Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Netflix Changes Course, Says It Will 'Never Outgrow' Fight For Net Neutrality (vice.com)

Posted by msmash on from the change-of-heart dept.

After a few months of wishy-washy statements on net neutrality indicating that the company had largely given up on it, Netflix is changing course. From a report: On July 12, the video streaming company will join Amazon, Reddit, Pornhub, Imgur, and more to incorporate slowed-down or disrupted service to raise awareness for the importance of strong net neutrality guidelines, giving visitors to its site a taste of what a future without a free and open internet could look like. The protest, organized by Fight for the Future, freepress, and Demand Progress, takes place five days before the first deadline for comments on the FCC's proposal to roll back net neutrality protections. The change in heart comes days after Netflix CEO Reed Hastings said, "[Net neutrality is] not narrowly important to us because we're big enough to get the deals we want."

107 comments

  1. ISPs should meter their customers by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Instead of trying to parasitically extract money from an arbitrary list of content providers, ISPs only need to charge us per bit. At that point those end users who are clogging up the Internet with UHD video traffic from Netflix & friends can pay a proportionally larger amount than people who read a blog and watch a few SD clips on YouTube.

    Of course ISPs are too chicken to meter their customers after having made all these promises of "unlimited" service. And as a customer, I certainly wouldn't want to be metered. But if ISPs want to maximize their profits and charge people to support the infrastructure that is being used then end user metering is the obvious way. (and perfectly legal)

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by lgw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'd be happy to pay by the GB - no caps, no throttles, no BS. I pay for the rest of my utilities that way.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I want to say I'm happy to pay by the GB, but then I remember that telco companies used to charge 20 cents for a text message or roughly $1,250,000 per GB. (assuming 140 bytes per message and a 20 byte overhead).

      Now I know that's a ridiculous comparison, but if they thought they could get away with charging that much to use unused overhead in their existing lines, I imagine we won't be getting a particularly good deal if they switch to a pay-per-use plan.

      If we make them Title II, and regulate their pricing then fine. Otherwise, we'll need a LOT more competition than the market has now to drive prices down.

    3. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      ISPs only need to charge us per bit.

      If they charge the same amount, regardless of where that bit came from, then that is network neutrality.

      At that point those end users who are clogging up the Internet ...

      You are missing the point. The problem is not "users clogging up the internet". The real issue is that ISPs are mostly monopolies and they want to leverage that monopoly to muscle their way into the content business. If they charge differential prices to customers based on where the content comes from, then they can shift users to their own content, and either extort tribute out of Netflix/Amazon/iTunes or drive them out of the content business entirely.

    4. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except oversubscription is built into their model.

      That means all those underutilized lines would no longer generate revenue.

      What if they could meter above X and still charge a base rate to all customers? Then they could get all the same revenue and more! Now, if they could charge the endpoints their customers are utilizing then its extra money. I mean, the bandwidth costs have now been paid twice at this point, but getting paid for the same bits three times is even better! I know, I'm not thinking big enough and what is better then being paid three times? You guessed it Johnny, four times is better then three, I learned that on Sesame Street. Customers who want premium packets with better QoS would be scrambling to pay that fourth time! I just wish I knew how to get the same bits paid five times over. If I could do that then just maybe that small company known as comcast can weather this terrible economy. Those poor guys.

    5. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys are idiots. ISPs don't meter traffic, because a GB doesn't cost anything. Bandwidth costs money, because laying fiber and buying routers and switches cost money. You pay for bandwidth, don't you? So why do you want to pay for something else instead?

    6. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then you're an idiot. An "unused" GB cannot be stored and sold later. The reason why you pay for "the rest of your utilities" that way is that they have costs associated with the wire, the pipes, etc. and the thing those wires and pipes transport. An unused gallon of water can be stored and sold to someone else, or not "created" in the first place. Treating water costs money. An ISP does not have a GB reservoir that you're using up. An ISP pays no money to replenish the GB they can offer to you. Unused bandwidth is wasted bandwidth. You pay for the bandwidth because that's the only thing that costs money. Every time someone wants to change who gets paid what, you idiots try to scare people into submission by waving this "pay by the GB" scenario over our heads. SHUT THE FUCK UP and return to your cave, trolls.

    7. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by geekmux · · Score: 1

      I'd be happy to pay by the GB - no caps, no throttles, no BS. I pay for the rest of my utilities that way.

      You know what else you would soon not have?

      No options.

      If all ISPs charged by the GB, you would soon see all of them petitioning and lobbying to do away with SD-quality streams, and all other forms of bandwidth-saving features in order to ensure they "throttle" your wallet every month, with you doing nothing more than using your service. They would strive for this under the guise of a "premium quality internet experience", but we all would know it would be to push for the most bandwidth consumed per customer.

      Soon after, they would start doing away with offering cable channels via the cable box, and only offer channels via streaming, as another way to bolster bandwidth usage.

    8. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? I'll just not use it then. The libraries give internet access and that's enough for the necessities. Just do without for a year or two and the companies trying that shit will fall so hard they'll create a black hole. they'll then realise without customers all they have is some funny looking ceramic string in the ground.

      Oh, and oragetide, those figures were when 5mbps was the utra-fast business connection, roughly where the SONET 100gbps links are today. So the prices would be scaled to the technology you get for the same price, not the exact same cost structure.

    9. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by Falos · · Score: 1

      The concept is burden, not deprivation.

    10. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the plan is to set a cap, and then zero rate partners.

      Netflix probably realized they're fucked if that happens, because people won't blame the ISP for the cap, they'll decide Netflix it too expensive to use, I'm so glad at least Comcast TV doesn't break the budget.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    11. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'd be happy to pay by the GB - no caps, no throttles, no BS. I pay for the rest of my utilities that way.

