Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Kisses-Up To Obama, Publicly Agrees On Net Neutrality
MojoKid writes Comcast is one of two companies to have earned Consumerist's "Worst Company in America" title on more than one occasion and it looks like they're lobbying for a third title. That is, unless there's another explanation as to how the cable giant can claim (with straight face) that it's in agreement with President Barack Obama for a free and open Internet. Comcast issued a statement of its own saying they back the exact same things, it just doesn't want to go the utility route. Comcast went on to list specific bullet points that they're supposedly in wholehearted agreement with, such as: Free and open Internet. We agree — and that is our practice. No blocking. We agree — and that is our practice. No throttling. We agree — and that is our practice. Increased transparency. We agree — and that is our practice. No paid prioritization. We agree — and that is our practice. Really? Comcast conveniently fails to address the giant elephant in the room whose name is Netflix. Earlier this year, Netflix begrudgingly inked a multi-year deal with Comcast in which the streaming service agreed to pay a toll to ensure faster delivery into the homes of Comcast subscribers, who prior to the deal had been complaining of frequent buffering and video degradation when watching content on Netflix. Comcast would undoubtedly argue that it's not a paid fast lane, but it's hard to see the deal as anything other than that.
Comcast's goal, is.
will now come from Comcast.
This is just Comcast trying to get some good PR before they force their agenda through. There is no purpose in companies kissing up to President Barack "Lawnchair" Obama, as he has consistently caved to the demands of conservatives and big businesses every time it was important to do otherwise during his administration.
Every. Single. Time.
Remember how he said he was going to stand up to insurance companies, and offer a single-payer option for health care? Remember how that was going to be his crowning achievement as president? Did we get any of that? No.
Remember how he said he was going to help the middle class instead of helping wall street fat cats? Remember how that worked out?
Comcast is just waiting for the attention to blow over. Eventually public attention will wane and then Comcast will kill off the net neutrality proposals and get their way.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Comcast throttled me. Fuck them.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
It's pretty much a well-established fact at this point that Comcast, its executives and the majority of their employees are ALL full of shit. Kind of like Harry Reid claiming to be fighting for "sweeping reforms" of the NSA and their global voyeurism fetish. Nobody actually believes anyone in Washington wants to stop the NSA, they're the ones that wrote them the fucking blank check in the first place. It's no different with Comcast, just because they "publicly agree" to something does not mean, in any way, that they actually agree or will do anything that resembles agreeing. These are the same people who charged victims of Hurricane Katrina fees for lost equipment. Oh sure, they reversed course on that because apparently people didn't appreciate it much...but we wouldn't still be talking about how universally shitty they are if they changed much since then, which they haven't.
I think a more appropriate title for this article might have been "Comcast Kisses-Ass in Washington, Publicly Agrees to Anything That Will Get the Time Warner merger off the ground." Perhaps even a subtitle; "(at which point they'll do exactly what they felt like in the first place)."
Full Disclosure: I am a network ops engineer for Comcast.
Anyone who believes that buying private links into a providers network is the same as your traffic getting paid priority knows jack shit about network ops. In the case of Comcast, Netflix traffic gets no special priority once it's on the internal network. The direct links simply lets them bypass the naturally occurring bottlenecks that occur at internet peering points.
Now I'm sure a bunch of people (who are not network engineers) are going to argue over the wording and philosophy as to whether or not buying paid links into a providers network constitutes priority or not. It's not. In network operations, priority is a very specific concept. It means that you treat one class of traffic better than others, usually to the detriment of other classes of traffic. As an example, e911 voice traffic has the *highest* priority on the Comcast network.
Comcast does not treat Netflix traffic any better than anyone else's traffic. Nor is it treated any worse. It is forwarded as Best Effort within the Comcast network.
The only difference that buying direct links in meant was that they got to skip the congestion in the peering points. Comcast has alot more bandwidth internally and once traffic makes it into the network, congestion is not usually a problem (things do break, redundant links become saturated, etc. It's a big network, but in normal operation mode, congestion doesn't exist). What little prioritization we do has alot more to do with latency than with congestion (ie, your phone call is more important than your massive porn transfer, since voice is alot more sensitive to delay than bulk data transfer).
