Slashdot Mirror
Tom Wheeler Defeats the Broadband Industry: Net Neutrality Wins In Court (bloomberg.com)
Andrew M Harris and Todd Shields, reporting for Bloomberg: The Federal Communications Commission won a major appeals court ruling supporting its efforts to prevent broadband Internet service providers from favoring some types of web traffic over others. The Washington-based court Tuesday denied challenges to the federal government's so-called net neutrality regulations, which were backed by President Barack Obama. The ruling hands a victory to those who champion the notion of an open internet where service providers are prevented from offering speedier lanes to content providers willing to pay for them. It's a defeat for challengers including AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp., which said the rule would discourage innovation and investment.FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said, "Today's ruling is a victory for consumers and innovators who deserve unfettered access to the entire web, and it ensures the Internet remains a platform for unparalleled innovation, free expression and economic growth. After a decade of debate and legal battles, today's ruling affirms the Commission's ability to enforce the strongest possible internet protections -- both on fixed and mobile networks -- that will ensure the internet remains open, now and in the future."
This effectively means it's settled. Comcast et al could still request an en banc hearing from the full Court of Appeals, but that's unlikely to succeed. They could appeal to the US Supreme Court, but with the current 4-4 split on the court, the best they could hope for is that the USSC would split and leave the Appeals Court ruling standing as is, at the same time they'd risk a 5-3 decision affirming net neutrality depending on how Kennedy swings.
Of course, this could still be overturned if Trump wins and gets to override the pick for the next Justice, nevermind that a GOP congress plus Trump would be free to pass whatever anti-net neutrality legislation they want, or to replace the pro-neutrality majority of the FCC commissioners with a Republican one.
Also a major loss for internet freedom generally. The big issue in the case was whether the government could classify the internet as a Title II communications carrier - which allowed it to dramatically expand the type of regulation it is subject to. Net neutrality light was just a first step and will be looked back as the first time the FCC became the "Department of the Internet."
I'm happier to see that this fellow has more integrity than most thought he'd have, with him being a former lobbyist for these cable companies.
...in fact, there are some pretty clear indicators they already are (see: Netflix). They're playing shell games and trying to obfuscate it, but it's happening. I have no idea how enforceable this will be-- my gut tells me not very.
I'm trying hard to think no of anything even marginally resembling an innovation which has come from Comcast - but I'm drawing a blank. So I can't see that having it their own way up until now has resulted in what they claim will be stifled by these rules.
On a side note: Tom Wheeler, I think many of us were wrong about you. Thank you!
#DeleteChrome
I'm sure Comcast will be fine with it once they figure out an appropriate "Neutrality Fee" to add to everyone's bill, and they can explain how these government regulations hurt the consumer so much by forcing them to maintain these expensive policies.
So you are saying they won't judge my bits by the slant of their font?? All oppressed bits rejoice!!! You are free!!!
This still makes the internet more like the networks before it, with central political influence deciding what can and can't be done. Network operators will find ways around regulations for themselves, and use the regulations to keep out competitors. The internet loses no matter how you swing on the topic of net neutrality. It may lose less this way, but it still loses. Bring on the clowns, please.
I would love for someone during these hearings to ask the lobbyists for these telecom companies how restricting access to every service except the ones that pay will impede innovation. I could use some amusement.
That's some "innovation" we don't need. Does the data cap counter net neutrality, as you're being penalized for high bandwidth applications?
AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp.
Of those three, only Comcast hasn't been revealed as a spy for the US Government. It is merely the worst rated company of all time for customer service.
Got math?
I can not identify an argument for "net neutrality", that would not also not apply to attempts to prioritize â" such as by designating traffic lanes for them â" buses, bicycles, cars with electronic toll-payment transponders, and even for emergency vehicles.
Perhaps this will help:
I can not identify an argument for "apples" that would not also not apply to "oranges."
Hope that helps clarify it a bit.
It's not difficult to work out. If you have a company whose job is road maintenance, say they successfully argue that certain people need to cover the distance quicker. These people would pay extra for the privilege of faster transit, and after all, everyone else still has the original road.
Only in time, the original road is neglected, it becomes full of pot holes. If any expansion is made, it's made to the faster road, since that makes more money. So as the weeks pass, the original road falls into worse condition, unable to cope with the volume of traffic which is always growing. If anyone complains, then they are just told to pay for the faster lane.
