311–320 of 674 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your ISP cracks down, you can always go to the local Starbucks or library to torrent movies. And since the few people who share the WAP all know each other, they can talk things out.
Not if the library or Starbucks have an ISP with similarly restrictive policies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument that Netflix needs to pay Comcast is absurd. Why are people buying high-bandwidth plans from ISPs? Because they want to use services like Netflix . Netflix is not costing ISPs money, it's giving them something to sell . Imagine that taxi drivers want to charge the airport for overwhelming them with passengers and you'll see the absurdity.
Comcast is like the road, not taxis; the last mile is where all the expense is in consumer internet. And congestion charging is a legitimate thing. Why should Granny have to pay more on her internet connection to subsidize your Netflix addiction? Because equal pay for equal access is that: a subsidy from light users to heavy users.
thats just silly, come on!
if that were the truth, and it isn't, then they'd need to increase the price for the monthly package or decrease bandwidth for consumer packages.
/Edit: going with your example: amazon doesn't have to pay to keep the streets in service, despite causing lots of (heavy) traffic through their deliveries. they pay their delivery provider. just like netflix pays for its bandwidth to their ISP
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard this, but I haven't seen recent statements to this point. In fact, IIRC, they were explicitly questioned by some news outlets with the recent kerfluffel and their responses boiled down to "it will all be OK". Frankly, given their market positions, Google and Netflix only stand to win with anti-NN. Google's Public Policy blog [0] seems to back up the no comment stance - their last comment is from 2010, dati…
> I've heard this, but I haven't seen recent statements to this point More recent coverage than your March article on Netflix: http://fortune.com/2017/06/15/netflix-net-neutrality-fcc/ And Google's current (and thus, more recent than your 2015 article) action page on neutrality: https://www.google.com/takeaction/action/freeandopen/index.h...
https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/
Still, good to see they're making statements in favor of NN. Action would be better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "If you like your cable company" I've never once, in my entire life, heard anyone say they like Comcast.
There's many things I don't like about comcast (like customer service and that you have to call them back every year to avoid huge price hikes), but the internet service itself is very reliable (at least for me).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if all of those services are lumped into a bundle that you pay a blanket price for each month, separate from the rest of your online services.
Yes but I'm saying I would not accept that as a customer. People are not going to happily accept the old "bundling" cable TV model that they hate, having experienced the much more open internet model where you really only decide how much bandwidth you want to pay for.
I'm using a general "you" here. It's far more a pervasive presence in peoples' lives than cable tv was.
And I've commented as such already, it likely won't be restrictive and demanding all at once. It will be a progression likely starting with something like:
"Now that we are no longer bound by restrictive government regulations we can offer you new value-added-services that benefit you!
With [company]'s new Speed Boost(TM) packages, you can access your favourite web sites at a higher speed than your current base package allows starting at the low monthly fee of $5! (on a 2 year contract, $10/mo month over month)"
Once the customer base is accustomed, the language changes and becomes:
"Now with [company]'s new Choose What You Use(TM) bundles, we've retired our base packages and now it's up to you what you want to pay for of the internet! Another way we're saving you money!"
And so on. Marketing teams wouldn't let it look like: "Well, you're ours now, bitch." At least not that straight-forward.
Tweet in article: >On December 14, the FCC will vote on Chairman Pai's plan to repeal President Obama's heavy-handed Internet regulations and restore Internet freedom. I love how these laws are veiled with patriotic sentiments, e.g. "Internet Freedom". Just like the "Patriot Act", it is reasonable to assume anything with these sort of labels will likely be an encroachment on your freedoms. Also >"The job of the FCC i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be more interesting if Netflix passed it on to subscribers specifically from the ISP that charges them. Then you can as a consumer make a better decision factoring in the increased price of goods with one ISP over another.
The crux here is that consumers typically have choice between Comcast and Comcast or Spectrum and Spectrum. That's why we need NN. I actually think (and this should be done in addition to NN, not instead) is to encourage local city government to provide Internet access and even allowing smaller companies to lease the infrastructure to them. This would bring back competition again, and the money from leasing would cov…
I made a mistake by assuming an apartment complex built within the last 3 years would have fiber, boy was I wrong. I'll never make that mistake again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a consumer Im paying Comcast for quality access to all of the internet. Its their job to deliver on that. If they allow their peering points with T1 providers to clog up, they are not delivering on the service I purchased. Also, Comcast isn't a transit provider. They're an eyeball network and should expect heavy inbound traffic levels. Also look here: https://www.peeringdb.com/net/822 Their locations are all in th…
> If they allow their peering points with T1 providers to clog up, they are not delivering on the service I purchased. IIRC, the proposed net neutrality regulations would not change this scenario at all. The issue is the absolute leverage that would need to be granted in these agreements for this to be true. In this hypothetically net neutral universe, what should happen when those peering points clog up? Comcast abs…
I'd like to see where in the marketing literature it says this. Right on the pricing page it says Internet Access plans.
It doesnt say Comcast network access plan.
Also, I dont make Comcast oversubscribe their network. Thats a business decision on their side.
Tweet in article: >On December 14, the FCC will vote on Chairman Pai's plan to repeal President Obama's heavy-handed Internet regulations and restore Internet freedom. I love how these laws are veiled with patriotic sentiments, e.g. "Internet Freedom". Just like the "Patriot Act", it is reasonable to assume anything with these sort of labels will likely be an encroachment on your freedoms. Also >"The job of the FCC i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why would ISPs want emulate that failing model? When you control what people see, you control what people think. Dismiss that as tinfoil malarky if you will.
I don’t think it as as ‘tinfoil’ as people may suggest. Moves like this combined with the lift on local news station ownership restrictions make plans to ‘control what people see’ more and more plausible.