Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Verizon already slowing down Netflix...Follow

#52 Feb 13 2014 at 9:54 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
737 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Just because I didn't see it posted here. Or if it was, it was posted buried in something I wasn't going to read. In that case, here's my +1.

Quote:
"J.P. Morgan analyst Doug Anmuth...says he has been talking to Netflix CEO Reed Hastings and CFO David Wells, and they told him they don’t think cable and telco companies are hampering the company’s video streams. Anmuth doesn’t have much to report on the topic, so here are his comments in their entirety: "Netflix does not seem overly concerned regarding Net Neutrality, and continues to believe that violations would be escalated quickly. Netflix also indicated that it has no evidence or belief that its service is being throttled


False alarm then; it happens. Wanna bet on how soon it will not be a false alarm though?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#53 Feb 13 2014 at 10:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
angrymnk wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Just because I didn't see it posted here. Or if it was, it was posted buried in something I wasn't going to read. In that case, here's my +1.

Quote:
"J.P. Morgan analyst Doug Anmuth...says he has been talking to Netflix CEO Reed Hastings and CFO David Wells, and they told him they don’t think cable and telco companies are hampering the company’s video streams. Anmuth doesn’t have much to report on the topic, so here are his comments in their entirety: "Netflix does not seem overly concerned regarding Net Neutrality, and continues to believe that violations would be escalated quickly. Netflix also indicated that it has no evidence or belief that its service is being throttled


False alarm then; it happens. Wanna bet on how soon it will not be a false alarm though?
No, not really.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#54 Feb 14 2014 at 7:08 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
737 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Just because I didn't see it posted here. Or if it was, it was posted buried in something I wasn't going to read. In that case, here's my +1.

Quote:
"J.P. Morgan analyst Doug Anmuth...says he has been talking to Netflix CEO Reed Hastings and CFO David Wells, and they told him they don’t think cable and telco companies are hampering the company’s video streams. Anmuth doesn’t have much to report on the topic, so here are his comments in their entirety: "Netflix does not seem overly concerned regarding Net Neutrality, and continues to believe that violations would be escalated quickly. Netflix also indicated that it has no evidence or belief that its service is being throttled


False alarm then; it happens. Wanna bet on how soon it will not be a false alarm though?
No, not really.


You make me sad.

So be it.

Come on patsy.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#55 Feb 14 2014 at 10:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
I just realized that making other people sad gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Does that make me a bad person?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#56 Feb 14 2014 at 10:26 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,042 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I just realized that making other people sad gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Does that make me a bad person?

It makes you a Republican. So, yes.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#57 Feb 14 2014 at 10:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Debalic wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
I just realized that making other people sad gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Does that make me a bad person?

It makes you a Republican. So, yes.
Darn it all, you're right. I should have seen it coming. First the wife stays home, we move to the fancy suburb, buy an SUV, this was the logical next step.

Well time to get the registration papers I guess. Anyone know if foxnews has an app?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#58 Feb 14 2014 at 10:41 AM Rating: Decent
In Canada our Internet is good. So I am watching Season 2 of House of Cards on Netflix today.

This has nothing to do with what you guys are talking about, other than Netflix and Internet use.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#59 Feb 14 2014 at 11:14 AM Rating: Good
******
44,501 posts
Debalic wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
I just realized that making other people sad gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Does that make me a bad person?
It makes you a Republican. So, yes.
Or German.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#60 Feb 14 2014 at 11:56 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,042 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Debalic wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
I just realized that making other people sad gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Does that make me a bad person?
It makes you a Republican. So, yes.
Or German.

Smiley: glare
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#61 Feb 14 2014 at 12:02 PM Rating: Good
******
44,501 posts
Schadenfreud, mein freund.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#62 Feb 14 2014 at 5:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
What happens with networks is precisely what happens with road systems. It doesn't matter how wide your street is from your house to the freeway, or how many streets there are, or even if we run a separate street from each persons house to the freeway. The bottleneck will always be the onramp that you and all the folks traveling along all the roads leading to that onramp all have to share. You're doing the equivalent of wondering why it takes you an hour to commute to work since you paid for a really wide driveway. Um... It's not the driveway that's the problem.

