Slashdot Mirror
PSA: Comcast Doesn't Really Support Net Neutrality (slate.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Slate: Anyone who has ever paid a bill to or waited for customer service from Comcast knows why it is one of America's most detested companies, its recent efforts to improve its image notwithstanding. While Comcast says its customers will "enjoy strong net neutrality protections," it hasn't explicitly said it won't offer paid prioritization, which is how the company would most likely monetize its new ability to legally muck with internet traffic. In other words, Comcast might not choke or slow service to any website, but it could speed access to destinations that pay for the priority service. The company's promises should sound familiar. As Jon Brodkin pointed out in Ars Technica on Monday, back when the FCC was crafting the network neutrality rules in 2014, Comcast said it had no plans to enact paid prioritization, either. "We don't prioritize Internet traffic or have paid fast lanes, and have no plans to do so," a Comcast executive wrote in a blog post that year.
But Comcast's line has changed in an important way. In a comment to the FCC from earlier this year, the company said it is time for the FCC to adopt a "more flexible" approach to paid prioritization, and noted in a blog post at the time that the FCC should consider net neutrality principles that prevent "no anticompetitive paid prioritization." In other words, not necessarily all paid prioritization. The inclusion of "anti-competitive" could signal that the company does in fact hope to offer fast-lane service, but at the same price for all. And it might be a price that say, Fox News and the New York Times can afford, but one that smaller outlets can't. That Comcast's language is changing is one reason to distrust its promises regarding net neutrality, but its track record is an even bigger one. The company has been caught red-handed lying about its traffic discrimination in the past. In 2007, for example, when Comcast was found intermittently blocking users' ability to use BitTorrent, the company made numerous false claims about its network interference before finally admitting its bad behavior and halting the disruptions.
But Comcast's line has changed in an important way. In a comment to the FCC from earlier this year, the company said it is time for the FCC to adopt a "more flexible" approach to paid prioritization, and noted in a blog post at the time that the FCC should consider net neutrality principles that prevent "no anticompetitive paid prioritization." In other words, not necessarily all paid prioritization. The inclusion of "anti-competitive" could signal that the company does in fact hope to offer fast-lane service, but at the same price for all. And it might be a price that say, Fox News and the New York Times can afford, but one that smaller outlets can't. That Comcast's language is changing is one reason to distrust its promises regarding net neutrality, but its track record is an even bigger one. The company has been caught red-handed lying about its traffic discrimination in the past. In 2007, for example, when Comcast was found intermittently blocking users' ability to use BitTorrent, the company made numerous false claims about its network interference before finally admitting its bad behavior and halting the disruptions.
So what. I also pay more for a 1 gig connection. Once I bother to get some 10gig cards I'll get 10gig internet
Maybe they're going to do whatever they can legally to make the most money, like every other business.
...I get a little more open to the idea of repealing it. More generally, the more widespread and aggressive and desperate and obvious the shill campaign for something is, the more suspicious I become of it.
Comcast doesn't operate in my neck of the woods, but for a good 20 years I've heard nothing but bad things about them. From poor service, to poor customer service, to sleazy business practices, I haven't once heard a good thing about them (except for stock sites, but those don't count).
Do you think they will be motivated to upgrade their network for those who don't pay extra? Will it bother them that carving a "fast lane" out of their bandwidth will slow everyone else down? Having a fast lane means they get paid more if they throttle your connection and to slow your ping time (to force you to upgrade).
Just where did this right to a neutral internet come from? I missed it the last time I read the Constitution. Let the market decide.
And Google/Netflix/whoever paid their ISP for an insane amount of bandwidth as well. Why should they have to pay Comcast?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
If you pay for a one gig connection then you should get a one gig connection. How and why are you sharing your one gig connection with Netflix bingers? This isn't about how much an end user is paying for Internet service. As you said, you can already pay more for faster Internet. This is about ISPs offering you a service "Internet connection at X speed" and then not delivering that because they do not deliver the entire Internet at the same speed. The are selling you something more like a cable package, where the companies that have paid them money to be able to reach you can shuffle bits to you quicker than the companies or individuals who have not paid the toll.
