed test
015102050100+
0.30
Megabits per second
Testing upload...
0.44
Mbps download
0.30
Mbps upload
Latency: 185 ms
Server: New York, NY
Your Internet speed is very slow
Your Internet download speed is very slow. Web browsing should work, but videos could load slowly.
Market forces happen instantly.
It's two months since the rules were dropped - how long we gotta wait for instantly?
Market forces happen instantly.
Obviously not true. In the 1990s, we stopped buying crap Fords. So Nasser was replaced by William Clay Ford. William Clay started fixing problems in 2000. In 2007, Ford had never lost more money - because of what Nasser did. In 2008 and 2010, the work started by William Clay in 2000 resulted in massive profits. Where is this instant response? Never happens.
Kennedy created tax cuts in the early 1960s. So a recession resulted in the mid 1960s.
Obama administration in 2008 started fixing economic disasters created by George Jr (ie tax cuts, massive government debts) after 2000. As a result, four and ten years later (which includes now), we reaped one of a most robust economy.
Anyone can learn from history. Nixon spent money we did not have on Vietnam. When did that create a recession? Mid 1970s. Ford refused to fix this problem. Carter did at the end of the 1970s )ie 20% interest rates). Economic recovery then occured in mid 1980s.
Market forces only occur instantly when one is indoctrinated by myths and lies from business school graduates. History suggests that changes today appear in economic report four and ten years later.
GE was stifling innovation 20 years ago in most divisions. Economic reports (GE's spread sheets) are now reporting the resulting destruction. It takes that long for the money to finally report what happened.
Michael Powell's 2002 attack on net neutrality meant on the largest internet provider could survive. The last of free market competitors dies around 2010. That is when internet that should have been $20 per month for 100 Mb instead became $50+ per month for 20 Mb.
New FCC rules will only entrench the duopoly. Economic numbers should start reporting the resulting damage in four or more years.
Whereas it takes at least four years for economic growth to be reported, sometimes gross economic mismanagement can start appearing earlier - in a year.
With the 1929 stock market crash, Hoover made things worse by putting up restrictions (like Trump is doing) and tightening the money supply. As a result, massive job losses were in 1933.
Those are not markets forces, they are reactions to market forces. :rolleyes:
Fundamentally, market forces are 'supply' and 'demand' (more accurately: 'suppliers' and 'demanders' [in other words: you, me, him and her {transactors}]).
Even reactionary, stampeding, transactors don't operate instantly or as a unit.
Those are not markets forces, they are reactions to market forces.
Market forces cause a change. Change requires innovation - new products. New products typically take at four years (or longer) to reach that market.
Many mistake money games with innovation. Innovation takes many years to respond to a market force. Competitive organizations saw it coming and were doing the work many years previous.
Destruction to net neutrality in 2002 took many years to destroy free market competition. More destruction to net neutrality will appear in prices and less choices many years from now. So much history repeatedly demonstrates it.
Market forces can be changed instantly by legislation, war, or cataclysmic events.
Market forces can be changed instantly by legislation, war, or cataclysmic events.
So the day after Pearl Harbor, the US produced 1,000 planes and eight new battleships? Even plans alone took months to start.
Why was a P-51 so dominate in WWII? Because it was designed long before Pearl Harbor and did not appear until 1943. It takes years for markets to change.
Damage created by subverting net neutrality will become apparent years from now. It is how markets, economies, and change works.
Thank you for proving my point, market forces can change instantly.
The change in net neutrality rules was proposed May 2017. 15 months ago. In Internet software time, that is long enough to design the plane, build a fleet of them, load them with fuel and sit them on the end of the runways.
Market forces happen instantly. The government reaction happens months lAter.
xoxoxoBruce
Market forces can be changed instantly by legislation, war, or cataclysmic events.
Market changes can seemingly happen instantly when previously undisclosed; or, unrealized market forces are suddenly disclosed and/or realized by the general market.
The term
Market Force; however, has a particular definition that seems to be outside of your application. Legislation and war are not impromptu events. Even most cataclysmic events are predictable to some extent. These are already reflected in market forces based on probability.
Blindsiding the general market is common, blindsiding the individual market forces not so much; yet, that is what would have to happen for market forces to be changed instantly. That's only likely to happen on a microeconomic scale.
Of course, might makes right and if you go out and blow up enough market forces when no one is anticipating that from you, it could be a revelation.
The San Andreas fault can change things very quickly.
Lex Luthor tried that by firing a nuclear missile into it; but, Superman brought the tectonic plates back together again. The market forces got over.
Somewhat (not directly) related story.
Verizon's throttling was described in fire department emails beginning June 29 of this year, just weeks after the FCC's repeal of net neutrality rules took effect.
Even when net neutrality rules were in place, all major carriers imposed some form of throttling on unlimited plans when customers used more than a certain amount of data. They argued that it was allowed under the rules' exception for "reasonable network management." But while such throttling is generally applied only during times of network congestion, the Santa Clara Fire Department says it was throttled at all times once the device in question went over a 25GB monthly threshold.
Even if Verizon's throttling didn't technically violate the no-throttling rule, Santa Clara could have complained to the FCC under the now-removed net neutrality system, which allowed Internet users to file complaints about any unjust or unreasonable prices and practices. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's decision to deregulate the broadband industry eliminated that complaint option and also limited consumers' rights to sue Internet providers over unjust or unreasonable behavior.
Follow-up to the previous story, specifically on the net-neutrality aspects.
A for profit publicly held company acting in the best fiduciary interests of the owners--biggest non-story ever.
the story has nothing to do with net neutrality
net neutrality is wallpapered onto the story anyway
why? ~ because more clicks, that is why ~
Because scaring you is in the best fiduciary interests of the owners of Ars Technica... Conde Nast.
It is tangentially associated, as described in the "Net neutrality rules and throttling" section of the second link. Not directly to the net neutrality specific rules, but in the general customer protection rules that the FCC threw away when they abandoned regulation of ISPs.
And while Ars Technica is unabashedly pro-net-neutrality, Santa Clara County's lawyers explicitly tied the story to net neutrality.
I'm sorry. The *incident* had nothing to do with net neutrality.
The incident was they were throttled, like everybody else with a data plan who goes over it. The plans weren't different, before and after the rule changes. The practices weren't different. It's most likely a mistake was made.
Verizon says they failed to apply the conditions for an emergency provider to the plan. If this is a net neutrality thing, aren't they supposed to just brazenly change their policies? Not, like, make a customer support mistake and then fix it.
I mean, anyone use Verizon Wireless? Anyone ever have 'em make a mistake? Okay then.
But the thing is, last year, pro-net-neutrality elected officials in Santa Clara County filed a suit against the FCC for ending net neutrality.
Now, they get to add this incident as an addendum, of evidence that their suit has merit.
It doesn't mean that it has merit. Doesn't mean anything at all really. It appears to be lawyer money, spent by public officials in pro-net-neutrality land, using public funds to make sure they get re-elected by their pro-net-neutrality voters.
Ordinarily, a pro-plaintiff lawyer making an addendum is not really newsworthy. But if you are Ars Technica, you are part of the process and you can write not just one, but two stories about it.
Santa Clara County's lawyers explicitly tied the story to net neutrality? YES THEY DID. They gettin' PAID to do that shit.
I'm sorry. The *incident* had nothing to do with net neutrality.
The incident was they were throttled, like everybody else with a data plan who goes over it. The plans weren't different, before and after the rule changes. The practices weren't different. It's most likely a mistake was made.
The "Net neutrality rules and throttling" section of the second link discusses the connection of net neutrality to throttling plans. They allowed throttling
only for "reasonable network management", and a commissioner interested in enforcing that rule (ie, not Ajit Pai) probably would not have accepted "because they hit a monthly limit" as a "reasonable network management" reason to allow the exception, in the absence of actual network congestion. So, while the story is mostly tangential to network neutrality, that aspect is directly connected.
But the thing is, last year, pro-net-neutrality elected officials in Santa Clara County filed a suit against the FCC for ending net neutrality.
Now, they get to add this incident as an addendum, of evidence that their suit has merit.
...
Santa Clara County's lawyers explicitly tied the story to net neutrality? YES THEY DID. They gettin' PAID to do that shit.
Indeed. Hence my initial "not directly", and my follow-up to the story that described the connection fully.
I'lll add one errata for my last post: When I initially said it was Santa Clara County's lawyers, it was actually 22 state attorneys general (nice to see a couple of Republican states in there), the District of Columbia, Santa Clara County, Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District, and the California Public Utilities Commission, in the case
MOZILLA CORPORATION, et al. v. FCC.
The "Net neutrality rules and throttling" section of the second link discusses the connection of net neutrality to throttling plans. They allowed throttling only for "reasonable network management", and a commissioner interested in enforcing that rule (ie, not Ajit Pai) probably would not have accepted "because they hit a monthly limit" as a "reasonable network management" reason to allow the exception, in the absence of actual network congestion. So, while the story is mostly tangential to network neutrality, that aspect is directly connected.
No it isn't. It's bullshit. Ars Technica has to go back to 2014 and a commissioner who argued against throttling for
people with unlimited data plans.
Unlimited, which the fire folks did not have...
Unlimited, a program that Verizon stopped offering at the time. Maybe because they couldn't do it without throttling. It's arguable that they should not throttle people with unlimited. Arguable that there should be a rule about that. But it has no bearing on this story.
And now, in 2018, they offer it without throttling.
Even after the end of net neutrality rules.
The Santa Clara folks should look into Unlimited, because it's only a little more expensive --
they used 25GB in a month so they are "power users" -- and it would be a HELL of a lot cheaper than hiring LAWYERS.
In fact, wouldn't one single hour of one single lawyer pay for the entire difference to upgrade for several years? Ah, but if they did that, then the Santa Clara officials haven't fought the FCC, and can't make a case for re-election.
No it isn't. It's bullshit. Ars Technica has to go back to 2014 and a commissioner who argued against throttling for people with unlimited data plans.
Unlimited, which the fire folks did not have...
Yes they did, by Verizon's current definition of "unlimited" (get the unlimited that's right for you).
a limited unlimited aw fuck it let us just wait for a real fuckin' net neutrality violation
Thank you for proving my point, market forces can change instantly.