Yeah, again, no.


Sigh...

Quote:
Bandwidth costs virtually nothing, maintaining fiber costs virtually nothing.


Um... No. Fiber is quite expensive, both the physical cable and the connections.

Quote:
You can run it 100 miles to the CO and plug it into a blade in a backbone switch without any additional overhead.


Except for the physical cost of the cable itself. And the cost to run the cable. And, more significantly, you have to plug the **** cable into something. There aren't an infinite number of "somethings" to just plug cables into. You get that you can't just splice fiber optic cables together into one big cable and magically have a trunkline or something. Every single fiber optic cable has to plug into a connector. And every single connector has to have sufficient smarts to transfer the pulses of light traveling down that cable into new pulses of light traveling down the bundle of cables that are on the back end of that switch.

That's not only not "free", it's freaking expensive as ****.

Quote:
Verizon is a Tier 1 carrier, they have no incentive to oversubscribe FIOS, and really given the economics, it'd be hard for them to even manage it.


Yes, numbskull. Which is why they really aren't just running a length of cable directly from your house into a backbone (no matter how far away it is). They're running it like a quarter mile to their local switch, along with all the other users in that quarter mile radius. That switch then runs a single higher capacity line to another layer of switch, which in turn runs to another switch, which maybe then finally has a big fat pipe that runs into a true backbone.

You don't understand a **** thing about network architecture. I do. No one, and I mean no one, just runs wire directly from each individuals house to the top tier of their network. If for no other reason than you'd end up with a bundle of fiber cable 100 feet wide by the time you got there.

Quote:
I guess they could intentionally degrade end user connections for absolutely no reason, but, amazingly they don't. Fiber goes from my ONT to a passive splitter to the CO, to a backbone switch. That's it. Why so simple? Because it's not fucking copper. Because there doesn't need to be an elaborate system of repeaters overlaid on existing analog infrastructure to support it. There's no trunk involved, you just plug it in.


Yeah. That's not how it works. Again. Think about how many users there are in a given physical area. Then think about how many individual fiber cables they'd need to run every single one of them directly to the nearest segment of backbone trunkline. Then realize how monumentally stupid your idea is.

It doesn't matter if it's fiber or copper. The basic assumptions and cost effects are the same. I'm frankly not sure why you'd think that fiber is some magical thing that somehow changes all the rules. It's not. At the end of the day, it's a cable down which data can be sent and received. There's no magic.

Fiber to the end user is largely a marketing scheme. It's mostly being incorporated by providers who are behind on infrastructure and need to upgrade. So, if you're going to spend the money digging up the street, you may as well run the latest and greatest wire, right? And they can charge 2-3 times as much to the customer for giving them "fiber to the house". And certainly, this process also involves upgrading their switch clouds along the way (so there is generally going to be an actual increase in overall performance). But at the end of the day, the same cost restrictions still apply. They don't magically go away because you're laying a different type of wire.

Edited, Feb 14th 2014 3:18pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Feb 14 2014 at 6:51 PM Rating: Good
**
505 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I just realized that making other people sad gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Does that make me a bad person?


I does make you bad, but on the bright side, chicks really dig bad boys.
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#64 Feb 15 2014 at 9:54 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,564 posts

Yes, numbskull. Which is why they really aren't just running a length of cable directly from your house into a backbone (no matter how far away it is). They're running it like a quarter mile to their local switch


Nope. They don't. They run it into a backbone. Not a secret, go look at the Verizon technical documents. Why? Because it's not 1985, and the internet "backbone" isn't a fixed location where multimillion dollar frame relay rooms can't be moved

You can stop guessing now, seriously. We're done discussing it. I'm still interested in what you actually do for a living. Your complete lack of any useful technical context is pretty telling. I assume it's something where you follow instructions from a manual and pray every day you don't get replaced by perl script, but it's sort of fascinating.