Eventually the original road is barely navigable, and anyone wanting to travel is forced to pay the extra for the toll road. Eventually, the original road closes. Before long, an idea is floated for a new super-fast road...
...that the dingo would not eat the baby.
Trying to remember who is head of the FCC and who runs the cable company lobby. They keep switching back and forth...
"Only vehicles built by Ford can drive in this neighborhood."
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I can not identify an argument for "net neutrality", that would not also not apply to attempts to prioritize — such as by designating traffic lanes for them — buses, bicycles, cars with electronic toll-payment transponders, and even for emergency vehicles.
Except for the difference in footprint and the character of the purpose.
I mean, really, if you can come up with a use scenario where a hospital sending remote radiologist data has a priority over some ISP's traffic, you're more than welcome to show it.
Of course, in those cases, they CAN pay for a dedicated line with guaranteed bandwidth, so...
In fact, I suspect strongly, that, had the Internet-service provision been in government's hands already, the same people arguing for "net neutrality" today, would've been arguing for "sensible measures" to prioritize "special" traffic.
Suspect all you want, it won't make them a reality.
And vice versa — had private corporations been in charge of streets and highways, their attempts at prioritization would've attracted the same criticism currently hitting the ISPs.
Some neutralities are more neutral than others...
Different things are different. Discernment is very important. Pizza Hut and Dominos delivery vehicles are not the same as Ambulances and Fire Engines. Even the bus companies, they don't get more money from their bus lanes, it's about reducing congestion and the costs of individual vehicles, not a profit scheme.
Even toll payments, it's about processing, not profiteering.
The same cannot be said for what the companies in these cases want.
What? Is this what it has come to people?
I can not identify an argument for "net neutrality", that would not also not apply to attempts to prioritize — such as by designating traffic lanes for them — buses, bicycles, cars with electronic toll-payment transponders, and even for emergency vehicles.
In fact, I suspect strongly, that, had the Internet-service provision been in government's hands already, the same people arguing for "net neutrality" today, would've been arguing for "sensible measures" to prioritize "special" traffic.
And vice versa — had private corporations been in charge of streets and highways, their attempts at prioritization would've attracted the same criticism currently hitting the ISPs.
Some neutralities are more neutral than others...
I've always viewed the entire net neutrality debate as a (hopefully) temporary sideshow while/until we fix the larger problem of lack of competition. The only reason (e.g.) Comcast is able to pull the shenanigans that they are is because we can't go anywhere else. Otherwise, if an ISP decided to slow down Netflix and try to extort money from them, their customers would just leave.
Everything below is wrong:
Because email needs to go as fast as video. Or said another say, video needs to go as slow as email.
Because co-location is unfair.
Because charging more for bigger pipes is unfair.
Because charging more for better service is unfair.
Because charging less (or nothing) to a business partner is unfair.
Because they can't throttle my connection if they don't know what the content is.
Now that net neutrality is the law, all internet traffic will be fast.
You just made the most ridiculous comment yet.
How does it feel?
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
actually, given that most people don't care about bandwidth as much as they care about the image and sound quality while streaming video, it actually does prevent them from contracting with the large video streaming services to negotiate bandwidth for variable rate compression. As those standards are patent encumbered and the video providers get something out of them, they clearly break the net neutrality regulations.
I agree, one thing people forget about are protocols such as VOIP which kind of needs to have a priority over other protocols. It's kind of the reason MPLS has been developed because some protocols need to be a bit more real-time than others. It's kind of a catch-22 situation. 1. We don't want ISPs to be preventing specific traffic for their own greedy purposes. 2. As technology progresses, there maybe more protocols that need real time "priority" over others, should these protocols be slowed or placed on the same priority as everything else. Life's just not fair, nor should we treat every protocol the same.
I think you are confusing net neutrality with something else. Net neutrality is requiring the connection providers to treat all traffic of the same type (video is the most common example) the same.
You're confusing traffic shaping with prioritization.