With a new constitution in 1999, Hugo Chávez changed market forces by using oil revenues and by nationalizing key industries. Short term economic improvements resulted between 2003 and 2007 (ie money games). Then a massive downturn afterwards. Things got so bad that he declared an "economic war" in 2010 due to shortages of most everything. The changes he started in 1999 resulted in massive economic damage and market changes almost 10 years later.
Changes, that he made in the early 2000s, result in economic calamity years later. Market forces take that long to affect / change an economy. Nicolas Maduro continued those changes in 2013 resulting in the recent 96% devaluation of the currency and a 2018 mass exodus by Venezuela citizens.
Only time a market force can cause immediate change this year - war and other forces that intentionally subvert / destroy all markets. Productive changes affect markets typically four years and sometimes decades later.
Economic destruction created by subverting net neutrality did not appear for many years. It takes long for markets to reap or suffer from changes. Longer to prosper. Sometimes shorter to suffer. Years for these next destructive net neutrality rules to harm the market.
Destruction of net neutrality will prosper the few, big, and rich at the expense of the many and innovative. American rating of internet access will continue to decline as the market did four plus years when Michael Powell first did so much harm to net neutrality in early 2000s.
Here's your next so-called violation --
again, this is a practice entirely permitted under the old rules, so it's not exactly a net neutrality issue, but ye olde media are hyper focused on writing headlines that say it is.
YouTube, Netflix Videos Found to Be Slowed by Wireless Carriers
I'm super super happy that Verizon is performing this service for me, and you should probably be happy too, if your carrier is doing it for you.
My job in 2014-15 was supporting the transport of digital video. Ask me anything.
Here's your next so-called violation -- [i]again, this is a practice entirely permitted under the old rules, so it's not exactly a net neutrality issue,
Under the old rules, Comcast was caught doing that, denied they were throttling web sites (ie Skype), was forced to admit to lying, and was force to stop selectively subverting internet traffic.
Under the new laws, that is now acceptable and encouraged behavior.
Their spokesman said, "Comcast does not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent."
Turns out they were throttling BitTorrent. And stopped in 2008 due to the old rules.
Previously successful attempts to destroy net neutrality mean consumers now only have a biopoly to choose from. Data transporters are now severely limiting net usage and increasing prices by even charging Skype for transporting Skype packets on their network. Even cell phone providers are now implementing surcharges and throttling. Consumer choices (free market competition) has been subverted.
Under the old rules, Comcast and Verizon would be forced to provide services found elsewhere for only $20 monthly. Free market competition is now all but eliminated.
We are the big internet provider. You will accept only what we decide you should have. Some people actually think that is good.
Under the old rules, Comcast was caught doing that, denied they were throttling web sites (ie Skype)
Comcast throttled Bittorrent. They
never throttled Skype. You think they did because that was the topic of a ten-year-old thread where you suggested that they were planning to throttle Skype. I firmly predicted they would not. I was right.
Comcast throttled Bittorrent. They never throttled Skype. You think they did because that was the topic of a ten-year-old thread where you suggested that they were planning to throttle Skype.
You were wrong. IEEE Spectrum said they bought software to skew Skype packets - before they had throttled Bittorrent. I was right. You were wrong. Comcast denied they had bought the software. Skype demonstrated that Comcast was manipulating packets so that Skype connections were intermittent / interrupted.
Comcast was not the only one doing this. Most Persian Gulf nations also purchased the software to do same.
That is now acceptable under the new rules that say a data transporter can do anything they want. They can throttle packets from one company while not from others. They can skew packets to intentionally subvert or make unreliable communications from selected companies. And they can now deny they are doing it. All that and more is now legal.
Wacko Trump supporters say this is good. To them, this is called innovation.
There are no rules. There were some, but they were dropped. This led an entire set of people to say the sky would fall. You can't prove a negative, but so far the sky remains above.
Yes lets hope it does!!!
Skype demonstrated that Comcast was manipulating packets so that Skype connections were intermittent / interrupted.
Please do bring us a link that says this happened.
Comcast created it own VoIP service about the same time it was intentionally subvert P2P data transportation. Services such as Vonnage also noted intermittent data transport problems with their VoIP service.
From
www.fudzilla.com on 20 Jan 2009:
The US Federal Communications Commission has penned a stiff letter to Comcast over its system which gives its own Voice over IP service customers "special treatment" compared to competitors who use the ISP's network.
The Watchdog has asked Comcast to provide "a detailed justification for Comcast's disparate treatment of its own VoIP service as compared to that offered by other VoIP providers on its network." Comcast has been in the FCC's bad books since it started to throttle the traffic of P2P users. But when it came to look at the cable outfit's description of its throttling system it became alarmed at something else it spotted.
Apparently during times of actual network congestion Comcast will switch on its throttling software. Its rivals who are using its networks might experience slower webpage downloads, peer-to-peer upload takes somewhat longer to complete, or a VoIP call sounds choppy. However Comcast's own VoIP product, Comcast Digital Voice (CDV) apparently has a "separate facilities-based IP phone service" and "is not affected" by throttling software. The FCC wants to know how this is possible.
Comcast considers their own VoIP service as an information provider. So it was legally considered different from rules for data transporters. Comcast could maintain full service to their own VoIP while obstructing other VoIP services. A perfect example of why information providers must be separate from data transporters.
An internet provider once was required to transport all data without regard to content. Then innovation could happen. Information service providers were once considered a completely different service subject to different rules.
Without net neutrality, Comcast is free to subvert data packets from any competitor. And Trump supporters say this is good - inventing a lie that it will increase innovation.
We all have seen reduced competition due to attacks on net neutrality by Michael Powell during the George Jr administration. Now and again, a next wave of internet obstructions to innovation has begun.
Swing and a miss. I'll try to make this entertaining and informative.
In 2009, there was a lot of network congestion. Comcast attempted to manage it with throttling.
But if they wanted to subvert Skype on a congested network, they wouldn't have had to. It's very simple.
On a congested network, voice over Internet won't work.
Telephony is not real time, but very close to it. In general, internet voice connections (i.e., VoIP) are only possible where there is no network congestion. If there is congestion, it quickly starts to sound terrible. Doesn't take much to be unusable. Did you ever hear the person on the other end of the line sounding a little like an alien? That is VoIP with just a little congestion.
Most data doesn't mind if network packets are dropped, and retransmitted 100ms later out of order. But audio DOES mind!
In 2009, the Internet was not really VoIP-ready yet; and congestion caused all kinds of issues. VoIP was kind of sucky, no matter who your provider was. That's why the competition was [COLOR="Red"]"As Seen On TV"[/COLOR] -- Vonage and Magic Jack.
But, at this very same time, Verizon was
giving up on VoiP services. Well, dang! Why would they do that, if they knew they could just fuck up their competition? Fudzilla from Jan 2009:
Verizon to shut down Internet phone service
Maybe they understood, even with shaping, they still only controlled
their network; that means they controlled
less than one half of the connection between the two sides of a VoIP conversation. And so it was impossible to guarantee quality of voice...
The FCC had means for concern here. But this doesn't mean Comcast was throttling VoiP specifically. And I'll wager anything they weren't, because -- it's very simple --
you wouldn't throttle Skype/VoIP in order to manage network congestion. You'd throttle services that were bandwidth-heavy. I have developed a table for our understanding:
HD video signal: 2,500,000 bits per second
SD video signal: 1,200,000 bits per second
VoIP signal: 12,000 bits per second
The FCC wanted to know how Comcast could provide quality voice during throttling. The story makes it clear. Comcast provided their own pipes to their own VoIP product. Their own network. Q.E.D. they weren't giving priority to their packets on the regular old network. They just built their own.
Swing and a miss. I'll try to make this entertaining and informative.
The backbone (ie Level 3) had no congestion problems. Level 3 specifically cites the only reason for that congestion - a biopoly named Comcast. Comcast should have been upgrading their network. But that does not increase profits. So Comcast has congestion. A problem because they do not split up their 'one cable serving many customers' into 'two cables serving same customers with sufficient bandwidth'.
Again, $50+ for only 20 Mb. Korean has long provided 100 Mb for only $20 monthly.
Comcast is spending massively on buying NBC, a mobile phone company, the three tallest skyscrapers in Philadelphia, Universal Studios, and a large number of information providers. Done because they need not upgrade their 'last mile' equipment when extremists control the FCC. Comcast has virtually no competition since the last of the competitors are now gone. Comcast is now charging the
information providers to pay for network upgrades that were once paid for by
data transporter.
These innovations and upgrades would not be stifled with net neutrality. Embarrassing that UT cannot see it and supports the many who want to enrich the rich - extremists.
Again, backbone providers were quite blunt about where congestion exists. The
last mile provider - Comcast - will not upgrade their hardware. Then uses destruction of net neutrality to mask and justify their 'we want to increase profits' actons.
Comcast subverted VoIP services while implementing their own that had no obstructions. Comcast expected to take over the VoIP business. When confronted by net neutrality, then VoIP could not destroy the competition. So Comcast move onto other ways to charge everyone more money - to increase profits without investing is capital equipment. (Give credit to Roberts for his constantly adapting strategies.)
Skype is now paying Comcast for hardware / software to upgrade Comcast reliability. Extremists say others (not Comcast) must pay for upgrades to the last mile as it is done in other nations (ie Korea).
I believe a Comcast upgrade, paid for by surcharging Skype, is currently ongoing in the Boston area. This will give Skype better reliability. And do nothing for the future, innovative, VoIP companies - who are now locked out of the market.
According to wacko extremists, that will somehow create innovation. In reality, Trump supporters hate free markets and innovation. And love the campaign contributions from a now richer Comcast. Extremist subvert net neutrality for political and monetary advantages. UT predictably recites their propaganda.
VoIP problems exist because Comcast will not upgrade (to increase profits) and even used selective throttling to get the information providers to pay for 'no throttling'. That cannot happen with net neutrality. Comcast would have to invest in their infrastructure - and not into big buildings, 21st Century Fox, Universal Studios, buy mobile phone companies, Liongate, NBC (and Telemundo), Spectacor, Dreamworks, et al. Two thirds of flights by Comcast's $40million private jet flights carry Brian Roberts (president) between his home and vacation sites.
Thanks to those who want to subvert net neutrality, we already have less competition and increasingly more expensive internet. So American internet is dropping on the list of 'best internet'. Thanks to destruction of net neutrality, America has dropped from #1 twenty years ago to somewhere around #10 - and still dropping. A drop that started with restriction to free market competition and the destruction of net neutrality - by same people who even lied about Saddam's WMDs, a military that is too small, Gestapo style torture, secret prisons, contempt of our allies, wiretapping without judicial oversight, Mission Accomplished, and mythical threats.
