The Spirited Back Nine ...

[PhotoDave219]

FUD - The problem is lumping everything under one umbrella... so people take their fringe stuff and attack the bigger picture.

The problem with the proposals is they force uniformity... and not necessarily GOOD uniformity.. but it would be uniform.. isn't that special?

Would the world be better if we forced all airlines to only offer coach class? Airline neutrality!
Would the world be better if we only had one flavor of ice cream? We couldn't allow vendors to discriminate against different brands or flavors could we? Flavor neutrality for all!!

What people fail to comprehend is.. when you try to force uniformity or equality... you eliminate both stuff above AND below the line.

Imagine being a hosting company... and being told you have to add capacity for anyone who walks up and says "give me a port" on the same terms you agreed to with someone who actually helps you? Imagine no longer being able to horse trade services that benefit you as a way of offsetting costs.

No one wants discrimination against certain traffic - the problem is the ideal doesn't work uncapped and in universal terms.

Wait until you all cry because your neighbor is saturating the network and the ISP can't do anything about it.. except reduce the amount of oversubscription they do... hence driving up YOUR costs. Ya! Net neutrality... higher costs... but we can all hug a tree and say we did the right thing.

There's no need to defend Comcast.

 

[PhotoDave219]

See my earlier posts about people defending when they don't even understand it. Just because I make an infographic or comic it doesn't mean I know w t h I'm talking about.



Another gross simplification that is full of inaccuracies and totally misses the unintended consequences of what they preach.

Here's a simple one for people... QoS - it's not a new idea, and it would not be allowed under 'all data is equal' mentality.

Second - the utility analogies are poor.. because if you pay attention to your bill, you aren't paying for bit consumption from your ISP.. but you are paying for watt Consumption from your electric company. And just because Telsa comes along and says 'you really want this new super high load service' (aka netflix) the electric company doesn't have to come and upgrade the wires to your house just because you bought a telsa. You want more conduit.. you have to pay for it.

And the big threat of 'if we don't have this... they COULD DO THIS..' - could do? They've already been operating all this time without any regulation preventing those behaviors... in a period where competition for providers was WORSE than it is now. There is a reason providers haven't done these things.. and it's not some fictitious regulation that existing before.

These videos and the like are popular because they are one way propaganda that can't be contested or challenged with counter points.

Make a cool video... make it catchy.. and promote! Throw a couple FUD bits in there.. and you'll be the darling of the social media circles.

simple explainers are better than ignorance. At least this is bringing some sense of awareness to the issue.

It sounds to me like you are completely in favor of Comcast screwing us…

 

[flynnibus]

Please explain...
Because the whole point/problem ISP have with net neutrality is regulation. They want to be FREE to charge whatever they want whether it be to you or the content provider.

No - this is not the premise, nor what triggered this whole thing. They've been FREE to do that since they got into the business. Have they? This is the kind of thinking that has been promoted through the propoganda about what you need to stand up and ensure doesn't happen!!! Yet, has been able to happen since day one and doesn't happen. Why? Because the cons out weigh the pros.

Oh and wait until you sign up for this neutrality and realize it doesn't apply to traffic the regulators don't think you should have.

I won't derail this thread here more.. I would say start a thread on it, but I guess its too political even for chat.

 

[ford91exploder]

Again see 'rule of unintended consequences'



Dream about... and the stuff online would make you believe they DID with netflix... but in reality they did not. They did not throttle or squash netflix traffic. What they did was stop adding bandwidth for free to the peering points with the content networks built out to distribute netflix. They refused to keep adding bandwidth even tho the network was hitting saturation. And why should they have to? Because the 'old rules' said they should? The only rules don't apply when you change the game. The oft cited 'handshake agreements' no longer apply when you change the game at hand.



Yet advocates would say "they are asking for bits to be paid for twice' - which is not the case... people aren't paying per bit delievered, they are paying for access of a certain tier... access at a consumer level that is built out and sold with the built-in premise of oversubscription and commodity level service. But you won't find that in any of the youtube videos. If you want SLAs and full speed access... most ISPs will be happy to sell that to you. The sheep want to DEMAND that's what they are getting with their cable modem - but its not.. no matter how much they stomp their feet.



More like.. at some point they have to make a stand. And they did. We've heard for a decade+ now how the ISPs are going throttle traffic to protect their baseband video customer base. It didn't happen... and there wasn't any 'net neutrality' that saved us. It was the retionalship between ISPs and customers that ISPs have to face that saved us from that.



Apples and Pineapples there...

In the case of Netflix vs Verizon - Verizon REFUSED the offer of caching hardware and even when Netflix OFFERED to install upgraded ports FOR FREE in the exchange. VZ refused. It was simply a cash grab on Verizon's part. Netflix PAID and VZ still throttled them.

http://www.extremetech.com/computin...raffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth

 

[PhotoDave219]

No - this is not the premise, nor what triggered this whole thing. They've been FREE to do that since they got into the business. Have they? This is the kind of thinking that has been promoted through the propoganda about what you need to stand up and ensure doesn't happen!!! Yet, has been able to happen since day one and doesn't happen. Why? Because the cons out weigh the pros.