People dont realize that comcast gives tones of money to the current regime, also they subsidize MSNBC at a lost just to placate the Communist Party Apparatchiks in the FCC
It's quite like me saying -
I agree, and is my practice, that I can outrun an Olympic sprinter.
That word "Practice" gives them an easy out.
The term "net neutrality" is bounced around over and over and now even our technically challenged president is for it. But what exactly is "net neutrality?" What does it prevent from happening. What is required to happen?
I'll bet that three different people will have five different definitions.
the corporates in the private sector has been kissing govt butt and the govt been kissing the wallstreet investment banker's butt for decades, this nation is run by gang of psychopathic kleptocratic oligarchs
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
But rather the packets aren't getting bogged down by people using Tor or Bittorrent or Silk Road or some other network service known for trafficking in illicit content? For those of you who have had the experience of driving on an L.A. freeway during rush hour (which means pretty much any time of the day), you have no doubt seen the effects of a motorcycle squeezing between the lanes. People driving in cars end up slowing down out of fear of hitting one of those. Technically, the motorcycles' activity is legal but only for outdated, no-longer-necessary reasons. But they do slow down the flow of traffic. What if Netflix wants to be sure that some motorcycle packets aren't giving them trouble on a network that was designed for traffic that plays by the rules?
Comcast, Time-Warner, ATT, etc. should embrace the regulated utility model.
By splitting their businesses into two companies, a regulated "bit pipe" company and an unregulated "content provider" company, they all but guarantee that the regulated company will have modest profits and more importantly they guarantee that the "content provider" part of their company will have access to every DSL and cable customer nationwide on the same terms as all other "content provider" companies. This means that Time-Warner's and Comcast's content arms can both compete for my eyeballs.
The only "gotcha" here is "always on for everyone" (i.e. non-switched) TV channels over cable. Because of the nature of those channels, only one company, presumably the local "bit pipe company", will have a say in what those channels are. But as the industry moves to switched-channels that are only "on" when a customer is watching them (sort of like UVerse TV), this will become unimportant. I envision a day when less than 10% of the available bandwidth on a typical customer's "bit pipe" is used for "always on for everyone" TV channels.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Look Comcast has a history of net neutrality violation. Look up what they did with BitTorrent - sending fake connection reset packets in order to throttle the downloads. That's a real net neutrality violation. The original submitter has conflated peering agreements and net neutrality. Wrong! At the time, ANY traffic on the connection between the tier 1 provider that Netflix used and Comcast was slow due to the insufficient connection from Comcast. There was no violation there as all traffic on that connection was affected the same way; Netflix just happened to be a big user of that connection. Comcast has said they won't do things like the BitTtorrent debacle anymore. Trust but verify, anyone? The Netflix shenanigans are an issue we need to work - how peering should work with last mile ISPs who claim that content delivery networks and tier 1 providers are "sending them more traffic than they send back" are in denial about who requested that traffic and who already paid for it. But that isn't the same as net neutrality. Two separate things to work on. In this case please stop conflating the Netflix / Comcast thing with net neutrality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmLAj9iIfQk
Comcast throttled me. Fuck them.
Looks like you got off easy. When some ISPs fsck their customers, they don't throttle, they go full-bore with the giant corn-cob, all the way, to make sure the customer feels the pain.
Or so I've been told.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Thank you for having the guts to come here and say that. On behalf of the Slashdot community, I apologize for the rude tone of some of the replies.
Having said that, the replies above are essentially correct: It is part of Comcast's job to make sure its peering points don't get saturated under routine use. They owe that much to their customers (and of course they can pass that cost on to their customers).
Now, if the problem is at an upstream peering point that Comcast does not participate in, then I can understand that Comcast is not to blame. However, a company as big as Comcast should participate in peering points around the country, Comcast owes its customers that much. Every major network provider - including Netflix's provider - should be peering directly with Comcast* in the regions in which they and Comcast have a significant amount of traffic to exchange and in which both companies have a significant physical presence.
