So now Netflix is paying the extortion fee to Comcast for it's protection racket. To "speed up our service" aka "stop targeting our service for slow down".

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...aming/5757631/

You are too smart to not understand what verizon is doing amounts to throttling. They are doing it with hardware (or lack of) instead of trafficking rules on routers but it still amounts to throttling NFLX traffic.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...91223249896550

Google to get around the paywall, but this article and the network geeks (said affectionately) that Ive asked about it suggest its not throttling. Verizon isnt blameless, they could make hardware upgrades, but that's different to me from discriminatory throttling of last mile data.

Its not clear to me at all that net neutrality rules would even fix disputes like this, are they treating Netflix traffic different than any other data flowing through Cogent?

It's not throttling in the sense that there are rules built into routers to limit traffic specifically from NFLX.

Consumers paying for streaming "virtually lag-free" (Verizon's words) however doesn't give a crap about that. Verizon has the ability to deliver on that promise by building its connections to Cogent up or participating in NFLX's Open Connect program. It chooses not to. You're way too smart to not understand why this amounts to throttling.

Verizon only resorted to this kind of tactic (allowed under what some considered a loophole with peering agreements) out of necessity. With the rules struck down, their bargaining power in forcing NFLX to pay up increases dramatically.

It doesn't amount to throttling, it does amount to a degradation of the end user experience similar to what is seen in throttling. The reason, to me, that difference is not just semantics is that net neutrality or the recently struck down open internet rules clearly prevent throttling. What would they do to prevent this degradation? Comcast is, after all, still operating under open internet rules.

This seems like a different issue based on a combination of the proliferation of streaming changing the typical way the network infrastructure works and the somewhat non-competitive nature of the broadband market making Verizon/Comcast somewhat willing to put an indirect squeeze on Netflix. I dont think net neutrality would fix this issue.

You have a very very narrow definition of throttling and I am okay with that.

The logical conclusion, in the spirit of net neutrality, is to force ISPs to invest in infrastructure as part of their franchise agreements and licenses. To me, the spirit of "net neutrality" is ISPs should not be allowed to decide what traffic to allow on their networks. They should be required to deliver promised "virtually lag-free" streaming service. And they should do so without using their own customers as hostages trying to extract ransoms from content providers.

Just enforcing current agreements would go a very long way. Verizon for instance took government (federal, state, and local) money promising to build its FiOS network out. By their own admission, they invested large chunks of the "wireline" money into backbone and infrastructure to support their wireless business instead of increasing access to its FiOS network.

I agree I am conflating some issues here. Net neutrality, peering agreements, failure to deliver on promised network are all symptoms of non-competitive nature of the broadband market allowing Verizon/Comcast to put the squeeze on everyone including the consumers, governments, and content providers.

The bolded is a big issue for me. I think 20 Meg service or w/e actually should primarily mean 20 meg service, not 20 meg or "best efforts"

I think id also support public rollout of broadband infrastructure, particularly in underserved areas, perhaps with no one owning the last mile and different providers competing to service the infrastructure, but I have to think it through deeper to make sure its not going to hinder future network investment. Im glad to see Google Fiber poking its nose into more places.

My biggest issue with net neutrality is that Im not convinced that its the right approach to addressing the fundamental issue that broadband markets and the video ecosystem are oligopolistic/monopolistic. I think it is overbroad regulation in some respects, but in other respects fails to touch address anti-competitive, anti-consumer aspects of the business. Id rather take a broader approach to making the industry more competitive so that things like discriminatory throttling would be anathema to a company that tried it.

We don't live in that world.

Status quo is Verizon/Comcast has government granted (on various levels) monopolies.

We should not allow them to use such monopolies to turn around and put the squeeze on the government and consumers.

Net neutrality's new and improved name; Internet freedom !

How to un**** the internet:
The internet is a utility.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/25/54...rnet-is-****ed

****ed url, just replace with ****.

Ill also leave this link here..
EFF To UN Member States: Protect Individuals Right to Privacy

Linky

Also to eliminate roaming mobile phone charges within the EU.

RIP Net Neutrality

Some of the blame unsurprisingly goes to the revolving door between these company leaders becoming the lead regulators and vice versa.

http://www.vice.com/read/former-comc...l-the-internet

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/25/5652534...y-the-internet

Pretty good article, too much to really quote anything

From the Vox cards on net neutrality:

hahahahahaha oh wow

Teach the controversy?

So stupid.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog....html?mobify=0

In 2007, at a public forum at Coe College, in Iowa, Presidential candidate Barack Obama was asked about net neutrality. Specifically, “Would you make it a priority in your first year of office to reinstate net neutrality as the law of the land? And would you pledge to only appoint F.C.C. commissioners that support open Internet principles like net neutrality?”

“The answer is yes,” Obama replied. “I am a strong supporter of net neutrality.” Explaining, he said, “What you’ve been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers and the various portals through which you’re getting information over the Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different rates to different Web sites…. And that I think destroys one of the best things about the Internet—which is that there is this incredible equality there.”

BROBAMA STRIKES AGAIN

Gotta fight this people. These stupid American policies trickle into Canada sometimes and I don't want to the precedent set

Classifying the net a utility was the easier, best, and only was the government was going to win its case and in spite of literally everyone with an once of knowledge of the subject telling them that they chose not to. It's like government legal incompetence at its most obvious.

And the sheep just keep calling competence incompetence because they just can't face the truth.

Please sign the petition. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...lV#thank-you=p

Another great article from Vox: http://www.vox.com/2014/5/2/5665890/...f-the-internet

I ****ing hate monopolies.

Counterpoint: they cite a computer scientist on monopoly economics.

EDIT:

For example:

There is a result in antitrust economics known as the single monopoly profit theorem that says that this specific outcome is impossible. Some people believe that it doesn't hold in all cases, but it's certainly a relevant factor that ought to be considered. But nope, it's straight BIG CORPORATION SO SCARY.

While I don't think it was justified, I wonder what would have happened if MSFT had been split into Windows, Office and IE. I bet Office and IE would be world's better. Windows would probably be the same.

FCC still plowing ahead with their plans to destroy the internet at Comcast's behest.

Pretty much everyone even remotely principled on both extremes of the political ideology are adamantly against it.

How god awful does an idea have to be when Al Franken and Ted Cruz are both calling it out for being terrible?

The head of the FCC is a freaking ex-telecom industry lobbyist for god's sake.

It's basically like Tony Montana being made head of the DEA.

We really aren't a democracy at all or anything remotely close. People's opinions are meaningless. Special interests really do control everything.

Policy is terrible? Massive public opposition? Massive opposition on both sides of the aisle? The experts in the technology industry agrees it's a bad idea? President promised a few years ago he was totally against it?

PASS IT LDO.

This is so ****ing AIDS

I for one do not welcome our new CABLE AND INTERNET PROVIDER OVERLORDS

Could you elaborate why the outcome shouldn't be possible?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using 2+2 Forums