Obama ruins the internet

[Ziggurat]

Its not hypothetical. It's actually happening.

Netflix Agrees To Pay Comcast To End Slowdown

Nope. Apparently you didn't read your own source, or you didn't understand what you read.
"Much like Netflix’s ongoing standoff with Verizon FiOS, the drop in speeds wasn’t an issue of the ISP throttling or blocking service to Netflix. Rather, the ISPs were allowing for Netflix traffic to bottleneck at what’s known as “peering ports,” the connection between Netflix’s bandwidth provider and the ISPs.
...
As we’ve pointed out before, the issue of peering was not covered by the recently gutted net neutrality rules."
Oops.

This was an infrastructure problem: there wasn't enough bandwidth available between the two ISP's. Netflix is now going to pay to upgrade that infrastructure bandwidth. But the problem has nothing to do with net neutrality, and net neutrality wouldn't have prevented or fixed the problem.

Who else is going to solve this? The ISPs who are trying to kill network neutrality in the first place?

Seems like Netflix already solved the problem.

You seem to believe that one particular distribution of costs between two commercial companies is just and one distribution is unjust. But you have merely asserted this. You have not shown it to be true. Why should I care that Netflix pays a little more? Are you worried that the costs could be passed on to Netflix subscribers? It's true, they might be. But the alternative is that the cost might be passed on to ISP subscribers. Why is one automatically preferable to the other? Why should the government be dictating the outcome? And why do you have confidence that the outcome that government dictates will automatically be in your favor, rather than in favor of whichever company has the most lobbyists?

 

[Unabogie]

Seems like Netflix already solved the problem.

You seem to believe that one particular distribution of costs between two commercial companies is just and one distribution is unjust. But you have merely asserted this. You have not shown it to be true. Why should I care that Netflix pays a little more?

Because the little startup in the free market faerie tale that offers better movies than Netflix at half the cost will never be able to pay this ransom. Hence, innovation and competition are stifled by Comcast, who wants Netflix and StartupMovies.com to just go away so you'll buy their OnDemand services.

The only thing that keeps StartupMovies.com afloat is the fact that their product gets served at the same speed as any other company. Besides which, Netflix already pays for their servers and bandwidth. Customers already pay for their bandwidth in the form of our obscenely high cable bills.

The internet works just fine now. Why do you want giant corporations to ruin it?

ETA: There's another stifling aspect to this as well. Comcast could slow to a crawl or block a website like comcast-sucks.com. Or a liberal cable owner could slow down foxnews.com, or a teabagging cable owner could make msnbc.com slow to a crawl or even be blocked. The thing that makes the internet work is that everyone gets their place in line and there's not cutsies.

 

[Dessi]

I would have liked to see Netflix fight back: detect people's ISP, then display a message at the top of this screen "Comcast is slowing down access to your favorite movies [graph here]. Call Comcast at [number] to tell them to stop throttling your bandwidth."

 

[Unabogie]

And here I thought the reason he chose Tom Wheeler was because he helped raise a lot of money for President Obama's campaigns.
Although he also had a lot of experience in the industry.

Here is Wikipedia on his previous occupation.

Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with positions including President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).

If true his positions should come as no surprise.

This is an example of why it bugs me that people often seem to care more about what politicians say than what they do. Rarely do I find anything Obama says objectionable. He comes off as thoughtful, reasonable, even inspiring. But at the end of the day they're just words. Many of his actions have been terrible.

I don't really disagree with this. However I will say that like all such battles, there will be some pretty big hitters coming out to try and sway public opinion against something that so clearly in the public's best interest. So it behooves everyone who supports a free and open internet to lobby their congresspeople and senators, but also their Facebook pages and family dinners. I wouldn't be surprised if a new group called Citizens United For Internet Freedom popped up and started running ads all day accusing Obama of trying to "ruin" the internet. Cruz is already getting started.

 

[pgwenthold]

I would have liked to see Netflix fight back: detect people's ISP, then display a message at the top of this screen "Comcast is slowing down access to your favorite movies [graph here]. Call Comcast at [number] to tell them to stop throttling your bandwidth."

Well, if you call Comcast to ask for customer service, just know that it will take them 7 - 10 days to get around to looking into it.

It takes them 7 = 10 days to do anything (I once told the customer service person that as far as I can tell, it takes them 7 - 10 days to wipe their ass after taking a ****)

 

[Ziggurat]

Because the little startup in the free market faerie tale that offers better movies than Netflix at half the cost will never be able to pay this ransom.

You have revealed that you don't know what you're talking about.

Do you know why Netflix ran into this problem in the first place? They ran into it because they were pushing more data than the network can handle. Why were they pushing so much data? Because they have a **** ton of customers.