The same goes for ATT, Time-Warner, and the other major ISPs and network providers.
*If the peering at the peering point isn't, technically-speaking, direct, it should have the characteristics of a direct link from a customer-satisfaction point of view. That is, the connection is good enough that if you turned it into a direct-peering connection there wouldn't be much improvement.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
is that Obama is willing to listen to Comcast for exclusive multi-decade political support for his party. Imagine if it wasn't just bittorrent/netfllix users being throttled, but all registered voters who didn't sign up for his party.
We agree — and that is our practice. No blocking. We agree — and that is our practice. No throttling. We agree — and that is our practice. Increased transparency. We agree — and that is our practice. No paid prioritization. We agree — and that is our practice. Really? Comcast conveniently fails to address the giant elephant in the room whose name is Netflix.
You don't ever have to read any of Comcast's positions on regulation of the Internet. Anything that Comcast advocates is not in the interest of their customers. It's really that simple, because they are that bad.
The BitTorrent debacle wasn't so much a network neutrality issue as it was a possible* violation-of-contract/false-advertising issue with its affected customers and potentially* a "tortuous interference" issue with respect to any contract between its customers and the company attempting to deliver data to them using BitTorrent.
* I am not a lawyer. A lawyer could tell you if there was an actual violation of contract or an actual "tortuous interference" issue.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The Fallacy of Equivocation.
You've substituted the more specific network-jargon "priority" for the usage of "priority".
Once Netflix PAID Comcast then Comcast gave Netflix PRIORITY access to the Comcast network. The PRIORITY access means bypassing the choke point that Netflix was previously restricted to.
No one is saying that Comcast changed the QoS or priority of individual Netflix packets. But that is what you are denying.
Again, you are substituting a more specific network-jargon usage of "priority" that no one other than you is using.
And you are denying something that no one else is claiming.
That is the Fallacy of Equivocation.
Which is what everyone, except you, is saying.
Once Netflix paid Comcast, Comcast users could suddenly get better access to Netflix.
But Comcast refused to do anything to address that congestion UNTIL NETFLIX PAID THEM.
Could the honesty and accuracy of Comcast's public statements be a by-product of letting their support channel formulate the answers?
A president who leans socialist and Comcast are trying to sell the American public on something, telling us that it will result in "a free and open internet". We better take a real close look at this, because it reminds me of a certain group who presented another with a large wooden horse.
In my opinion, any monopoly that has the balls to pull this type of disingenuous bullshit with the POTUS has demonstrated itself to have gone completely rogue. It's time for the Department of Justice to reign them in. It's up to Congress or the White House who wants credit for splitting up the nation's most hated company during a lame duck session. Hating the fuck out of Comcast should be something that can bring this country together for Christmas. Remember, as long as they're fighting for their right to have unnatural market power(blackmailing Netflix), they aren't trying to corrupt our government with Regulatory Capture. Also: kudos to the FCC for trying to spin being a bunch of bought and paid for crooks as being pragmatism. I wonder if it's the same PR firm responsible for this press release who managed that psyops campaign?
"Comcast is one of two companies to have earned Consumerist's "Worst Company in America" title on more than one occasion..."
Comcast has found that most people don't spend the many hours Comcast makes it necessary to protest over-billing.
It's interesting that Comcast asks employees to abuse customers, and Comcast employees hear that as permission to abuse Comcast, also.
No one should ever forget that Obama and the CEO of Comcast are golf buddies:
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/08/14/fore-obama-playing-golf-with-world-bank-president-comcast-ceo/
Ever since Comcast merged with NBC-Universal, it might be one his biggest supporters (CEO Brian Roberts raised over $1.4 million for Obama's re-election). Obama might support Net Neutrality, but he'll make sure Comcast gets paid off somehow. I know it's popular to blame Republicans for everything on Slashdot, but Comcast gives plenty of money to Democrats, who have been more quiet about giving support to Comcast.
