Net Neutrality or..Follow

The "pedestrians" have paid somewhere close to 1/1000th of the cost of the service they receive. How many of you have *ever* been involved in actually purchasing wan bandwidth from backbone providers? Anyone? I have. It costs vastly more than any of you can begin to grasp. The pittance paid for by home customers of ISPs is nothing. It makes up only a tiny portion of the cost to build and maintain all of the network infrastructure required for the internet to work.

Your internet is massively subsidized. Not by the government,. but by various businesses (and yes, those ISPs) who pay ridiculously top dollar for priority access to the network. The rest of us get our network very close to "free".

To complain that you're not getting the performance you paid for is laughable.




Again, you are literally missing the largest 99% of the market and money flow involved and complaining because your teeny tiny piece doesn't work the way you want.

Your internet is massively subsidized. Not by the government,. but by various businesses (and yes, those ISPs) who pay ridiculously top dollar for priority access to the network. The rest of us get our network very close to "free".


Yet again, no. This is simply not the case. I have no idea why you'd think it was. Perhaps you could provide a link to the flashing gif at the geocities page that offered you this magical nugget of information.

Well, at least she isn't receiving auto-erotic asphyxiation from her car.

So what you are saying is that ISPs do not need those pitiful things called subscribers? Or maybe some of those subscribers are also businesses involved in the traffic? I know, I know... it is just crazy.

See.. the thing about analogies is... they can be useless, because they are open to interpretation. In this case, what do you think will happen when the ISPs drop all those leeches that call themselves subscribers? No, really, tell me. I am curious.

p.s. I had a cute set of questions regarding whether the internet is regulated, but I think you may not be ready for those unless you answer the above first. I do not want to give you too much.

Sigh. No. I'm saying that ISPs and the business they directly control represents only a tiny fraction of the entire network. You are obsessing over the ISPs, but ISPs are themselves customers of the backbone providers. They rent their bandwidth. Do you get this? You are looking at a tiny part of the network, mistakenly thinking that the big fish in that tiny part have too much power and control, and are attempting to pass legislation which would "fix" that problem, while not realizing that you would break a whole lot of other things that are much more significant.


Your problem (and the problem of most people when they consider this issue) is that when you read a proposal to make network traffic "neutral" by making it illegal to prioritize packet routing, you only think in terms of your own local ISP. You are not seeing the bigger picture. I've been trying to explain this to you, but you just aren't getting it.


The problem with net neutrality is that it would also place restrictions on routing at the backbone level, with potentially catastrophic results if the law were actually enforced. You simply don't understand how much of the efficient operation of the network is utterly reliant on massive amounts of traffic shaping at that level, which overwhelmingly results in positive performance for the users of the network. The fact that an occasional ISP might do something stupid with their own routing rules within their own little domain is no reason to toss the internet baby out with the bathwater by placing ridiculous rules on the backbone systems.




P.S. Perhaps if you stopped asking me pointless questions and started answering some yourself (like say the 8th time I've asked you to show that you know what net neutrality actually does), maybe that would be more productive?

Edited, Jan 22nd 2014 1:54pm by gbaji

Sounds like Gbaji is one of those "experts" I've been warned about. Luckily, they're no match for my "common sense" figurin'!

Fix'd

I think I had a minor epiphany regarding you.

You actually do think that it is because of the purchases that you make that the users exist. But if there is no internet.. the users will find other venues for **** and cats.

Therefore, it is the **** and cats and make you exist. I do hope you feel humbled.

**** and cats. Think about it.

but ISPs are themselves customers of the backbone providers.

Yeah, when I pay Verizon for home internet they have to buy bandwidth from...oh wait. Right, still not 1985, damn it. Well, when I use data on my phone, ATT has to...oh wait. Oh wait, I forgot, I switched from ATT to Virgin. They're owned by Sprint, when I access data through that phone...ahh ****. Well, I'm sure when you fire up the 26.6 modem and connect to your POP AOL service, that ISP is probably buying something from a Tier 1 carrier. For which you pay by check?

Ok, so ISPs are not an insignificant part of the network?

See Gbaji, kicking and arguing, I dragged you towards the end of the argument. You are welcome.

It's magic, I don't gotta explain ****.