Obama ruins the internet

[Upchurch]

Erm. It is the argument the comic makes. And I challenge it as bogus. And you know it is too. Yet you wave it through. You would do better to admit it is misleading I think.

Otherwise it looks like you approve of misleading the public. For some reason.

Okay, let me explain the comic to you. That particular portion was describing how throttling would effect you as an individual, using the metaphor of a driveway with junk on one side of it. That is the effect from your perspective, not from the perspective of the ISP.

The content throttling does not "waste" bandwidth. It does not sit unused. Instead of being allocated to send content to User A, it is used to send other content to User B instead.

No one is arguing that that ISPs would have capacity sit unused, Francesca. What is being argued is that users would not be allowed their otherwise full bandwidth for particular bits of content. That bandwidth would be, instead, used for other preferred bits of content.

You're arguing against a straw man of your own design.

 

[quadraginta]

I will ask again: how does net neutrality fix this problem?

And once again, the answer is that it does not.

Your claim was that Netflix was pushing more data than the network could handle.

From what that article says the only reason for that was that Comcast chose not to supply the extra capacity they had available even though Netflix was actually paying a premium for access to that capacity.

Do you disagree with that assessment?

 

[Upchurch]

Get a better FCC.

And yes--that means a better regulator. Because regulators have a legitimate purpose. You do yourself no favours protecting ones that don't serve that out so well.

I'm not protecting the FCC. I'm praising Obama for telling them to do better.

I don't think there is any way to kick out commissioners before their term ends. I think political pressure is the only tool he has. Maybe a change in the law, but good luck getting something like that through congress.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're right they didn't plug in the router which exists and was unused and would increase bandwidth. Verizon did nothing with their excess capacity and you're right net neutrality wouldn't prevent that. So is it obvious, additional regulations are needed to prevent companies like Verizon from playing such malicious games.

So you have conceded that net neutrality doesn't provide any benefit in the only case anyone has put forth in this thread to justify it. Good, that's a first step.

Now you are proposing... what, exactly? "Regulations". That means nothing. What regulations do you want? You can't regulate away maliciousness. You can only regulate specific actions. What specific actions do you want to prevent or require? Details matter.

And keep in mind what it is you're actually going to accomplish with your regulations. In this case, what do we get? If your mystery regulations made Verizon act the way you want them to act, then Netflix can stream in HD instead of SD.

First world problems.

 

[quadraginta]

I don't. I have a choice of at least five suppliers I think. And at least seven ISPs. And only one set of cables for each. It is called local loop unbundling.

That's mighty nice for you. Not sure why you seem so smug about it though.

<snip>

This is superior to network neutrality laws IMO.

It certainly would be superior, but absent that there needs to be some measure of protection from what are, for all practical purposes at this time, natural monopolies.

 

[Upchurch]

That's mighty nice for you. Not sure why you seem so smug about it though.

Francesca has been arguing about the superiority of her system for years. The only correct solution, in her eyes, is that the US adopts what she has, regardless of the impracticality of it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your claim was that Netflix was pushing more data than the network could handle.

From what that article says the only reason for that was that Comcast chose not to supply the extra capacity they had available even though Netflix was actually paying a premium for access to that capacity.

Do you disagree with that assessment?

Netflix was not paying Comcast for capacity. Comcast had no contractual obligation to provide any additional capacity. Aside from that, your statement is correct.

Now, does net neutrality address that issue?

No, it does not.

 

[quadraginta]

No. The visible effect here was to slow access to Netflix, but how it happened matters. Verizon and Comcast did not block certain sites. They did not slow down certain sites. In fact, they did nothing at all. Do you not get it yet? Verizon took no action. They did nothing to slow down Netflix.

<snip>

That's pretty transparent sophistry.

I am reminded of Burke's comment, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."


Comcast willingly chose to do nothing with the knowledge that it would affect the customer who paid them for a service which they had the capability to provide, and had accepted payment to provide.

Doing nothing is a choice, too.

It wasn't that there was nothing they were able to do to provide the capacity they had agreed to provide, it was that they didn't choose to do it.

And then they tried to lie about the choice they made.

 

[Francesca R]

I don't think there is any way to kick out commissioners before their term ends.

Seems like you identify a downside with regulation.

 

[Francesca R]

No one is arguing that that ISPs would have capacity sit unused, Francesca.

The comic is. As above. And someone linked it so I pointed out the weaknesses with it.

Glad you don't think that what the comic illustrates is actually happening in that respect. Not sure if you believe everything else it represents is accurate.

 

[Francesca R]

That's mighty nice for you. Not sure why you seem so smug about it though.

Why, because it is a superior solution. Which you just agreed with.

 

[quadraginta]

No. The visible effect here was to slow access to Netflix, but how it happened matters. Verizon and Comcast did not block certain sites. They did not slow down certain sites. In fact, they did nothing at all. Do you not get it yet? Verizon took no action. They did nothing to slow down Netflix.

So no, net neutrality cannot do anything to prevent that problem.

Netflix was not paying Comcast for capacity. Comcast had no contractual obligation to provide any additional capacity. Aside from that, your statement is correct.