You don't understand a **** thing about network architecture. I do. No one, and I mean no one, just runs wire directly from each individuals house to the top tier of their network. If for no other reason than you'd end up with a bundle of fiber cable 100 feet wide by the time you got there


Hahhaha. Ahh, no. Wow, you are so obviously not a networking person, it's almost painful. I'm sure it was an awesome class you took for a week for MCSE or whatever, but, buddy, let me tell you, you're ******* lost. I really enjoy the part where you think Verizon's "top tier of their network" is like a ******* building in Maryland where all of the backbone switches live in a big room. It's great that you have this bizarre mental block where everything is always marketing and you're the only one who sees it. I assume because you're a massive sucker and have been taken so many times that you just figure that's how the world works, but no, "fiber to the n" makes a massive difference. That's why Google rolls out fiber and offers almost free broadband and 1gb for $70 a month. Because, unlike, copper, there's no overhead for adding bandwidth to fiber. Because there's a one time cost of $100m to pass every house in a metro area with fiber...which you then run back to a backbone switch....and.....plug it the **** it. That's why Vtel in Vermont can roll out fiber to 20,000 homes in ******* VERMONT and charge $40 a month for 1gb service. Because WITH FIBER bandwidth costs almost nothing.....why? Because you run it back to a backbone switch and PLUG IT THE **** IN. As to the "100 foot wide cable," ********* fiber is passively split, usually about 32 per splitter, usually once. Including cladding, the diameter of fiber is about 125 µm, so about 32,000 end users to an inch of diameter.

Why are you so stupid? Is there any answer?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#65 Feb 19 2014 at 11:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
WSJ wrote:
The Federal Communications Commission said Wednesday that it will craft new rules to prevent Internet service providers from charging companies like Netflix Inc. or Google Inc. a toll to reach consumers at the highest speeds.
[...]
Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out FCC rules barring broadband providers from blocking or slowing down websites, but the court acknowledged the commission has some authority regulate broadband company practices. The FCC on Wednesday said it won't appeal the D.C. Circuit's ruling and will instead attempt to reintroduce rules under legal authority outlined by the court's ruling.
[...]
The announcement means the FCC has thus far resisted calls from Democrats and public interest groups to reclassify broadband Internet as a public utility [...] A senior FCC official said Chairman Tom Wheeler plans to leave the option for reclassification open at present. The official also said the commission would consider ways to enhance competition in the broadband market by encouraging towns and cities to build their own broadband networks.

____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Feb 19 2014 at 11:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
So they're going to craft new rules to do the same thing the old rules did. Only the old rules were illegal, but the new ones won't be.

Or something... Smiley: glare
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#67 Feb 19 2014 at 11:58 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,982 posts
Meanwhile, we're all left to wonder why the **** it isn't a utility.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#68 Feb 19 2014 at 2:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Yes, numbskull. Which is why they really aren't just running a length of cable directly from your house into a backbone (no matter how far away it is). They're running it like a quarter mile to their local switch


Nope. They don't. They run it into a backbone.


Not unless you're using a radically different definition of "internet backbone" than everyone in the industry. Seriously Smash. You're just plain wrong. I could explain exactly how and why, but if all you're going to do is insist you're right while providing no reason why anyone should believe you, there kinda isn't much point. It's like arguing with a 6 year old who insists that Dinosaurs really do live and no amount of telling him otherwise will dissuade him.

So... Have fun in your delusional world where there are magical wires that go directly from your house to an internet backbone. In the real world where there's a whole series of layers between the two, the adults will make sure things keep working, so don't you worry your head about it.



Quote:
Because, unlike, copper, there's no overhead for adding bandwidth to fiber.


