Net neutrality takes a major leap today!

[grover5]

Remember that Netflix wasn't initially party to the peering agreement, Cogent was. When Cogent biffed it, then Netflix created brand new agreements, which, yes, cost money.

So what, in your view, differentiates a settlement free peering agreement with a normal peering agreement? Why would the network receiving the traffic pay the network transmitting it? I won't say it never happened, if market conditions allowed for it, but normally the sending network pays for delivery. For an example of this, search for articles that describe Cogent's spats with Level 3 (e.g. Level 3 Issues Statement Concerning Internet Peering and Cogent Communications -- re> BROOMFIELD, Colo., Oct. 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- ). Note that Level 3 is complaining that Cogent is not paying for their imbalance of traffic. Again, normal, and supports what I have been saying.



We don't yet know that the FCC rules do. So I *might* agree with you. My point all along is that people are completely confused and think that Net Neutrality is about the Netflix issue. I've been trying to tease out the difference. So I agree with you when it comes to Netflix and neutrality. But even you completely biffed the definition of a peering agreement.

My only goal give some examples and explain things. You'll have to trust me on this, but I don't work for a telco or a large ISP. I can't be accused of bias because I'm beholden to them, because I'm not! I have always been a huge fan of the Internet! I've been working in and around the Internet since 1991 (before it was commercialized). I've been following this stuff for a while. I love networking, that's all!

That works. I'm a huge fan of the internet as well.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

 

[2ndAmendNut]

I don't care who was trying to do what. It never fails. Whenever the government regulates something, service is degraded and the price goes up. That's a lose/lose for all of us.


Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

 

[kilofoxtrot]

I don't care who was trying to do what. It never fails. Whenever the government regulates something, service is degraded and the price goes up. That's a lose/lose for all of us.


Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

~ Adam Smith

 

[hydrogen3]

Many government run offices are poorly run. I would never say otherwise.

Under this Administration. That's 100% correct.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[grover5]

Under this Administration. That's 100% correct.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Under any administration.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

 

[hydrogen3]

Under any administration.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

Meh. Unfortunately we're in the Obama Administration.


Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

 

[jeffgus]

Hey all,
Here is a pretty good article about the FCC and Netflix:

Netflix, call your lawyers: FCC is ready for interconnection complaints | Ars Technica

The article starts off reporting that Netflix thinks that the new FCC rules may help them. But they also note that purposeful throttling was never an issue with Netflix:

As a clarification, ISPs were not (as far as we know) "throttling" interconnection points. Rather, they refused to add capacity until they received money, which had a similar effect because it caused congestion that slowed Internet traffic down.

Well, duh, that is how peering works. If they don't like it, use standard transit bandwidth and hope for the best.

Reading the article just confirms to me that Netflix is just a bunch of whiners. They want to restructure the entire fee structure of the Internet so they don't have to pay for packet delivery over peering. Okay fine, they can hold that belief, but it is radically different than the way the Internet works right now. They are using the issue of Net Neutrality to dupe people in to supporting them. Then they want to use that sway to enlist the government to help them. Sorry, I don't want to helping a large company mold the government for their own purposes while telling us it is for freedom. I don't buy it.

We'll see if the new rules actually help Netflix. As stated earlier, it is not yet clear that it will. It seems that Netflix thinks than this is just the first step.

I would be more on board it there were plenty of cases of companies blocking sites and purposely slowing traffic.

 

[grover5]

Hey all,
Here is a pretty good article about the FCC and Netflix:

Netflix, call your lawyers: FCC is ready for interconnection complaints | Ars Technica

The article starts off reporting that Netflix thinks that the new FCC rules may help them. But they also note that purposeful throttling was never an issue with Netflix:



Well, duh, that is how peering works. If they don't like it, use standard transit bandwidth and hope for the best.

Reading the article just confirms to me that Netflix is just a bunch of whiners. They want to restructure the entire fee structure of the Internet so they don't have to pay for packet delivery over peering. Okay fine, they can hold that belief, but it is radically different than the way the Internet works right now. They are using the issue of Net Neutrality to dupe people in to supporting them. Then they want to use that sway to enlist the government to help them. Sorry, I don't want to helping a large company mold the government for their own purposes while telling us it is for freedom. I don't buy it.

We'll see if the new rules actually help Netflix. As stated earlier, it is not yet clear that it will. It seems that Netflix thinks than this is just the first step.

I would be more on board it there were plenty of cases of companies blocking sites and purposely slowing traffic.

That was the point of the ruling. Comcast, Verizon and AT&T wanted the right to slow and block.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

 

[Septembersrain]

It is a very good day. Thankful for the democrats and net neutrality. Obamacare has helped millions of uninsured people get insurance while decreasing the rate of increased insurance cost. I'll take that any day.

You have no idea just how ridiculous Obamacare really is. Costs didn't go down for everyone. Add in the fact that you couldn't keep your own doctor, couldn't visit a specialist without a referral, then to add injury to insult... They got hacked and many people had their info sold. Oh and 80k people got wrong Tax information too. Being fined for not having the healthcare you couldn't afford? That's like giving a broke man a fine for being broke! Counterproductive if you ask me.

