You keep spewing that bullshit even though you've been called on it several times.
"The broadband providers have little real motivation to cut anyone off or to play favorites from outside of their networks."
It's not about cutting but rather to severly cripple everything that doesn't pay and give unfair advantage to their own, often crappy services.
"Netflix is trying to stuff 4K full length movies down an internet connection that is made for webpages, facebook, youtube, and twitter."
No. I'm trying to watch 4k content on a connection I'm paying to do whatever I want, including webpages and twitter. If I wanted just webpages I'd get less speed. You keep pointing at Netflix but it has NOTHING to do with this, it's the customers who want to stuff 4k content via THEIR connections that were PAID already. Stop with this bullshit. Just stop. It's the OBLIGATION of the ISP to provide enough capacity to serve all the customers in their network if they want to Netflix all day. Interestingly, if everybody turns on their cable boxes at the same time the capacity is always available. Go figure? Yes, I'm treating you like an idiot.
"Making ISPs common carriers or enforcing net neutrality won't change that situation one iota. In fact, it might actually move things backwards for companies like Netflix and Google, who might have to give up their preferential peering arrangements."
Stop it. Peering arrangements are an issue of network topography and are common among infra-structure services. And again, Netflix offered to pay for the equipment in that infamous episode with Verizon. So it's NOT a NN issue. Stop.
"Wyden is off on a scare tactic campaign."
No, it's you who are in a let's-spew-crap-all-around campaign devoid of facts and real world basis.
There's a cultural component that must be evaluated. In some countries you can leave your phone, notebook, bike, whatever unattended and unlocked and nobody will touch them. You can sell products by placing the price and leaving a pile of said product there and people will mostly leave the money and take the product. Developed societies, civilizations where people have decided collective welfare is important and they pursue it. That's clearly not the case in China. Or here. Or in a good portion of the world.
It's an useless law. Nothing can prevent a corporation from getting access to public content. A better regulation would be to forbid companies from demanding access to private content.
I don't think the issue discussed in the article fits in your comment. It's talking about public posts. I personally refrain from posting everything public. A better regulation would be to mandate social networks to make public posts disabled by default (opt-in) because many people aren't that tech savvy and will send everything publicly and this can be a problem. Even then I have doubts it should be regulated but it's something I can agree.
As for your comment itself I wholeheartedly agree. It's about time we started protecting employees and demanding humane treatment. And we should start segregating countries that don't do it commercially.
Pai is ignoring tons of people in favor of a single bot so what would prevent him from ignoring this letter and keep pushing his own agenda?
He is just like Trump, he is about half an year too much time in the position and even if they get dumped from their job right now it's already half an year too late.
"Wait, so you think Netflix (and other big bandwidth users) should be allowed to obligate an ISP to add equipment, maintain it, and so on just because Netflix business model depends on it?"
No, the ISP should be obliged to add equipment to better serve the customer who wants to use Netflix. Which is the same as this site, Youtube, Hulu and whoever. The customer is paying to get the access, if they use or not it's their problem. The ISP MUST provide a decent service and if it means adding more ports then it should. It MUST. While network topography has little to do with NN, an ISP abusing their last mile in order to screw other services into paying what the customer is already paying is clearly a problem.
"An ISP who fails to deliver the internet reasonably runs the risk of competition in their marketplace."
No they don't in a good portion of the US who can't have broadband from more than 1 ISP.
"Moreover, and this is key: Not a single ISP has even suggested anything like this. "
No? Data caps with exemptions to their own services? Throttling of whatever services (torrents, streaming) unless its their own? Addition of zombie packets? No need to suggest when you are already doing it.
"This is another area I think you are half right and half wrong on. I don't think ISPs should be content companies, but that ship sailed a very, very, very long time ago and there isn't any coming back from it. Forced divestiture isn't in the cards any time soon."
Nah, it can be done, it's just difficult, complex and will have a huge lobbying against. That's why we need though NN rules in the absence of that separation.
"As for "paid for the pipe" you have to remember that no ISP sells you access with any assumption of 24 hour per day 100% usage."
I don't care, they sold me X speed they should deliver me that speed whenever I want. It's quite amusing to see you ranting about 100% usage all of the time so I'll give my own example: I have the 4 screen plan and a 50/30mbit (down/up) connection (lucky to live in a large urban area). At any moment there will be at least 1 Netflix connection running because it's college break and my partner is at home most of the day. When I get home I turn mine on. There's also bittorrent. I'm constantly seeding anything from 200 to 400 torrents 24/7. My consumption if you count both upload and download blasts over 1Tb very easily any given month. My ISP doesn't have caps and doesn't throttle anything even though it's been selling aggressively for the last 2 years (and benefiting from cord cutting because it is a standalone service, they just offer fixed line via voip). So, if my ISP doesn't see a problem with such heavy users (and most of my heavy using friends came to this ISP) then your argument is simply flawed.