Now, does net neutrality address that issue?

No, it does not.

You're right. My mistake. I had Comcast fixation. I blame seniority.

It was Verizon that took money from Netflix and then didn't follow through.

From the same article I linked to earlier.

Netflix has recently begun paying both Comcast and Verizon to improve network performance and carry its video streams at higher bandwidths, but so far only Comcast has reciprocated with better service. Not only has Verizon’s performance become dramatically worse, the company has continued to try and foist the blame for the problem on Netflix, claiming that the online streaming giant is deliberately degrading performance by attempting to stuff data down specific congested Verizon pipes.

​

But Netflix didpay Comcast for improved service. They just didn't welsh on the agreement.

Does a vendor paying an ISP for preferential treatment have nothing to do with Net Neutrality?

Maybe we need to define our terms, 'cause that's what I thought one of the core issues was about.

 

[Upchurch]

The comic is. As above.

Then you'll have to find someone who interprets the comic the same as you do to ask for evidence that ISPs are doing wasting capacity.

 

[Francesca R]

I said "stronger network neutrality".

No you said "stronger network neutrality rules".

How that is accomplished, through regulation or other means, I don't care.

Yes you do you said rules.

Why are you being dishonest about what you said?

If you did not actually mean what you said, then say so. Rather than trying to pretend you didn't say it, which is very silly and not at all necessary.

 

[Ziggurat]

Does a vendor paying an ISP for preferential treatment have nothing to do with Net Neutrality?

Netflix wasn't paying for prioritization of their traffic on the network. They were paying for a fatter connection between two networks. Netflix dominated that traffic, but any traffic passing through that connection benefited, and Netflix traffic routed through other paths was never affected.

So no, net neutrality has nothing to do with that.

 

[Francesca R]

Then you'll have to find someone who interprets the comic the same as you do to ask for evidence that ISPs are doing wasting capacity.

In other words, nobody around here thinks that what the comic shows (metaphorically) actually happens. Nobody armed with evidence anyway.

However the public at large might. So--poor show from the writers in misleading deliberately or otherwise.

 

[foophil]

Let me try my hands at a metaphor and see if it sticks.

Think of rural cities as islands away from the mainland. They are connected to the mainland via one or two roads. These roads were funded mostly through vast public works decades ago, though nowadays they are mostly maintained by private companies.

You as a resident of one of these islands would like to get to the mainland. In many cases, your very job depends on it. You have to take the one or two roads to get there. All of a sudden, the owner of the road tells you that if you want to use it, you can't go to New York. Instead, you have to go to Washington D.C. No more New York for you.

You could of course swim, but that isn't going to get you anywhere very fast.

Net Neutrality says that whenever someone uses the road, they should be able to go anywhere. No censorship for the most part. Nowhere does it state the road has to provide a certain speed, just that if you let someone on it, they have to have all destinations treated equally. Prices can still be negotiated for the overall speed limit of the road, but you can't set one speed limit for folks going to New York, and a separate speed limit for folks going to Washington D.C.

That is all. It really is that simple. If there were dozens of roads leaving the island, people would be free to take another one that didn't set the speed limit to their destinations so slow. But in MANY cases, people are stuck with the one road. Building more roads would cost a tremendous amount of money and probably isn't the right answer.

 

[Upchurch]

In other words, nobody around here thinks that what the comic shows (metaphorically) actually happens. Nobody armed with evidence anyway.

No. No one is interpreting the comic the same way you are. And, apparently, no one wants to defend your interpretation of the comic because they don't think it says what you think it says.

It's kind of like asking an atheist for evidence of why they hate God and then declaring that because they can't provide evidence for a claim they didn't make, then God exists.



eta: That's also a metaphor. Is that going to throw you for a loop?

 

[JohnnyG]

You're right. My mistake. I had Comcast fixation. I blame seniority.

It was Verizon that took money from Netflix and then didn't follow through.

From the same article I linked to earlier.

​

But Netflix didpay Comcast for improved service. They just didn't welsh on the agreement.

Does a vendor paying an ISP for preferential treatment have nothing to do with Net Neutrality?

Maybe we need to define our terms, 'cause that's what I thought one of the core issues was about.

To be fair, Verizon did not welsh on the agreement. The reason there was an immediate improvement with Comcast is that they were working for months laying the groundwork for the upgraded connections while the lawyers were hashing out the details. Verizon did not begin working until the agreement was signed.
http://arstechnica.com/information-...solve-its-netflix-problem-as-soon-as-comcast/

However, in September Verizon-FIOS topped the Netflix ISP Speed Index chart with a 3.17 Mbps average.
http://arstechnica.com/information-...paid-verizon-video-speed-on-fios-has-doubled/

 

[Francesca R]

Francesca has been arguing about the superiority of her system for years. The only correct solution, in her eyes, is that the US adopts what she has, regardless of the impracticality of it.

It isn't my system. I am not even from the UK; NZ's telco framework is a lot more messed up.

Your repeated mention of practicalities, does that mean that absent the practicalities you speak of (which are rather vague to be honest) you do actually agree that greater ISP choice is better than, and a replacement for NN rules? If not, why not?