:lol:
You're so ridiculous!! It's 2018 now, and here's what happened while you were sleeping:
-- The NBC Universal buyout is complete and is 5 years old.
-- Since 2011, Skype is Microsoft.
-- Comcast HAS built out and no longer has the broad congestion issues they used to have.
But the rules still apply, except now we are watching even higher resolution video:
UHD video signal: 14,000,000 bits per second
HD video signal: 2,500,000 bits per second
SD video signal: 1,200,000 bits per second
VoIP signal: 12,000 bits per second
You can fit 1000 phone calls in one single 4K video stream. If you can stream video today, you have the minimum necessary for a decent voice experience.
For the last 10 years, the internet providers built out to the point where they can deliver you high def video. Because that is where the money is. Nobody is paying big money for voice.
That's why Comcast bought NBC/Universal and its intellectual property, which is mostly about video.
You're so ridiculous!! It's 2018 now, and here's what happened while you were sleeping:
Now read what was posted. All those things fully apply to everything I had posted. You are again ignoring facts. Comcast is not investing in its infrastructure - then or today - as your post demonstrates. They have congestion when it is convenient. And are forcing
information providers (Netflix, Skype, Bittorrent) to pay for upgrades to Comcast's network. Upgrades that will only benefit each big company who pays for those upgrades and at the expense of (diminished service to) others.
So much for equal access to all. An innovative VoIP (or other) service that cannot afford to pay Comcast to upgrade Comcast's network means stifled innovation. And then Comcast can increase their campaign contributions to extremists who hate net neutrality.
Comcast did not upgrade their network. With the destruction of net neutrality, Comcast can get others to pay for special treatment - at the expense of others. A total violation of what the internet and
data transporters are about.
We are now watching higher resolution video. But Comcast is still using the same cable to service 120 or 200 customers when standard data rates now demand each cable serve only 60 or 40. Since Comcast stopped investing in infrastructure (to buy NBC, build the three tallest skyscrapers, buy cell phone companies), then congestion is only in the last mile - Comcast. Congestion is not in the backbone where companies are innovative and not running to extremists to subvert net neutrality.
Please stop being so dumb. Since I to can just as easily insult your stupidity. UT - stop being a wacko extremist. Start reading what is actually posted - not what your emotions want you to read. This was not the UT I knew many decades ago.
Stop being an adult acting like a child. Stick to the topic. Stop posting demeaning comments like an emotional wacko extremist (or UG). Then I will stop talking about your poor reading abilities and clearly diminished intelligence.
After so many personally demeaning comments from you, I will either talk about your intelligence, or will respond accordingly when you post like a moderate (an honest person).
Meanwhile net neutrality is what made all equal on the internet. And why internet companies invest in their infrastructure. That made innovation possible. Destruction of net neutrality means big advantages for the few - like Brian Roberts whose $40 million per year corporate airplanes have become his personal vehicles. More money that is not going into infrastructure. Since Comcast no longer has serious competition due to destruction of net neutrality.
Provide the link I asked for, proof of what you claimed: a link to a story that actually shows, doesn't just suggest, that Skype demonstrated that Comcast was manipulating packets so that Skype connections were intermittent / interrupted.
One link.
Don't change the subject.
Don't talk about me.
Don't talk about emotions.
Don't write a paragraph. Don't write five paragraphs.
Just provide the link.
Now read what was posted. All those things fully apply to everything I had posted. You are again ignoring facts. ...
… Please stop being so dumb. Since I to can just as easily insult your stupidity. UT - stop being a wacko extremist. Start reading what is actually posted - not what your emotions want you to read. This was not the UT I knew many decades ago.
Stop being an adult acting like a child. Stick to the topic. Stop posting demeaning comments like an emotional wacko extremist (or UG). Then I will stop talking about your poor reading abilities and clearly diminished intelligence.
After so many personally demeaning comments from you, I will either talk about your intelligence, or will respond accordingly when you post like a moderate (an honest person). ...
[cross threading] UT, have you been smoking cesium again? :eyebrow: [/cross threading]
… This was not the UT I knew many decades ago. ..
UT ... tw is your father. :vader1:
:bolt:
What bothers me most is in that vote the government has given up all control except the truth in advertising by I think the Commerce Dept?
Does this mean cities are now allowed to build their own high speed networks?
I have a choice of Comcast, Verizon, or super zoomy Verizon Fios. They are all out there on the pole. They ain't cheap.
One package I had contained 128 channels I was paying for, that were religion, or in a foreign language. But I had to buy them to get what I really wanted.
I also have to pay a surcharge for "local sports" every month. I don't play, watch, or give a rats ass about local sports. Buy I have no choice if I want internet TV.
So all my bitches are small potatoes. The real problem is friends out in Lancaster and Lebanon Counties, oh, and Griff, can't get internet with any speed from anyone at any price.
The population density isn't worth the expense of the necessary infrastructure. So companies like Frontier just milk the captive public for what the can get with minimum investment.
Sure, places like Japan and Korea have much faster net but look at the population density there. That makes a lower investment for the results.
My grandparents lived on a dirt road only 13 miles from the third largest city in MA. Yet they didn't get a phone until 1939, and electricity until 1949. The density didn't justify the investment until the utilities got pushed by the government.
Somebody is spending, I wonder if it's in the right place. Right place for profit I guess.
...oh, and Griff, can't get internet with any speed from anyone at any price.
...
My grandparents lived on a dirt road only 13 miles from the third largest city in MA. Yet they didn't get a phone until 1939, and electricity until 1949. The density didn't justify the investment until the utilities got pushed by the government.
Somebody is spending, I wonder if it's in the right place. Right place for profit I guess.
Yep. That's what I care about. Those damn hippys at the electric coop are fighting for the right to string cable, we may end up with better and cheaper than you urban dudes but we'll be retired by then. Y'all should see Pete when she tries to work from home, good thing she's pretty easy going.
Also f*ck Frontier.
That's a goddamn crime in this day and age.:mad2:
One package I had contained 128 channels I was paying for, that were religion, or in a foreign language. But I had to buy them to get what I really wanted.
Then it gets even more interesting. Comcast fills that cable with stations duplicated. You play $50 per month for low resolution TV. Or pay extra to have access to other channels that carry the same TV show in HD.
One can get full High Definition via an OTA antennas. But one must pay extra for it from Comcast.
So channel 5 consumes 6 Mhz for the low resolution version. And another 5 Mhz for the same channel 5 TV show in high resolution.
They could have broadcast to everyone only in High Definition. Then that massive available bandwidth can be used to avoid internet congestion. But that would not increase profits. And get the
information providers to pay for infrastructure upgrades.
Meanwhile customers must pay $100 per month for the same TV resolution that is standard in OTA broadcasts. Just another way to increase profits so that Comcast can buy more companies, build more skyscrapers, etc.
With destruction of net neutrality, it will only get worse (more expensive) faster.
Rules dropped five months ago
~ Nothing has happened yet ~
End of update, see you in the spring
So channel 5 consumes 6 Mhz for the low resolution version. And another 5 Mhz for the same channel 5 TV show in high resolution.
I am now informed that each channel is broadcast on three channels on cable. One in analog. One in digital. And third in high definition. For each upgrade they charge more.
Meanwhile broadcast TV broadcasts everything only in HD - and for free.
If Comcast cannot provide full bandwidth to all customers, then they are wasting bandwidth to increase profits. Instead they want to restrict bandwidth and even charge the Content Providers (ie YouTube, Netflix, Hulu) a surcharge.
All done because they have no competition - having bought the politicians they need.
I am now informed that each channel is broadcast on three channels on cable. One in analog. One in digital. And third in high definition. For each upgrade they charge more.
Meanwhile broadcast TV broadcasts everything only in HD - and for free
Wow, you really are on top of things aren't you?
:lol2:
Got an email tonight.
It’s Fios® Customer Appreciation Month. And to thank you for your loyalty, your internet has been upgraded to ultrafast Fios 100/100M—at no additional cost. With this upgrade, you can now stream and upload faster than before, and connect more devices at the same time.
Wow, you really are on top of things aren't you?
Always amazing how simple technical facts impress wacko extremists.
It is the difference between moderates who are educated verse Rush Limbaugh and Fox New disciples who are so easily brainwashed.
Unfortunately too many adults are still children - easily brainwashed by talk show hosts. So Trump is the president. And a economic recession has started.
He does not badmouth the Don - an anti-American Hitler and Putin lover. So moderates must attack that low intelligence. The Don says we must be this way. It must continue until even wacko extremists (all similar to Henry Quirk) finally admit to their mistake.
Shocking are how the non-Americans hear remain silent - do not constantly post what the rest of the free world sees. The President of France says Europe needs a European army to protect itself from America. Once, that was ridiculous. Not today. View Gravdigr posts to appreciate the new threat - an adult who is thinking like a child.
Sorry. This is not nasty enough because you are a wacko extremist Donald Trump (anti-American) supporter. As demonstrated by tacit support for KKK, Nazis, and White Supremacists. Extermist hate and the love of The Don earns you this honesty.
Look ya insane son-of-bitch, I ain't affiliated in any goddamned way with, nor do I support in any way ANY fucking racist organization.
You motherfucking piece of shit. Fuck you and fuck your goddamned mama for birthing your insane ass.
There's your emotional childish response, ya cock-sucking son-of-a-bitch.
Now, change the subject again ya fucking insane motherfucker.
:D
Extermist hate and the love of The Don earns you this honesty.
You wouldn't know 'honesty' if honesty butt-fucked you while wearing a shirt that says "You're being butt-fucked by Honesty".
And learn to spell, ya dumbass.
"It must continue until even wacko extremists (all similar to Henry Quirk) finally admit to their mistake."
Which mistake is that?
Entertaining 'you'?
And, please, define 'wacko extremist'. You been tossin' that out for ages without any real explanation.
Finally: it's gratifyin' to be in your head so much that you use me as 'example'. You love me and want to give me babies. Wish I could oblige (cuz this old world needs more of 'me' in it) but you just ain't my cuppa tea.
You wouldn't know 'honesty' if honesty butt-fucked
An honest man could defend himself with simple factual statements. A wacko extremists (ie Nazi, White Supremacist, or KKK) must resort to threats and profanity. An example of an adults who thinks like a child.