Oh and wait until you sign up for this neutrality and realize it doesn't apply to traffic the regulators don't think you should have.

I won't derail this thread here more.. I would say start a thread on it, but I guess its too political even for chat.

Okay hold on for a second… Now baron mind I'm in the car, on Florida's Turnpike trying to read this in between stretches of traffic…

Let's get on the same page here. What do you feel that neutrality is? And if you could keep it brief so I can read it quickly…

This is a worthwhile conversation and is mostly being respectful and it's important for all of us.

 

[wdisney9000]

The fight against Net Neutrality is all about $$$$, nothing more.

 

[flynnibus]

The reality is US ISP's stopped building capacity around the end of the tech bubble 2001-3, Now they are screaming because the new services require basically new buildouts of network capacity which would have been affordable had they kept upgrading and expanding plant and equipment.

Now everything is a decade old and they want to keep showing Wall St their stellar financial performance which largely was achieved through cuts in CAPEX. So now we see caps and 'fast lanes' and BRAVO-SIERRA arguments about how they will no longer be able to afford to build networks.

Now you are blurring the topics of build out to the customers with something we have been talking about with exchanges. The laying of fiber is only one element (the common reference about the glut of bw) - it does not speak to about the premise side of the equation nor the actual handlings and owning of that bw. Fiber isn't the constraint in the exchange or long haul areas - to the residence is a different topic all together.

And the build outs are still going... as fast as ever. Datacenter builds and density continue to expand. The density and proximity of content is what is changing and challenging the classic data exchange ideals.

I said I'd stop... and I'm stopping

 

[PrincessNelly_NJ]

No - this is not the premise, nor what triggered this whole thing. They've been FREE to do that since they got into the business. Have they? This is the kind of thinking that has been promoted through the propoganda about what you need to stand up and ensure doesn't happen!!! Yet, has been able to happen since day one and doesn't happen. Why? Because the cons out weigh the pros.

Oh and wait until you sign up for this neutrality and realize it doesn't apply to traffic the regulators don't think you should have.

I won't derail this thread here more.. I would say start a thread on it, but I guess its too political even for chat.

Again, explain further.

 

[PrincessNelly_NJ]

Now you are blurring the topics of build out to the customers with something we have been talking about with exchanges. The laying of fiber is only one element (the common reference about the glut of bw) - it does not speak to about the premise side of the equation nor the actual handlings and owning of that bw. Fiber isn't the constraint in the exchange or long haul areas - to the residence is a different topic all together.

And the build outs are still going... as fast as ever. Datacenter builds and density continue to expand. The density and proximity of content is what is changing and challenging the classic data exchange ideals.

I said I'd stop... and I'm stopping

No, don't stop... We clearly don't agree on the subject but people shouldn't back down from their opinions. And sometimes hearing other sides is beneficial. Nothing wrong with a little debate. Sometimes debates teach us things we didn't know!

 

[lazyboy97o]

Can you imagine Comcast being able to promote Universal's stuff over Disney's? How does that seem okay?

Which law or regulations require the Comcast owned USA Network to air Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean films? Is Disney owned ABC Family required to air Warner's Harry Potter films with ads for Universal Orlando Resort? As @flynnibus has stated, what you describe is and has been legal but hasn't been done because it would be bad for business.

 

[PrincessNelly_NJ]

Which law or regulations require the Comcast owned USA Network to air Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean films? Is Disney owned ABC Family required to air Warner's Harry Potter films with ads for Universal Orlando Resort? As @flynnibus has stated, what you describe is and has been legal but hasn't been done because it would be bad for business.

No, I'm not talking about TV. I'm talking about the internet.
Just what they do with the internet.

 

[lazyboy97o]

No, I'm not talking about TV. I'm talking about the internet.
Just what they do with the internet.

Yes, but it's something they can also do with TV. Comcast is not required to carry Disney owned channels or air Disney content on their own channels, and yet they do because it is good for business. Same reason they don't currently block Disney content online even though it is and has been legal to do just that.

 

[SirLink]

What about a story of a group of friends who have come together, had their personal differences, grown as individuals, and as friends in their common love and support of family. The friends go through love, loss, abandonment, finding their place in a world as their family grows up and moves along with their lives. Friends who are willing to accept their mortality, and who learn to accept their place in an evolving world, as long as they stay true to each other.

I said morality BTW .....

I don't think that's "grey" enough for what@SirLink had in mind, but let's let him answer for himself.

E.g.1.
Imagine a "hero" character portrayed quite sincere, throughout the film you see the "villain" torching villages and killing villagers. At the end of the film the "villain" kills the "hero" and the kingdom cheers.

