[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Me pointing out that “common sense” regulations in other areas have completely turned into a gutting of natural rights isn’t relevant to the possibilities of “common sense” regulations might have on modern conveniences? [/quote]
How can common sense regulation of a luxury lead to the erosion of natural rights?
Ya, I don’t like gun laws either, they infringe on the 2nd. No argument.
[quote]
Okay, and as soon as they do so, a couple million subscribers will complain. The ISP has to answer to someone. They can tell the customer to contact Netflix, or whoever, and in the end, the consumer has an option.
When the FCC tells the ISP to fuck the end user, like your wiki link siad they already have, and the ISP tells those customers, “I had to, look at the FCC regulations”, what happens? Oh right, nothing. [/quote]
The point is that the ISP actually doesn’t have to answer to anyone if they’re the only game in town (I’ll get to your link in a minute).
FCC may not be the answer. I never said it was.
I linked an involved 3rd party defending itself and a 3rd party that said Comcast admitted to doing. What more do you want?
[quote]
You compared the FDA to the regulation of the internet, not me.[/quote]
For some people the internet is how they put food on the table, which to those people is probably pretty important.
Okay. Again, from what I’ve read, the “network strain” is made up. It’s intentional manipulation by the ISPs. I don’t know if that’s true or not.
[quote]
Please explain how the consumer has benefitted from anything the FCC has done. Also please show an example or two of the FCC creating a situation where more competition has arisen. [/quote]
They may or may not have I’m not an expert of the FCC.
[quote]
Um, no. You’re not reading what I’m writing.
I don’t give a fuck about ISP’s or Comcast, except they give me what I pay for, which they have, over and over and over again. [/quote]
Except when they feel like slowing down your data intentionally.
[quote]
I care about the government getting involved (which I do know a lot of the answers for) because every time they do I end up fucked over, and over and over again. [/quote]
That is true.
I haven’t proposed anything. I don’t think I’ve even pretended to have know the answer here.
Well, to begin, Comcast and Time Warner are now the same company. So we lost a competitor. If I’m not mistaken dial up internet already falls under Title II, I may be wrong here. Either way, dial-up is a joke (not your point, but it’s on the way out not in) and DSL is on also on it’s way out. I know for a fact Verizon won’t run new DSL lines. Let’s skip down to about the 8th or 9th ISP:
*Suddenlink is a cable broadband company that provides service to 1.4 million subscribers
*Earthlink offers dial-up and DSL to over a million customers.
*Windstream provides Internet access to over a million people in the eastern half of the U.S. It offers three DSL residential plans ranging from 3 Mbps to 12 Mbps.
*Cable One is a cable company that provides Internet, phone and TV to approximately 750,000 customers in 19 states.
*NetZero provides dial-up, accelerated dial-up and DSL to over 6,000 cities.
…
My point being, this huge list of ISPs is really a bunch of left over dial-up and DSL companies servicing a very small portion of internet users that are not using almost any internet. Have you tried streaming a movie over DSL…
There are only a handful of broadband internet providers. Comcast (now merged with TW), Verizon, Centurylink, and a few more.
Options are shrinking not growing.
Same issue.
[quote]
So… You’re okay with an ISP charging different content providers different amounts then?[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]
Which would mean in order for Netflix to get the speed it needs, it would have to pay more than say, facebook. [/quote]
No. Speed should be irrelevant if the resources exist to provide service to each customer (Level 3 says they do, I know, I know…) an ISP agreed to provide service too. IMO, if the ISP doesn’t have enough resources creating a data bottleneck, slowing down data transfer, that is their fault because they agreed to provide data at speeds up to whatever the contract says to ALL of the customers that pay for their service. Data is data. Video is not special it’s just more data. Bandwidth/volume is the issue and that is where the agreement between a Netflix and an ISP comes into play. The ISP should charge the content providers what’s necessary to pay for their infrastructure needs and make money.
This is what I’ve been saying since the get go.
I obviously didn’t read that part in my haste. The point I was making was simply that throttling occurred. You’ve got me here though. I was posting too fast. Obviously.
[quote]
Yes, actually it is the point, and the issue. It’s part of the internet, you want a level playing field, therefore all parts of the internet need the same attention, same speed, and apparently the same priority. [/quote]
It’s my opinion that what the end user wants to view or do on the internet should be irrelevant to how fast or what priority they get they data. ISPs and content providers should work all the issues out behind the scenes and charge what they need to charge. Market forces and all that.
[quote]
You may want to re-read my post. It said no such thing…
When you actually reword my post correctly I’ll respond to it further. [/quote]
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So here is another question:
Situation
Any given moment there is one person watching HD movies which takes 10 resources for Comcast
At the same time someone is playing call of duty which takes 5
and 12 people are watching porn which takes 5 total
and one dude is downloading adobe which takes 10
that is 30 total resources on Comcast’s system.
Lets assume Comcast only have 25 total resources to give.
Does everyone get fucked with lag time because Comcast can’t knock down the adobe to 5 on purpose?[/quote]
Above is your scenario about adobe. You then went on to say business’ should be able to prioritize, which implies someone get’s more resources and some, in this case the adobe guy get’s less. So the adobe end user get’s fucked. If I’m misinterpreting then I apologize please correct me where I’m wrong.
[quote]
Protip: [/quote]
I love when you say protip, FWIW…
[quote]
So speed has nothing to do with the strain on the network then? [/quote]
I don’t believe that it should based on my understanding.
[quote]
Oh right, we’ve established it does, so therefore in order to deliver their goods, which require speed, it takes more resources. But you aren’t cool with the speed part being treated differently for different content. [/quote]
When was this established. An ISP has the capability to provide X amount of data per second regardless of where it goes or what it is. I’m pretty sure speed is irrelevant unless the ISP is over taxed, which again I’m not sure happens. AKA I would like proof that it does because Level 3 say it doesn’t. I want to read the counter to that position.
Nope
[quote]
Look up what happened to Verizon’s LTE service. Once more and more people entered the network, the whole network slowed down. [/quote]
And then Verizon built more towers and everything was hunky doory.
[quote]
Everyone’s experience shit the bed. Is this what you want? [/quote]
No off course not.
[quote]
Or should Verizon be able to slow down a text or fruit ninja download a hair so facebook and internet moves at a pace more satisfactory for the user? [/quote]
I think Verizon should provide the service it promised to provide when they took my $100 a month regardless of what I’m doing. If they need to adjust their rates or charge Facebook more then so be it.
[quote]
Your position as I see it is:
Businesses might filter content, or otherwise control what the end user sees based on fees it charges content providers. This is no good. [/quote]
My position, as far as this tiny little excerpt is concerned, is that business that control the transmission of data can manipulate transmission speed so that end users chose their content over other content because it actually works OR they can force competitors to pay a fees so that their product actually reached the end user at a usable speed.
No.
I can point to some good regulations so I’m open to the possibility that the best solution is via government. Not that government is the solution.