      No, you don't. Read your utilities bill someday.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      Charging that way would be pretty much like the way utility companies charge their customers, which is precisely why ISPs (in my opinion) would never go for it: They'd end up being DECLARED public utilities (looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, therefore IT'S A DUCK principle) and therefore subject to all the regulation that goes with it, which is the last thing they ever want. Also people would then start closely monitoring their own usage, to keep their monthly bill down, which would mean ISPs would become unprofitable. Also, wireless companies are at least as much ISPs as they are cell service providers anymore, so they'd be next. Between the two they'd both become very unprofitable compared to the way things are now, which is why they'd all fight it tooth and nail. Would probably be great for consumers. Too bad it'll never happen.

    13. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess if they want to drive themselves out of business, they'd be free to do so. Other companies would pop up offering more choices, for (initially) cheaper prices, and people would flock to them.

    14. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as long as they charge you a reasonable amount... a few cents per gigabyte makes sense right now... but it needs to keep decreasing.

    15. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      True. With "unlimited" I feel the need to be downloading all the time. "I don't care about this movie, but I don't have anything else to download and I'll be dammned if I don't use all the services I've paid for!"

      Caveman interkin3tic need to rest now...

    16. Re: ISPs should meter their customers by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The reality is that there is no technical reason for metering at all and it wouldn't stop these issues either.

      The internet infrastructure works whether or not you send bits over it, it doesn't wear out any faster nor does it need any more maintenance because a bit was sent.

      What's more is that your ISP doesn't pay per bit sent either, that's pure fiction. The problem is that they don't want to expand their network.

      At the peering points they are at 100% capacity and refuse to install more bandwidth even though their network supports it and in some cases the peering centers have even offered to pay for it. They want Netflix to pay for it purely in order to damage its business model and raise prices for consumers so they can offer their own in-network offering.

      We need to deregulate the ISPs so smaller ISPs can use the fiber and copper we paid for through FCC taxes, split the service provider up from the media companies and cable companies like they split up Ma Bell. That's the only solution, the weak Obama net neutrality only legalized what it had promised to regulate - the bundling of data with in-network services.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    17. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Instead of trying to parasitically extract money from an arbitrary list of content providers, ISPs only need to charge us per bit. At that point those end users who are clogging up the Internet with UHD video traffic from Netflix & friends can pay a proportionally larger amount than people who read a blog and watch a few SD clips on YouTube.

      What a marvelous idea. And since you leave your always-on connection always-on, for the convenience, you won't mind paying the bill for a 31 day DDoS, right?

      Let's say you're subscribing to Comcast's middle tier, which is 100 Mbps. And let's say you're paying $15 per gigabyte, because that's what Verizon charges for overages, and therefore it must be a reasonable price. There are 2678400 seconds in a 31 day month. Let's say Comcast's throttling is very efficient and you actually get right at 100 Mbps. So in 31 days, a DDoS can send you 33,480,000 bytes. Comcast is a telco, so they think a gigabyte is 1000 megabytes and megabytes are 1000 bytes, so you've received 33.48 GB from that DDoS that month. So your bill is $502.20. Plus taxes and fees. Thank you come again.

      Oh, and your only way to avoid that bill is to unplug your cable modem and not use your service at all the entire month, because the DDoS is being controlled by a malicious actor who is after you specifically, and can easily fingerprint your devices and detect when you come back online with a new IP.

      Unless and until I can be informed of the number of bytes I will receive for every single request, before I send the request, and I can control every single byte sent to me, Internet service metered by byte or by hour is totally unacceptable. Oh wait, I can't do either of those things, and I especially can't do the second thing because it's FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE! The protocol doesn't work that way!

      How a blithering idiot like you got modded up to plus 5, I'll never know...

    18. Re: ISPs should meter their customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really liked what you said, you were doing great, then you dropped this one:

      |We need to deregulate the ISPs so smaller ISPs can use the fiber and copper we paid for through FCC taxes,

      The companies own those lines, regulation is literally the only way to get them to share them. I work at a telephone company/iSP, we install and own the cable and fiber and nobody gets to use those unless we say they can and we aren't going to say they can unless we're compelled to.

      Furthermore, even if the lines were owned by the public, that means government regulation would be required to figured out who can use what when and at what cost.

      So I don't know why you think deregulation is the answer here in any way shape or form. This is why idealouge is a dirty word folks.

    19. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't like a utility, in that... utilities have limited resources, bandwidth isn't like burning fossil fuels.

    20. Re: ISPs should meter their customers by guruevi · · Score: 1

      That's the problem, the companies get tax-funded money from FCC and other agencies to expand their networks and then privatize them, we paid for them, we should get them back. Current regulation keeps those schemes in place both on federal and local levels, the access to poles and lines and the expansion of new copper and fiber is so heavily regulated that competitors have a really hard time starting a new business. We need to deregulate the current situation and give back the right of ways to all players in a market, not just those that pay off congress.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    21. Re: ISPs should meter their customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      K, done. You're wrong.

    22. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Then you're an idiot. An "unused" GB cannot be stored and sold later. The reason why you pay for "the rest of your utilities" that way is that they have costs associated with the wire, the pipes, etc. and the thing those wires and pipes transport. An unused gallon of water can be stored and sold to someone else, or not "created" in the first place.

      How do you think hotel rooms and airplane tickets are sold? The customer doesn't care whether you have unused capacity, they care what their price is. Living with unsold capacity is just part of the business model. If you have many off-season rooms/tickets/GBs to sell, make a sale. Long ago on dial-up I used to have an ISP where 11 PM to 7 AM was no charge, that way all the heavy downloading was done at night when few really cared about speed or latency,

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    23. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by lgw · · Score: 1

      So, you mean like the way commercial power is billed - pay for moment of peak usage?