Doing something like prioritizing VOIP packets over FTP, for instance, is perfectly acceptable, because the reason for doing it is that VOIP traffic is much more affected by latency than FTP. If I'm trying to talk via VOIP at the same time I'm FTPing a large file, and the network hits congestion, I'm generally much better off having the FTP transfer slow down than I am having my VOIP throughput degrade. It's still a neutral network because it doesn't care what VOIP service I use, as long as it's standard VOIP traffic. This is a "Cars with 4 people/buses/etc can use the left lane during rush hour, everyone else has to use the right 3 lanes" situation.
What we're talking about is something like Comcast or AT&T trying to make _their_ Streaming Video/VOIP/FTP service work better than Netflix or whomever, by deliberately making Netflix worse, or forcing Netflix to pay extra to not get degraded. They can do this in a variety of ways, including throttling any Netflix connection, while exempting their own, or putting in Data Caps that apply to Netflix traffic, but not to their own streaming service. This is a "GM owns this toll road, so the charge for GM vehicles is $1.00, but the charge for Ford vehicles is $10.00" situation, and that's what you can't do according to Net Neutrality.
The only way I can think of addressing the problem of a lack of competition in the last mile of communications services is for local governments to provide the communications service as a basic utility, the same as water, sewer, trash pickup. Or maybe its provided by a utility provider like electricity or gas. Then companies like Comcast don't need to be a "monopoly" cable provider for a town or county; other companies like Verizon don't need to be a "monopoly" telephony provider either - anyone who wants to provide services (any data service, including telephony data and what we now thing of as cable television service data) can, with the services riding over the utility communications network. Perhaps that is what we are backing into, with ISPs being declared to be the utilities that they so obviously seem to be. Couple that with VoIP telephone services being broken free from cable companies and RBOCs, and the move to "cut the cord" with A/V entertainment services, and pretty soon there aren't any government-protected monopolies for phone and cable... just a basic communications utility provide by or on behalf of the local government, and a multitude of service providers, all competing openly with one another.
Everyone better turn off 802.1p tags. They are now criminal.
No. Think of it more along the lines of not just setting dedicated lanes for buses and bicycles, but only for COMCAST buses and bicycles -- unless you paid an extra toll.
Comcast and others did this with VoIP in the past. They prioritized their VoIP traffic while de-prioritizing competitorVoIP traffic.
It not only is perfectly legal now, but essential to business that ISPs prioritize traffic by traffic type -- called Quality of Service (QoS).
What they want to do is not by TYPE but by DESTINATION and OWNER. This allows them to essentially tax competitors to services they offer directly, like Vonage and VoIP or Netflix and streaming video.
It is a protection racket, pure and simple.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
It is not because VOIP is more affected by latency it is because VOIP is singled out as something that is allowed to ignore the ban on paid prioritization. Under the FCC rules services that don't full Internet services are not affect by the net neutrality ruling.
So ISPs can offer services that don't provide full internet services(health monitoring, VOIP) and for an additional cost give those priority over all net neutrality traffic.
How does the decision affect zero rating and stuff like tmobile's binge on? Although I'm completely in support of net neutrality and all companies should be treated the same, I do support the idea of having different types of traffic. For instance making bittorent traffic lower priority than realtime streaming. This should preferably be controlled by the consumer though where they get some benefit for sending less traffic over the fast lane.
"The law says you can't rape customers up the ass then charge them for it."
"YOU CAN'T TELL US WHAT TO DO!"
"We'll see you in court."
"Indeed, the law says you can't rape customers up the ass and charge them for it."
"YOU CAN'T TELL US WHAT TO DO! YOU'RE OPPRESSING US!"
"We CAN tell you what to do"
"WE'RE GOING TO APPEAL!"
"You can't rape customers up the ass and charge them for it."
"YOU'RE ALL AGAINST US! WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE LAWS CHANGED WHILE WE APPEAL THIS TO GET ANOTHER FIVE YEARS OF RAPING PEOPLE UP THE ASS WITHOUT YOU STOPPING US!"
We'll see how it goes from there.
You're not a dingo, Mr. Wheeler
Well let's start with your faulty premise: A car is the same as a bus or bicycle. A bicycle isn't the same as a car if you haven't noticed. What is the difference between a video packet from Netflix and a video packet from Amazon or any packet? There shouldn't be any difference really but Comcast would like to charge Netflix and Amazon more to move a packet to their customer
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Uh yeah. Funny thing though, apparently you missed where all of the drivers flipped their shit over losing lanes to buses and bikers, much like the people on the internet flipped their shit over losing bandwidth to whatever special interests paid Comcast. So you're absolutely right when you say "had private corporations been in charge of streets and highways, their attempts at prioritization would've attracted the same criticism currently hitting the ISPs." because I can point to the criticism that happened, from people who didn't care WHO was fucking up their morning commute, they only care that it was fucked.