(Jesus, you'd think conservatives and liberals could somehow compromise on this, but they've solidified into radical anti-capitalism and monopolistic capitalism.)
Word verification: gaslight
but that doesn't mean they have it wrong. I don't agree with this whole "Open Internet" concept. It's like everyone (and every business) paying a flat rate for highway access. It becomes simple to understand: you and I will be paying for maintaining roads that we hardly use (compared to truckers, taxis, commuters and the like).
Or water: flat rate for every city or town water user? I don't think so: the jerk next door with the sprinklers running 24 hours a day, the car wash up the street, paying the same as me? "There's plenty of water. And the town can just add more wells and water processing plants." Right .. and who pays for that?
Or a flat rate for a telephone number. I use it maybe 4-5 times a week. My wife, a dozen times a day. A teenager a hundred times a day. A commercial phone advertiser continuously. The phone companies apparently have figured out how to do this efficiently with land lines; the cell companies are still juggling the numbers. But I'm not subscribing to a cell company who offers family rates, multiple phones, unlimited texting and data transfers, for the same price they charge me! Just wouldn't be prudent: I KNOW I'm paying for someone else's excessive usage.
If everyone pays according to their usage, it makes a LOT more sense, is a lot fairer, etc. Why should I pay my ISP (and everyone else involved in carrying Internet traffic) so that Netflix and any other high-rate broadband user can make money from their extraordinarily higher usage? Instead, let Netflix pay more for that traffic (along with everyone else), and let Netflix pass on the additional costs to their users.
You cannot convince me that enough investment in Internet links, throwing in more comm links, etc. will magically solve all the problems. I know damned well there will NEVER be enough bandwidth: look how land line phones (and even cell phones) are switching over to Skype and equivalent VOIP services. And who's paying for that? Yeah .. me and thee.
So Comcast is pulling some scummy tricks, no question there. They lie: surprise, surprise. Doesn't change the basic economics.
Because everything is already coming through your Internet or is about to come through your Internet provider shortly, Netflix, phone calls, music streaming, youtube, home security, etc.
And then, they will apply datacaps.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
If, through one means or another, Comcast becomes the de-facto Internet in the U.S., it won't matter what they 'agree to publicly', they will be able at that point to do whatever the hell they want with it, and it'll take an 'act of God'-level effort to dislodge them.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
works out.
Comcast / AT&T / etc absolutely do not want this. Being classified as common carriers is about the worst business move they could forced into. Why? Because Title II equates to a lot of regulations - that's what Title II is. Title II is why phones are heavily regulated by taxes, where they must be laid, and other regulations that have been in place since 1934 (and updated in 1993). If Comcast / AT&T / Verizon / etc get lumped into Title II, then it'll cost them millions of dollars in employee costs, plus any additional costs from possible additional regulations that may be imposed now or down the road.
Bzzt! wrong. I don't believe you are who you say you are. If you were, you'd know that up until 2002, cable internet services were classified as "common carriers" under Title II. The same was true for DSL providers until 2005.
As I recall those guys did just fine. the regulations aren't as onerous as you're making them out to be and the FCC has wide latitude (which it has used repeatedly) to waive portions of Title II for specific reasons.
Also, the update that you mention was the "Telecommunications Act of 1996," and was not passed three years earlier. Yes, there will be more regulation than there is now, but that regulation, made for more competition, more innovation and better service. That's what the FCC is *supposed* to do.
There IS still the debate on whether Comcast is genuine on wanting net neutrality. I've been told that there's more to the Netflix story than is being told (and that Comcast was only looking to be paid for the bandwidth consumed), but I don't have enough evidence to substantiate this either way. We currently mostly have net neutrality now, without regulation, due to market forces.
That ship sailed, friend. Comcast Is already paid for that bandwidth -- by it's own customers. That data was requested over links that were paid for by Comcast's customers as a pipe to bring them data from the Internet. Netflix tried to deliver the data requested to Comcast's customers Comcast was either unwilling or unable to do so. Comcast sold services and then claimed it couldn't deliver those services unless it was paid more.