      An ISP does have "a GB reservoir" unless all it's customers hit peak use at the same time (which, admittedly, can happen). If the usage distribution is somewhat random, then your cost really is by GB.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    24. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can find all kinds of harebrained approximations which "justify" billing by the GB, but in the end it's all bandwidth, peak time bandwidth to be exact, because that's the only thing that matters to an ISP. A 100Mbps connection can carry more than 32TB/month. Let's say you think you can get $100 out of your customer for a 100Mbps connection, and now you want to bill for data volume instead of bandwidth. Do you bill $3/TB? Or do you make it more like $0.25/GB? Neither is going to work out for you: If you bill $3/TB, you get $3 for a line that used to cost $100, because very few people exceed even 200GB/month. If you bill $0.25/GB, your customers can use about one megabit per second on average before they hit $100/month. The problem with this is that they won't "use" their data volume evenly, but mostly at peak times instead. That's when everybody uses the internet, and so do they, at full speed. So you get about the same peak load, but 99% of mostly idle networks, which is WASTED CAPACITY. Wasting that much capacity in a market situation will be your certain demise. No matter what price you set for the GB, almost the entire effect will be on off-peak utilization. Billing by the GB is wasteful, which is why nobody does it.

    25. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They should charge the sender of the data. Thus the subscription fees cover the costs. The benefit is that it slows down spam and advertising, and could spur demand for setting up more distributed content servers for better overall access.

    26. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by lgw · · Score: 1

      Peak vs off-peak pricing is a thing, you know.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    27. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love you shills that pretend charging per bit is not parasitic. Fuck every one of you.

    28. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Why not the initiator of the transfer? This is TCP/IP and there is a three-way handshake.

      If I HTTP "GET" something, I an the originator of the request. So I only pay for the few lines of text I sent to request the webpage and the server on the other end pays for the file they are sending to me? or does the requester pay for the entire transaction? There are lots of ways to slice this, and I think there are pros and cons to all of the options.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    29. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by CoderJoe · · Score: 1

      Your numbers and/or units are wrong.

      > 33,480,000 bytes

      That is only 33.48 megabytes.

      But your error is before that.

      3600 * 24 * 31 = 2678400 sec/month (that one you got right)
      2678400 sec/month * 100,000,000 bits/sec = 267,840,000,000,000 bits/month (you had an error here)
      267,840,000,000,000 bits/month / 8 bits/byte = 33,480,000,000,000 bytes/month
      33,480,000,000,000 bytes/month / 1,000,000,000 bytes/gigabyte = 33,480 gigabytes/month
      33,480 gigabytes/month * 15 $/gigabyte = $502,200

    30. Re:ISPs should meter their customers by geekmux · · Score: 1

      I guess if they want to drive themselves out of business, they'd be free to do so. Other companies would pop up offering more choices, for (initially) cheaper prices, and people would flock to them.

      Oh, you mean like cellular companies that "pop up", only to be bought out and collapsed into the collusive environment of mega-corps that dominate all?

      That's the problem we face today; as much as we want to convince ourselves that true competition still lives and breathes, the reality is a world full of multi-billion dollar corporations that collude to control the entire fucking market.

      Wal-Mart started this trend of moving into a town to destroy small business. Now watch and see how Amazon works to dismantle the concept of a shopping mall within the next decade.

  2. Gatekeepers meet Keymasters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do we allow those who control the pipes also have their own content?
    This creates a huge conflict of interest in promoting the use of their content over someone like NF.

    1. Re:Gatekeepers meet Keymasters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why?

      Because you keep electing crooked politicians who take millions of dollars in bribes from both ISPs and content providers.

    2. Re:Gatekeepers meet Keymasters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because half of the US thinks that there's no such thing as a conflict of interest. Ignoring policies and beliefs aside, thinking that an unscrupulous business man would "drain" the corruption by multimillion dollar lobby organizations? I mean, you have to be really fucking stupid to not see that the sewage is simply going to move the sewage right into government (which he has).

      Has he kept his promise to drain things? Sure. He never did specify that it would be all over the middle class citizens who voted for him. According to them, businesses need less red tape.

      They won't notice it because they'll just blame the internet to be slow (not the company).

      Meanwhile, in Canada, the CRTC (FCC equivalent) just mandated all cell carriers sell their phones unlocked, recognizing having only 3-4 major players (some of which were former government entities) with a huge cost to enter this market is stifling competition. Yay for sanity!

    3. Re:Gatekeepers meet Keymasters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHARGARBLFreeEEEEEEEEEEEE! WAmarketRGHARBLEE.

    4. Re:Gatekeepers meet Keymasters by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Because you keep electing crooked politicians who take millions of dollars in bribes from both ISPs and content providers.

      Does this ever not describe all of the candidates on the ballot? The only way to get on the ballot to begin with is by having enough money to get on there. And that money comes from corporations. So there are no choices that aren't bought and paid for already. I generally choose the write in option, but I've never voted for anyone who won when I do that either.

    5. Re:Gatekeepers meet Keymasters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you keep electing crooked politicians who take millions of dollars in bribes from both ISPs and content providers.

      Does this ever not describe all of the candidates on the ballot? The only way to get on the ballot to begin with is by having enough money to get on there. And that money comes from corporations. So there are no choices that aren't bought and paid for already. I generally choose the write in option, but I've never voted for anyone who won when I do that either.

      Yes, American politics is broken.

      And the only people who can fix it are ... politicians. (When hell freezes over.)

