Obama ruins the internet

[Upchurch]

You failure to understand does not make the comic misleading, it just means you don't get it.

It means she doesn't get it and then makes up straw man arguments.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Blindness is not recognizing that what already happened (the Netflix slowdown) wouldn't be prevented by "net neutrality".

Actually it would have. With Net Neutrality, Comcast would have been obliged to treat the data from Netflicks the same as it did other data. Instead of allowing the bottle necking to occur by locking ports in the exchange, they would have had to make sure that all of the ports were open and connected.

Compare their stats with the likes of Cox, were Cox's customers not as demanding of Netflicks, or did they just make sure not to lock up ports to force the traffic through a reduced number of peer connections?

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually it would have. With Net Neutrality, Comcast would have been obliged to treat the data from Netflicks the same as it did other data.

It did. All data was treated the same, whether it came from Netflix or any other source. Paths were not equivalent, but they never are, and it would be stupid to try to force the network architecture to make them all equivalent (and net neutrality doesn't).

Instead of allowing the bottle necking to occur by locking ports in the exchange, they would have had to make sure that all of the ports were open and connected.

Net neutrality doesn't do that, though. Again, this had nothing, nothing, to do with the content involved. It was purely a matter of how much data was flowing, and in which direction. From Upchurch's link:
"Until recently, if peering ports became congested with downstream traffic, it was common practice for an ISP to temporarily open up new ports to maintain the flow of data. This was not a business arrangement; just something that had been done as a courtesy. ISPs would expect the bandwidth companies to do the same if there was a spike in upstream traffic. However, there is virtually no upstream traffic with Netflix, so the Comcasts and Verizons of the world claimed they were being taken advantage of."

Get that? Opening up temporary ports was a courtesy that ISP's would expect returned when traffic flowed the other way. But Netflix's carrier would never return that favor, because the traffic never flowed the other way.

Net neutrality cannot fix this, because the type of data and its original source was irrelevant. And ISP's could avoid the charge of discrimination by simply not doing peering ports for anyone, ever. Net neutrality cannot make network providers do favors for each other.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Opening up temporary ports was a courtesy that ISP's would expect returned when traffic flowed the other way. But Netflix's carrier would never return that favor, because the traffic never flowed the other way.

Bollocks, in fact the picture that quadraginta posted above shows exactly this. Level 3 had all of their ports open and available for use, it was Comcast that decided to not open their side. Level 3 never said they wouldn't return the favour at all, and even if their wasn't the traffic for it to be needed, they still had theirs open in case it was. Claiming that Comcast blocked it because Level 3 wouldn't return the favour is a load of BS.

 

[Ziggurat]

Bollocks, in fact the picture that quadraginta posted above shows exactly this. Level 3 had all of their ports open and available for use, it was Comcast that decided to not open their side.

Wrong again. The picture Quadraginta linked to was about Verizon, not Comcast.

Level 3 never said they wouldn't return the favour at all

Of course they didn't say that. They didn't have to. But they wouldn't return the favor, because they would never need to, because the traffic was never going to be symmetric It was only ever going to hit 100% utilization in one direction. So Comcast decided not to make any extra effort for no reciprocal benefit. Is that nice? No, it's not. Is that something net neutrality could prevent? Again, no. Net neutrality does not delve into the details of bandwidth load balancing, and this is a content-neutral decision. The only reason it affected Netflix is because Netflix made up most of that asymmetric bandwidth load. And Comcast (and Verizon, for that matter) was never obliged to do peering ports for anybody.

 

[Unabogie]

Wrong again. The picture Quadraginta linked to was about Verizon, not Comcast.