"Simple truth is that Google, with absolute bucket loads of cash came in, tried to be an ISP, and quickly figured out it was expensive to do and a real money loser for them."
Let's ignore the fact that the incumbent ISPs fought tooth and nail to make the deployment as hard and expensive as possible. Let's ignore the state laws ISPs wrote to prevent new competition from entering. Let's forget that Google decided to find ways to deploy their services without having to use poles and other utility structure so it's not like they abandoned it, it's just that they got fed up of getting screwed by the incumbent ISPS. Let's ignore that where Google Fiber deployed the other ISPs magically started offering better services. Right?
I know you'll keep ignoring facts and spewing your bullshit but at the very least don't use obviously debunked arguments.
Where have I said that? If you are referring to the Netflix-Verizon dispute they should be providing their CUSTOMERS the access. They should spend money to provide better access to their goddamn customers. Netflix was one of the affected by their bullshit but lack of ports affects other services as well, it's just that Netflix used more pipe. And remember, people already PAID TO GET NETFLIX WATER THROUGH THE PIPE. Don't start with that "netflix is freeloading" trope. It's tired and it's laughably wrong.
"Competition has overall increased during this time (Google Fiber, FioS, AT&T Fiber and more have all expanded to areas introducing more competition), it's just very slow since everyone is focusing on net neutrality rather than putting the focus on the need to increase of competition. Net neutrality literally does absolutely nothing about competition."
Increased in very select areas you mean. And the competition part can't be addressed with serious money and regulatory fixing. NN is just a blanket to cover those customers that will never have many options, real competition to choose from. So yeah, we should be focusing on NN as well.
"also these new net neutrality rules making a larger barrier of entry and leading to less competition."
Please explain me why. Let's take a smaller ISP that successfully installs their network. They provide no other service so they don't have any interest in giving priority to any other service. In fact they want to be chosen by the public so they'll focus on giving a better service for a better price. NN says they have to do.. NOTHING to the traffic, they have to let it be. So what's the barrier?
That Google statement just highlights how Google was unaffected by the rules. Because it was already following them. The focus of NN isn't providers that are doing it right, it's Comcast, Verizon, ATT etc..
"The FCC should be abolished, it has done nothing good for society."
I'm not so sure. Who would regulate a market in dire need of proper regulation?
"telling me with my decades of relevant experience that I don't know what I'm talking about."
Armchair? Really? I don't need to reply to you, there are plenty fo excellent texts by people that actually have technical expertise and are well known in the EFF, here and in other places proving you wrong. Or at the very least misguided.
"Since we have already jumped that shark, net neutrality really isn't possible without some huge clawbacks that nobody wants to deal with."
You jumped it. Nobody in your head wants to deal with what YOU perceive as clawbacks. There's so much bullshit in your comment that's hard to reply in a short one.
"There is nothing (and I mean nothing) out there that suggests you would have to ask permission for an ISP to "carry" your website."
Of course, that would be going too far. But charging a toll to be delivered in time, with no throttling? Without NN they can. That's almost like having to ask permission but with money.
"All of the regulatory capture that you and Karl (especially Karl) go on and on about would disappear under intense pressure from the public to get their internet back."
It's been explained time and time again to you but intelligence is not your strong trait. If the ISPs were properly regulated like Karl has suggested there would be more competition or at the very least better service with no bullshit like zero rating and throttling. The precise lack of regulation and action by the govt is what allowed the whole sector to undergo a concentration. If there was no regulation at all we would be back to 1984 with a giant Comcast royally screwing customers with nobody to protect them.
"and this without any regulation and any oversight except the pressure of public demand."
No. Just no. It's been already explained to you, there was regulation till the 2000's. Then some moron thought "we need less regulation" and we have Comcasts and Verizons of the world as the product.
"Will ISPs have "over the top" services that will have better connections? Yes. They have those now. Many companies from Netflix to Facebook and Google have all built out private networks and provide private peering to ISPs. Some of them have appliances inside ISP data centers to serve content and do other things for them, without any need for peering. This is not a new thing, this is not something special. "
And this has NOTHING to do with NN. It's a matter of natural network topography. And it was already explained here.