  3. The Sierra Network (TSN) pricing by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

    Rates for the service I used, as of 1995 were as follows:

            Welcome Plan: 5 hours for $9.95, $2.95 each additional hour
            10 Plan: 10 hours for $19.95, $2.75 each additional hour
            15 Plan: 15 hours for $29.95, $2.50 each additional hour
            25 Plan: 25 hours for $49.95, $2.25 each additional hour
            50 Plan: 50 hours for $99.95, $1.95 each additional hour
            Unlimited Plan: for $129.95

    And this was for dial-up at 2400 bps (and possibly 9600?) ref

    Back to my original post, it might be inconvenient to do hourly rates for an always-on broadband, so metering is a natural choice.
    Also if someone uses your WiFi, you're stuck with a huge bill that you probably deserve for not securing your WiFi network.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:The Sierra Network (TSN) pricing by p4nther2004 · · Score: 1

      Just for those who think that was an outlier... CompuServe AOL Dephi Genie All of these networks charged by the hour for you to access their systems.

    2. Re:The Sierra Network (TSN) pricing by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Netcom didn't...Neither did IBM.com.

      In fact I can't think of an _ISP_ that did. Just crappy 'online services' like you list.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:The Sierra Network (TSN) pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because the sender of traffic pays. (And there is no such concept as a 'request' to bill back to at the IP level.) Network Neutrality is just a fancy phrase meaning 'make the receiver pay.' It shifts costs from Netflix to you. It can't work, because it would destroy the underlying economic model of the Internet. It is the same effect as postal mail being receiver-pay; the spam and junk mail would never end. ISP service has always been affordable because they receive more traffic than they send, and that means the senders of those traffic are paying most of the backbone costs. That annoys Netflix, Google, and others who would rather not pay. And it especially irritates Google that anybody else on the Internet might be able to spy like they spy. (That is why they are all-aboard restricting ISPs on the 'privacy' front.)

      Netflix tipped their hand when they suddenly didn't really care about Net Neutrality anymore, because they realized it makes it too easy for other video services to compete with them.

    4. Re:The Sierra Network (TSN) pricing by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Hourly is bad though. What if I'm hosting a website that needs to be up 24 hours a day but only consumes 1MB/day in traffic? You shouldn't be charged the same as someone who consumes 1gigabit up/down 24/7. The 1MB/day only requires a fraction of a switch's capacity.

    5. Re: The Sierra Network (TSN) pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say NN will kill the internet.
      Idiocy. The internet was born and remained neutral for decades. Flourishing all the while.

    6. Re:The Sierra Network (TSN) pricing by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      You do realize that most people used those "online services" before there was a widespread web, AND most people didn't have access to Usenet.

      So those "online services" were what provided the content (including chat) for people.

      (BTW, I'm NOT one of those who used those services, since I started on BBSes before that [mostly non-networked], then a shell account at college.)

    7. Re:The Sierra Network (TSN) pricing by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Upthread the year 1995 was mentioned. Only _morons_ were still on Compuserve or AOL in 1995.

      I got my first internet account while in explorer scouts (local engineering firm let us), in the early 1980s. Wasn't much there, BBSs were more fun.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:The Sierra Network (TSN) pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of them used phone lines, the ultra cheap ISPs would buy as few phone lines as possible and charge by the hour to use them.

    9. Re: The Sierra Network (TSN) pricing by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It has been a long, long time. CompuServe, in the early eighties, was billed by the minute? Someone correct me, if my memory is faulty. It was stupidly expensive. Something like 1200 baud at $12/min and $4/min if you dialed into the 900 baud MODEM pool?

      And we liked it!

      No, not really. It kinda sucked, honestly. Wow... Yeah, I paused for a few minutes to think about this. I don't even have rose colored glasses. It pretty much sucked, especially when compared to today. ASCII porn was a thing.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    10. Re:The Sierra Network (TSN) pricing by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I used to use MichNet a lot, it was free but boring. MichNet was basically a dial-up to a text browser (lynx) and a few other apps through a menu driven interface. The advantage is you didn't need a TCP/IP stack on your computer, so some old KayPro or ADM-3 could still get a person online.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    11. Re: The Sierra Network (TSN) pricing by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Things like Compuserve were way out of my budget. I used an acoustic coupler MODEM (for about a day), on a shared line, with a teenage sister. I became a nocturnal BBS denzin.

      ASCII porn only printed right on some printers.

      Tell that to kids these days and they won't believe you.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:The Sierra Network (TSN) pricing by p4nther2004 · · Score: 1

      You do know there were companies providing "computer-services" BEFORE the internet allowed commercial (public) traffic, right?

    13. Re: The Sierra Network (TSN) pricing by KGIII · · Score: 1

      They don't even know what MODEM means. ;-)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    14. Re:The Sierra Network (TSN) pricing by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      1995 was used because that was the only information I could find online about the pricing.

      Also, I was not able to get dial-up internet in my rural area until 1996. So I used a lot of hobby BBSes and subscribed to things like CompuServe, Delphi, Prodigy and TSN. TSN was rather expensive and my parents eventually got sick of paying for it. Which is a shame because to this day I regret never beating the game Shadow of Yserbius.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  4. Too Late by pak9rabid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's too late. You've already shown your true colors, this is just pandering to keep customers.

    1. Re:Too Late by interkin3tic · · Score: 0

      WHO. THE. FUCK. CARES.

      Seriously, this is a fucking corporation. "Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility." - Ambrose Bierce

      If you were confused about what it's "colors" were, it's colored red with the blood of the people they'd harvest kidneys from if they thought they could get away with it and make more money doing it. Much like EVERY FUCKING OTHER SUFFICIENTLY LARGE CORPORATION EVER. This is not shaming Netflix. Netflix is neither good nor bad compared to any other corporation. They simply have zero ethics beyond "make money" just like any other corporation. Ever.