For example, let's take gaming. Your buddy has not paid Comcast so when you want to join his server, you are not getting that full one gig you paid for. His traffic does not get to use the fast lane. He paid for one gig. You paid for one gig. But because he has not paid for the fast lane, there is not a one gig connection between the two of you. That one gig connection you paid for only connects at one gig to people or companies who have paid the "high speed" toll. When you connect to other people who have not paid the extra toll, even if they also have a theoretical one gig connection, it doesn't work at one gig.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
What kind of for-profit company would they be if they supported policies that prevented them from fucking their customers out of lots more money?
God damn you're an idiot then, and ruining good things for the rest of us with your stupidity. Tell me, how the fuck do you react when there are huge corporations vigorously shilling both sides of an issue? Because that's actually what is going on right now. It's not like only one side of the debate has big corporate shills working for it. I mean, for fuck's sake, this is Comcast saying net neutrality sucks and you come up with this genius comment about companies shilling FOR net neutrality. No offense but are you fucking retarded? Can you read English?
So yes, they are lying. What did you expect?
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
I'd like the Netflix bingers to pay the extra. They're the ones using all the shared bandwidth.
I see another poster thinks that ISP's should just upgrade their network, and they should, but it costs a lot and that cost is a direct result of Netflix's business. In effect your ISP, in upgrading for Netflix, is subsidizing Netflix's business model.
Wouldn't it be awesome if you actually got dedicated bandwidth? Well, it wouldn't be quite so awesome if you had to actually cover the real costs of implementing that end to end.
Netflix in particular has driven the need to massively increase bandwidth across the whole internet. The rest of the internet is subsidizing their business, in effect. That's not exactly fair, either.
I suspect that the real cost of delivering 4k content across the internet is many times the amount Netflix charge their customers - and that charge covers their 'bandwidth costs' to their upstream ISP's along with a business overhead and profit component. Their present business is only sustainable because it is largely subsidized by everyone else's ISP.
Choking network traffic means some traffic being favored, faster over the others.
Offering a priority lane means some traffic being favored, faster over the others.
What's the difference? It sounds the same to me, and I find that disturbing.
It sounds like Comcast is saying they will throttle traffic but they will give it a positive name so that it doesn't sound bad.
I suppose that is the difference. One sounds bad. One sounds good. But they amount to the same thing being done.
What happens if they slow done everybody to make enough speed for priority lanes? Or maybe they add to the priority lanes and neglect all others?
In the end, the little guys will get less than the big, and the big guys will pay more than the little, but many will just pass that cost along to the little guys.
There's no way this is neutral.
Hmm, a pro-net neutrality poster responded to an opposing viewpoint with a bigass paragraph full of nothing but mindless insults and rage. This will definitely win people over to his side!
So what. I also pay more for a 1 gig connection. Once I bother to get some 10gig cards I'll get 10gig internet
WHY??? What could you possibly be doing that makes you think you need 1Gb let alone 10Gb???
It's in the exact same section where the founding fathers directed the FCC to classify telephone service as a common carrier because they determined that it was a fundamental necessity to modern life and that the government would be failing the people if they didn't make protections to ensure that everyone has the necessities. It's in that section.
If you can't find that section, it's right by the section that dictates that cable companies and ISPs should operate in a de-facto monopoly where there is no real competition for your "market to decide", which is made stronger by their lobbying dollars helping to ensure that the laws stay on their side.
So yeah, it's in the same part of the Constitution that makes all of that possible.