I'll be the first to admit that Comcast is perhaps one of the most vile companies that currently exist in the US. However, what we have now mostly works *without* additional regulation. I'm fearful what additional regulation may do to this - our government doesn't have a great history of making things better with more regulation.
Just be sure you look through the politics and look at the actual arguments. This isn't about Net Neutrality. Rather, Obama is using Net Neutrality as a keyword to push for Title II. And *that* won't end well.
You are correct. Title II reclassification by itself is not "network neutrality." Network Neutrality is dumb pipes providing unrestricted IP (v4 and v6) connectivity. Full stop. Title II reclassification is just a small part of that. Much more needs to be done to effect and ensure real network neutrality. It does not exist on Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and most of the other big ISPs. I know, because I actually have (at least as far as I can tell) an ISP that gives me a "dumb pipe providing unrestricted IP (v4 but not v6 yet) connectivity. Full stop."
The issues of surreptitious throttling, abusive terms of service and lobbyists (probably guys just like you) taking to the statehouses to cripple or outright ban competition for the big ISPs is a much bigger part of the problem. If there was real competition, Comcast wouldn't be able to protect their content distribution arms or compete effectively in the ISP market.
The more I read your apologist tripe, the more I'm certain that you're a shill (paid or not -- for your sake I hope you're paid for this) and not who and what you claim to be. You're here to attempt to sow FUD. Unfortunately for you, there are still a bunch (dwindling, but st
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Obama is a center-right politician as are most Democrats serving in national office in the US. Dennis Kucinich was about as far left (well, since Bella Abzug left Congress) as it got in recent times. There are a few still in congress who are center-left, but most Democrats in office today would have been considered moderate Republicans even twenty-five years ago.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
It seems to work for the GOP.
Umm...How about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Thee Voting Rights Act of 1965? The "Great Society" (that's our modern welfare state as well as Medicare and Medicaid, BTW) programs, The Clean Air Act? Medicare Part B coverage? All progressive legislation, all much more significant in terms of impact on the US than the ACA. There's more, but I'm not your history teacher.
Learn a little history, friend.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
I've noticed over time that you like using the word equivocation. Let me suggest that since you like word, you might be interested in looking it up to see EXACTLY what it means, then maybe using Google to see how other people use it.
I believe the derivation is equi (equal) and voca (as in vocal), meaning to say two things equally, to avoid taking either side.
When asked who was most qualified to be chief, the president said that Ms. Smith had 15 years of related experience, and Mr. Jones had 10 years working as the assistant chief.
There has been no President who has been more consistently conservative in the last 70 years
There, I fixed that for you. Look at what has actually been done under President Lawnchair:
When the history books are written, Obama's actual actions will make Reagan look like a socialist.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Comcast is right. Netflix didn't buy a fast lane from Comcast. Netflix was put on a slow lane until it paid up; it's now back on the normal lanes.
What would Obama have to offer? Antitrust maybe?
"There IS still the debate on whether Comcast is genuine on wanting net neutrality."
Uh.. no there isn't. They don't want net neutrality. They are NOT genuine on wanting it. There is no debate.
I also think you're a shill.... The internet WAS title II regulated, and started going downhill when we removed that regulation. Title II is simple, and not onerous, and we had a boom time in network upgrades and rollouts under it, because it forced the big guys to lease lines to the little guys at a fair price.
You sir, are a liar.
I am not an Obama apologist; however, politics is not a simple game. A great many deals are made behind the scenes. His about face appointment of FCC wasn't unusual. The horrible and obviously corrupt looking choice of somebody who publicly appears to contradict him looks to experienced eye looks like a DEAL. He made a deal with somebody or some group to appoint their man to the position despite the political costs to himself... which means they had something quite valuable to trade. but what? Could be anything from an NSA blackmail (who was tapping him before he was a senator) to a huge "donation."
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Privately, they do everything they can to raise rates, stifle innovation, and milk 20 year old cable technology for everything its worth.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -Carl Sagan
Pathological liars?