E.g.2.
A captain of a ship and crew goes off to find a treasure, the captain begins to get greedy kills off his crew gradually over the course of the film to keep the cross for himself, in the end not only does he get to keep the tresure but go home and buys himself a knighthood.

 

[sshindel]

I said morality BTW .....

There were plenty of characters with different morality views in those films.

E.g.1.
Imagine a "hero" character portrayed quite sincere, throughout the film you see the "villain" torching villages and killing villagers. At the end of the film the "villain" kills the "hero" and the kingdom cheers.

E.g.2.
A captain of a ship and crew goes off to find a treasure, the captain begins to get greedy kills off his crew gradually over the course of the film to keep the cross for himself, in the end not only does he get to keep the tresure but go home and buys himself a knighthood.

And again, we were talking about Pixar and Disney Animation right? That is what started this whole conversation. That's a lot of killing for family films.

 

[ford91exploder]

Yes, but it's something they can also do with TV. Comcast is not required to carry Disney owned channels or air Disney content on their own channels, and yet they do because it is good for business. Same reason they don't currently block Disney content online even though it is and has been legal to do just that.

We have a lot of examples of ISP's deliberately degrading video and other services which compete with the ISP's own service and getting caught paying a token fine and continuing the practice.

Two US ISP's ClearWire and MadisonRiver deliberately BLOCKED ALL competing VoIP services. The list of abuses continues to grow longer.

No the ISP's need to become a common carrier to protect the internet as we know it today - the advantage there of course is rates will be set by the respective utility regulators which will include maintenance and capital investment and an guaranteed profit on the order of 5-15% and if the ISP's DONT build a promised service the regulators will claw the money back. So promised builds are likely to happen.

 

[SirLink]

There were plenty of characters with different morality views in those films.


And again, we were talking about Pixar and Disney Animation right? That is what started this whole conversation. That's a lot of killing for family films.

Wait in Toy Story, did the good guys win all the time? Yes. I did boo at a private screening when they survived the incinerator.

But yeah gotta move with the times.

 

[PrincessNelly_NJ]

Yes, but it's something they can also do with TV. Comcast is not required to carry Disney owned channels or air Disney content on their own channels, and yet they do because it is good for business. Same reason they don't currently block Disney content online even though it is and has been legal to do just that.

Many companies don't out right block but throttle instead.

ISP have been throttling websites like BitTorrent & Netflix (just to name a few.) Netflix began paying both Verizon & Comcast to improve speeds on their sites. And guess what?
They still are throttling Netflix while collecting money from that. Abusing power for financial gain.

A program on TV isn't the same as a website.
If I want to watch Nickelodeon then I know that I can turn on Nickelodeon without my cable signal dropping or cutting in and out while I get the Disney Channel nice and clear.

 

[Rodan75]

In the case of Netflix vs Verizon - Verizon REFUSED the offer of caching hardware and even when Netflix OFFERED to install upgraded ports FOR FREE in the exchange. VZ refused. It was simply a cash grab on Verizon's part. Netflix PAID and VZ still throttled them.

http://www.extremetech.com/computin...raffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth

I think this is a bit of a fallacy, having worked with a Service Provider in the past, I know that Netflix refused to offer the same sort of caching hardware to Service Providers that Google was giving away for YouTube. Google handled this issue well with the SPs, Netflix was arrogant and triggered a war and then tried to play nice later.

There is middle ground on this issue, SPs absolutely need to be able to prioritize data packets to make voice and video services work and should be enabled to charge both sides of the traffic for the privilege of using their network. However, Service Providers need to be limited on their ability to deny or prioritize similar traffic types at their whim or competitive pressures (Hulu shouldn't get cheaper rates because Comcast is a part owner, etc).

The problem is that the political climate is too charged to find an adequate solution nationally. This needs to look more like the current Telco environment than either sides proposals.

 

[Cesar R M]

Yes, you need to support that. It means that all data is kept neutral.

Otherwise..... Ruthless internet providers like Comcast can throttle back access to particular sites like Netflix, Hulu, etc., unless you pay more money.

It would essentially kill the Internet in America.

which is ironic, as Netflix paid comcast for faster lines, yet they still throttled netflix back.
comcast like major networks.. just took money and refused to upgrade their backbones.. (ironic because most of the backbone infrastructure is actually of Level3, Cohen and other major Tier1 networks)

 

[sshindel]

Wait in Toy Story, did the good guys win all the time? Yes. I did boo at a private screening when they survived the incinerator.

But yeah gotta move with the times.

I'm not 100% certain that Disney/Pixar, standard bearers for family films, are going to start putting out films with lots of killing or where the bad guys win. It doesn't seem to fit the take the whole family out to the movies framework that they pretty much invented.

But who knows. Maybe in Toy Story 4, Buzz will get reset again, rip Woody's head off and throw it in the fireplace, systematically murder the rest of the toys, and be shown at the end to be the triumphant victor, sitting on top of his Plastic Throne, ruler of the nine realms.