But of course, you're ABSOLUTELY FINE with Comcast fucking your shit up by taking bandwidth you use away to make special lanes for services you don't care about. For you, it doesn't matter how bad things get, it only becomes a problem when the government is the one making it worse.
Imagine if there were lanes you could only use if you were going to see a movie at a theater that paid the DOT under the table. Otherwise, only the bike lane is available for going to a movie. That's the internet without neutrality. Fair queuing and prioritizing at the individual household level based on type of service is fine under net neutrality.
But that isn't what we got. Instead history demonstrates degradation of Vonage by Comcast because it competed with Comcast's own "triple play" (this was mysteriously resolved after a Comcast-Vonage agreement). Comcast's own VOIP service was prioritized over all other services, including competing VOIP services.
I know it's popular because the internets want to be free, but I'd ask everyone to actually read the "net neutrality" regulations yourself. It's not about net neutrality per se, it's about something completely different.
For example, all the peering agreements suddenly come under FCC jurisdiction. Do asymmetric traffic charges count as "favoritism?" Do you even have any understanding of what that means?
The FCC rule means that everything internet-related comes under their jurisdiction.
What this means, in short, is your rates will go up...forever.
Net Neutrality means ISPs can't legally extort money from websites. It is obvious that Net Neutrality is right, but ISPs are so greedy that they want to extort people!
God spoke to me
Have gnu, will travel.
There shouldn't be any difference really but Comcast would like to charge Netflix and Amazon more to move a packet to their customer
There IS a difference, we want them to pretend that there isn't because that ensures fair competition. The ISPs do have to pay for peering, and they have to pay more if they want to deliver packets from Netflix (if not Amazon) in a timely fashion because Netflix is not spectacularly well-peered. Netflix's proposed solution to this problem is to host their CDN for them, which may or may not be reasonable depending on the situation vis-a-vis infrastructure and customer demand.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Net-neutrality supporters argue against discrimination based on packet-contents and origination, not the network gear, that generated them.
You're not quite getting the picture I intended to paint, here. I should have put a little more detail in.
Most of these broadband ISPs have their own services, TV being the big one, that they want to prioritize over the competition like Hulu or Netflix. Net Neutrality is not about QoS, it's about preventing the barrier-to-entry from being artificially risen. To correct your metaphor you'd need to distinguish the vehicles on the road by brand, not by their capabilities.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
No authority to regulate the internet other than their authority to regulate communication and information services passed by congress....
The government, that maintains the roads, gives priority to the buses, which it also runs, how is that? For another, the government, which wants everybody to pay tolls electronically (to make it easier to track citizens' movements), gives priority to cars that have E-ZPass installed.
The problem with Internet Service Provision is lack of competition. Adding more and more regulation only helps the incumbents ward off would-be challengers.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Confusion will set in here because Fire_Wraith and will_die are using the term "VOIP" differently. Fire_Wraith, you used VOIP as an example of a network protocol for which low latency is important, and traffic shaping is legitimate and neutral. Will_die, you used VOIP as an example of a special service paid for separately, that happens to be routed over the internet, that is not necessarily part of the customer's internet service.
If one replaces "VOIP" in Fire_Wraith's email with "Skype" or "Mumble" or "RTSP" then one would be correct in saying that those protocols really are more affected by latency, and Fire_Wraith's point still applies.
The broadband companies are going to keep trying until they get the answer they want. Then once they do, there will be no going back.
Personally I feel it's just a matter of time before they monetize everything on the internet.
This isn't a great comparison, but I remember cable TV was promoted as "commercial free TV." ie, You could watch TV without commercials.
Yeah... well... that worked out great.
An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
Net-neutrality supporters argue against discrimination based on packet-contents...
A few do, but they shouldn't. Network neutrality does not preclude legitimate QoS based on type of data or protocol.
and origination
This part you have correct.
Giving priority to Ford-made buses over Ford-made sedans would've been wrong in their opinion.