Of course they didn't say that. They didn't have to. But they wouldn't return the favor, because they would never need to, because the traffic was never going to be symmetric It was only ever going to hit 100% utilization in one direction. So Comcast decided not to make any extra effort for no reciprocal benefit. Is that nice? No, it's not. Is that something net neutrality could prevent? Again, no. Net neutrality does not delve into the details of bandwidth load balancing, and this is a content-neutral decision. The only reason it affected Netflix is because Netflix made up most of that asymmetric bandwidth load. And Comcast (and Verizon, for that matter) was never obliged to do peering ports for anybody.

I'm having trouble understanding why you're spending pages and pages dying on this hill. The issue is not whether Netflix was screwed in one way and not the other. The issue is that cable companies have a vested interest in screwing Netflix and net neutrality protects content providers from being screwed. And those providers can be huge like Netflix or tiny like your blog. Comcast should be strictly prohibited from choosing which content gets the fast lane, or any lane at all. The end.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm having trouble understanding why you're spending pages and pages dying on this hill.

Either he has trouble admitting he's wrong, or he still hasn't figured out that the article that he's citing is arguing for stronger network neutrality rules. Possibly both. The line he quoted is blaming what Comcast did, in part, on the weakened version the FCC was using at the time. He's correct that those network neutrality rules wouldn't have prevented what Comcast, because they didn't. That's why they're insufficient.

Most folks would consider those as network neutrality in name only, if they knew anything about it.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Again, Streisand effect.

Comcast was voted the worst company in America in 2010. Then again in 2014.

 

[Francesca R]

Which ideology is that?

The one that goes "government may act in my interest, corporations never will". It is as blind as the reverse "corporaions may act in my interest, government never will". It is a cariucature polarization the like of which one sees plenty around here (both sides).

 

[Francesca R]

No, what it means is that you don't understand what they are depicting so you make stuff up and claim it is what they are depicting.

Ha ha. You excuse the graphic misrepresentation because you agree with the recommendation of the piece. Rather than admit they misrepresent what actually happens you make a futile attempt to "defend" it. How silly.

They also misrepresent the working of a two sided market with a false statement: "I end up paying for the same data twice".

I get that things like this like to rally support by sparking fear and that they have an incentive to misrepresent in order to get that. This is not a surprise.

Defending the practice, whatever your actual view of the issue is, is just silly.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The one that goes "government may act in my interest, corporations never will". It is as blind as the reverse "corporaions may act in my interest, government never will". It is a cariucature polarization the like of which one sees plenty around here (both sides).

Bollocks, Governments want my vote so it behoves them to act somewhat in my interests so I will vote for them. Corporations have no need to act in my best interests unless I am a consumer of their goods, and if I have no choice but to use their goods or not have anything, then they have no reason to act in my interests at all.

 

[Corsair 115]

So, what is one to make of big corporations such as Amazon, ebay, Facebook, Google, and Netflix being in favour of net neutrality, as evidenced by this statement released by the association which represents them?

The Internet Association applauds President Obama’s proposal for the adoption of meaningful net neutrality rules that apply to both mobile and fixed broadband. As we have previously said, the FCC must adopt strong, legally sustainable rules that prevent paid prioritization and protect an open Internet for users. Using Title II authority, along with the right set of enforceable rules, the President’s plan would establish the strong net neutrality protections Internet users require. We welcome the President’s leadership, and encourage the FCC to stand with the Internet’s vast community of users and move quickly to adopt strong net neutrality protections that ensure a free and open Internet.

 

[Francesca R]

I agree that it would be better.

Glad you do.

How is this achieved?

Via regulation paradoxically, but pro-competition regulation and nothing to do with neutrality, requiring the incumbent infrastructure owner to allow open access to last-mile wire and allow any competing ISP to re-sell.

Until such time as it might be, wouldn't some sort of net neutrality guarantees avoid potential abuse?

Neutrality requirements have undesired consequences in addition to the ones you desire. Also there is a significant chance that one ends up stuck with regulation that is itself abused (captured). YMMV.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Ha ha. You excuse the graphic misrepresentation because you agree with the recommendation of the piece. Rather than admit they misrepresent what actually happens you make a futile attempt to "defend" it. How silly.

