SpoilerI'm allowed to go around the internet without monopolistic TV companies trying to make bits and pieces of it faster and slower.So in the end, we are maintaining the status quo of "slow as shit compared to other first world western countries" internet.
Let's say you have a network that has connections in Chicago, Nashville, and Atlanta. But you have no connections thst you own in New York. You have a customer who wants to connect to a server in New York, so you need to pass that traffic off to my company that has connections in New York, Nashville, and Dallas.My customer in Dallas wants to connect to a server in Chicago - but I can't get them all the way. I can get them to Nashville (where we both have connections) but then they have to go to your network.Well, to make things work smoothly, networks like yours and mine set up peering arrangements to make these types of handoffs faster (all our customers get better service and we have less problems to deal with) and usually that's a simple handshake type deal, it really makes no sense for us to monitor the usage and bill each other, since 99.9% of the time the traffic is going to be roughly equal and therefore we're going to end up cancelling out each other's bill, so it would really just be making busy work for no real gain. Pretty much all the major providers do this, it is part of how the network is global, usable and fast.Now, Netflix comes along, and they have customers in Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Dallas and Nashville, so they want us to peer with them - and that will improve things for the customers we have in those cities, but unlike a traditional peering arrangement, the mutual benefit basically goes out the window, because unlike the agreement and peering me and you have setup, Netflix pretty much just pushes data downstream (and they push a metric shit ton of it). Nothing is going back up the pipe to offset our additional costs or improve overall connectivity etc.So, me and you look at the situation and say "Hey, these fuckers are basically getting a free ride by abusing the system we've spent ~30 years as engineers making work. Maybe they should help spread some of that cost around since between 20-30% of the traffic going through our network is theirs.". So we go to Netflix and point out our concerns and say, "Hey, we figure with our bi-directional peers, we're spending X and getting Y in return. With your peering, we're spending X and getting... basically nothing. Maybe if you pay us an equal amount the Y would get with a traditional peering setup, we can keep doing this, otherwise, we're not going let you put this server in our data center and pay for the electricity and maintenance etc."Netflix turns around and screams to their customer base, "These two fuckers are screwing you over! They expect us to pay for bandwidth both ways! This goes against the historical agreements networks are built on. And you know what? They expect us to pay so much, that we might have to raise all of your bills $0.05 per month to cover our added costs! Make government force them to not charge us!"
SpoilerI don't know, because for some reason the government hasn't made the 332-page Magna Carta of regulation available for public viewing.
Quote from: Luciana on February 27, 2015, 12:35:27 AMSpoilerI'm allowed to go around the internet without monopolistic TV companies trying to make bits and pieces of it faster and slower.So in the end, we are maintaining the status quo of "slow as shit compared to other first world western countries" internet.SpoilerNot entirely true.Companies like Google and Sonic.net can now bypass all the red tape that was previously preventing them from throwing up fiber optic cables and providing gigabit internet everywhere since they're now being labeled as a utility.It won't be instant, but shit should be changing here in the next few years.
The FCC is not Congress.
Spoilergovernment interference in the internet and motions against free expression rights
Quote from: Mad Max on February 27, 2015, 02:03:10 AMQuote from: Arm The Mob on February 27, 2015, 01:53:40 AMSpoilergovernment interference in the internet and motions against free expression rightsSpoilerWhy do you say that? Why would classifying this as a utility remove the freedom of expression?SpoilerAny time the state can dictate what is done with a communication system, you open the door for that kind of thing. It's 3am here so I may not be thinking straight.
Quote from: Arm The Mob on February 27, 2015, 01:53:40 AMSpoilergovernment interference in the internet and motions against free expression rightsSpoilerWhy do you say that? Why would classifying this as a utility remove the freedom of expression?
Is there any evidence that service providers will, or ever did, throttle speed or prices for access to certain sites?
