He is so completely full of shit and blatantly trying to use rhetoric to justify the fact that he's going to vote for corporate interests that bought and paid for him. I can't help but get angry about this. What's that fallacy called where you fabricate a problem where there isn't one? Net neutrality advocates have never, ever wanted to limit what you're allowed to pay for as a consumer, and are pretty much unanimous…
"Net neutrality advocates have never, ever wanted to limit what you're allowed to pay for as a consumer."
I'd like to pay $3/month for my Netflix traffic to not count towards any caps. Is that allowed?
Now, can I ask my ISP to just bill Netflix, who (with more customers than any US fixed-wire ISP) can negotiate something less than $3/month?
Server hosting companies like OVH maintain their own lines or earmarked-guaranteed bandwidth shared-lines (I imagine the intercontinental ones) between their data centers. It may not be practical for hospitals and other real time needs based organizations to maintain their own physical limes, but isn't this the point where such an organization directly makes a business contract with a near backbone provider like leve…
Guaranteed bandwidth shared lines are a violation of net neutrality. Tell me how this differs from having a Priority Lane that's reserved for Comcast's real-time video streams. Tell lawmakers how to write laws that differentiate them, even when cable companies are playing word and classification games.
Net Neutrality is a far more complex issue than Title II regulation in the US. Title II is a good first step, but will bring with it many problems, that we'll soon have to deal with.
He is so completely full of shit and blatantly trying to use rhetoric to justify the fact that he's going to vote for corporate interests that bought and paid for him. I can't help but get angry about this. What's that fallacy called where you fabricate a problem where there isn't one? Net neutrality advocates have never, ever wanted to limit what you're allowed to pay for as a consumer, and are pretty much unanimous…
"Net neutrality advocates have never, ever wanted to limit what you're allowed to pay for as a consumer." I'd like to pay $3/month for my Netflix traffic to not count towards any caps. Is that allowed? Now, can I ask my ISP to just bill Netflix, who (with more customers than any US fixed-wire ISP) can negotiate something less than $3/month?
caps? data caps? what is that - Europeans want to know :)
Server hosting companies like OVH maintain their own lines or earmarked-guaranteed bandwidth shared-lines (I imagine the intercontinental ones) between their data centers. It may not be practical for hospitals and other real time needs based organizations to maintain their own physical limes, but isn't this the point where such an organization directly makes a business contract with a near backbone provider like leve…
Guaranteed bandwidth shared lines are a violation of net neutrality. Tell me how this differs from having a Priority Lane that's reserved for Comcast's real-time video streams. Tell lawmakers how to write laws that differentiate them, even when cable companies are playing word and classification games. Net Neutrality is a far more complex issue than Title II regulation in the US. Title II is a good first step, but wi…
Perhaps what I am thinking of is predetermined point-to-point networking.
Though creating a ring or a rigid mesh on top of that for such networks seems to create the whole segregated network problem again.
Perhaps I feel like point-to-point (rather than classification to any receiver) could be treated differently.
Server hosting companies like OVH maintain their own lines or earmarked-guaranteed bandwidth shared-lines (I imagine the intercontinental ones) between their data centers. It may not be practical for hospitals and other real time needs based organizations to maintain their own physical limes, but isn't this the point where such an organization directly makes a business contract with a near backbone provider like leve…
Guaranteed bandwidth shared lines are a violation of net neutrality. Tell me how this differs from having a Priority Lane that's reserved for Comcast's real-time video streams. Tell lawmakers how to write laws that differentiate them, even when cable companies are playing word and classification games. Net Neutrality is a far more complex issue than Title II regulation in the US. Title II is a good first step, but wi…
> Guaranteed bandwidth shared lines are a violation of net neutrality.
Perhaps of an poorly written net neutrality law. But can you predict what will be a violation of net neutrality before the laws are written and the courts interpret them?
It's certainly a complex issue, requiring deep understanding of the Internet. I support it in principle, but have little faith that any government will handle it well.