Complete with a tantrum. What an example.
And now you want to be an English Nazi to boot?
And, please, define 'wacko extremist'.
An example:
Of course [Trumps] a lyin' motherfucker,
...
I didn't hire him to be honest, I hired him to wreck shit.
Little different from bin Laden, Nazis, White Supremacists, KKK, and Timothy McVeigh.
Let's try sumthin' new.
You and me, in this place, represent archetypes.
You: the best of the communitarian impulse.
Me: the worst of the libertarian impulse.
You're maximized security, common weal, and stability.
I'm maximized autonomy, self-direction, and agency.
It's no wonder we hate each other's guts.
We have no common ground.
In a real sense, we're aliens to one another.
You see me as unprincipled anarchic force.
I see you as smothering death caul.
This isn't gonna change.
So: I propose the following...
As we can, we leave each other be; where we can't, we attempt civility and discussion.
Nuthin' good comes from our current approaches to one another, and mebbe nuthin' good will come from what I suggest, but it's worth a shot, yeah?
Let's try sumthin' new.
You stop posting. And I will stop reading insults.
You cannot even separate basic concepts from the person.
'gender neutral' is how this is being reported - but it's an over simplification
He was responding to someone contending that God is a woman:
autism strikes again
You first.
-----
So, no peace between us?
Okay.
I tried.
It had no chance henry. Tw is like a former hall monitor who made it his life's calling. Eventually he turns on everyone, even those who agree with him. It's in the nature of his disorder. Tw has seventy-THREE virgins waiting for him ya know. He's just fodder for entertainment purposes only.
Probably not.
#
"hall monitor"
He's a fascist.
#
"He's just fodder for entertainment purposes"
I find him sad, not fun.
When one can turn a negative into a positive, bad situations don't get one down.
Oh, it's no skin offa my nose if tw doesn't wanna play nice.
I do war easy (but it's not fun).
In other words: he's not a target for ridicule, he's just a target.
Still: I'm gonna navigate 'round him as I can, so -- when I do war -- it'll be clear he threw the first punch.
Consumer advocates worry that the rush to 5G is undermining public oversight of the wireless industry. For example, the FCC gutted its net neutrality protections in 2017, dubiously arguing that fewer regulations would lead to more investment in 5G and other broadband infrastructure. In 2018, it voted to override state and local regulations governing the placement of wireless equipment in the name of helping carriers build 5G networks faster. Meanwhile, T-Mobile and Sprint are pushing regulators to approve the merger between the two companies by arguing that they would be able to deploy 5G more quickly and efficiently together.
Less oversight and fewer carriers could translate into higher prices and less availability for 5G. Harold Feld, vice president of the consumer group Public Knowledge warns that without oversight, carriers might opt not to build 5G networks in low income or rural areas that could prove less profitable.
link
The carriers/app builders/builders are crying to the government that China and Korea are way ahead of us building a 5G network and If the government doesn't clear the obstacles, like killing net neutrality, we'll have to use Chinese phones on a Chinese platform.
So we'd have to use Chinese phones... and what are we using now? :eyebrow:
The carriers/app builders/builders are crying to the government that China and Korea are way ahead of us building a 5G network and If the government doesn't clear the obstacles, like killing net neutrality, we'll have to use Chinese phones on a Chinese platform.
And Saddam had WMDs.
People who are way ahead or behind are the people who manufacturer 5G hardware. Any surrendering of a market happened 4 years ago when standards were being finalized and the manufacturers in each country were developing hardware to conform to those standards.
Fear always works on the many who do not first learn how this stuff works.
Got an email tonight.
"It’s Fios® Customer Appreciation Month. And to thank you for your loyalty, your internet has been upgraded to ultrafast Fios 100/100M—at no additional cost. With this upgrade, you can now stream and upload faster than before, and connect more devices at the same time.
When my monthly report came from Sam Knows the performance seemed to be as promised.
[ATTACH]66017[/ATTACH]
It looks like they track and chart the performance of major video purveyors buy since I don't use them there's no data.
[ATTACH]66018[/ATTACH]
Yesterday I got another email.
[ATTACH]66019[/ATTACH]
I don't know if it was a, we upgraded you during the hectic holiday season so we're sending this in case you didn't notice.
Or it could be a, we upgraded your speed so get out there and use it for all these addicting pursuits that will make you even more dependant on us.
Luxury. We still carry data in buckets from the well.
We paid for the FIOS upgrade when we renewed our contract. I didn't notice a difference when i ran speed tests from my laptop and phone over wifi.
So I was about to bitch to Verizon, and got on the PC upstairs that is wired to the network, and it had the new higher speed.
So I realized my wifi connection was fooked. I switched to the other channel and got almost the advertised speed on my phone and laptop.
It's one of those chores that I'm not motivated to do, tinker with the wifi to get the speed we are paying for. What we have is fast enough.
Yeah, when my two years was up on my last contract they jumped it $10. I figured it was a prod to get me to sign up for another 24 months in exchange for dropping the increase. I went round and round with several of them for three weeks about the $35 in miscellaneous taxes and fees, especially the "local sports" fee of now $8.50 a month. What local sports, where the fuck is this money going? Why am I paying your gross receipts tax for you.
So I finally dropped a bunch of stuff and dropped the bill by $55 a month. That's why the speed increase surprised me. I would guess they found out they had the capability and it makes good ad copy for attracting people getting into streaming services.
Luxury. We still carry data in buckets from the well.
Mine comes in on a truck.
Packed in straw.
We still carry data in buckets from the well.
Is that The Don's wall? Do you mean 5 billion bitcoins in buckets?
Never mind. The Don now says we will be discussing this for months or years.
Net neutrality update:
One week away from 11 months since the rules dropped and nothing has happened.
That has become apparent, who knows what evil plots are being woven behind closed doors.
Because I can't prove a negative, it can be only time that may possibly prove me right on this; so I must post again as time passes.
My regular reminders will also remind everyone to post any violations they find.
Its good nothing has happend...... Its surprising though seeing how greedy US companies are,you think they would have jumped right on it!!
It put another arrow in their quiver.
If AT&T cut off YouTube for the hell of it, then sure, we could switch to Spectrum internet instead. But what happens when AT&T negotiates an exclusivity contract that says the other guys can't have YouTube?
T-Mobile
Holy shit, new answer: I hadn't been following this, but there will be 2200 low-orbit satellites up by 2024. Test launch of the first 60 is Wednesday! (Elon Musk expects it to fail so they can learn from it.)
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk reveals radical Starlink redesign for 60-satellite launchIn a couple of years they won't be able to launch Falcon-9 or any rocket without hitting some of this crap orbiting Earth.
From Consumer Reports:
Cord cutters are buying antennas to save money by cutting their monthly pay-TV services—and they’re doing it in large numbers. Consumer research from Parks Associates shows that the percentage of U.S. broadband households that use digital antennas in their home has steadily increased, reaching 20 percent by the end of 2017, up from 16 percent in early 2015.
So why are Comcast profits increasing when number of customers is decreasing? Harm to net neutrality has increases profits of the duopolies. Consumers typically only have two choices for internet service. So internet prices have slowly increased. And profits from internet services has increased significantly thanks to less free market competition.
Comcast had 22 million customers in 2018. Down from 24 million in 2016. And now down to 21.8 million in 2019. So profits should be dropping. Nope. Harm to net neutrality and the resulting increase in prices as well as now changing the content providers have caused profits from their internet business to increase by 10% to 4.4 billion. Did profits increase because they provided better service or more innovation? Nope. As net neutrality is undermined, then the duopoly (ie Comcast) realize increased profits.
Just another example of why harm to free market competition is bad for consumers; good for the corporate elites.
A free market is good for everyone: too bad we don't have one (and can't have one as long as state capitalism chokes out free enterprise).
So why are Comcast profits increasing when number of customers is decreasing?
Maybe because, during the quarter, for the first time, Comcast added the profits of the Sky network to their financial statements?
:lol:
no! that couldn't be it! they made money from some kind of net neutrality thing that nobody has reported on and I can't exactly explain because I don't understand it!! :lol:
Maybe because, ...
Wrong again, as usual.
Maybe because people upgraded their speed and routers to get HD Netflix and HBO Go?
Maybe because people upgraded their speed and routers to get HD Netflix and HBO Go?
Or as accurately predicted, quashing net neutrality is eliminating free market choices, entrenching the duopoly, and is sticking consumers with constantly increasing prices. In free markets, prices remain same as electronics gets faster. It is what business school graduates never grasp - innovation means a resulting drop of costs. Net neutrality and resulting free market competition is necessary to have/promote/encourage innovation.
Why are so many ending their TV cable contracts? It has become too expensive as rates continue to rise due to no competition (while company expenses decrease). Consumers (and data providers) have no internet choice. Comcast et al is now charging higher at both ends. Both prices and profits increase every year.
Their profits so massive and increasing as to even buy movie studios, NBC TV network, satellite services, mobile phone companies, the tallest skyscrapers, etc. All trophies to increased consumer costs while destruction of net neutrality also means less competition - decreasing free market choices that increase profits.
Consumers, who once had tens of choices that cost less, now have only two choices that cost significantly more. Even data providers are now being charged to contribute to those obscene profit margins.
Extremists in the Republican party have ordered us to believe net neutrality is evil - destroyed free market competition. Many who listen and recite their propaganda machine repeat that lie.
quashing net neutrality is eliminating free market choices
Wow, that's moving the goalposts to another stadium! How does it do that, exactly?
something else struck me just now. the vice versa of the above is actually true: eliminating free market choices should actually permit net neutrality violations!
If Comcast and Verizon believe that they have a competitive "lock-in" condition with their customers -- then they have no reason
not to implement actual blocking and filtering for their own profits, right now.
If customers can't leave, there is no reason not to charge them for access to sections of the Internet. If customers can't leave, there is no reason not to block competitors.
We're close to the one year anniversary of the end of net neutrality rules. Comcast charges its customers for telephone services. tw, why is Comcast NOT blocking other voice services? We know they have the ability. They now have the legislative conditions, AND, according to you, the market conditions, where they could do that at any time.
So why haven't they?
Hint: SpaceX's test launch did not fail and did successfully launch their first 60 low-orbit satellites.We keep having to discuss the same reality repeatedly. When destructive economic behavior throughout the 1920s eventually created a stock market crash in 1929, then when did fact (maasive job losses) eventually appear in nation? 1933. Stupid behavior such tariffs created a massive recession throughout in the next decade. Not one year. One year might as well be a minute - when discussing economics.