Complete rubbish, I defend it because I understand what they are saying, you clearly don't and keep claiming they misrepresent your made up straw man.

They also misrepresent the working of a two sided market with a false statement: "I end up paying for the same data twice".

Again, no they don't. Currently if you pay a subscription for a content provider, the data that they provide you is paid for by you to your ISP. The content provider may have to pay their ISP for the data they are providing, but they aren't paying your ISP for providing it. The comic points out that without NN, your ISP can charge the provider for providing you with Data despite you already having paid to get it. It's like the Post Office charging you to deliver your mail after charging the sender for delivering it to you, they would be double dipping. In the end, the Provider is going to pass that charge on to you, so yes, you would be being charged twice for the same data.

 

[Francesca R]

Governments want my vote so it behoves them to act somewhat in my interests so I will vote for them.

Agree

Corporations have no need to act in my best interests unless I am a consumer of their goodsq

Also agreed

So you agree with me and disagree with the statement I challenge. Yet you seem to want to claim you don't

Probably you will claim that Upchurch does not mean what Upchurch said and I have "misinterpreted a metaphor" or something. That is amusing.

 

[Francesca R]

It's like the Post Office charging you to deliver your mail after charging the sender for delivering it to you, they would be double dipping. In the end, the Provider is going to pass that charge on to you, so yes, you would be being charged twice for the same data.

You don't understand two sided markets either.

Go and fix your misunderstanding please. And the post office is typically a monopoly so change your example. Throughout this everything I have said on the subject requires adequate competition, and if that is absent then the appropriate fix is to increase it.

So drop your straw ladies and your misrepresentation borne of ignorance.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Also agreed

So you agree with me and disagree with the statement I challenge. Yet you seem to want to claim you don't

Probably you will claim that Upchurch does not mean what Upchurch said and I have "misinterpreted a metaphor" or something. That is amusing.

You seem to have missed out a important qualifying statement

 

[Francesca R]

I defend it because I understand what they are saying, you clearly don't

I see what they draw. Which is a driveway with its total width impeded.

You claim to understand that they don't actually mean that total data capacity is reduced. Maybe they don't. But you have not proved that they don't mean this. Neither can you possibly know that "nobody" will interpret that as what it shows--a reduction in total capacity. So your defence is kinda hollow.

You have already demonstrated that you yourself have been successfully misled into thinking that a two sided market is "double dipping".

 

[PhantomWolf]

You don't understand two sided markets either.

Go and fix your misunderstanding please. And the post office is typically a monopoly so change your example. Throughout this everything I have said on the subject requires adequate competition, and if that is absent then the appropriate fix is to increase it.

So drop your straw ladies and your misrepresentation borne of ignorance.

Your problem is that your ISP is not providing the content provider a service, it is only providing you a service, unless you both have the same provider. What the issue is that ISPs will start charging providers for their providing you a service that you are already paying for.

No one has an issue with a ISP charging a content provide that has contracted their ISP to allow them to provide Content up to the Internet, that happens now. The issue is your ISP charging you for downloading, and then charging the content provider for the right of sending you that content, so yes, they would be charging for the same data twice. In fact, though unlikely, they could in theory charge for it three times if the content provider is with them too. One for you to download the data, once for the Content Provider to upload the data, and once for them to give you the data from the content provider.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I see what they draw. Which is a driveway with its total width impeded.

You claim to understand that they don't actually mean that total data capacity is reduced. Maybe they don't. But you have not proved that they don't mean this. Neither can you possibly know that "nobody" will interpret that as what it shows--a reduction in total capacity. So your defence is kinda hollow.

It's showing a reduction in speed, not capacity, they even state that. You still get the amount you pay for, you just get it slower and with more obstacles such as advertising.

You have already demonstrated that you yourself have been successfully misled into thinking that a two sided market is "double dipping".

Because it is double dipping, not a two sided market.