"Remember, the Net Neutrality fight started because Netflix (and it's bandwidth intensive business model) couldn't get enough peering because they chose to use a single provider that wasn't always well liked by ISPs."
No, it's much older than that. This was one episode of the ISP abusing its last mile dominance to screw Netflix by refusing to add a 20k equipment that would provide better services to thousands of customers. Netflix offered to pay for the equipment. Level 3 had a very thorough explanation of how they had shitloads of capacity to spare and the culprit was Verizon (if memory serves).
The next paragraph is a huge pile of crap that I'm not even quoting. If we want NN ISPs should be forbidden from providing content while owning the pipe and should be mandated via regulations to provide equal paths to whoever was using their structure. The customers PAID to get the pipe and they should use it the way they desire.
The world needs more love. If people just thought "there is another human on the other side" at every interaction and acted accordingly we would have less deaths, less hunger, less racism, less everything bad. And we'd probably vote more welfare governments in instead of the usual crony stuff we have. If you can feel empathy you can put yourself in the shoes of the other person and it's very easy to list what we don't want to happen with ourselves.
While I do think the peasants won't be generally heard if there's enough money/power/ass-saving in play (look at what the fuck they are doing in Brazil for an example of how it doesn't really matter) taking stances and making noise of what's the right path will, at worst, leave ammunition to others more well positioned to fight/roll back such crap. It already works like this with some organizations, they need the support of the numbers to do their magic. So, yeah, we need to keep bugging these morons in power positions.
Re: Re: Re: Re: So 'do the impossible' and 'get users to do what they already do'?
" I'm an ABSOLUTELY FIRM believer that gravity itself can NEVER be even slightly affected by ANY means other than varying mass (including change to energy)."
Australia begs to differ.
Anyway, you are just a firm believer which means you don't understand but you accept it. This is called faith. And it seems faith is the basis of everything you say.
Mathematics don't apply to "motherfucking eagles" as well. I suspect in their world it would be Newton floating and hitting the apple because they issued an injunction against laws of gravity because it helps terrorist throw planes at buildings effectively bringing said buildings down. Evil gravity I tell you, we need some gravity backdoors.
"... and I would look for ways to try to see if I could get the private sector more on-board to understand why this issue is so important to keep us all safe."
This both shows he is not willing to listen and provides examples so teachers can use when they talk about paradoxes. You won't keep anybody safe by insisting on the encryption must allow law enforcement in trope.
Having pets I can almost feel what the family went through.
They shoot compliant people to death in front of their family. They shoot peoples docile, non-threatening pets in front of their owners. And they want us to trust they will use their deadly tools and their power over the ordinary citizen wisely and stay calm near them.
Right. Might as well let the burglars in, at least there's less chance of damage to living beings.
On the post: Senator Wyden To FCC Chair Pai: Hey, Stop Lying About What I Said To Undermine Net Neutrality
Re: Re: ??
On the post: Senator Wyden To FCC Chair Pai: Hey, Stop Lying About What I Said To Undermine Net Neutrality
Re: Re:
On the post: Senator Wyden To FCC Chair Pai: Hey, Stop Lying About What I Said To Undermine Net Neutrality
Re: Wyden goes "over the top"
"The broadband providers have little real motivation to cut anyone off or to play favorites from outside of their networks."
It's not about cutting but rather to severly cripple everything that doesn't pay and give unfair advantage to their own, often crappy services.
"Netflix is trying to stuff 4K full length movies down an internet connection that is made for webpages, facebook, youtube, and twitter."
No. I'm trying to watch 4k content on a connection I'm paying to do whatever I want, including webpages and twitter. If I wanted just webpages I'd get less speed. You keep pointing at Netflix but it has NOTHING to do with this, it's the customers who want to stuff 4k content via THEIR connections that were PAID already. Stop with this bullshit. Just stop. It's the OBLIGATION of the ISP to provide enough capacity to serve all the customers in their network if they want to Netflix all day. Interestingly, if everybody turns on their cable boxes at the same time the capacity is always available. Go figure? Yes, I'm treating you like an idiot.
"Making ISPs common carriers or enforcing net neutrality won't change that situation one iota. In fact, it might actually move things backwards for companies like Netflix and Google, who might have to give up their preferential peering arrangements."
Stop it. Peering arrangements are an issue of network topography and are common among infra-structure services. And again, Netflix offered to pay for the equipment in that infamous episode with Verizon. So it's NOT a NN issue. Stop.
"Wyden is off on a scare tactic campaign."
No, it's you who are in a let's-spew-crap-all-around campaign devoid of facts and real world basis.