Anyway, what exactly is your recourse when the market decides that it wants to fuck you over as much as it legally can while attempting to keep new players out of the same market? What if the market decides that you're nothing but a bank account, and once that balance is 0 you're not worth anything to them any more? What if the market in your local town decides that the luxury of having water delivered to your house through a pipe is worth at least $100 per gallon? What if your local electricity market decides that your prices are going to quadruple, and they're also going to shut off service completely if you hit your daily or weekly or monthly cap unless you upgrade your electricity plan? What are you going to do when every other market sees how profitable yours is and copies the same tactics, while spending plenty of that new money to buy off the legislators to make sure this situation never changes? I mean, the market decided, right? The all-powerful market with its eternal wisdom has laid down the law, and you are just honor-bound to follow that as the red-blooded patriot you are.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
You realize that in a market with hugely, bigly asymmetrical power, letting 'the market' decide is just another way of saying "let the megacorps run roughshod over their customers" right?
Because that is precisely what will happen. Comcast knows that for a large number of their customers they have no viable alternative. And they *WILL* act accordingly. The same is true for every other ISP. There's a bit of competition with the cellular service providers; but if they all take a page from the "being an evil dickbag company" handbook -- competition won't matter in the least.
there are only two things that keep companies honest:
1. regulators with actual testicles and teeth
2. competition.
Comcast has never had one of those, and is on the precipice of doing away with the other.
Netflix in particular has driven the need to massively increase bandwidth across the whole internet. The rest of the internet is subsidizing their business, in effect. That's not exactly fair, either.
That entire arguments hings on the idea that it is somehow fair to oversell bandwidth.
Since selling things you can't deliver is fraudulent to begin with it doesn't hold.
Slate is reporting that water is wet, and the sky is blue.
Probably what they are really saying they will be doing is the following. A lot of the major cable providers are currently deploying Docsis 3.1 which in theory would allow them to begin selling gigabit services to customers since it makes more efficient use of the spectrum. What they are probably planning to do is deploy docsis 3.1, keep customer plans at the same speeds as we have now, start using the bandwidth that has been freed up with docsis 3.1 for "fast lane" service.
Doing this they would be keeping their word they aren't slowing down existing traffic, now they just have oodles more bandwidth they can put to other uses.
you pay for a connection... period. That's the definition of ISP model revenue stream.
Killing Net Neutrality will allow the communications cabal (AT&T/Comcast/Verizon) to say-"Oh! You want netflix, now you have to buy an -entertainment bundle- to visit that site". Or the "sports bundle" if you want to watch ESPN stream. They really want to turn the internet into "packages" like they've done with cable TV. The difference here is that ESPN & HBO on the cable side license their content and charge stations. With Netflix/Hulu/Prime, we the consumers are already paying for the content, plus we're paying for the connection, plus the cabal wants the charge the content providers usage of their path ways, plus charge the consumer extra...
AND they want to build profiles and sell your surfing habits to marketers (aka facebook) and you as a consumer have no rights or protections without NN.
This is an $8B give away to the communications cabal at the expense of the American consumer. Nothing more.
When they, for example, have government-granted monopolies in Seattle, of course they're going to be against competition. Posting this from a shared dial-up connection at work where we're in their monopoly area, but they don't offer service so we're stuck with whatever CenturyLink offers which is currently only ISDN or dial-up.
ISP's complaining about binge watchers is a red herring. You already pay for the connection rated at X mbps, on top of that they limit your total monthly consumption. Now they want to charge you extra for going to Y site. This is the GOP being owned by the communications cabal.
"Comcast Doesn't Really Support Net Neutrality"
No shit...what was your first clue, Captain Obvious?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Who knew?
https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/17/comcast-tells-the-fcc-that-net-neutrality-should-be-voluntary/
ISP's complaining about binge watchers is a red herring. You already pay for the connection rated at X mbps, on top of that they limit your total monthly consumption. Now they want to charge you extra for going to Y site. This is the GOP being owned by the communications cabal.
Agreed. Bytes are bytes. All services should be treated equally. If I was designing it, I might have X GB a month from the upstream link to the rest of the universe (or links) and Y GB a month from the ISP's local network, where Y > X.