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 27, 2015, 10:21:36 AMIs there any evidence that service providers will, or ever did, throttle speed or prices for access to certain sites?http://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-reaches-streaming-traffic-agreement-with-comcast/This is the thing that comes to mind <.<
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on February 27, 2015, 10:24:21 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 27, 2015, 10:21:36 AMIs there any evidence that service providers will, or ever did, throttle speed or prices for access to certain sites?http://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-reaches-streaming-traffic-agreement-with-comcast/This is the thing that comes to mind <.<If anything, that's evidence of the market's ability to self-correct. Netflix is a competitor to Comcast, yet they reached a deal to provide non-preferential partnership wherein Netflix pays a fee for the use of Comcast's infrastructure.I'm worried this FCC decision has done little except cement the existent monopolies.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 27, 2015, 10:29:42 AMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on February 27, 2015, 10:24:21 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 27, 2015, 10:21:36 AMIs there any evidence that service providers will, or ever did, throttle speed or prices for access to certain sites?http://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-reaches-streaming-traffic-agreement-with-comcast/This is the thing that comes to mind <.<If anything, that's evidence of the market's ability to self-correct. Netflix is a competitor to Comcast, yet they reached a deal to provide non-preferential partnership wherein Netflix pays a fee for the use of Comcast's infrastructure.I'm worried this FCC decision has done little except cement the existent monopolies.It seemed more like Comcast extorting Netflix so that it's customers (Netflix) won't be having throttled/shite connections giving a borderline useless service <.<Netflix then has to pay a premium to Comcast so that it's customers don't cancel their subscriptions because they get awful quality video.
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on February 27, 2015, 10:35:15 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 27, 2015, 10:29:42 AMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on February 27, 2015, 10:24:21 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 27, 2015, 10:21:36 AMIs there any evidence that service providers will, or ever did, throttle speed or prices for access to certain sites?http://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-reaches-streaming-traffic-agreement-with-comcast/This is the thing that comes to mind <.<If anything, that's evidence of the market's ability to self-correct. Netflix is a competitor to Comcast, yet they reached a deal to provide non-preferential partnership wherein Netflix pays a fee for the use of Comcast's infrastructure.I'm worried this FCC decision has done little except cement the existent monopolies.It seemed more like Comcast extorting Netflix so that it's customers (Netflix) won't be having throttled/shite connections giving a borderline useless service <.<Netflix then has to pay a premium to Comcast so that it's customers don't cancel their subscriptions because they get awful quality video.It'd hardly call that extortion. Despite being internet-based, they're still a direct competitor to Comcast's broadcasting.
They're not forced. Google is laying down their own fiber, and cell providers build their own network. The infrastructure is an investment, and allowing other companies to use it freely, as this FCC decision does, isn't preventative of monopolies, it's destructive to fair competition. Why should anyone build any more of this infrastructure if they don't benefit from its exclusivity?
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 27, 2015, 11:03:36 AMThey're not forced. Google is laying down their own fiber, and cell providers build their own network. The infrastructure is an investment, and allowing other companies to use it freely, as this FCC decision does, isn't preventative of monopolies, it's destructive to fair competition. Why should anyone build any more of this infrastructure if they don't benefit from its exclusivity?But it's talking about existing infrastructure. Currently, many cities [including my own] only have one ISP you can have because no other ISP is allowed to run cables. That's anti-competitive.
Quote from: Mad Max on February 27, 2015, 11:08:07 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 27, 2015, 11:03:36 AMThey're not forced. Google is laying down their own fiber, and cell providers build their own network. The infrastructure is an investment, and allowing other companies to use it freely, as this FCC decision does, isn't preventative of monopolies, it's destructive to fair competition. Why should anyone build any more of this infrastructure if they don't benefit from its exclusivity?But it's talking about existing infrastructure. Currently, many cities [including my own] only have one ISP you can have because no other ISP is allowed to run cables. That's anti-competitive.Where do you live that restricts laying cable?
Irvine, CA. The only ISP available to us is Cox Communications. Luckily, they aren't complete assholes so it's not so bad, but since there's no competition, there's no reason for them to lower costs or provide better service.
It'd hardly call that extortion. Despite being internet-based, they're still a direct competitor to Comcast's broadcasting.
Quote from: Mad Max on February 27, 2015, 11:17:58 AMIrvine, CA. The only ISP available to us is Cox Communications. Luckily, they aren't complete assholes so it's not so bad, but since there's no competition, there's no reason for them to lower costs or provide better service. losing net neutrality would have only made things worse for start-up ISPs.
In your own words, describe what this Net Neutrality FCC decision means