      If they're on "your side" then yes, they are pandering to keep you as a customer. Accept their help! Demand other corporations pander to you too! Don't ask if they are doing it to be their friend, they're not! The alternative is not some other friendly good corporation comes along who is doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, it's you fighting a battle without giants on your side.

    2. Re: Too Late by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You do know that Linux, FSF, etc. are all corporations, right?

      That's a pretty big brush you painted with.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  5. Netflix abusing net neutrality themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Have you ever tried to watch netflix from a subnet they do not recognize? Like if you acquire some obscure /22 from a defunct military contractor and decide to use that for your company's internal IP space and then decide to watch Netflix while VPN'd? I have. Which led to a rabbit hole of contacting Netflix "research labs" providing them your BGP ASN, having to coordinate with your upstream provider to show proof of announcement and THEN Netflix will allow you to stream.

    Of course if you use the major providers, they have already done this for you. Just another nail in the coffin for the small or self-run business IT

    1. Re:Netflix abusing net neutrality themselves by tattood · · Score: 1

      Like if you acquire some obscure /22 from a defunct military contractor and decide to use that for your company's internal IP space and then decide to watch Netflix while VPN'd?

      You could just, maybe, turn off the VPN?

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
    2. Re:Netflix abusing net neutrality themselves by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on not understanding the core concept of net neutrality!

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:Netflix abusing net neutrality themselves by thule · · Score: 1

      Maybe Netflix is just simply trying to save on transit costs. If it is an unknown ASN that could mean the traffic would traverse their costly transit link. Ya can't blame a company trying to save a buck, right?

    4. Re:Netflix abusing net neutrality themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you feel the same way about Google, Facebook, and Comcast then no you're right. They need to save a buck the most, to make sure they never overcharge for that buck, right?

  6. With great arrogance by ITRambo · · Score: 2

    When they're too big to care, they're never to big to fall. In fact, the CEO's arrogant comment would have been enough to drive some people away. Netflix no longer brings out the best new content. Iron Fist, the last season of House of Cards, are examples of traditional TV style weak programming full of filler scenes that are boring, where they don't care as they think you're hooked without any options.

    1. Re:With great arrogance by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      I don't see it as an arrogant content, nor as a change of course. He was simply stating the fact that net neutrality isn't about protecting the big players like today's Netflix, it's about protecting the smaller players. And he never said Netflix didn't support net neutrality, only that it wasn't a "narrow" interest as in vital to their bottom line.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  7. The obvious problem by saibot834 · · Score: 2

    The obvious problem with this is that sending bits is not what costs ISPs money. What costs money is having a high-enough bandwidth connection to the backbone during *peak traffic* time. Your ISP is and should be much happier if you download at 4am.

    Ideally, you would pay for a certain small guaranteed bandwidth, which you get at all times, including during peak loads (this is kinda far in the future, but ISPs could use SIBRA bandwidth reservations or similar systems). Additionally, you get "up to X" amount of bandwidth at off-peak times. Your ISP should publish how high this "up to X" is on average during each hour of the day, so that you get a realistic idea of what to expect. To make the most efficient use of the infrastructure, during low use time, X should only be limited by the physical limitations of the network -- i.e. if you have a 1 GBit/s connection, they should give you 1 GBit/s even if your peak load guarantee is only for 20 MBit/s.

    That's the most efficient way to utilize the network.

    1. Re:The obvious problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cell services simply metered you flatly, but had a reduced/free multiplier during off-peak. Though some got overeager, muddied things. "Weekend minutes".

      Coupled with modern data service, it might sound something like "500GB/mo premium, thereafter throttled. Half of any unused premium is banked in rollover. Usage between 23:00 and 28:00 unmetered. Instant topup purchasing available online or by phone."

      Or charge grandma $60/mo to check her email and play on solitaire.com, whatever.

    2. Re:The obvious problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not only very simple, but exactly right. Selling connections by minimum guaranteed bandwidth directly incentivizes investment in the network. If the ISP wants to sell more bandwidth, they will need to build it. The aggregate excess is then shared fairly, providing the "up to" speed.

      All of the schemes involving metering or paid prioritization are intended to drive up prices by inducing artificial scarcity. The nature of the network is fundamentally different, and billing that way is scam. Allowing piecemeal monetization will cause congestion, and severely damage the best effort service which ensures that innovation can flourish on the Internet.

    3. Re: The obvious problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the fuck is 28:00?
      When does that happen?

    4. Re: The obvious problem by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      When the fuck is 28:00?
      When does that happen?

      Are you one of those primitive species that lives on Earth or something?

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  8. A fair-weather friend. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I could be wrong but it seems like Netflix only a proponent of network neutrality when it suits them. I suspect they have recently gotten notice that they are being throttled in some locations and they don't like the proposed contract, so they are back on the net neutrality bandwagon. Once they establish long term contracts with major ISPs, they'll be back to their old anti-competitive ways.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:A fair-weather friend. by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong but it seems like Netflix only a proponent of network neutrality when it suits them. I suspect they have recently gotten notice that they are being throttled in some locations and they don't like the proposed contract, so they are back on the net neutrality bandwagon. Once they establish long term contracts with major ISPs, they'll be back to their old anti-competitive ways.