ISPs should automatically make caching servers available for services like Netflix, or rack space, if that makes sense. (Advertisements should be designed to be one of the first things cached.)
All the rest of the nonsense needs to die. Plans should be based on actual usage. If you exceed the alloted bytes, it is slower. Things like binge on by t-mobile go away. Sure you can request them to provide the low quality video stream, which just reduces the bytes used.
About the only content an ISP might get paid to deliver is advertisements, so people don't just block it all, since it is technically unwanted content. No normal content should require the ISP to pay the content provider, though the end user might of course.
I promise you he doesn't even use 10% of that connection on heavy days.
Spacex and 1-web will have the start of their Network up by end of next year. Both will have ~25 Ms latency and will be charging ~50/ month for 1 g isp. This is going to cut into Comcast, att, centrury link, etc in a big way and will only cut more as we all remember them in the future.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
- The Sun to Rise in the East.
- Bears Found to Defecate in the Woods.
- Pope Makes Surprise Announcement "I am a practicing Catholic."
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
Once the dust settles, and the ISPs have the keys to the kingdom, then they will see what bad bargain they have wrought.
ISPs have a steady stream of revenue, and they will build cash, buy a failing competitor and prop it and eventually wear down the existing big streaming companies. Internet will degenerate into cable tv like bundled services.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
And I suppose next that you'll tell us that water is wet?
How is this Netflix's problem? It's Comcast's problem if their users are requesting more data than they can handle. Why should Netflix pay anything? In fact, if Comcast wasn't already an incumbent near monopoly, they would be having to pay someone else for a pipe big enough to download all the data their users wanted. Just because they happen to be considered a tier one peer on the internet shouldn't allow them to pull so much data without paying for it. They're just lucky they got grandfathered into an unlimited plan, otherwise they might have to ask their users to pay for their bandwidth - but they're already gouging their users for profits...
The constitution has a clause where rights not numerated in it devolve to the states or local governments.
Comcast might not choke or slow service to any website, but it could speed access to destinations that pay for the priority service.
Unless they're running their network through the TARDIS, bandwidth is finite, so prioritizing some traffic de-prioritizes (or slows) other traffic. Can't really have it both ways at the same time.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
If you have made it down this far, you will have endured endless shills spouting the same easily debunked talking points, well done.
It strikes me as odd that Comcast would even bother sending its paid trolls to Slashdot, but apparently they do.
Fuck off, you dipshit. What does this have to do with NN?
Hopefully you end up in the fucking slow lane, you prick. fuck your mama
See subject: @ least I do something about bs online (better vs. any single other) - you flap your cocksucker by comparison & that's about it!
* Take your own advice & f'off UNIDENTIFIABLE trolling "ne'er-do-well"...
APK
P.S.=> CHUMP! apk
Last post, what do I win?
Also has an Interstate commerce thing there too. So if Congress say neutral Internet then there you go. See isn't this fun? I bet we could all go in circles all day and get absolutely nowhere. Rule number eleven, if someone says "where does it say that in the Constitution?" they are a complete idiot and you shouldn't even begin a conversation with them.
All shared, limited resource services are sold this way. Power, water, etc. I don't see people on /. whining about those. Why do you think Internet should be any different?
Because if you turn on all your electrical equipment, someone else's refrigerator won't stop working. Shared resources have *massive* overhead in order to avoid not supplying anyone with it. Why do you think that the internet is special in this regard?
ISPs also have to pay each other. They do this by agreeing to exchange equal amounts of traffic, or with money. Everyone seems to forget this part.
Apparently you/they think ISPs like Cogent should get unlimited bandwidth into Comcast's network for free.
The internet has never worked that way.
The actual problem is Netflix's ISP(s). They have an obligation to exchange equal amounts of traffic with Comcast or pay for the excess coming from their network towards Comcast's. THIS is how the internet has always worked.
I find it amazing that you think Netflix should get free internet. Are there any other large companies that should get free internet access?
