Obama ruins the internet

[Mumbles]

And yet, Comcast isn't slowing down Netflix anymore. So your understanding of the nature of that competition certainly cannot be correct.

Well, they say that they aren't...in exchange for a large sum of money. Verizon apparently still is, despite Netflix paying them.

Furthermore, I note that you haven't addressed the fact that net neutrality plays no role in this particular conflict.

And this is because net neutrality absolutely plays a role in this particular conflict, and many others.

 

[Upchurch]

Furthermore, I note that you haven't addressed the fact that net neutrality plays no role in this particular conflict.

I note that you haven't addressed that this has already been debunked.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, they say that they aren't...in exchange for a large sum of money. Verizon apparently still is, despite Netflix paying them.

That assertion has already been addressed. Comcast speeds are back up already, because Comcast engineers were working with Netflix engineers long before they signed their deal. Verizon has been slow to get speeds back up because they didn't start working with Netflix until after they signed their deal.

And this is because net neutrality absolutely plays a role in this particular conflict, and many others.

No, you are still wrong. Net neutrality plays absolutely no role in this particular conflict. People keep asserting that, but it's simply not true. Net neutrality has no provisions about the physical bandwidth capacity that ISP's must provide. They would merely be prohibited from prioritizing traffic within that physical capacity. But that's not what happened. Netflix traffic was never treated with any different priority on the network than any other traffic. There was simply not enough physical capacity.

 

[Ziggurat]

I note that you haven't addressed that this has already been debunked.

Quite so, because it's only been debunked in your mind.

Net neutrality says nothing about what physical capacity ISP's must provide. It's the limitation in physical capacity that Netflix ran up against, not any differential treatment in their traffic compared to any other traffic.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think Ziggy is saying that there needs to be more added to the net neutrality laws.

 

[Upchurch]

I think Ziggy is saying that there needs to be more added to the net neutrality laws.

He also needs to learn the difference between network neutrality and the half-assed rules the FCC were using under the guise of "network neutrality", which was explained not only in the article he quoted, but was referenced in the line he quoted.

But, you know what they say about a certain Egyptian river...

 

[Ziggurat]

Since people here seem to be having trouble actually thinking through the problem on their own to understand why the Netflix/Comcast/Verizon dispute isn't about net neutrality, here's some external sources:

http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/
"Netflix’s disputes with broadband providers, like Comcast, have zip to do with Net neutrality."

https://gigaom.com/2014/02/23/the-n...ork-neutrality-violation-but-it-is-a-problem/
"A lot of people seem to think the whole peering and interconnection topic is the same as net neutrality. It’s not, it’s a different issue — it’s a cousin, maybe a sibling, but it is not the same issue." - FCC chairman Tom Wheeler

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/2014/net-neutrality/
"What Netflix paid for in its deal with Comcast was not a fast lane in the Internet, but a special arrangement whereby Comcast connects directly to Netflix's servers to speed up content delivery. It is important to note that this arrangement is not currently covered under conventional net neutrality, which bans fast lanes over the Internet backbone."

 

[Upchurch]

It is important to note that this arrangement is not currently covered under conventional net neutrality, which bans fast lanes over the Internet backbone."

That's exactly the point. It wasn't covered under the FCC's network neutrality rules at that time. It's the kind of loophole ISPs are lobbying for to get around genuine network neutrality. That's what needs to be fixed.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Since people here seem to be having trouble actually thinking through the problem on their own to understand why the Netflix/Comcast/Verizon dispute isn't about net neutrality, here's some external sources:

http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/
"Netflix’s disputes with broadband providers, like Comcast, have zip to do with Net neutrality."

https://gigaom.com/2014/02/23/the-n...ork-neutrality-violation-but-it-is-a-problem/
"A lot of people seem to think the whole peering and interconnection topic is the same as net neutrality. It’s not, it’s a different issue — it’s a cousin, maybe a sibling, but it is not the same issue." - FCC chairman Tom Wheeler

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/2014/net-neutrality/
"What Netflix paid for in its deal with Comcast was not a fast lane in the Internet, but a special arrangement whereby Comcast connects directly to Netflix's servers to speed up content delivery. It is important to note that this arrangement is not currently covered under conventional net neutrality, which bans fast lanes over the Internet backbone."