Will a startup have a **** ton of customers? No, they will not. By the time they have a **** ton of customers, they will no longer be a startup. Will they run into the same problem Netflix ran into? Possibly, but again, only after they're no longer a startup. At that point, if they need to pay for the costs of infrastructure they use, oh well.

ETA: oh, and you also didn't address the fact that net neutrality doesn't even do anything about the actual problem here, which was peering.

Besides which, Netflix already pays for their servers and bandwidth.

Who do they pay, and what exactly are they paying for?

Somehow, I doubt you know.

Customers already pay for their bandwidth in the form of our obscenely high cable bills.

And those bills might go even higher if they couldn't get any money from Netflix to compensate for the infrastructure investments they are making specifically to benefit Netflix.

The internet works just fine now. Why do you want giant corporations to ruin it?

The internet works just fine now. Why do you want big government to ruin it?

I'm sure you can spot the hidden assumption in my question. Can you spot the corresponding assumption in yours?

 

[Unabogie]

I would have liked to see Netflix fight back: detect people's ISP, then display a message at the top of this screen "Comcast is slowing down access to your favorite movies [graph here]. Call Comcast at [number] to tell them to stop throttling your bandwidth."

If we're pinning our hopes on benign gigantic corporations fighting evil corporations on behalf of our interests, we're screwed.

 

[JohnnyG]

I would have liked to see Netflix fight back: detect people's ISP, then display a message at the top of this screen "Comcast is slowing down access to your favorite movies [graph here]. Call Comcast at [number] to tell them to stop throttling your bandwidth."

They did...at least with Verizon.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...omply-with-verizons-cease-and-desist-demands/

 

[3point14]

So, the corporations are on the side of government.

The government is on the side of... Who?

Who's the consumer's advocate in all of this?

 

[Ziggurat]

ETA: There's another stifling aspect to this as well. Comcast could slow to a crawl or block a website like comcast-sucks.com. Or a liberal cable owner could slow down foxnews.com, or a teabagging cable owner could make msnbc.com slow to a crawl or even be blocked. The thing that makes the internet work is that everyone gets their place in line and there's not cutsies.

Could they block sites they don't like? In principle, yes. Is that a serious concern? Not really. That approach is likely to backfire (see: Streisand effect), and it's trivially easy to route around anyways with proxy servers, Google cache, and even just reposted content. ISP's haven't made any moves like that yet, there's really no reason to think they'll start doing so, or that they won't get spanked (hard) by consumers if they do.

 

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
I thought republicans were interested in more free enterprise market driven solutions.

You would think that, but as the bailout shows, that's simply not the case.

I don't believe the bailout showed that at all.

I am not saying that republicans always vote for what they claim they stand for but...

1) In the first House vote republicans voted against the bailout 133-65.
2) In the bill that passed the House they still voted against it 108 to 91. These numbers are from Wikipedia but I checked the first one.
3) Sometimes situations can make it correct to vote against what you normally support.
4) Republicans were interested in more free enterprise market driven solutions does not mean they are always against things that limit free enterprise.

 

[Upchurch]

Seems like Netflix already solved the problem.

Yeah, they paid off Comcast for "protection."

 

[Unabogie]

Could they block sites they don't like? In principle, yes. Is that a serious concern? Not really. That approach is likely to backfire (see: Streisand effect), and it's trivially easy to route around anyways with proxy servers, Google cache, and even just reposted content. ISP's haven't made any moves like that yet, there's really no reason to think they'll start doing so, or that they won't get spanked (hard) by consumers if they do.

So you think people will consume their news from Google cache? Maybe you don't understand how the internet works, but here's a short primer. You type into your browser a domain name, like netflix.com. That request is routed through a DNS server which has an A Record which tells it to fetch that request from the unique IP address of the Netflix server (or in the case of a site like Netflix, a load balancer which routes those requests to a multitude of possible servers). This packet is returned to you over various hops until it finally hits your ISP and then sent to your device. If your ISP detects that your packet comes from Netflix, or Foxnews, or comcast-sucks.com, they can do whatever they want with it. They can slow it down, they can block it, or they can simply deny requests half the time so it looks like comcast-sucks.com is down half the time.

So would they get spanked hard by consumers if they did this? Nope. They already did it to Netflix. In my neighborhood, there's no other cable provider. We get CenturyLink DSL or Comcast Cable, and Comcast is far faster. So if Comcast screws up my Netflix but not my work, I can't switch the CenturyLink just screw with them. I have huge files I need to send back and forth every day. No, Comcast can and has gotten away with this. There is not free-market fairy to come along and provide relief. However, a simple rule that every site gets full access, always without exception would solve this problem for everyone. No need to switch cable providers. No need for Netflix to pay a ransom. Then if BetterMovies.com comes along, they can compete with Netflix on a level playing field.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, they paid off Comcast for "protection."