ISPs should automatically make caching servers available for services like Netflix, or rack space, if that makes sense. (Advertisements should be designed to be one of the first things cached.
They do, it's just that Netflix didn't want to pay for that either. Every other content generator either pays for transit or uses a CDN that does the same. I don't see why Netflix or another company should get free access to an ISPs network.
I wonder if ISPs could do something positive with paid prioritization. For example, mom has a 5Mb/sec connection for email and Facebook, but now she wants HD Netflix. Instead of having to upgrade to a higher tier of internet speed, she can keep her 5Mb because Netflix has paid the ISP for a 'speed boost' up to 25Mb/sec, for all customers no matter how slow their connection. That is, Netflix data comes in at 25Mb but everything else comes in at 5Mb. Could be useful for 4k/8k/VR streaming, where people wouldn't otherwise need/want to pay for 100Mb internet.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
It allows you to cash in on not investing into broadband. I mean, who would pay for for faster traffic when there was no congestion?
Netflix in particular has driven the need to massively increase bandwidth across the whole internet. The rest of the internet is subsidizing their business, in effect. That's not exactly fair, either.
Considering the fact that people pay for the bandwidth they use to view Netflix content and Netflix pays for their bandwidth to the internet backbone it's hardly what you'd call "unfair". All we're really talking about here is the same problem that caused ISPs to throttle torrents back in the day, them overselling their bandwidth and then having people actually use way more of that bandwith than they had anticipated.
Thus all it really boils down to is business miscalculations made by managers at ISPs...
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
Have Comcast phone service? Tried calling the toll free number to order Centurylink DSL? Doesn't work does it?
netflix mainly has pushed the want to hugely increase bandwidth across the whole net. the relaxation of the net is subsidizing their commercial enterprise, in impact. this is now not precisely truthfulBeginner Bodyweight Workout Program
Power and water are not sold like that. I don't pay a flat rate for an advertised 30A power supply to my house on the assumption that my average will be 300mA and that I'll burst to 30A, I pay for the amount that I consume. The same for water.
This typically isn't done for network connections, because the cost of providing the service is not proportional to how much you use, it's proportional to the peak load on the network. At off-peak times, there's no extra cost if you allow someone to saturate their connection, but at peak times you may only have enough off-net bandwidth (or second-hop bandwidth) to allow everyone to get 50% or less of their peak.
The biggest problem that I have with ISPs is not that they charge this way, but that they advertise in a misleading way. They advertise unlimited 100Mb/s (or whatever), when what they mean is '100Mb/s peak, 1Gb/s off-net bandwidth per 10 customers' or similar. ISPs here used to advertise contention ratios (and have different tiers for different contention ratios), but this ended when they realised that the ratios they were not comparable.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
That's a very shortsighted view. Corporations benefit from things that increase their ability to do business. Individuals benefit from some of the things that corporations do and are harmed by others. If something makes it easier for corporations to do business then that alone gives you no information about whether it's going to benefit you.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"Paid prioritization" is already the reality. Bigger companies have more servers, bigger pipes, and CDNs. My brand new cat video site can't afford all those things. Netflix, and presumably others, already had a deal with Comcast to co-locate servers in Comcast data centers. It is effectively the same thing. There are certainly other things to worry about when it comes to the neutrality question, but this isn't one of them.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Seriously, it should be a trollfarm test - do you post in favor on eliminating net neutrality? If yes, you are Comcast/Russian paid troll and I claim my $5!
.
Nobody seems to get a Comcast fast lane connection unless they are (a) paying for it, (b) testing that link daily, *and* (c) complaining when they don't get the promised bandwidth they are already paying for. Funny how that bandwidth they do get can vary greatly from day to day, for no apparent congestion-like reason, which would have intermittent responsiveness, not a capped-like performance signature. I believe its just their way of saying "Nice business you got going there, be a shame is something unfortunate happened to it", as their elbow bumps the bandwidth capping switch to your network segment for a day or two.