Yup. 6 year old mentality. You honestly have no freaking clue how fiber works, do you? There is more overhead for fiber bandwidth. Not less. Single gbics are often more expensive than whole switches of copper connections. What makes fiber attractive compared to fiber is the higher number of total bandwidth you can send down a single cable. But this only actually saves you money if you route multiple customers through a single cable. Get it? If you actually ran a separate dedicated fiber connection directly from each house to your backbone it would cost a ridiculous amount of money and waste 99.9% of the actual functionality of the medium you're using (not to mention the whole "bundle of cable 100 feet in diameter issue).

What you're saying is just so laughably bizarre to anyone actually in the industry that it's hard to even take you seriously. Yet, despite my initial assumption that you were just joking around, you seem to actually believe what you're saying. What's next? Pixie dust powered phones?

Quote:
why? Because you run it back to a backbone switch and PLUG IT THE @#%^ IN.


You are grossly oversimplifying the "run back to a backbone" and "plug it in" parts of that though. I really think you honestly don't understand that those are the expensive parts of any network.

Quote:
As to the "100 foot wide cable," bullsh*t, fiber is passively split, usually about 32 per splitter, usually once. Including cladding, the diameter of fiber is about 125 µm, so about 32,000 end users to an inch of diameter.


Sigh... Only if they are sharing cable. Which is the point I've been making all along.

Have you ever actually looked at a single fiber optic cable. You know, like the one running from your house? Seriously. Go look at it. Now imagine if that one wire was run all the way to a single backbone point, along with every other individual cable from each individual home. Remember, your argument is that there is no switch clouds or sharing of cables at any point in between (so each individual home gets the full bandwidth capacity of their own individual cable all the way to the backbone). I'm saying that's not remotely how networks are set up. It's not remotely close.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#69 Feb 19 2014 at 4:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,540 posts
WSJ tackled this issue today. What I gathered from my quick skim of the article was:
- ISPs demanded extra money from Netflix to support all their extra bandwidth
- Netflix said no, because of prior agreements
- ISPs said fine, and have lagged upgrading their connections to intermediate carriers that service the Netflix AWS data center, meaning that the Netflix traffic slows down as usage increases

It's not software throttling (e.g. closing lanes on a busy bridge *cough*). This hardware capacity problems - more like refusing to expand a highway to 8 lanes despite the sheer number of cars traveling on it, because the person in the other city hasn't agreed to pay for part of the cost. The ISPs actually do have a solid argument - if Netflix agreed to cover the hardware upgrades necessary to handle their traffic, then they wouldn't be slowed down.

The thing is, the prior agreement was sort of a "gentleman's agreement" between ISPs and data centers and the big trunk connections, since the idea was that everyone's traffic would all kind of even out in the wash. Netflix has a right to be annoyed that the ISPs suddenly want to make an exception since their particular company is doing so well.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#70 Feb 19 2014 at 5:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Catwho wrote:
WSJ tackled this issue today. What I gathered from my quick skim of the article was:
- ISPs demanded extra money from Netflix to support all their extra bandwidth
- Netflix said no, because of prior agreements
- ISPs said fine, and have lagged upgrading their connections to intermediate carriers that service the Netflix AWS data center, meaning that the Netflix traffic slows down as usage increases


This is more or less what I was referring to when I said that at the back end, there are some agreements and cost sharing that goes on that most end users aren't even aware of, but which is more or less necessary for "the internet" to work at all. The key to realize is that while one company may serve as a service provider (ISP) and a content provider, and a intermediate/trunck carrier (also known as backbone providers), those are actually three different businesses.

It's wrong to say that ISPs lagged upgrading their connections. Because if that was true, they'd be "slow" to everywhere, not just AWS. It's the backbone providers which did and only for their physical connections to AWS. And for good reason IMO.