So... no comment on the fact that the Netflix issue actually has nothing to do with net neutrality?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yeah, they paid off Comcast for "protection."

The unseen hand of the free market.

 

[Ziggurat]

So you think people will consume their news from Google cache? Maybe you don't understand how the internet works, but here's a short primer. You type into your browser a domain name, like netflix.com. That request is routed through a DNS server which has an A Record which tells it to fetch that request from the unique IP address of the Netflix server (or in the case of a site like Netflix, a load balancer which routes those requests to a multitude of possible servers). This packet is returned to you over various hops until it finally hits your ISP and then sent to your device. If your ISP detects that your packet comes from Netflix, or Foxnews, or comcast-sucks.com, they can do whatever they want with it. They can slow it down, they can block it, or they can simply deny requests half the time so it looks like comcast-sucks.com is down half the time.

Suppose an ISP blocks your website. What do you do? Complain on social media. People love that crap. Post it on Facebook, and off it goes. Nobody can block Facebook. Nobody can afford to block Facebook. And a lot of people get news from Facebook. The problem is not the technical feasibility of blocking content from a given IP address, the problem is that this isn't sufficient to actually block content on the internet, because there are simply too many alternative ways to spread information. And even trying to do so is generally counter-productive. Again, Streisand effect.

So would they get spanked hard by consumers if they did this? Nope. They already did it to Netflix. In my neighborhood, there's no other cable provider. We get CenturyLink DSL or Comcast Cable, and Comcast is far faster. So if Comcast screws up my Netflix but not my work, I can't switch the CenturyLink just screw with them. I have huge files I need to send back and forth every day. No, Comcast can and has gotten away with this. There is not free-market fairy to come along and provide relief. However, a simple rule that every site gets full access, always without exception would solve this problem for everyone. No need to switch cable providers. No need for Netflix to pay a ransom. Then if BetterMovies.com comes along, they can compete with Netflix on a level playing field.

I love that you try to lecture me about how the internet works, but you completely mess up the technical details of the entire Netflix dispute. Comcast didn't do any of the things you mention in your first paragraph in regards to Netflix. Upchurch's first link (which I quoted) gives a decent summary, and it in no way resembles what you're suggesting, nor does it actually have anything to do with net neutrality. I've already pointed this out, how did you miss it?

 

[Travis]

I would have liked to see Netflix fight back: detect people's ISP, then display a message at the top of this screen "Comcast is slowing down access to your favorite movies [graph here]. Call Comcast at [number] to tell them to stop throttling your bandwidth."

I doubt they would care. Comcast has a monopoly on high speed internet access over most of the area it serves including mine. If people don't like what they are doing the can cancel service and just live without internet access. Deliver their messages by raven, I guess.

This is compounded by the fact that in many places (again, including where I live) Comcast actually has a legal agreement to be the only game in town with the government. My county government basically gave Comcast a huge truck of money to subsidize the construction of our local high speed network (something Comcast otherwise was unwilling to do) and part of the agreement was that the county wouldn't allow competitors into the area for 15 years.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I doubt they would care. Comcast has a monopoly on high speed internet access over most of the area it serves including mine. If people don't like what they are doing the can cancel service and just live without internet access. Deliver their messages by raven, I guess.

This is compounded by the fact that in many places (again, including where I live) Comcast actually has a legal agreement to be the only game in town with the government. My county government basically gave Comcast a huge truck of money to subsidize the construction of our local high speed network (something Comcast otherwise was unwilling to do) and part of the agreement was that the county wouldn't allow competitors into the area for 15 years.

That's that "free market" people jokingly speak of.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is compounded by the fact that in many places (again, including where I live) Comcast actually has a legal agreement to be the only game in town with the government.

When government creates the problem, why do you trust them to fix it?

 

[Spindrift]

Suppose an ISP blocks your website. What do you do? Complain on social media. People love that crap. Post it on Facebook, and off it goes. Nobody can block Facebook. Nobody can afford to block Facebook. And a lot of people get news from Facebook. The problem is not the technical feasibility of blocking content from a given IP address, the problem is that this isn't sufficient to actually block content on the internet, because there are simply too many alternative ways to spread information. And even trying to do so is generally counter-productive. Again, Streisand effect.

People post all kinds of complaints on facebook and nothing happens the vast majority of the time.

I doubt Comcast is worried about complaints, they seem to be immune to complaints. Comcast can just ignore it. In many places it's not like the users can go elsewhere.