Nope, that would be fine. Just like normal QoS prioritizing real-time protocols (e.g. VoIP) over bulk transfer protocols (e.g. BitTorrent) would be fine.
This does nothing to stop ISPs from charging you by the amount of data being used. You'll be paying 2x the current cost for unlimited bandwidth or you can subscribe to the Cable TV service if you want a bread on that. They will get their money one way or another.
Adding more and more regulation only helps the incumbents ward off would-be challengers
Another libertarian with poor comprehension.
ATT owns the utility poles in question, and they are arguing that Louisville cannot require them to share with Google.
The law they are challenging makes it easier---both for incumbents entering the market and for existing utilities performing maintenance.
They are willing to handicap themselves with higher maintenance costs in order to keep Google out.
For another, the government, which wants everybody to pay tolls electronically (to make it easier to track citizens' movements [aclu.org]), gives priority to cars that have E-ZPass installed.
The idea that they "give priority" to EZ-Pass users is laughable. EZ-Pass is an automated system, so of course it's far faster and cheaper than manned toll booths.
I see at least 3-4 cars pass move through an EZ-Pass lane for each car that moves through a cash lane on my commute.
And my EZ-Pass lanes are the slower ones where you have to stop and let it raise the arm. There are EZ-Pass lanes where you just slow down to 30 MPH so it can read your device (and they scan license plates if cheaters drive through without passes).
Doing something like prioritizing VOIP packets over FTP, for instance, is perfectly acceptable,
Is it? I'm not sure I agree.
If my connection is saturated while I am using both VOIP and FTP, it is entirely acceptable to me that my ISP prioritizes my VOIP traffic over my FTP traffic.
If my ISP's total uplink connection is saturated (whether or not this should happen is another discussion), it is entirely acceptable to me that the ISP throttles its users that are currently using the highest amounts of bandwidth. Ideally, they throttle every user using more than X amounts of bandwidth down to X, where X is the highest number that they can sustain; and not do anything for all the users using less than X. This done without looking at the type of traffic of the different users, only the total bandwidth use. Of course, within the scope of a given user's such-throttled bandwidth, that's user's VOIP traffic may be prioritized over that user's FTP traffic, per the above clause.
But it is not acceptable to me if your VOIP traffic is prioritized over my FTP traffic independent of our total bandwidth usages. If I am trying to use 100 Mbit/s of FTP and you are trying to use 100 Mbit/s of VOIP and the ISP can only sustain 120 Mbit/s total, then it can throttle us both down to 60 Mbit/s, but it must not throttle me down to 20 Mbit/s instead because VOIP outprioritizes FTP. And when I am trying to use 50 Mbit/s with my FTP and you are trying to use 100 Mbit/s with your VOIP, then you go down to 70 Mbit/s, while my bandwidth stays intact.
The lesson here is that a sufficiently large corporation is indistinguishable from government. --ultranova
You say you want to have your FTP packets dropped so that your VoIP packets get through, but what you really mean is that you want my FTP packets to be dropped so that your VoIP packets get through. And that's not acceptable
Actually, it is the way things should work.
If FTP packets are dropped, they will be retransmitted. The file transfer will take longer, but it will still work unless the congestion is really, really bad.
Due to the nature of human auditory processing, however, you cannot just resend VoIP packets a half second later and expect everything to work. The typical use case implies a requirement for timely delivery.
A well-managed network should be able to route both VoIP and FTP in a way that prevents either protocol from affecting the network, in part because of QoS/DCSP rules.
But if things do slow down a bit, the VoIP users need their full 64 kbps a lot more than FTP users need an extra 64 kbps. FTP can slow down and speed up quite easily; VoIP can't.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
“It is not our duty to consider novel arguments a [party] could have made but did not.”
Perhaps there is another line of argument that the court thinks might get a different result.
In the last round, they did hint that the FCC try again with Title II and perhaps prevail.
They did switch to Title II and did prevail here.
The issue now is how to fine tune what is reasonable to do with Title II.
Perhaps there is something about the current use of Title II that the court feels is wrong, but nobody complained?
So many things to try, so little time to sell. It must be a great day to be a telco lawyer.
The government, that maintains the roads, gives priority to the buses, which it also runs, how is that?
A little closer but still not the same. If the gov't gave priority in such a way that only one manufacturer could build those buses your metaphor would be in better shape.