      I think they are in favor of net neutrality because it reduces their costs. At the same time, they have to reassure their stockholders that the lack of net neutrality isn't a threat to their business model. Along the way, if they can get a deal that their competitors don't, this helps them too. Basically, for them it is a business decision. Fighting for net neutrality helps them in both the short term with cost and the long term by protecting their business model but the lack of net neutrality can also help them in the short term if they can get better deals that their competitors. Sadly, from a business perspective, it's probably best for Netflix if net neutrality remains in flux so they can use it as a stick when negotiating deals.

    2. Re:A fair-weather friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could be wrong

      You are. There's no evidence of any of that. It's 100% made up opinion based on nothing but apparently some sort of bias. I suspect much of what you believe is exactly the same.

    3. Re:A fair-weather friend. by thule · · Score: 1

      You're wrong because the issues that Netflix had didn't have anything to do with Net Neutrality. It was in issue with letting a third party handle their peering. That third party (Cogent) prides itself in settlement-free peering agreements. When Cogent took on Netflix as a customer, they started sending way more data from their network then they were consuming and therefore went outside of the settlement-free part of their agreements. Cogent doesn't like to pay for peering and decided to drag their feet upgrading the ports. Netflix was much better off when they negotiated the peering agreements themselves, outside of any settlement-free parameters.

      Stop using Netflix as an example of a violation of NN. Can we talk about real violations of Net Neutrality? Do you have an example outside of Netflix?

    4. Re:A fair-weather friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you've got it! The sudden surge of Net-Neutrality was heavily caused by Google & Obama-buddy Schmmidddt., who wanted to get ISPs locked down so they could not challenge Google.

  9. I call bullshit by klingens · · Score: 2

    Netflix was the company who paid the ISPs so they wouldn't throttle them. For years.
    Netflix is the other part of the net neutrality violators: the one that pays the money for preferred treatment of packets.
    The ISPs are the sellers of this.
    Violation of net neutrality cannot happen without both, and netflix being as big as it is, and being the first guys who paifd, made sure that violation of net neutrality will forever be thought of as a great business move by all ISPs.

    So netflix is slightly less evil than the ISPs which basically shook down netflix, but still very very evil.

    1. Re:I call bullshit by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Netflix was the company that demanded free rack space from ISPs, using some bizarre 'net neutrality' argument to claim they were entitled to it, as they used so much bandwidth otherwise.

      They have since cut deals with the majors, a local cache is almost required.

      If they just used html5 video the transparent proxies should just cache the video automagically.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:I call bullshit by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Netflix has proxy servers in datacenters throughout the US. I don't get the point of this.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free rack? You don't seem to understand. If the ISPs weren't in a position to hold their users hostage, the sign of the fee would change, as hosting local caches would save them transit fees. What is happening today is overt extortion.

      Netflix pays for their own pipes, and shouldn't be responsible for caching to bypass artificial bottlenecks erected by ISPs. The ISPs should be responsible for delivering the content that their customers request. In a functioning market, they would have to expand their network as needed, or lose customers. It would be in their own interests to pursue caching to reduce bandwidth costs.

    4. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, "free rack". As in: if you *request it* and you meet the requirements (basically, your AS must have enough netflix traffic to warrant it), netflix will loan to you, *free of charge*, about US$ 20k-US$ 100k worth of hardware that acts as a local cache. It has about 55TB of storage, uses about 1,5Gbit/s for ~8H every day to keep the cache fresh... but it provides your users with ~40Gbps of cached movies.

      You have to install it, host it ("rack space") -- it is small, BTW. About 5U per server, typically it will take at most half a rack -- and obviously you also pay the energy bill, cooling, and 1,5Gbps worth of internet uplink it needs. In exchange, you get at *least* 40Gpbs worth of downlink for cached stuff. One server gives you >85% cache hit, tree of them will give you >99,5%.

      So, yeah, one has to basically be an utter asshole to complain about this deal. And there is no pushing at all, it is *typically* the cheapest way for an ISP to reduce costs related to neflix usage and deliver better quality to its users as a bonus. But if you don't want it, you just need to have a good pipe to one of the netflix peering points,or an upstream ISP-of-ISPs that does (and does not throttle).

  10. Throttle Washington by labnet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All they need to do, is throttle the entire Washington area to 256kbs for a few days.

    --
    46137
    1. Re:Throttle Washington by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      They will blame it on N.Korea and those rascally Russians! WWIII commences.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Throttle Washington by by+(1706743) · · Score: 2

      I think throttling this might make more of a difference...

  11. And that is why NN is inherently stupid and fails by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    If they charge the same amount, regardless of where that bit came from, then that is network neutrality.

    If that is NN, then NN is stupid and should be banned.

    Because the implication of what you are saying, is that an ISP cannot charge me less for cached data.

    If a provider caches Apple device updates for example, why would it be so wrong for them to charge me less, or not count bandwidth used for updates against my cap??? Yet you are saying that is wrong, simply because your idea of a bit is some unrealistic platonic ideal, when there are many reasons why a bit may cost a different amount in real life from one source vs. another even if you are talking strictly transport costs.

    Here's the fundamental disconnect you are engaged in; real people DO NOT WANT bits to cost the same regardless of source. In fact they VERY BADLY do not want that. You are fighting the world on this in an effort that I dare say is even a stupider push against the world and human nature than the War On Drugs. You are that clueless FBI agent on the TV screen arguing how MJ will kill anyone who thinks about it, only your "drug" you are battling is realistic data fees...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  12. uh oh by Tailhook · · Score: 2

    Hastings must be figuring that Comcast, Charter et al. might try to squeeze him for peering costs. High flying CEO types don't make public about faces like this on a whim.... this is a pocket book issue.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    1. Re:uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which (if long term) is the best type of issue we could ask for to push them toward NN.