Quote:
The thing is, the prior agreement was sort of a "gentleman's agreement" between ISPs and data centers and the big trunk connections, since the idea was that everyone's traffic would all kind of even out in the wash. Netflix has a right to be annoyed that the ISPs suddenly want to make an exception since their particular company is doing so well.


Again, it's not about ISPs at all. Verizon the ISP, purchases the license to run cable directly to homes and businesses in an area. Verizon the backbone/trunck/whatever provider owns and operates larger bundles of wires that connect ISPs to them and them to other backbone segment owners. It's the agreements between those backbone owners that ensures that everyone pays a fair price for the traffic that their customers are generating on the network as a whole.

Another way to look at it is that the real problem is that AWS is not paying for sufficient bandwidth connections for their customers, one of which happens to be Netflix. This trickles through the whole system and causes the folks with physical wires connecting to their centers to not have any reason to increase bandwidth to them, unless they pay a higher prices. Why would they? It would be like having a neighbor who you allow to share your wifi for a small fee deciding to host a massive and popular web site, but refusing to pay more for his connection and then also complaining that you don't upgrade your wifi to provide faster performance.

Worse, all of the customers of that neighbors website jump up and down and complain how their access to their favorite website is being "throttled" by the evil guy who owns the actual network that's being used, but isn't being paid for it. If you want something, you have to pay for it. The problem is that too many people have gotten used to the idea that everything on the internet is "free". It's not. Usually it's just that someone else is paying the lion's share of the cost. But when something like Netflix begins generating massive amounts of traffic, their ISP will have to pay more for that, and thus have to charge them more for it, and they'll have to charge their customers more as well. That's kinda just the way things work.

Edited, Feb 19th 2014 5:43pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#71 Feb 19 2014 at 9:09 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
737 posts
gbaji wrote:
Catwho wrote:
WSJ tackled this issue today. What I gathered from my quick skim of the article was:
- ISPs demanded extra money from Netflix to support all their extra bandwidth
- Netflix said no, because of prior agreements
- ISPs said fine, and have lagged upgrading their connections to intermediate carriers that service the Netflix AWS data center, meaning that the Netflix traffic slows down as usage increases


This is more or less what I was referring to when I said that at the back end, there are some agreements and cost sharing that goes on that most end users aren't even aware of, but which is more or less necessary for "the internet" to work at all. The key to realize is that while one company may serve as a service provider (ISP) and a content provider, and a intermediate/trunck carrier (also known as backbone providers), those are actually three different businesses.

It's wrong to say that ISPs lagged upgrading their connections. Because if that was true, they'd be "slow" to everywhere, not just AWS. It's the backbone providers which did and only for their physical connections to AWS. And for good reason IMO.

Quote:
The thing is, the prior agreement was sort of a "gentleman's agreement" between ISPs and data centers and the big trunk connections, since the idea was that everyone's traffic would all kind of even out in the wash. Netflix has a right to be annoyed that the ISPs suddenly want to make an exception since their particular company is doing so well.


Again, it's not about ISPs at all. Verizon the ISP, purchases the license to run cable directly to homes and businesses in an area. Verizon the backbone/trunck/whatever provider owns and operates larger bundles of wires that connect ISPs to them and them to other backbone segment owners. It's the agreements between those backbone owners that ensures that everyone pays a fair price for the traffic that their customers are generating on the network as a whole.

Another way to look at it is that the real problem is that AWS is not paying for sufficient bandwidth connections for their customers, one of which happens to be Netflix. This trickles through the whole system and causes the folks with physical wires connecting to their centers to not have any reason to increase bandwidth to them, unless they pay a higher prices. Why would they? It would be like having a neighbor who you allow to share your wifi for a small fee deciding to host a massive and popular web site, but refusing to pay more for his connection and then also complaining that you don't upgrade your wifi to provide faster performance.