On the post: When The 'Sharing Economy' Turns Into The 'Missing Or Stolen Economy'
On the post: EU Looks To Prevent Employers From Viewing An Applicant's Publicly Available Social Media Information
On the post: EU Looks To Prevent Employers From Viewing An Applicant's Publicly Available Social Media Information
Re: This law can make some sense...
As for your comment itself I wholeheartedly agree. It's about time we started protecting employees and demanding humane treatment. And we should start segregating countries that don't do it commercially.
On the post: Senator Wyden To FCC Chair Pai: Hey, Stop Lying About What I Said To Undermine Net Neutrality
He is just like Trump, he is about half an year too much time in the position and even if they get dumped from their job right now it's already half an year too late.
On the post: Our Net Neutrality Comments To The FCC: We Changed Our Mind, You Can Too
Re: Re: Re: Your comment here....
No, the ISP should be obliged to add equipment to better serve the customer who wants to use Netflix. Which is the same as this site, Youtube, Hulu and whoever. The customer is paying to get the access, if they use or not it's their problem. The ISP MUST provide a decent service and if it means adding more ports then it should. It MUST. While network topography has little to do with NN, an ISP abusing their last mile in order to screw other services into paying what the customer is already paying is clearly a problem.
"An ISP who fails to deliver the internet reasonably runs the risk of competition in their marketplace."
No they don't in a good portion of the US who can't have broadband from more than 1 ISP.
"Moreover, and this is key: Not a single ISP has even suggested anything like this. "
No? Data caps with exemptions to their own services? Throttling of whatever services (torrents, streaming) unless its their own? Addition of zombie packets? No need to suggest when you are already doing it.
"This is another area I think you are half right and half wrong on. I don't think ISPs should be content companies, but that ship sailed a very, very, very long time ago and there isn't any coming back from it. Forced divestiture isn't in the cards any time soon."
Nah, it can be done, it's just difficult, complex and will have a huge lobbying against. That's why we need though NN rules in the absence of that separation.
"As for "paid for the pipe" you have to remember that no ISP sells you access with any assumption of 24 hour per day 100% usage."
I don't care, they sold me X speed they should deliver me that speed whenever I want. It's quite amusing to see you ranting about 100% usage all of the time so I'll give my own example: I have the 4 screen plan and a 50/30mbit (down/up) connection (lucky to live in a large urban area). At any moment there will be at least 1 Netflix connection running because it's college break and my partner is at home most of the day. When I get home I turn mine on. There's also bittorrent. I'm constantly seeding anything from 200 to 400 torrents 24/7. My consumption if you count both upload and download blasts over 1Tb very easily any given month. My ISP doesn't have caps and doesn't throttle anything even though it's been selling aggressively for the last 2 years (and benefiting from cord cutting because it is a standalone service, they just offer fixed line via voip). So, if my ISP doesn't see a problem with such heavy users (and most of my heavy using friends came to this ISP) then your argument is simply flawed.
"Simple truth is that Google, with absolute bucket loads of cash came in, tried to be an ISP, and quickly figured out it was expensive to do and a real money loser for them."
Let's ignore the fact that the incumbent ISPs fought tooth and nail to make the deployment as hard and expensive as possible. Let's ignore the state laws ISPs wrote to prevent new competition from entering. Let's forget that Google decided to find ways to deploy their services without having to use poles and other utility structure so it's not like they abandoned it, it's just that they got fed up of getting screwed by the incumbent ISPS. Let's ignore that where Google Fiber deployed the other ISPs magically started offering better services. Right?
I know you'll keep ignoring facts and spewing your bullshit but at the very least don't use obviously debunked arguments.
On the post: Our Net Neutrality Comments To The FCC: We Changed Our Mind, You Can Too
Re: Re: Techdirt and the EFF were right before
On the post: Our Net Neutrality Comments To The FCC: We Changed Our Mind, You Can Too
Re: Re: Re: Your comment here....
On the post: Our Net Neutrality Comments To The FCC: We Changed Our Mind, You Can Too
Re: Techdirt and the EFF were right before
Increased in very select areas you mean. And the competition part can't be addressed with serious money and regulatory fixing. NN is just a blanket to cover those customers that will never have many options, real competition to choose from. So yeah, we should be focusing on NN as well.
"also these new net neutrality rules making a larger barrier of entry and leading to less competition."
Please explain me why. Let's take a smaller ISP that successfully installs their network. They provide no other service so they don't have any interest in giving priority to any other service. In fact they want to be chosen by the public so they'll focus on giving a better service for a better price. NN says they have to do.. NOTHING to the traffic, they have to let it be. So what's the barrier?