When Clinton finally liberated 1981 broadband technology in 1996, when did it finally become defacto standard in the economy? 2000s. It takes that long for markets to respond.
When George Jr created a tax cut in 2001, when did the resulting recession occur. 2006/7.
When William Clay Ford finally let engineers start designing the cars in 2001, when did profits finally happen? 2009.
We know Comcast et al tried and were eventually caught trynig to subvert internet traffic. We know. IEEE Spectrum said it was happening. The FCC exposed and censured Comcast for doing that.
So the duopoly learned to do subversion slower. Resulting degradation to American internet, that started under George Jr (Micheal Powell), created these duopolies. America fell from the top internet provider to somewhere in or below the top ten. They will now continue the subversion now that Obama is gone.
It will not happen in a microsecond as UT would have us believe. But already rates have climbed so high that a strong movement has resulted in less Comcast customers (numbers provided previously) and a surge in antenna sales.
Funny how UT constantly ignores the constant price increases and obscene profit margins. Somehow inferior service justifies that increasing prices and profits.
Consumers have TV options. So the every increasing cable prices are creating less customers. The market of internet providers, once maybe 20, has been whittled down to two by a central committee to enrich the rich and to increase campaign contributions. UT (and Fox News) says this is good.
He always see economics in terms of microsecond results. Under the 'we have contempt for the consumer' administration, even Robo calls have increaes massively - by hundreds of percents. Apparently UT also thinks this is good. Or foolishly assumes a 'woe is me - we cannot do anything' mantra.
Just like George Jr's tax cut and as I predicted by learning from history. His 2001 tax cut created the resulting recession five or six years later.
How long does it take an innovation to finally result in profits? At least four years. For cars (example cited above), closer to ten. Only a bean counter thinks what he does today results in profits this year. One should learn from history.
When Nixon wasted all that money on Nam in and after 1968, when did the resulting recession occur? Mid and later 70s. We have not yet seen and should not expect to see yet the damage created by subverting the net. As UT is constantly told even back when he just knew George Jr's 2001 Tax Cut would be a good thing.
Have we seen the massive economic damage from The Don's destruction to trade? Obviously not. That resulting recession is coming - many years later. This is still an Obama economy - where net neutrality was not being subverted.
Do you know what they're going to do with those low-orbit satellites?
Eventually world wide satellite internet. I'll see if I can find the story.
When Nixon wasted all that money on Nam in and after 1968, when did the resulting recession occur? Mid and later 70s.
The oil embargo might have had a little effect there.
Do you know what they're going to do with those low-orbit satellites?
So you know it must be a solution because it never worked previously. And since innovation means maybe nine failures until something finally is successful, then this one solution must work right the first time.
Previous satellite solutions came with similar promises and did not succeed. Irridium was only one of many - that also used low earth orbit satellites.
So the magic solution means we should continue subverting free markets by entrenching and enriching the duopoly? Maybe finally admit that destructive of net neutrality has always been a bad thing.
Why did we finally get broadband after it remains stifled and unavailable for 15 years? Because Federal Laws were created that made it possible for competition to enter the market. Including net neutrality. Suddenly restricting markets to only two providers is now better - according to UT reasoning? Even when the numbers say otherwise.
UT feels we can protect harm to free market competition by launching LEO satellites - even though that did not work previously.
Eventually it may work. But UT knows it is a solution so as to deny harm to free markets by destroying net neutrality.
Its called fixing the problem. Protect and restore net neutrality and other provisions from 1996 that made free market internet successful, innovative, and growing.
Data transporters only transport data. Without any regard for that data content. Then congestion even does not exist. Content providers are a separate industry that innovates when it does not service (is part of) the data transporter industry. Then free markets, innovation, lower prices, and better service all thrive.
Yeeah. Land a rocket right on its launching pad? Impossible.
Tunnel under LA and Las Vegas? Impossible.
Build an electric car that does 0-60 in under 3 seconds and sells for five figures? Impossible.
Test launch 60 satellites at once, without a hitch? Totally impossible. (Even Musk expected it to fail first time.)
It's not needed to prevent net neutrality problems - because obviously, we don't have any of those right now, as you admit when claiming it would take time to implement.
But bet against Elon Musk? That, sir, is a losing proposition.
Now, again, why is Comcast NOT blocking other voice services? You certainly believe they've had the software to do it for 7 years.
Looking back at the big successes in business there was quite often others on the market with the same service who failed or were struggling along. Then one company offering pretty much the same service suddenly takes off because people believed it would. They believed the face of that company, in this case a man with a track record of making ideas come to life and the money to get it going.
When Musk makes an offhand casual remark there are enough people who will take that as gospel and are willing to put up money, become early adopters, and spread the word to friends. So when Musk makes a firm commitment people listen. That's often the difference between and idea becoming a successful business, or dying on the vine.
After the Musk satellite network captures 90% of the internet market and Comcast et al file for bankruptcy, he can strangle HBO and Netflix providing his own content. Why? Because there is no net neutrality.
Just like the wireless networks did not cause the wired network to disappear, so it will be with the satellites.
The wired network will still be useful. There are advantages to a wired network. The signal doesn't have to travel off into space and back again, so wired is always lower latency. The low-earth orbits will bring that way down from what satellite internet does for us today, but still. They will have bandwidth limitations as well, I expect... and more importantly,
they will have competition.
Jesus H Christ, I can make a fortune charging these satellites using my airspace(spacespace?) rent. If they don't pay, shoot 'em down. :sniper:
Come and listen to a story about a man named Musk
A rich entrepreneur, giving man in space some thrust
He says a satellite network is the way it ought to be
Who's going to run a cable to a Martian colony[SIZE="3"]⸮[/SIZE]
The Red Planet that is. Stay a spell. Take your spacesuit off.
Y'all come back now, y'hear?
Now, again, why is Comcast NOT blocking other voice services?
Comcast was skewing packets and got caught. That does not change no matter how many times Fox News says otherwise.
Tunnels under LA or Las Vegas? Been there. Done that thousands of times elsewhere. Two because water sources for NYC over 100 years ago.
60 satellites at once? It has been done repeatedly previously. Only difference - a few more satellites. That is not the technical challenge. That is simply an upgrade of existing technology.
Land a rocket on a launch pad? How many times was it attempted both before SpaceX and by Spacex? Multiple times before they were able to do what was being done on a smaller scale successfully elsewhere.
You are rationalizing to deny a reality. Hatred of net neutrality apparently comes from spending too much time being educated by Fox News and other extremists. Over a generation ago, hatred for destruction of net neutrality would have been the other UT.
Net neutrality made the internet successful (forced the entrenched communication companies to innovate) and created free market competition. Attacks on the free market eventually caused the demise of all but the entrenched two providers - who just happen to be the bigger campaign donors.
Nobody said wireless would make wired disappear. Due to 3G wireless, the business school graduates in Verizon finally conceded to and let fiber optics be installed. AT&T even sold the nations biggest ntwork to Comcast by sell it for half the price they paid for it.
Wireless did result in the demise of obsolete technology wired devices such as 56k modems and the hatred of packet switched technology. And forced the wired networks to start replacing obsolete circuit switched with packet switched.
Before 3G, even the chief scientist in the Bell Labs was ordered to be silent because he kept saying the smart network must be replaced by the dumb network. Wireless even resulted in those neanderthals to be replaced or concede.
We have been over this again and again. You just refuse to hear or remember it.
Satellites do not justify or make acceptable the destruction of free markets and net neutrality; as you keep trying to claim.
Gotta love everything that Musk attempts. We do need more like him. And, of course, he is an immigrant. So he must be evil - according to Fox News, et al
Now, again, why is Comcast NOT blocking other voice services, right now?
Don't talk about me, don't talk about children, don't talk about history, don't talk about emotion. It's a simple question, and you can either answer it in a single paragraph, pertaining only to the question, or you can say "I don't know" followed by nothing. Go.
Comcast was skewing packets and got caught. That does not change no matter how many times Fox News says otherwise.
Thanks for the reminder. You have failed to give us a link to any article showing this actually happened.
If you provide a link to a news article proving that Comcast did actually skew voice packets, I will donate $100 to a charity of your choice.
If you provide a link to a Fox News article saying despite protestations that they did, they actually did not, I will donate $300.
Go.
Now, again, why is Comcast NOT blocking other voice services, right now?
How many times over how many months must the same thing be repeated over and over. Comcast was not blocking services. Comcast was subverting them ... and got caught doing so.
Why is Comcast not subverting other voice services, right now?
As I recall Comcast was blocking streaming video, not voice.
Why is Comcast not subverting other voice services, right now?
Why are they no longer using the software they bought to do that? How many times must this be posted. They got caught and exposed.
Stop dodging and weaving and simply, logically, answer the question.
Why is Comcast not subverting other voice services, right now?
Special Counsel Undertoad has been examining the witness who has been evading a direct line of questioning. The Special Counsel has questioning options like fill in the blank (i.e. "Comcast is not subverting other voice services, right now; because, _________________________."), True - False questions and Multiple Choice questions. These options; however, risk leading the witness. There is much speculation on how the Special Counsel will proceed and bookmakers in Las Vegas are watching the situation closely.
Stop dodging and weaving and simply, logically, answer the question.
You are on trial for posting similar lies that also proved Saddam had WMDs. You even denied reality after George Jr admitted it was a lie.
Stop ignoring reality. Comcast was caught subverting internet traffic. Data Transporters must transport all data irregardless of its content. And since you do not get it, data transporters must transport data regardless of content - since that makes the internet successful and productive. Separation of data transporters and content providers make free market competition work. Extremists hate that.
Comcast can increase profits by subverting net neutrality. They even got some (people who can even be brainwashed by Fox News, Donald Trump, and Cheney lies) to believe that is good.
Answer the question. Why do you so hate free markets as to even want to destroy net neutrality? Why do you preach a mantra from Comcast to increase their profits? Why do you deny that net neutrality made the internet successful. Do you hate net neutrality (like an extremist) because Clinton's 1996 successful legislation made a previously stifled internet possible and successful? Clinton did it. So it must be wrong?
That destruction is what extremists advocate with propaganda (lies). Why do you hate free markets? Why do you constantly preach what Fox News, et al order you to believe?