He is so completely full of shit and blatantly trying to use rhetoric to justify the fact that he's going to vote for corporate interests that bought and paid for him. I can't help but get angry about this. What's that fallacy called where you fabricate a problem where there isn't one? Net neutrality advocates have never, ever wanted to limit what you're allowed to pay for as a consumer, and are pretty much unanimous…
"Net neutrality advocates have never, ever wanted to limit what you're allowed to pay for as a consumer." I'd like to pay $3/month for my Netflix traffic to not count towards any caps. Is that allowed? Now, can I ask my ISP to just bill Netflix, who (with more customers than any US fixed-wire ISP) can negotiate something less than $3/month?
If the Netflix traffic was exempt from your data cap, you would be paying $(Netflix rate)/(Netflix usage) for Netflix, while you would be paying (monthly rate)/(other usage) other usage. That means different rates for different types of data. The core problem that net neutrality addresses is that, in allowing the ISP to charge different rates for different data, they can prioritize data based on their own interest, rather than what the consumer wants. Say your ISP decides that, instead of offering a flat rate to deliver Netflix service, it will launch its own content service which, when accessed, would not count towards your data cap. In this way, the ISP can undercut Netflix's service because they own a monopoly on the mode of transmission - that is, you can't get Netflix through any other mode of transmission. The same can be said about speed: if your ISP limits the bandwidth of Netflix's video streams so that you can only watch in standard definition, but places no such limits on its own service, then the ISP can again unfairly undercut Netflix (and this happened, actually - Netflix was strong-armed into paying a large sum so that an ISP wouldn't rate-limit Netflix content). Net Neutrality prevents such scenarios from arising, by forcing ISPs to treat all types of data equally. Therefore, it cannot leverage its monopoly on distribution to prevent innovation of Internet services by competitors.
He is so completely full of shit and blatantly trying to use rhetoric to justify the fact that he's going to vote for corporate interests that bought and paid for him. I can't help but get angry about this. What's that fallacy called where you fabricate a problem where there isn't one? Net neutrality advocates have never, ever wanted to limit what you're allowed to pay for as a consumer, and are pretty much unanimous…
"Net neutrality advocates have never, ever wanted to limit what you're allowed to pay for as a consumer." I'd like to pay $3/month for my Netflix traffic to not count towards any caps. Is that allowed? Now, can I ask my ISP to just bill Netflix, who (with more customers than any US fixed-wire ISP) can negotiate something less than $3/month?
Data caps do not exist for non-mobile Internet connections in Germany. The speed of the Internet is still increasing. We are at a point where i don't even care about getting more. Bandwidths of 250mbit are announced to come to the market in the coming years. I can live with stable 50mbit. The real problem are rural areas where people are stuck with 2mbit/256kbit lines and throwing away net neutrality will not change a damn thing about this. Laying kilometers of fibreglass into the ground for less than 500 customers will never be profitable. Even if they can charge half of them with a premium fee.
This guy, Günther Oettinger, has been against net neutrality from the beginning, and he's now in charge of setting the net neutrality agenda. He was also the one the newspapers lobbied so he would campaign against Google and force it to pay money to newspapers in Germany.
Worse yet, he even said that ISPs should be able to lock-in customers for longer periods of time so they can "recover their investments", or something.
The EU Commission should stop pretending that net neutrality is getting killed by national governments. They have an inside man doing the exact same thing there.
Oh, and he'll also be responsible for drafting the new EU-wide copyright laws. So yeah...the next couple of years are going to be very interesting.
Julia Reda had a talk at the latest CCC on the upcoming copyright law:
He is so completely full of shit and blatantly trying to use rhetoric to justify the fact that he's going to vote for corporate interests that bought and paid for him. I can't help but get angry about this. What's that fallacy called where you fabricate a problem where there isn't one? Net neutrality advocates have never, ever wanted to limit what you're allowed to pay for as a consumer, and are pretty much unanimous…
"Net neutrality advocates have never, ever wanted to limit what you're allowed to pay for as a consumer." I'd like to pay $3/month for my Netflix traffic to not count towards any caps. Is that allowed? Now, can I ask my ISP to just bill Netflix, who (with more customers than any US fixed-wire ISP) can negotiate something less than $3/month?
When you buy power to toast some bread, do you pay a different dollar-per-watt rate, depending on whether your toaster was made by the same company that owns the power plant?
The problem with allowing special arrangements it that companies can--and do--use them in anticompetitive and manipulative ways.