Worse, all of the customers of that neighbors website jump up and down and complain how their access to their favorite website is being "throttled" by the evil guy who owns the actual network that's being used, but isn't being paid for it. If you want something, you have to pay for it. The problem is that too many people have gotten used to the idea that everything on the internet is "free". It's not. Usually it's just that someone else is paying the lion's share of the cost. But when something like Netflix begins generating massive amounts of traffic, their ISP will have to pay more for that, and thus have to charge them more for it, and they'll have to charge their customers more as well. That's kinda just the way things work.

Edited, Feb 19th 2014 5:43pm by gbaji


I am sorry. I do give absolutely zero @#%^s that they want more money from AWS when I sign an agreement with comcast or vz to deliver the speeds they advertised; absolutely zero @#%^s.

I do get that you like your oligopopoly, but this is where the regulation has to take place; that, or a break-up.

Edited, Feb 19th 2014 10:10pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#72 Feb 19 2014 at 10:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
angrymnk wrote:
I am sorry. I do give absolutely zero @#%^s that they want more money from AWS when I sign an agreement with comcast or vz to deliver the speeds they advertised; absolutely zero @#%^s.


Then you are ignorant as ****. Not sure how else to say this. Someone has to pay for the increased bandwidth used by AWS. Who do you supposed should do so? Either VZ pays for it (well, each and every ISP that has users who might connect to AWS), in which case all of their customers then have to foot the bill, or AWS pays for it, in which case their customers have to (which means Netflix pays, which means Netflix consumers pay). Get it?

Pick one. I'm assuming that if you are a customer of VZ, you don't want VZ to pay for it, because you might not be a customer of AWS. It's unfair for all the VZ customers who *don't* use Netflix to have to pay for the extra bandwidth that product uses, right? Yet that's what you seem to think should happen. Doesn't it make more sense that AWS is responsible for its own bandwidth use and charge its customers for it? I think it does.

Quote:
I do get that you like your oligopopoly, but this is where the regulation has to take place; that, or a break-up.


I'll take oligopoly over authoritarian government regulation any day. The oligopoly has a profit motive to pursue. So ultimately, they need paying customers. Which means that they have to produce a product that people are actually willing to choose to spend dollars on instead of anything else they might spend those dollars on. The government, as we've witnessed recently with Obamacare, can just pass a law mandating what products must be sold. And if enough people don't choose to buy the product? It can just pass a law requiring them to buy it, no matter how crappy it is.


So yeah. Easy choice.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#73 Feb 19 2014 at 10:36 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
737 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
I am sorry. I do give absolutely zero @#%^s that they want more money from AWS when I sign an agreement with comcast or vz to deliver the speeds they advertised; absolutely zero @#%^s.


Then you are ignorant as ****. Not sure how else to say this. Someone has to pay for the increased bandwidth used by AWS. Who do you supposed should do so? Either VZ pays for it (well, each and every ISP that has users who might connect to AWS), in which case all of their customers then have to foot the bill, or AWS pays for it, in which case their customers have to (which means Netflix pays, which means Netflix consumers pay). Get it?

Pick one. I'm assuming that if you are a customer of VZ, you don't want VZ to pay for it, because you might not be a customer of AWS. It's unfair for all the VZ customers who *don't* use Netflix to have to pay for the extra bandwidth that product uses, right? Yet that's what you seem to think should happen. Doesn't it make more sense that AWS is responsible for its own bandwidth use and charge its customers for it? I think it does.

Quote:
I do get that you like your oligopopoly, but this is where the regulation has to take place; that, or a break-up.


I'll take oligopoly over authoritarian government regulation any day. The oligopoly has a profit motive to pursue. So ultimately, they need paying customers. Which means that they have to produce a product that people are actually willing to choose to spend dollars on instead of anything else they might spend those dollars on. The government, as we've witnessed recently with Obamacare, can just pass a law mandating what products must be sold. And if enough people don't choose to buy the product? It can just pass a law requiring them to buy it, no matter how crappy it is.


So yeah. Easy choice.