The problem with Internet Service Provision is lack of competition.
I agree, specifically with this statement. I feel like this whole system would at least have the protection of "fear of losing customers" to keep everybody honest.
Adding more and more regulation only helps the incumbents ward off would-be challengers.
I don't think your example supports your point. In fact I think it does the opposite.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I pay my ISP for a pipe. I request what I want through that pipe and expect my ISP to deliver it without prejudice.
If I wanted them to decide what gets priority I would subscribe to fucking television.
Take a page from the regulations books of other countries: If a network operator has a market share exceeding 50% in a particular market, or if there are fewer than three operators in that market, then the easements (that no ISP can do without) require that the operator offer wholesale services to all competing businesses at regulated prices.
Nah, the new thing is a "zero rating" for Ford.
You keep repeating this meaningless "manufacturer" thing — there is no "manufacturer" of Internet packets. Net neutrality tries to combat packet-discrimination based on origin (who sent this?) and contents (what are the originating and destination ports, what's inside — when "deep" inspection is enabled).
In case of roads, NY city's prioritizing of city buses is a perfectly apt analogy. But, because they are government owned, Slashdot's dominant Statists are cool.
In my example, AT&T is suing the town over special treatment allowing Google to complying with the regulatory requirements AT&T had to comply with. They may even have a point. But it is an example of how companies are forced — by the regulations — to compete for favors of government and judges, rather than those of customers.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You keep repeating this meaningless "manufacturer" thing â" there is no "manufacturer" of Internet packets.
Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, Vimeo, iTunes, Amazon, etc.
In case of roads, NY city's prioritizing of city buses is a perfectly apt analogy.
As I said, it is close, but it fails to pick up the very nuance that brought this legislation up in the first place.
But it is an example of how companies are forced â" by the regulations â" to compete for favors of government and judges, rather than those of customers.
It is in the customers' best interests to have competition in the space.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
These are all sources of information, rather than manufacturers.
There is no "nuance". We have owners of networks being ordered, what they can and can not do with their own equipment, that's all. The sole justification is "The Greater Good", property rights be damned.
I'm still waiting to hear an argument for "net neutrality", that would can not also be used to argue against special traffic lanes for city buses and cars with E-ZPass.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
These are all sources of information, rather than manufacturers.
Could you please explain the distinction in this context? As long as you're understanding that the information is being categorized by Netflix, Youtube, etc, then we're close enough to being on the same page that your argument doesn't really act as a rebuttal.
There is no "nuance".
Well, no, you're just not seeing it. I'm not really seeing where the break in our communication is.
I'm still waiting to hear an argument for "net neutrality", that would can not also be used to argue against special traffic lanes for city buses and cars with E-ZPass.
E-Z Pass does not distinguish by manufacturer.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
They have authority over telecommunications networks, and the Internet runs on those networks.
Get over it, astroturfer.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Well, there's a difference between QoS rules for all streaming video versus file transfers, and QoS rules for streaming video from provider X because they paid our ransom^W access fee to serve content to our subscribers that are already paying us for the same bandwidth.
It's rent seeking if not racketeering.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Are you really this stupid, or did Verizon pay you to spew this nonsense?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Or just use one of the several AQMs that can evenly distribute bandwidth while keeping latency, loss, and jitter to almost 0.
The ISPs do have to pay for peering, and they have to pay more if they want to deliver packets from Netflix (if not Amazon) in a timely fashion because Netflix is not spectacularly well-peered. Netflix's proposed solution to this problem is to host their CDN for them, which may or may not be reasonable depending on the situation vis-a-vis infrastructure and customer demand.
Bahahaha. You realize that a customer tested out Comcast's excuse and found it to be hogwash. He ran Netflix through a VPN and it was actually faster. So let's think about what Comcast says: Netflix --> {internet} -->Comcast -->Customer was slow because Netflix is not well peered but Netflix --> {internet} -->VPN --> {internet} -->Comcast --> Customer is well peered and thus faster. So unless more hops and through a VPN somehow makes it more well peered. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Even more interesting is back during the dispute, Comcast stated they already paid for and setup all of the peering hardware, but refused to turn it on for over a year. They're willing to pay for the upgrades, but refuse to use them in order to hold their customers hostage.