So what do you actually propose to give the consumer effective choice? Or just say suck it up to them?

 

[3point14]

So what do you actually propose to give the consumer effective choice? Or just say suck it up to them?

I think Ziggy and Fancesca both want the ISPs to do whatever the hell they like as, and a believe this is sincere, they believe that the best outcome for the customer lies that way.

I believe their thinking is in errror. (As a parelell: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30016007)

 

[Francesca R]

And you still haven't made any real argument that this is remotely politically a feasible action.

I was not particularly trying to, I will settle for the argument that it is a better solution than NN.

Of course, other countries have done it, so you will appreciate that Americans saying "Can't happen here!" sometimes gets taken with a pinch of salt from outside. Universal health insurance could "never happen in America" either, right? Until it did (well, kinda, the naysayers had something of a point)

And regulatory powers to require de-merging, and then impose utility-like service requirements on line operators are not really, really, in a different ball park to the proposed NN stuff anyway. Unless it is the spinning off of a new company which you think the US, uniquely, can never do.

 

[Francesca R]

Yeah, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you disagreement.

You disagree with my disagreement, even though I agreed.

I think you are reading what you want to read, not what is there.

 

[eeyore1954]

Thought this could provide more fodder to the discussion.

AT&T pauses fiber investment on net neutrality concerns

"We can't go out and invest that kind of money deploying fiber to 100 cities not knowing under what rules those investments will be governed,"

 

[Francesca R]

I think Ziggy and F[r]ancesca both want the ISPs to do whatever the hell they like as, and a believe this is sincere, they believe that the best outcome for the customer lies that way.

This confirms my suspicion that you are reading words that are in your head.

 

[3point14]

You disagree with my disagreement, even though I agreed.

I think you are reading what you want to read, not what is there.

Ah, no, you agreed withy the first part but not the second. It's that bit I've disagreed with (the bit where you're disagreeing) and laid out my reasons why I think you're wrong.

Now, just to smooth the passage of good discourse, I will happily withdraw whatever was written up to, but not including my post number 251 which I' would like you to address when you have time.

 

[3point14]

This confirms my suspicion that you are reading words that are in your head.

Nice mind reading.

Perhaps it's the word on the page that aren't accurately conveying the meaning of the writer rather than the lack of comprehension in the reader.

Do you often find people misintepret you?

 

[Francesca R]

Ha ha. Except it was you telling everyone what you think I think. And you telling everyone that I wrote the opposite of what I wrote.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Why, reading all this almost gives one the impression that the real problem is that there isn't legal clarity over who can do what and who controls what and what protections each involved party can expect. And that the solution would be to establish all of those things clearly in law, ending uncertainty and making things uniform and fair in each jurisdiction. That couldn't be it, of course. That situation would only have arisen if the Internet itself had evolved over time instead of being centrally planned, organized, and implemented by a single authoritative body.

 

[3point14]

Ha ha. Except it was you telling everyone what you think I think. And you telling everyone that I wrote the opposite of what I wrote.

So you're not going to address the point I made?


I apologise unreservedly if I have misunderstood your position.

As I said, I am quite happy to utterly withdraw anything prior to my post no. 251 and I'd like you to address that.

 

[Upchurch]

Thought this could provide more fodder to the discussion.

AT&T pauses fiber investment on net neutrality concerns

Yeah, that's a publicity stunt, not a genuine concern. But it's a pretty good publicity stunt that will allow Wheeler to wring his hands and "compromise" by giving the ISPs everything they want in the name of "improving infrastructure".