That Google statement just highlights how Google was unaffected by the rules. Because it was already following them. The focus of NN isn't providers that are doing it right, it's Comcast, Verizon, ATT etc..
"The FCC should be abolished, it has done nothing good for society."
I'm not so sure. Who would regulate a market in dire need of proper regulation?
"telling me with my decades of relevant experience that I don't know what I'm talking about."
Armchair? Really? I don't need to reply to you, there are plenty fo excellent texts by people that actually have technical expertise and are well known in the EFF, here and in other places proving you wrong. Or at the very least misguided.
On the post: Our Net Neutrality Comments To The FCC: We Changed Our Mind, You Can Too
Re: Your comment here....
You jumped it. Nobody in your head wants to deal with what YOU perceive as clawbacks. There's so much bullshit in your comment that's hard to reply in a short one.
"There is nothing (and I mean nothing) out there that suggests you would have to ask permission for an ISP to "carry" your website."
Of course, that would be going too far. But charging a toll to be delivered in time, with no throttling? Without NN they can. That's almost like having to ask permission but with money.
"All of the regulatory capture that you and Karl (especially Karl) go on and on about would disappear under intense pressure from the public to get their internet back."
It's been explained time and time again to you but intelligence is not your strong trait. If the ISPs were properly regulated like Karl has suggested there would be more competition or at the very least better service with no bullshit like zero rating and throttling. The precise lack of regulation and action by the govt is what allowed the whole sector to undergo a concentration. If there was no regulation at all we would be back to 1984 with a giant Comcast royally screwing customers with nobody to protect them.
"and this without any regulation and any oversight except the pressure of public demand."
No. Just no. It's been already explained to you, there was regulation till the 2000's. Then some moron thought "we need less regulation" and we have Comcasts and Verizons of the world as the product.
"Will ISPs have "over the top" services that will have better connections? Yes. They have those now. Many companies from Netflix to Facebook and Google have all built out private networks and provide private peering to ISPs. Some of them have appliances inside ISP data centers to serve content and do other things for them, without any need for peering. This is not a new thing, this is not something special. "
And this has NOTHING to do with NN. It's a matter of natural network topography. And it was already explained here.
"Remember, the Net Neutrality fight started because Netflix (and it's bandwidth intensive business model) couldn't get enough peering because they chose to use a single provider that wasn't always well liked by ISPs."
No, it's much older than that. This was one episode of the ISP abusing its last mile dominance to screw Netflix by refusing to add a 20k equipment that would provide better services to thousands of customers. Netflix offered to pay for the equipment. Level 3 had a very thorough explanation of how they had shitloads of capacity to spare and the culprit was Verizon (if memory serves).
The next paragraph is a huge pile of crap that I'm not even quoting. If we want NN ISPs should be forbidden from providing content while owning the pipe and should be mandated via regulations to provide equal paths to whoever was using their structure. The customers PAID to get the pipe and they should use it the way they desire.
Seriously.
On the post: Latest EU Parliament Votes On Copyright: Fuck The Public, Give Big Corporations More Copyright
On the post: De-Escalation Works, But US Law Enforcement Hasn't Show Much Interest In Trying It
On the post: Our Net Neutrality Comments To The FCC: We Changed Our Mind, You Can Too
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: So 'do the impossible' and 'get users to do what they already do'?
Australia begs to differ.
Anyway, you are just a firm believer which means you don't understand but you accept it. This is called faith. And it seems faith is the basis of everything you say.
On the post: Trump's Pick For FBI Head Sounds A Lot Like The Guy He Fired When It Comes To Encryption
Re: The math still does not add up
On the post: Trump's Pick For FBI Head Sounds A Lot Like The Guy He Fired When It Comes To Encryption
Re: Well, that's half of the skill-set...
This both shows he is not willing to listen and provides examples so teachers can use when they talk about paradoxes. You won't keep anybody safe by insisting on the encryption must allow law enforcement in trope.
On the post: Aussie Prime Minister Says The Laws Of Math Don't Apply In Australia When It Comes To Encryption
Re: Country that Tries to Kill You
On the post: The War On Dogs Continues: Cop Shoots Two Non-Threatening Dogs During Burglar Alarm Call
They shoot compliant people to death in front of their family. They shoot peoples docile, non-threatening pets in front of their owners. And they want us to trust they will use their deadly tools and their power over the ordinary citizen wisely and stay calm near them.
Right. Might as well let the burglars in, at least there's less chance of damage to living beings.
Next >>