We agree — and that is our practice.
Listen to what they say, then watch (Netflix) what they do.
Well they're honest about it. Presumably this would mean segmenting the infrastructure under a separate corporation. What they really mean is the current situation allows them to do as they please and a policy to re-classify them would hurt. So they are playing nice for a time until they can write a law they like.
Know what to kiss and when.
It's morons like you that are going to lead to another Bush as President with a GOP House & Senate.
No, its morons like you that will. You try pushing us around, and we stick up to you. We tell you what we feel, and what we want, and you ridicule us, and sell us out to corporate intrests.
When it comes time to vote, you tell us, who we should vote for, and make all kinds fo threats, and we simply fold our arms, and then you blame us for not voting for canidates that ignore us, call us names, and otherwise think of us as shitbags.
If someone wants our votes, they need to earn it.
sssshhh, don't mention that. You see, these political partisans have "Facts" that only last one election cycle. So they use terms like "in history", when they only mean "in my party written political narrative that was especially made for the election cycle where all of history doesn't include anything older than 4 years ago"
Ok, I'm gonna have to tell you that bush and co wouldn't be missed if they were brought up on war crimes by me.Because lets be honest, we did some shit that we have executed people in the past for and 'just following orders' was not a legitimate defense for. It definitely wasn't a defense for those in charge either so you can see where I'm coming, I'm not a hypocrite so I'm also not a Republican.
But you, are silly.
If you think Obama is progressive, it means you lap at the teat of Fox News like a newborn baby. In their alternate reality HITLER is progressive(and socialist AND fascist, and they don't know why those don't work together either). Obama is center right at best, not even close to an actual progressive in policy, speech, or any manner of representation. And the health care overhaul is not nearly as big a deal as the new deal by a wild margin. Medicare was a bigger piece of legislation in and of itself, and to say otherwise makes you look completely uneducated. You seem like a good guy and all but you're sorely uneducated and misguided. Better than average after seeing the shilling and mild racism when it comes to politics on Slashdot, but try to be better than that man.
Was it a toll, or did Netflix finally agree to pay for direct access to Comcast's network?
I swear that it's amazing that so many supposedly smart people fail to acknowledge the concept of peering, specifically settlement-free/unpaid peering, and how IT makes the internet what it is, and how content providers like Hulu, Netflix, etc. can distort traffic levels and eseentially abuse a provider's network.
Perhaps we both should look up the word. While we're at it, let's look up Obama's preferred policy, "single payer". Wouldn't it be interesting if the two terms were synonymous.
When we look up socialism, I suspect we'll find it has something to do with the government's role in the economy. Let's look up the change in the extent of the government's role in the economy over the last six years.
When we look up socialism, I suspect we'll find it has something to do with the government's role in the economy. Let's look up the change in the extent of the government's role in the economy over the last six years.
Perhaps we both should look up the word. While we're at it, let's look up Obama's preferred policy, "single payer". Wouldn't it be interesting if the two terms were synonymous.
Most of those are progressive, but were passed because of (or with stronger support than the Democrat) Republican support. Everything except the Great Society which has been an abysmal failure, that is... Perhaps the GOP really is the party of the individual, and the Democrats are the party of Big Business and Money. Shhh - don't tell anyone - but that is, in fact, the case...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
(and socialist AND fascist, and they don't know why those don't work together either)
Pssst. Fascism is just socialism with the class warfare replaced by nationalism. Two sides of the same coin.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
by paying for the roads to be available for everyone, we derive benefit even when we're not using them, for example when we purchase goods brought to the store by truck.
A user fee libertarian might argue that if trucks wear the road more, the road's owner (state DOT or a private toll road) should charge higher road use fees (plates, tolls, etc.) for such vehicles. (The rule of thumb is the fourth power of axle weight.) This would be passed on to trucking companies, to retailers who receive goods by truck, and ultimately to shoppers who benefit from the goods' having been brought by truck.