As for net neutrality, I'm waiting to see the real cost in all this.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

You have no idea just how ridiculous Obamacare really is. Costs didn't go down for everyone. Add in the fact that you couldn't keep your own doctor, couldn't visit a specialist without a referral, then to add injury to insult... They got hacked and many people had their info sold. Oh and 80k people got wrong Tax information too. Being fined for not having the healthcare you couldn't afford? That's like giving a broke man a fine for being broke! Counterproductive if you ask me.

As for net neutrality, I'm waiting to see the real cost in all this.

We should have kept what we had...... It was perfect right?

 

[kch50428]

Holman Jenkins: The Net Neutrality Crack-Up - WSJ


Gordon Crovitz: Liberals Mugged by Obamanet - WSJ

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

Again, if you are defining "fast lanes" as peering then you have no idea how the Internet works. Any peering connection that is not settlement free requires the party that is sending the bulk of the traffic to pay for delivery.

I don't have a dog in this fight yet because now that it has become political I really haven't taken a stance one way or the other considering my limited knowledge of laws that relate to net neutrality among other things. That said, I'm trying to understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that a provider holds a legal right to charge more to a service like Netflix based on the bulk of traffic they bring as the law currently stands? Trust me, I've read all these posts but I'm still confused as to why people are upset that Comcast would charge a big company with a heavy load of traffic more money for bandwidth speeds. It seemed plausible to me when I first started reading about this with the Verizon/Netflix thing.

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

We should have kept what we had...... It was perfect right?

No, it wasn't. But are we going to keep using that question to counter-argue whatever point someone makes now? It's tantamount to the "Well, we were in that war because of Bush" argument whenever we get into a discussion on war and terrorism.

 

[Just_Me_D]

We should have kept what we had...... It was perfect right?

No, not perfect. Just better, in my opinion. Some people were without health insurance before the healthcare law went into effect and some people are still without health insurance, but this time they'll be fined for not having it. What people like to exclude is that a lot of people didn't have health insurance because they didn't want it or felt that it was unnecessary at the time. Some people still feel that way. They had the right to choose and the healthcare law took away that right.

 

[grover5]

I know what Jeff is saying is factual... and you, grover5, don't know what the FCCs new rules are because they've not been made public... You only know the ordure your favorite social justice technoblogs are dropping in the proverbial sandbox.

Wheeler announced the gist of what he was going to back in early February Keith. So you are wrong again. You just have to read the news, not what Rupert Murdoch tells you but the actual news.

 

[grover5]

No, not perfect. Just better, in my opinion. Some people were without health insurance before the healthcare law went into effect and some people are still without health insurance, but this time they'll be fined for not having it. What people like to exclude is that a lot of people didn't have health insurance because they didn't want it or felt that it was unnecessary at the time. Some people still feel that way. They had the right to choose and the healthcare law took away that right.

There are over 10 million more people covered now than before the law went into effect. And because of them not choosing as you put it the insurance companies raised prices on everyone else and we paid for their visits to the emergency rooms when they finally did need healthcare.

 

[kch50428]

Wheeler announced the gist of what he was going to back in early February Keith. So you are wrong again. You just have to read the news, not what Rupert Murdoch tells you but the actual news.

You are likely even more ill informed than you think I am. And until the FCC actually releases the full text of the rules, Wheeler's "gist" isn't worth a bucket of spit... warm or cold.

 

[grover5]

You have no idea just how ridiculous Obamacare really is. Costs didn't go down for everyone. Add in the fact that you couldn't keep your own doctor, couldn't visit a specialist without a referral, then to add injury to insult... They got hacked and many people had their info sold. Oh and 80k people got wrong Tax information too. Being fined for not having the healthcare you couldn't afford? That's like giving a broke man a fine for being broke! Counterproductive if you ask me.

As for net neutrality, I'm waiting to see the real cost in all this.

There were issues with tax information. A major screw up no doubt. I kept my own doctor as did over 90% of those being covered. Cost went down for most people but there are instances where they went up but in those instances people were paying for bare bones and did see a better plan for the cost. It isn't perfect but it lowered the rate at which healthcare cost was rising across the country and insured over 10 million uninsured people. I'd like to continue to improve on it though.

 

[Just_Me_D]

There are over 10 million more people covered now than before the law went into effect.

10 million more is not the same as "everybody".

And because of them not choosing as you put it the insurance companies raised prices on everyone else

Yet, how many people's premiums "increased" after the healthcare law went into effect? If anything, the price increases was made worse for many people.

and we paid for their visits to the emergency rooms when they finally did need healthcare.

Are you under the impression that we all aren't still paying for them? Some of us aren't paying more.

 

[grover5]

You are likely even more ill informed than you think I am. And until the FCC actually releases the full text of the rules, Wheeler's "gist" isn't worth a bucket of spit... warm or cold.

Wheeler announced it ahead of time Keith. It's pretty clear to everyone but I'll leave you with your bucket of spit and your doubts.