    2. Re:uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or it could just be a misinterpreted (and poorly stated) quote. Net Neutrality ISN'T that essential to Netflix any more for a variety of reason of which size is only one. That doesn't mean they don't support it or think it's important for the WORLD. Besides, the President says far more stupid and dangerous things on a daily basis. We're seeing a new standard in what people with influence will say in public.

    3. Re:uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right; Netflix never said anybody was causing them any grief back when they had performance problems across many ISPs. They knew the performance problems were being caused by Netflix or Cogent, ON PURPOSE. As each ISP reached a deal with Netflix, performance began improving IMMEDIATELY.

      It was always in the power of Netflix and/or Cogent, because they have total control over where they direct any individual client to connect for video traffic, and as the sender, they also have control over how they then route that traffic.

      It was a total scam, and the Net-Neutrality/Google crew seized on it to assert authority to lock down ISPs, for the benefit of Google. That happened, so Schmidt/Google went all-out to deliver for Hillary in 2016. Oops, failed.

  13. Too late by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    you've made enemies of both sides.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  14. Re:And that is why NN is inherently stupid and fai by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    real people DO NOT WANT bits to cost the same regardless of source. In fact they VERY BADLY do not want that.

    Speak for yourself, shill. Intelligent real people want to pay for bandwidth and be allowed to use it however they see fit.

  15. Internet Pipes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are the pipes transporting internet getting too full again? Oh wait, the connections always run at full capacity, just some of the time they are transmitting all 0's.

  16. It's about negotiation and money by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 1

    It's too late. You've already shown your true colors, this is just pandering to keep customers.

    No, this is about BATNA.

    Netflix is big enough that they can get the deals they want, generally. But any negotiation is shaped in part by each side's BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement). Net Neutrality gives Netflix a better BATNA. This lets them get a better deal. And that saves them money. Which helps their bottom line at the expense of Telecom's bottom line.

    What's more, mature competitors to Netflix (Hulu, Amazon Prime, Apple, and even individual streaming channels like HBO) are big enough that killing net neutrality is unlikely to drive them out of the market.

    --
    Real lawyers write in C++
    1. Re:It's about negotiation and money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they more threatened by an ISP charging them/slowing their traffic/dropping them, or by a smaller company eating their user base?

      You say that they're big enough that a loss of net neutrality won't harm them, but it will prevent smaller companies from springing up, and reduced competition allows them to charge more, just like the monopolies controlling the pipes.

      If you can't beat them, join them? Of course it is the customer who pays, always.

  17. No Evidence of Actual Harm? by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 0

    Despite all the doom and gloom talk, where's the actual evidence of harm due to Net Neutrality being reversed?

    From what I can tell there isn't much evidence out there. Apparently there's so little that people are having to create problems to bring attention to these supposed problems that don't actually exist.

    1. Re:No Evidence of Actual Harm? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Despite all the doom and gloom talk, where's the actual evidence of harm due to Net Neutrality being reversed?

      The actual harm is being hidden from view in private contracts, the terms of which you are not privy to. What we do know is that Netflix has already paid a shakedown fee to Comcast, and we can guess that it was millions of dollars. That's an enormous amount of harm to anyone who might attempt to compete with Netflix while offering the same type of service.

      The potential harm is even worse. Every popular Internet service was unpopular, once. Allowing popular services to squeeze out any new services with arbitrary rent-seeking fees would do fantastic harm to the Internet and to world economies.

  18. They should collective bargain by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

    These big corporations that are in favor of Net Neutrality should form an entity that negotiates with carriers as a collective. There would be details to vary per corporate member to be sure, but they could have some overarching terms of business that carry very serious weight. Such a collective could potentially purchase bandwidth to be ensured net-neutral to consumers that then purchase it from them.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    1. Re:They should collective bargain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have the right idea but are thinking on too small of a scale. The consumers should use the collective that is already formed, to ensure they can access any other peer on their paid connection by getting (or preventing) a law passed.

  19. meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that turn into a mini RIAA/MPAA and join and help fund a group to go after pirates
    cant wait to see the first disabled person whose poor they help destroy

    STOP USING NETFLIX it was a good idea , it is now all but infiltrated with everything we all hate

  20. Re:And that is why NN is inherently stupid and fai by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    an ISP cannot charge me less for cached data.

    Correct. ISPs can save money with caching, and they can pass those savings on in aggregate to their customers. But they should not be allowed to differentially charge less for cached data, since that is open to obvious abuse. They will cache their own content, refuse to cache independent content, and then use monopoly power to push their own content, or extort money from other content producers as a "caching fee".

    real people DO NOT WANT bits to cost the same regardless of source

    People that understand the issues certainly do. Consumers are not "demanding" to pay extra for uncached content. That is bullcrap.

  21. epsilon = zero by epine · · Score: 1

    The internet infrastructure works whether or not you send bits over it, it doesn't wear out any faster nor does it need any more maintenance because a bit was sent.

    Apparently you have yet to meet our current and future generations of non-volatile memory.

    A network computer whose merest operational logfile I am not worthy to exfiltrate—and yet I will design it for you.

    I constantly marvel at how Douglas Adams got everything deeply right, whereas Clifford Stoll, not so much.

    When Slide Rules Ruled — 2006

    Today an eight-foot-long Keuffel & Esser slide rule hangs on my wall. Once used to teach the mysteries of analog calculation to budding physics students, it harkens back to a day when every scientist was expected to be slide-rule literate. Now a surfboard-size wall hanging, it serves as an icon of computational obsolescence. Late at night, when the house is still, it exchanges whispers with my Pentium. "Watch out," it cautions the microprocessor. "You never know when you're paving the way for your own successor."