Putting Netflix's cache box in the ISP's data center occupies rack real estate that could have been used for other paying colo customers' boxes.
There might not have been so much "abuse", there might have been more balanced traffic, if the terms of service for residential Internet connections didn't ban home servers and if the speeds were symmetric instead of uploading far slower than they download. Recall that once Verizon was called out on allowing its links to congest, it upgraded its FiOS customers to symmetric speeds.
they could have just let Netflix install caching servers in their data centers like Netflix has done at other ISPs
If Comcast gives out free colo to Netflix, won't its paying colo customers grow envious?
People can switch by renting an apartment in a different ISP's territory.
Uhm, no. Fascism is definitely NOT a socialism. Socialism as an economic model means centrally planned economy. Fascists were über-corporationists, to a such degree that business officially became a part of the government. So it's a far right ideology.
And it's easy to check - just take a redneck from some South Carolina shithole and substitute "liberals" with "communists" and "black people" with "Jews". You won't be able to distinguish this redneck from a Nazi soldier.
Well, for Comcast anyway, not for their customers, competitors (also known as future acquisitions), business relationships, etc. They all pay Comcast or, well, you know, that nice internet you have there, it would be a shame if it broke now wouldn't it?
Name one, JUST ONE, utility that you pay for right now that does not have a tax levied against it. These guys can't even get a website right with $2billion and we want to trust them to regulate the Internet?
Each customer of a broadband company buys a plan that states the bandwidth limit. Netflix can stream 720p with a 3 Mbps DOWN limit (I know I do it). The supplier should provision their network to support the aggregate needs of its customers per the promised bandwidth. Obviously this is not done.
Doesn't common carrier forces ISPs to unbundle their services, like ADSL was in the beginning ? I recall having Bellsouth phone line and ADSL from earthline through the same copper wire.
Perhaps that's the real issue. Comcast is terrified of all common carrier obligations.
Another possibility is preventing Obama from doing anything until he gets replaced. Perhaps they think that even if a democrat win, that new president will be more business friendly.
... it just doesn't want to go the utility route...
I'm sorry Comcast, but no. You can be like Atmos, that's about it. A good percentage of people don't have any other service such as phone or maybe even access to their homes without the Internet, we even check the time through the Internet. I sincerely hope POTUS doesn't succumb to this sly public Comcast facade.
Fascism as well is an economic model with a centrally planned economy. It uses hatred of other races/nations rather than class envy as its means of mobilizing the masses, however. Fascists love to nationalize industries (much like socialists dream to do), look at what Mussolini, Allende, Hitler, and a bevy of other fascists did.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
My Comcast cable connection is fucking fast and regularly gets faster. I noticed 100Mbps downstream a couple of days ago - good thing I purchased a router with gig-e - when I'd tested it a few months earlier I was clamped at 60Mbps which was still in the "doesn't-suck" category. With that kind of performance (and excellent reliability) I just can't hate them.
[FrLz]
Joe Biden is a square shooter. Joe Biden for 2016
What about all of the customers not downloading that data, should they also pay for these upgrades?
Those customers who will use more data as a result of NetFlix being a more usable service should pay more, those who do not use NetFlix or whose usage doesn't change as a result of the improvements should not.
However, whether they will or not depends on Comcast's pricing model: If Comcast were to sell marginal-metered service ($X flat fee for low-use users + $Y GB in $0.01 increments for everything above the low-user allowance, where $Y is no more than than $X/allowance), they would. If Comcast were to sell tiered service in a way that approximated metered service ($X for A GB, $Y for B GB, etc. with reasonable increments and reasonable incremental pricing), they would but only with respect to customers who upgraded to the next tier.
As far as I know, Comcast does have a tiered pricing model but it's not as reasonable as it needs to be to entice most customers to upgrade "to the next level" just so they can use more NetFlix. Yes, the NetFlix upgrade may encourage a few customers who were already considering upgrading to do so, but it won't have the broad effect on Comcast's bottom line that a more reasonable incremental pricing structure or a marginal-per-GB fee would have.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.