Hey there tiger-- I did not sign up several million people without proper infrastructure to service all of them. My heart aches that they ****** up. It truly does, but they promised to deliver something. If they fail to deliver, they should be held accountable.

And they are; hence the net neutrality debate where people are just no longer amused by their services not being delivered at the levels promised.

**** the unfair, VZ and comcast already took my money once. If they miscalculated what they needed from me to support their business, then they should increase the rates or upgrade the infrastructure. They chose option c, give whatever $ left to the executives. Again, my heart aches that people actually demand some decent service.

I am sorry. Internet is a utility these days. It might as well be treated as such.

____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#74 Feb 20 2014 at 7:56 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,311 posts
angrymnk wrote:

I am sorry. Internet is a utility these days. It might as well be treated as such.

Monopoly would need another update.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#75 Feb 20 2014 at 8:43 AM Rating: Good
******
44,501 posts
They just added a cat piece, didn't they? What more do you liberals want?!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#76 Feb 20 2014 at 9:12 AM Rating: Decent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,540 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
They just added a cat piece, didn't they? What more do you liberals want?!


The luxury tax to be more than $75, to start.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#77 Feb 20 2014 at 9:40 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,564 posts
This is more or less what I was referring to when I said that at the back end, there are some agreements and cost sharing that goes on that most end users aren't even aware of, but which is more or less necessary for "the internet" to work at all

Nope. I mean, no moreso than anything else would be. It's obvious that your ignorance is so staggeringly overwhelming that you've developed a vagueness to every statement so that it could be attributed to anything. "Right, this is what I meant when I said "something might happen, maybe"
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#78 Feb 21 2014 at 3:12 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,016 posts
Elinda wrote:
angrymnk wrote:

I am sorry. Internet is a utility these days. It might as well be treated as such.

Monopoly would need another update.




Instead of "Go To Jail" you have "Wait on Hold with Verizon".
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#79 Feb 21 2014 at 9:02 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,042 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Elinda wrote:
angrymnk wrote:

I am sorry. Internet is a utility these days. It might as well be treated as such.

Monopoly would need another update.



Instead of "Go To Jail" you have "Wait on Hold with Verizon".

Oh. My. GOD. As a DSL reseller at the dawn of the broadband era, I spent literally days on hold with Verizon. They treated their "business partners" worse than their customers.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#80 Feb 23 2014 at 3:58 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
Link

Quote:
In a landmark deal, Netflix has agreed to pay Comcast for direct access to the company's broadband system. The announcement comes after months of dispute between Netflix and broadband providers about who should pay for increasing bandwidth loads.

If you haven't been following the streaming wars, here's the basic gist: As Netflix has grown, an argument over who should pay for the increasing loads—the broadband provider or Netflix—has emerged. In the meantime, Netflix has been buying its bandwidth from a company called Cogent, which acts as the middle man between Netflix and Comcast or Verizon, which in turn deliver the stream to you. But that agreement hasn't worked out very well.

Under this new deal, Netflix will access Comcast's network directly—or, almost directly, according to the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the news this afternoon. "Under the deal, Netflix won't be able to place its servers inside Comcast's data centers, which Netflix had wanted," the paper explains. "Instead, Comcast will connect to Netflix's servers at data centers operated by other companies."

The deal was confirmed in a joint statement:

Quote:
Comcast Corporation and Netflix, Inc. today announced a mutually beneficial interconnection agreement that will provide Comcast's U.S. broadband customers with a high-quality Netflix video experience for years to come. Working collaboratively over many months, the companies have established a more direct connection between Netflix and Comcast, similar to other networks, that's already delivering an even better user experience to consumers, while also allowing for future growth in Netflix traffic. Netflix receives no preferential network treatment under the multi-year agreement, terms of which are not being disclosed.


According to the WSJ, the deal was struck in January at CES, and that the details of the agreement were hammered out earlier this month.