Comcast is quite good at getting others to pay more by subverting net neutrality. Even Netflix conceded to their strongarm tactics. Net neutrality means Comcast must invest profits into their network rather than in Philadelphia's tallest skyscrapers, NBC, mobile phone companies, Universal Studios, sport teams, and who knows what else. Destroying net neutrality explains why Americans now pay so much for diminished service. UT says this is good.
Answer the question. Why do you recite monopolistic propaganda from extremists - and not the concepts that made America great? Did you not learn after "Saddam's WMD" lies that extremist propaganda explains your mistakes then - and now? Even after George Jr admitted it was a lie, you continued to preach right wing extremist rhetoric - refused to admit Saddam did not have those WMDs. Continued to believe Fox News, et al lies.
Answer the question. Why do you so hate free market competition. And rules that make that successful? And BTW, not apologize for mistakenly advocating the massacre of 5000 American servicemen in Iraq for no useful purpose. Extremists even lied about that. Why do you so hate net neutrality and resulting free market competition - as advocated by extremists? Why do you hate free markets made possible when and because laws created net neutrality?
The witness in Special Counsel Undertoad's investigation has been cited for contempt after witness impugned the integrity of the Special Counsel, in Trump-like fashion, to distract from witness noncooperation. The Court awaits Special Counsel Undertoad's report and recommendations as to whether or not the matter should be turned over to a Special Prosecutor. Bookmakers in Las Vegas are now giving odds on whether or not Special Counsel Undertoad would assume the Special Prosecutor role himself.
Stop ignoring reality. Comcast was caught subverting internet traffic.
Voice traffic, according to you - and it's an easy $100 if you can provide the link.
All tw's charities groan... no money for us, sob sob. :(
From an old NBC News report sometime at the end of 2007 and I believe originated by the
AP:
Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.
The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users.
If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling
blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file-sharing networks....
The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee.
Comcast's interference, on the other hand, appears to be an aggressive way of managing its network to keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers.
Comcast ... would not specifically address the practice, but spokesman Charlie Douglas confirmed that it uses sophisticated methods to keep Net connections running smoothly.
"Comcast does not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent," he said. Douglas would not specify what the company means by "access" ...
Comcast did not block web sites as UT constantly misrepresents. Comcast subtly subverted traffic trying to make not obvious what they were doing. They skewed or subverted traffic - which violated the concepts of net neutrality. Of course, they would not subvert net neutrality if free market competition existed. All but the duopoly was quashed in the George Jr era.
As repeatedly discussed back then and today, net neutrality means Comcast invests profits in their network. Instead, Comcast offers less service to milk a massive expansion buying other businesses and real estate. Net neutrality only gets in the way of corporate takeovers - the expansion of their monopoly.
To harm net neutrality, one never blocks access. Destruction of net neutrality is a slow and subtle process starting with tactics such as intermittent skewing of Skype packets. And then restricting (not blocking - restricting) access of some content providers - especially those that might compete with Comcast's new 'content provider' businesses. Profits must be protected by subverting net neutrality.
We know Comcast was caught doing these two corrupt actions. They are not dumb. Other actions would be or are ongoing without us knowing. But what we do know - S Korea got about five times more data access for about one-fifth the cost. S Korean internet providers were upgrading their network - not buying TV networks, movie studios, mobile phone providers, building massive skyscrapers, etc.
To get its acquisition of BellSouth Corp. approved by the Federal Communications Commission, AT&T agreed in late 2006 not to implement such plans or prioritize traffic based on its origin for two and a half years. However, it did not make any commitments not to prioritize traffic based on its type, which is what Comcast is doing. ...
Paul "Tony" Watson, a network security engineer at Google Inc. who has previously studied ways hackers could disrupt Internet traffic in manner similar to the method Comcast is using, said the cable company was probably acting within its legal rights.
Ashwin Navin (of BitTorrent) ... confirmed that it has noticed interference from Comcast, in addition to some Canadian Internet service providers.
"They're using sophisticated technology to degrade service, which probably costs them a lot of money. It would be better to see them use that money to improve service," Navin said, noting that BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer applications are a major reason consumers sign up for broadband.
And yes, IEEE Spectrum confirmed that Comcast (and others) had purchased software to do just that. We discussed published facts about ten years ago. UT immediately denied it then - without any facts. He just knew; then and today.
Comcast terminated any exposed practices. How many others have not been exposed? We have no idea how many other shenanigans Comcast has done. But we do know such practices become a normal business practice when free market competition does not exist.
Consumer costs increased much faster than inflation. Netflix finally conceded to Comcast's strongarm tactics. Netflix paid for the network upgrades that were once paid by 'data transporters' - who did not use profits to buy other corporations and skyscrapers.
All this constantly denied by UT back then and today. We know that a free market was created by 1996 laws that created net neutrality and forced the so many 'we fear to innovate' companies to stop stifling packet switching and finally provide that 15 year old broadband. Subverting those 1996 laws and regulations (that once made rapid internet growth possible) has hindered internet growth and has created duopolies - that UT says are good. Why are the duopolies so expensive? There is longer free market competition. And UT says that is good - because Fox News said so.
Plenty of other sources also noted examples of net neutrality. But not extremist propaganda machines such as Fox News.
Correct! Comcast throttled BitTorrent, which congested its networks in 2012, making it harder to provide other services. That is the biggest example of an ACTUAL net neutrality violation in history.
But nowhere, in all that bluster, is a link to say Comcast was subverting VOICE traffic.
The software they may have bought (all this is from a lone press release from the company trying to sell them software) was for VOICE traffic, not BitTorrent. But we have no evidence they actually bought it, and no evidence they ever subverted voice traffic.
Understand this: it is utterly utterly trivial to detect throttling with packet sniffing software.
But evidence is not your strong suit. I ask for simple evidence, easy to provide. You just go off on a pathetic rant, believing that somehow that is evidence.
So: another failure, and no money for your charities.
How many times are you going to misremember this information?
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.
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?
The 2006 thread is quite a treat
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
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
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
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.
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.:eyebrow:
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.
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?
Happy one year anniversary of the end of FCC regulations on net neutrality, everybody!
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.
Business school grads, and emotional children, and business-for-profit, oh my!!
Nothing!
That's what I thought.
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.
The reality is we don't know what they are actually doing.
We only know if they are found out, there is no consequences.
No consequences! What a perfect bogeyman.
Networks do not work like anything else we have generally encountered. All the models in our head are wrong.
The truth is, if we didn't find anything out, it means the network operated correctly.
A network is judged by whether it can deliver correct timely traffic or not. If there are fast and slow lanes in the network, for the purpose of shaping the network traffic, but the bits get to us on time, and are accurate -- excellent! That is the only measure of the network that matters.
One of the huge ironies of net neutrality that it is never practiced in large internal networks. If it makes sense for traffic to have a fast lane, we make sure it has a fast lane. Otherwise shit breaks!
Nothing!
How curious. That is exactly what Saddam had. So you finally learned that word.
A network is judged by whether it can deliver correct timely traffic or not. If there are fast and slow lanes in the network, for the purpose of shaping the network traffic, but the bits get to us on time, and are accurate -- excellent! That is the only measure of the network that matters.
AT&T once had this same problem. They did not install enough 'lanes'. So Mother's Day, especially, was once always a challenge. AT&T even kept using, for example, obsolete technology microwaves.
Once AT&T had competition, then suddenly plenty more lanes were added (ie Sprint's pin drop). Suddenly Mother's Day was never a problem. Then no more fast and slow lanes were required. And suddenly we discovered the price of a phone call from Philadelphia to NYC was same as the actual cost of a call from Philadelphia to Sydney Australia. (AT&T also wanted that reality hidden from us.)
A network is judged by whether it invests in its infrastructure. Fast and slow lanes are how 'bean counter' games are played. Then they need not invest in more lanes - to increase profits - and to add surcharges.
UT is reciting myths that exist today due to reduced competition (harm to net neutrality) almost 20 years ago. Back then, UT was also using the 'nothing' word. But ten years later, that nothing because increased costs. America's internet then dropped from #1 in the world.
Backbone providers are not making UT's mythical fears. Only companies that 'attack net neutrality to increase profits' are making claims so similar to the Saddam had WMD' myths and 'smoking cigarettes increase health' myths. Those myths also promoted only by those who would reap higher profits even at the expense of their customers / supporters.
Similar lies were also promoted to stifle the internet. Then net neutrality was created - free markets. Suddenly communication that was limited to 36k and 56k modems was replaced by technology that had been stifled for 15 years - 2000k modems. But it must be wrong. Net neutrality does not make good things happen. The duopolies say so. It must be true.
Back then, to not provide more lanes, then AT&T even silenced their chief scientist in the Bell Labs. He was also defining the only problem - lack of investment and lack of innovation.
Another example: Same people who stifled the internet also claimed COs were under threat from too many modems. We also had that discussion here. UT, back then, was also brainwashed by
that telco myth. That 'easily swallowed myth' was created to justify price increases and surcharges. Deja Vue telephony.
Problems in a network only exist when a 'bean counter' mentality stifles investment in the infrastructure. Exactly what the duopolies need to increase profits - so as to even buy the backbone companies and further subvert net neutrality. Adding more lanes means less money to buy into sport teams and skyscrapers.
Shameful is how easily UT falls again for obvious lies. He said eliminating competition would decrease internet prices. Almost 20 years later and prices have now more than doubled. He forgets that only bean counter types and their brainwashed minions judge things only a year later.
Yes, telcos once demanded price increases due to so many modems. UT also believed that lie created by no free market competition and stifled innovation. Net neutrality also exposed and deleted that obvious lie. UT did not learn from that mistake. The problem was solved by net neutrality and resulting free market competition.
[SIZE="5"]UT[/SIZE]
(An unauthorized biography)
[SIZE="4"]UT[/SIZE] is reciting myths that exist today. Back then, UT was also using the 'nothing' word. Backbone providers are not making UT's mythical fears. UT, back then, was also brainwashed by that telco myth. Shameful is how easily UT falls again for obvious lies. UT also believed that lie created by no free market competition and stifled innovation. UT did not learn from that mistake.
The End
Amazon looking to launch 3,236 low-orbit satellites
You see,
There is no point in providers limiting the Internet they give to people.
5G. Low-earth orbit satellite. Or wired. Ten years from now, the only selling point each will have is that they are able to give MORE of it to you than the competition.