    Wise, slightly overclocked Pentium: If I'm not paving the way for my successor, it can only be due to my FDIV bug.

    Keuffel & Esser: This one time, at band camp, I fell into a bath tub.

    Pentium: A likely story. I might be mathematically challenged, but look at you, you're eight-feet long!

    Keuffel & Esser: True that. It was just my epsilon end that became unreliable.

  22. Net neutrality vs. Government Control by jlgreer1 · · Score: 0

    Net "neutrality" must be defined. I am not sure government control will be "neutral" very long. HI, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help. ???

  23. Re:And that is why NN is inherently stupid and fai by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Intelligent real people" can and do disagree with you about any number of things including net neutrality.

    And this is coming from someone who's ardently pro-NN, so don't even try that "shill" crap with me.

  24. Re:And that is why NN is inherently stupid and fai by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fundamental disconnect that you are engaged in is believing that there is any sort of measurable unit cost for bits crossing a network. Usage is an arbitrary measure used to pay for the capital cost of building the networks and the operating costs of keeping them running - an arbitrary measure which is easily abused and manipulated. Five bits or 5 million bits makes no difference in the costs to providers other than the fact they have agreed to charge each other using that arbitrary measure.

    Build the fucking networks with proper capacity (looking at you, shitty ISPs) and charge all customers (end users, businesses, content providers, et al) a fair and proper amount to recover capital costs and cover the real ongoing operating costs of keeping the bits flowing.

  25. Re: And that is why NN is inherently stupid and fa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a shill. Network neutrality isn't a company and can't have shills because there is nobody to pay shills.
    Anyone against NN is a shill. NN benefits all, no NN only benefits ISPs.

  26. What is "bandwidth"?? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Speak for yourself, shill. Intelligent real people want to pay for bandwidth

    I am speaking for humanity, it is young a handful of techno-snobs that are speaking for yourselves...

    What is this "bandwidth" you are paying for? Is it bandwidth to the farthest reaches of McMurdo base in the antarctic? Is it just to your local ISP?

    Until you understand there are different KINDS of "bandwidth" you cannot understand how being able to charge a differential for different kinds of bandwidth use means your "bandwidth" can cost less that it does for people who demand "bandwidth" in aggregate to all possible destinations.

    As soon as you bet against people wanting to save money, as soon as you bet against people WITHOUT CONTRADICTION also wanting to pay more for VIP access to preferred services, you lose every time.

    P.S. As a big old clue-stick, my own home WiFi routers allow me to set preferred devices for traffic priority. If you speak for "everyone" why would a WiFi router for consumers possibly want to let them say an AppleTV running Netflix should take priority over someone browsing Wikipedia? Could it be MOST consumers DO NOT WANT all traffic to be treated equally, at any level???

    I would think geeks of all people would understand this fundamental need, but it seems there are a lot of half-techs about these days.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  27. Screw Net Neutrality for Wireless! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with only 3 usable channels Wifi-g or 1 channel Wifi-n.
    and everybody want HD video streams on 4-6" phones.

    Net Neutrality causes total breakdown!

    best solutions so far:
    640K ought to be enough for anybody (Bill Gates, 1981)
    Turn off your WiFi (Steve Jobs, 2010)

  28. Our Pipes by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

    The source of all of this is the back-room, corner-office rants of Comcast, AT&T, Charter and other carriers that Google, Amazon, Uber and Netflix have made billions over their pipes. It's the same thing that if the mafia boss hadn't been scaring off the petty thieves from robbing your store, you wouldn't be successful today, so pay up the protection racket and be happy with it. I suppose building out an internet from backbone to last mile is a thankless, un-sexy job compared to making movies and selling stuff. Why shouldn't they get a piece of that action? I'm sure major Activest Investors are pressuring CEO's with that question all the time. Comcast, at least, put the question a little bit to bed by buying NBC/Universal and becoming content-creators themselves.

    But Net Neutrality will never be quite as simple as common-carrier was with the plain-old telephone system (POTS). No, Comcast shouldn't be able to extort more money out of Netflix, even though Netflix may be the service that's choking up their antiquated lines somewhere, generating complaints and forcing them to pay for upgrades in a region they weren't planning to upgrade for a while. But what about E911? or catastrophe alerts? Should that get prioritized? What about when surgeons start running robots on the operating table over the internet... should they get the opportunity to arrange for a near-real-time point-to-point pipe? Wall Street will pay big bucks for that kind of throughput, if that means they can robo-trade just one nano-second ahead of their competitors.

    These are policy questions that need smart, thoughtful far-sighted people to work out in a way that benefits everyone in the right way. But our current political climate is a lot of shouting, short-sighted fake-news FUD, coupled with I'm-just-looking-out-for-me bullshit. So, I'm not holding my breath for any resolution soon. "Net Neutrality" will keep coming up, generate a lot of shouting, followed by confused looks, and then out-and-out falsehoods on Fox and Friends:

    what is this "neutrality" anyway? isn't this just a way to shut down the bloggers? this is a free country, I have strong opinions and I shouldn't be forced to be "neutral" on the Internet if I don't want to be...

    whereupon Net Neutrality will go dormant for a month or two before another big tech CEO brings it back up again.

    --
    Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  29. Another approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not a two-column approach?
    I'm sorry if I'm repeating someone - but I haven't ever seen this approach...
    If you want to be an internet provider, you must offer a net neutral offering:
    - Max price
    - Min bandwidth up/down
    - Not monitored
    - Not shaped

    This offering gets all the limitations and benefits of being a public service. These services may be government subsidized.

    You can then offer additional products without limitations with no restrictions whatsoever.

  30. Evil at work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did Ballsack Eyes (Soros) acquire more ownership?