What does this all mean for you? For one thing, Comcast customers are due to see some serious improvement when it comes to streaming video. But it's an ominous sign for the ongoing battle for net neutrality—a far more complex issue at stake here. In January, a federal court dealt a death blow to net neutrality when it struck down the FCC's open Internet rules, which demand, essentially, that all data be treated equal.

That decision opened up the possibility that broadband providers—like Comcast—could start giving specific companies—like Netflix—preferential treatment. But for now, it's still unclear what, if anything, this definitive agreement could mean for net neutrality.
#81 Feb 24 2014 at 7:25 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
737 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Link

Quote:
In a landmark deal, Netflix has agreed to pay Comcast for direct access to the company's broadband system. The announcement comes after months of dispute between Netflix and broadband providers about who should pay for increasing bandwidth loads.

If you haven't been following the streaming wars, here's the basic gist: As Netflix has grown, an argument over who should pay for the increasing loads—the broadband provider or Netflix—has emerged. In the meantime, Netflix has been buying its bandwidth from a company called Cogent, which acts as the middle man between Netflix and Comcast or Verizon, which in turn deliver the stream to you. But that agreement hasn't worked out very well.

Under this new deal, Netflix will access Comcast's network directly—or, almost directly, according to the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the news this afternoon. "Under the deal, Netflix won't be able to place its servers inside Comcast's data centers, which Netflix had wanted," the paper explains. "Instead, Comcast will connect to Netflix's servers at data centers operated by other companies."

The deal was confirmed in a joint statement:

Quote:
Comcast Corporation and Netflix, Inc. today announced a mutually beneficial interconnection agreement that will provide Comcast's U.S. broadband customers with a high-quality Netflix video experience for years to come. Working collaboratively over many months, the companies have established a more direct connection between Netflix and Comcast, similar to other networks, that's already delivering an even better user experience to consumers, while also allowing for future growth in Netflix traffic. Netflix receives no preferential network treatment under the multi-year agreement, terms of which are not being disclosed.


According to the WSJ, the deal was struck in January at CES, and that the details of the agreement were hammered out earlier this month.

What does this all mean for you? For one thing, Comcast customers are due to see some serious improvement when it comes to streaming video. But it's an ominous sign for the ongoing battle for net neutrality—a far more complex issue at stake here. In January, a federal court dealt a death blow to net neutrality when it struck down the FCC's open Internet rules, which demand, essentially, that all data be treated equal.

That decision opened up the possibility that broadband providers—like Comcast—could start giving specific companies—like Netflix—preferential treatment. But for now, it's still unclear what, if anything, this definitive agreement could mean for net neutrality.


Well, ****...Yeah, **** pretty much expresses my thoughts right now.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#82 Feb 24 2014 at 4:48 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,218 posts
I got lost somewhere after the second post, but I gather it's pretty much all ******* right?
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#83 Feb 24 2014 at 4:59 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Mazra wrote:
I got lost somewhere after the second post, but I gather it's pretty much all @#%^ed, right?
From what I've gathered it's mostly for Americans who get the shaft on internet speeds as it is anyway.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#84 Feb 24 2014 at 7:09 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,079 posts
I thought for sure that this thread would have 100% agreement. Is there anything that we all agree on?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#85 Feb 24 2014 at 8:32 PM Rating: Good
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Mazra wrote:
I got lost somewhere after the second post, but I gather it's pretty much all @#%^ed, right?
From what I've gathered it's mostly for Americans who get the shaft on internet speeds as it is anyway.


Yay capitalism!
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#86 Feb 26 2014 at 7:31 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,311 posts
I would just like to report that my internet service from TWC is sucking more and more each day. During prime times it drops sporadically and frequently - this makes my pvp gaming interesting, if not impossible. No one likes to hear the excuse, 'it was my isp's fault'.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 29 All times are in CST
Bijou, Kastigir, Kuwoobie, Anonymous Guests (26)