This is not going to be a fight over how slow or limited they can be in order to eke out cash. All winners will be very fast and completely unlimited. The only fight will be between very fast and extremely goddamn fast.
*except when limited by governments, which in the case of satellite will be interesting
"*except when limited by governments, which in the case of satellite will be interesting"
Well, when the government discovers that they can take a slice of the money as well, they'd definitely limit it.
They can't. The communication is to a satellite, instead of the local phone company which they operate or regulate.
gonna be hella interesting
They are going to expect me to check email when I am in the boonies
"They can't. The communication is to a satellite, instead of the local phone company which they operate or regulate.
gonna be hella interesting"
Well, let's wait and see how far they're willing to go to regulate things further.
By the way, is the do we have the fastest internet connection in the whole world?
"We" being America? Definitely not.
Just think, only a couple years ago we were number 14, and now were all the way up to number 20. Yay team! USA! USA!
We care about Mbps because we were told that was the number to care about, and I suppose in one sense it is the best available metric.
But if you have a 6 lane driveway connected to a 2 lane road, the 6 lanes aren't very interesting...
And if the road has 6 lanes but only goes to Schenectady that isn't very interesting...
If you only have one car, and the speed limit is 15, the number of lanes is entirely irrelevant.
Streaming HD video takes about 5Mbps, Ultra HD takes about 25Mbps, nothing else that is transferred takes that level of bandwidth for an extended period of time.
So, in 2019, if you have 25Mbps and are only using it yourself, there will be zero difference to you if you move to a 1000Mbps connection. The experience will be identical.
You may have to buy 1000 to get 25, though.
So, in 2019, if you have 25Mbps and are only using it yourself, there will be zero difference to you if you move to a 1000Mbps connection.
Because the ISPs backbone is also not being upgraded as it is elsewhere in the world.
Long before benefits of higher speed can be realized, first those higher speeds must be available.
Using your logic, we should all still be using 2 Mb DSL. Since that also did everything we needed fast enough. Since that even permitted 'movies on demand' in the 1980s. Proof that we never needed any faster internet then or today. Clearly high speed internet has been a scam.
Using your logic, we do not need 5G phones. 3G has always been more than sufficient. It is good that Huawei has wasted all that money to become the world leader in mobile phones. Nobody needs it.
Nobody needs more than 140 characters to make valid statements. Trump proves it. It must be true.
Hey, those countries that have more bandwidth than us, what are they doing with it that we aren't doing with ours?
*crickets*
~
In the past, there were always times where you could say, "If only everybody had 10 times the bandwidth, we'd be able to give them X". In 1995 we said that about images on web pages. In 1998 we said that about large images on web pages. In 2003 we said that about streaming audio. In 2010 we said that about streaming video. But in 2019, we don't say that about anything in particular.
Funny thing, innovation. Doesn't always go in a straight line.
~
Think about it, porn always leads the way in communication technologies. But there is nobody (AFAIK) offering any porn that's more bandwidth-consuming than your average Netflix.
My friend has gigabit internet from FIOS, he actually HAS 10 times the bandwidth than we do. Where is his porn app that uses all that bandwidth? There isn't one! What does he do with his gigabit service? Same thing we all do, and he uses the same amount of bandwidth doing it.
You may have to buy 1000 to get 25, though.
I have 100 up and down from Verizon because I subscribed to 75 up and down, but they decided to move everyone with 75 up to 100 at the same price.
Sam Knows tells be it hasn't dropped below 98 in the last six months.
Evidently this throttling has not become a noticeable problem so far, all hail the wise toad. However, it bothers me that they have this in their arsenal, why would they spend millions fighting this restriction if they weren't going to use it? Just to have it as an option? Just because they fight any and all regulation?
I had to laugh at the commercials for online gambling in NJ. They have various supposedly real players telling you it's safe and honest yada yada yada. Then one woman comes up with,"It's regulated by the state". :facepalm:
Hey, those countries that have more bandwidth than us, what are they doing with it that we aren't doing with ours?
*crickets*
~
In the past, there were always times where you could say, "If only everybody had 10 times the bandwidth, we'd be able to give them X". In 1995 we said that about images on web pages. In 1998 we said that about large images on web pages. In 2003 we said that about streaming audio. In 2010 we said that about streaming video. But in 2019, we don't say that about anything in particular.
I hear ya. I just wish my streaming videos wouldn't auto-drop in quality every couple of minutes while the buffering catches back up. It goes blurry for 10 seconds at a time and it's annoying. First world problems, I know.
They want to stream games now, but the main problem there is latency, not bandwidth.
They want to stream games now, but the main problem there is latency, not bandwidth.
It makes sense. Gamers pay a premium of $500-$1000 to have a PC that can render the 3D video needed to play top games. If you could share the rendering hardware over many gamers, you could turn it into an affordable thing.
You can solve the latency problem partly by giving gaming packets priority, or routing them differently. Guarantee they arrive first, as opposed to all the applications that are bursty and don't mind waiting 100ms for their packet to arrive.
But net neutrality prevents that
Hey, those countries that have more bandwidth than us, what are they doing with it that we aren't doing with ours?
Ignored: who are now world leaders in internet devices? China is now the world leader in 5G. Korea is now the world leader in mobile phones. Industries that made America great are being surrendered by business school graduates (ie Trump).
What did UT says about all this? crickets. UT please learn facts before posting. You made this same mistake with Saddam's WMDs.
Using UTs logic, we don't need no sticking internet. 2 Mb DSL was always sufficient even to do Netflix products in the 1980s. Obsolete technologies are just fine using UT's logic. UT must ignore that major fault in his reasoning.
Let's stifle innovation by subverting free market competition - Republican party propaganda. UT says that is also good. Net neutrality that finally made the internet possible and popular (after 15 years of being stifled) must be destroyed. Net neutrality that resulted in sufficient bandwidth for everyone is somehow now wrong. More UT reasoning.
They want to stream games now, but the main problem there is latency, not bandwidth.
Latency exists (in part) due to restricted bandwidth.
You can have 100 Mb connection from a CMTS to your computer. Does not matter if a best connection to that sever must take alternative routes to the CMTS due to insufficient bandwidth.
Why are so many just beginning to see 100 Mb? Because it was standard 10 years ago in other nations.
why would they spend millions fighting this restriction if they weren't going to use it? Just to have it as an option? Just because they fight any and all regulation?
Basically what the companies want to do is to develop premium services not permitted under the rules. Gaming, online surgery, driving, these have different networking needs and can't be handled neutrally.
Here is a set of 5 arguments in favor of ending net neutrality. (There is a part 2 page linked at the bottom, with the arguments against it.)
The pro argument is never aired. We have not heard the argument stated properly. The media should help us out here, but it is broken by an activism bubble and doesn't even know what the pro argument are.
Basically what the companies want to do is to develop premium services not permitted under the rules.
So they can spend less money on the backbone and spend more money on skyscrapers, TV network, movie studios and theme parks, mobile phone companies, satellite companies, and other investments.
Then charge priority price increases because capital upgrades were withheld from the backbone. Why, in the early days, was the backbone so robust? Because companies had to provide more than sufficient bandband for lower prices. Net neutrality. Free market competition existed - created by net neutrality.
Why were we using 33K and 56K modems over a decade after 2 Mb service was possible? No net neutrality. Companies could even charge a premium for inferior priority service (ISDN, ATM, Sonet). UT wants to go back to those days because corporate spin says that was good.
UT's belief in priority surcharges says free market competition is bad. He even loves it that most everyone only has two internet providers - if they have any at all. He also loves the duopoly that created massive price increases for cable TV and internet. UT actually approves of American now falling to number 20 in the world. He ignored that reality with more corporate lies.
You don't need more internet bandwdith. You cannot be trusted with world standard speeds.
Let's make it even worse. Let's get rid of net neutrality so that Netflix, et al must pay for more Comcast Skyscrapers. Net neutrality means they must, instead, invest that money into their network.
They would have to invest in new innvotions? Investing and upgrading their networks (due to free market competition) would only hurt profits. OMG!
The pro argument is never aired. We have not heard the argument stated properly. The media should help us out here, but it is broken by an activism bubble and doesn't even know what the pro argument are.
Thanks UT, that's really interesting. You're right, I don't think I'm alone in being unaware of those arguments. I'm not sure I agree with them but I'm glad to be aware of them.
It makes sense. Gamers pay a premium of $500-$1000 to have a PC that can render the 3D video needed to play top games. If you could share the rendering hardware over many gamers, you could turn it into an affordable thing.
You can solve the latency problem partly by giving gaming packets priority, or routing them differently. Guarantee they arrive first, as opposed to all the applications that are bursty and don't mind waiting 100ms for their packet to arrive.
But net neutrality prevents that
ORLY?
Like net neutrality poisons the other, even more ubiquitous latency-sensitive IP traffic, VOIP?
VoIP is improved by prioritization and on private networks it often is. At the moment VoIP takes up 1/1000th of a UHD video stream so its issues are old news.
Gaming is a full HD video stream (in the case of the app I'm talking about) and more latency sensitive than VoIP. If VoIP encounters network jitter it sounds bad for a moment. If gamers encounter network jitter they die.
One gamer's death is another gamer's "Suck it!"
How are they going to be able to attribute it to network jitter?
Real question, not baiting you.
In a lot of games, you can actually see network lag visibly. You make moves and the server doesn't pick them up quickly, so it fails to correctly calculate your angle and position, and the game has to adjust for it. Your car or your character goes a little herky-jerky.
Gamers and their communities go into wild details with these things. Every microsecond counts in twitchy games. In the game I follow (PUBG), players determined that video frame rates were affecting the fire rates of automatic weapons. Like, if you had a good video card and got 80 frames per second, you had a tiny advantage over the person getting 60 frames per second. The game was doing something like waiting for the next frame to draw before firing the next round, something like that, so the difference between 1/60th of a second and 1/80th of a second became meaningful.
VoIP is improved by prioritization ...
That is only necessary when bandwidth is restricted - because someone was not investing in the infrastructure.
Latency is even a problem on highways when roads are not built or expanded.
Bandwidth is the solution. Priority is to mask and charge more because bandwidth was not increased.
Goes both ways, Sparky: congestion can be avoided and mitigated by traffic shaping.
Your solution is to make every road a highway. That would mostly work -- but is wildly expensive. It's a child's solution: gosh, just make everything bigger and faster! And if you had unlimited resources, maybe you would.
My real world solution is to install ramp meters, high-speed passing lanes, and bus lanes. This allows the existing highway to carry more people, with rules that help both the fast cars and the slow buses.
(And the slow busses.)
Your solution is to make every road a highway. That would mostly work -- but is wildly expensive.
Total nonsense. That is what net neutrality cured. It provided consumers with 2 Mb data access when everyone was limited to about 0.04 Mb. And when that 2 Mb technology was available 15 years earlier. Net neutrality mades highways instead of stop lights.
You have again posted the myth that we debunked many times previously. Death of distance. Cost of a data transmission is same from the Cellar to NYC as it is from the Cellar to Sydney Australia. Highways also mean greater reliability. It means everything is not at 100% - repeatedly suffering from latency - faults and other problems in normal operation do not cause congestion.
Once upon a time, AT&T used your reasoning. And so Mothers Day became a serious network problem. What fixed it? Free market competition. Competitors were permitted. They concentrated on the product (ie network) rather than profits. Therefore competitors were making profits with superior service (ie Sprint's quality so clean that one could hear a pin drop). And AT&T kept selling off divisions to claim that as profits. And even kept wasting money upgrading microwave towers.
Things got so bad in AT&T that their CFO, one day, leaned over to Sandy Weil (a board member) and whispered, "We cannot meet our short term debt obligations." Rather then invest in their network, AT&T had so cost controlled everything that they could not meet payments on their three month bonds.
No problem. They were running their network at near 100% capacity most often. So spread sheets said profits had been maximized. Purpose was profits; not the product.
Yes, that happens when one uses your cost control reasoning rather than invest in the product. Net neutrality means a network that always has sufficient bandwidth. And therefore no or minimal latency. Customers paid less money to companies that were profitable.
That was until Michael Powell, et al, attacked net neutrality so that everyone can only have two internet providers. Powell's, et al reasoning - only two companies will be more profitable. And so
TV cable that once was $8 per month is somewhere well above $50 - and rising to pay for skyscrapers, broadcast networks, and theme parks.
Throttling (also called priority pricing) is what business school graduates love. Minimal network that runs at 100% and does not provide service to everyone every time. Then both consumers and content providers can be surcharged. Prices go up - because the purpose is only profits.
Satellites do something similar for completely different reasons. Priority service is not based in using everything 100% of the time. Priority is an insurance policy - for reliability - to improve the product - not profits.
A Bastille Day event being a classic example. AT&T was the only satellite operator that did not configure their birds for a major sun spot emission. Therefore both AT&T satellites were damaged.
Certain customers (ie broadcasters) sign agreements on other birds. So networks like PBS and CBS moved their network to other birds. Service remains reliable. Priority used as insurance. Not for profits.
Some less priority systems (ie ATM networks) temporarily surrendered their transponders. Priority is not for normal operation. Priority is for the rare or catastrophic event. An insurance policy or a futures contract. Profits are not the purpose - as UT's reasoning is based. The product - in this case reliability - is the only reason for responsible priority scheduling. And that only works when networks (ie highways) have enough bandwidth (roads and bridges) so that latency also is not a normal event.
As a result, some hedge funds hold transponders (that do nothing most of the time) as an insurance policy should another bird fail. IOW excess capacity (not priority pricing to maximize profits) is held in reserve to address the product - to make that network more reliable.
Priority charging, as promoted by UT, is how to increase profits without investing capital in the product. Just another way to get more money to buy theme parks and skyscrapers.
Even latency is only a problem when cost controls have diminished available bandwidth. It does not happen with net neutrality and the resulting free market competition.
It always comes down to this question. What is the purpose of a company: its profits or its product? UT advocates increases profits. Consumers then pay more to have same service. Then Comcast can buy more food companies.
My yawn is now the size of the Grand Canyon, but:
Cost of a data transmission is same from the Cellar to NYC as it is from the Cellar to Sydney Australia
No variable costs. But there are the fixed costs of the undersea cables you need to lay, in order to guarantee low latency, via always having an overage of bandwidth.
Each one is hundreds of millions of dollars, and you need multiple of them to every connection point on every continent, and you need to build enough bandwidth into them for a world that will require more and more bandwidth. Requiring you to lay new cables... they estimate, every 25 years.
Because the bandwidth requirements increase exponentially. The people require more bandwidth, but there are also more connected people. Each cable you lay to one continent increases the bandwidth requirements to every other continent.
Meanwhile, The Cellar is now located on a virtual server in Newark. Cellar to NYC is over super high-capacity circuits and it's just across the Hudson. You may see a ping of 3-4ms. Any Manhattan dwellars here?
That was not only in the grey on the [post=1036468]improved pyramid[/post], the yawn has it bordering on white. We'll call it: gris supérieur.
Each one is hundreds of millions of dollars, and you need multiple of them to every connection point on every continent, and you need to build enough bandwidth into them for a world that will require more and more bandwidth. Requiring you to lay new cables... they estimate, every 25 years.
Now I feel bad as my favorite porn site is in Australia. :o
Bezos and Musk’s satellite internet could save Americans $30B a year
Competition drives pricing, and everyone is going to get two more competitors in 5-10 years.
Bezos and Musk’s satellite internet could save Americans $30B a year
Starlink was suppose to fill the sky with many tiny satellites. But I have notices a trend. For weeks, no visible Starlinks. Suddenly, over a 20 minute period, over 24 appeared in a group. Most only in a 5 minute period. How long before these 'space out'?
Satellite constellations from Amazon, SpaceX, and Oneweb do not talk directly to handsets. These talk to ground stations. Gateways that, in turn, retransmit to other receivers.
More problems exist. Many countries have not authorized frequencies for these satellite. So ech must turn off when over certain countries.
A satellite that can talk directly to phones (as Iridium must do do) still must be quite large. And must support 2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G technologies.
Companies such a Vodafone and Rakuten are working together to develop a technology that does not require ground stations.
There are only a few hundred up right now,
another 60 going up on Saturday morning.Net neutrality update:
Nothing has happened
in fact we had a lockdown in which everyone worked from home and streamed video all day long
no blocking, no throttling, no pay for play!!
So. What new political boogeymen are we worried about today, that will turn out to be nothing?
Net neutrality update:
Nothing has happened
in fact we had a lockdown in which everyone worked from home and streamed video all day long
no blocking, no throttling, no pay for play!!
So. What new political boogeymen are we worried about today, that will turn out to be nothing?
Download 1.27 Mbps
Upload .29Mbps
Well it is the same... but I wouldn't say everyone worked from home and streamed video all day. I was usually able to stream a low quality video. I have a cell booster now which improves that option a bit (3 bars now) but we don't have an unlimited data option so that's limited.
I think most of us have too much on our plates right now for boogeymen. I guess the left has Trump refusing to leave and the right has fear of masks.
... and the right has fear of masks.
Well sure, for a long time the people wearing masks were either bandits or doctors and they both took all your money.
So. What new political boogeymen are we worried about today, that will turn out to be nothing?
He fails to grasp the purpose of subverting net neutrality. It is to increase profits.
Net neutrality update:
Nothing has happened
in fact we had a lockdown in which everyone worked from home and streamed video all day long
no blocking, no throttling, no pay for play!!
So. What new political boogeymen are we worried about today, that will turn out to be nothing?
Izatso...
AT&T and Verizon both torture the meaning of the word “unlimited” by offering multiple unlimited plans. But the more expensive ones are either paired with the company’s own streaming service, or the companies degrade the quality of the video under certain conditions. These practices may give the carrier’s content an advantage in the marketplace over smaller, independent video producers.
Sprint has been throttling internet traffic to Microsoft’s Skype service, causing the video quality to be poorer than it should be, which is especially worrisome because Skype is a tool that competes with Sprint’s calling service. These are only two examples of how companies can favor their own content over competitors’ without rules forbidding this behavior.
Comcast has new speed limits where videos will be throttled to 480p on all its mobile plans unless customers pay extra.
A recent study shows that the largest U.S. telecom companies, including Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, are slowing down internet traffic from apps like YouTube and Netflix.
Verizon’s throttling of services even affected the Santa Clara County Fire Department’s ability to provide emergency services during the California wildfires. The fire department experienced slowed down speeds on their devices and had to sign up for a new, expensive plan before speeds were restored.
Redditor AbeFroman21 posted that he and his family are without power or internet due to Hurricane Florence, and that Verizon has throttled their internet access to an unusable trickle, offering to unblock them if they pay for a higher tier of service.
CenturyLink briefly disabled the Internet connections of customers in Utah last week and allowed them back online only after they acknowledged an offer to purchase filtering software.
Doesn't sound like nothing to me.:eyebrow:
Net neutrality rules never applied to wireless service, and that's 6 out of 7 of these claims, most of which are from 2018.
Net neutrality rules never applied to wireless service,
That explains why violations of net neutrality are most egregious on wireless services.
Net neutrality rules never applied to wireless service, and that's 6 out of 7 of these claims, most of which are from 2018.
And never will since the FCC lost control. The commerce Commission sure as hell won't slow them down.
EDit: Also, 2018 doesn't matter they started disemboweling the FCC in 2017 right after the election and killing net neutrality shifting to commerce means the damage can't be undone without an act of congress.
But how about those items huh.
The meaning of "Unlimited" has nothing to do with net neutrality, it's a marketing issue which belongs with the FTC, not FCC. But also, it's now 2020 and Verizon has only one Unlimited. I have this plan. It's unlimited.
Sprint throttling traffic to Skype was a
claim from researchers collating information from a third-party app, and Sprint disputed the results. But more than that,
[researchers] added that they could not reproduce the crowd-sourced results when running their own tests on a Sprint data plan, leading them to assume that the throttling was only occurring on certain types of plans.
The researchers themselves could not reproduce their findings. That's... unimpressive.
We already went over reducing video sizes over mobile
in this thread, and why they were a benefit to everyone in 2018 and not a net neutrality violation.
We already went over the Santa Clara firefighters
in this thread. It had nothing to do with net neutrality.
Centurylink blocked people in UT based on their understanding or misunderstanding of a UT state law requiring customers to opt-out of filtering. This has nothing to do with net neutrality.
Finally, a Redditor claimed he didn't get good wireless service during a hurricane, LOL. Are you fuckin' kidding me? This has nothing to do with net neutrality.
~
I am done here. This is my last post on this topic. Please, by all means, have the final words, and enjoy the thread in the future without my input.