Everything you said can and does happen under current "net neutrality" regulation. Yeah, I wish there were laws that prohibited ISPs from oversubscribing a neighborhood -- I hate that my available bandwidth takes a nose dive every night at 6 when all the neighbors start Netflixing.
sig: sauer
You kind-of just made his point for him. goodjob.
sig: sauer
Posted 2 days ago
"I don't like (Google/Facebook/Twitter/insert corp name here) therefore I don't like net neutrality" is not a particularly well-informed viewpoint or useful point of discussion.
Who do you trust more, Netflix or Comcast?
Do providers still sell unlimited plans any more? Here is Comcast page for getting internet. Notice it says "An XFINITY Internet Data Usage Plan may apply," and nowhere mentions unlimited.
The GGPP says "That entire arguments hings on the idea that it is somehow fair to oversell bandwidth. Since selling things you can't deliver is fraudulent to begin with it doesn't hold." But they are delivering it. How many people are being sold unlimited internet and are being charged more for going over an imaginary limit, or are having speeds well below expected because too many other customers are using too much? If the answer is none, then it sounds like they are providing all customers with what they are paying for.
The real issue is capacity, which would be the second scenario I just covered. To compare, let's say everybody in your region plugs in or turns on every outlet, light, and starts charging their electric cars at the same time. You're going to have a brownout, because the electric companies estimate capacities and demand, and try to provide the amount demanded. But if everybody tried to use max capacity 100% simultaneously, would we complain because the company encountered an unprecedented event, and was selling something they couldn't deliver? Let's add on top that all of a sudden that people wanted to use 3 times as much electricity as they currently do for entire months? A small portion of the customers could, but overall, it would be a problem if everybody tried it.
Since you commies think everything other people e work for should be yours, why dont you follow Google Fiber project giving 'cheap and open internet' access?
Oh wait they are abandoning that because its costing them A LOT of money to lay infrastructure.
Such simple minded mouth breathers need to go live in my ex homeland of Cuba. Everything is Fair there.
I find it amazing that you think Netflix should get free internet.
You might be reading a reply that I didn't see, because I didn't see anyone claim that Netflix should get free internet. You better believe that the Netflix data centers are hooked up to multiple backbones and that Netflix is paying quite a bit for all of that infrastructure. They're already paying for bandwidth, so why should they be made to pay twice? They're already paying to send their data out, you also want them to pay to get their data the rest of the way to individual customers, where they have to pay any ISP that their customer is using? Isn't it enough that they pay their own providers? Why do they have to pay your provider also? Isn't that your responsibility? I find it amazing that you think you should get free internet.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
The typical way to do all of that is through QoS settings.
A "fast lane" and "slow lane" does not mean data flows at different rates through the routers or the network. It means that when many streams of data are coming through and the router must decide which one is processed first, it will give priority to one over the other. QoS settings also go under the name "traffic shaping",
The difference is subtle, but enough that marketers, PR folk, and political statements leverage it.
Thus they can say that they aren't slowing down anything, they aren't actually throttling or limiting anything. Those are accurate. However, that doesn't mean they are treated the same.
When a line forms the non-favored traffic must wait in the line and the other can jump to the front. Another (which is already legal and widely used) allows for preference for different routes for different types of packets and patterns, large bulk data goes through one route while small units go through another route. In general that's fine when it is unbiased, much like postal sorting has different equipment for letters than it does for packages without regard for who sent it. The issue is that without Title 2 rules, the network managers can use QoS settings to prioritize based on sender or destination, and that's a problem.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Every other content generator either pays for transit or uses a CDN that does the same.
Netflix does use a CDN, called Level 3. Except there's a lot of imbalance of data transferred exceeding the peering agreement between Level 3 and Comcast. Comcast wants more money for all the extra data transferred, whereas Netflix wants to pay nothing, because of Net Neutrality.
ARE YOU A WEBMASTER losing ad money due to programs like mine? You are, & I'll show you quoted admitting it!
You fool nobody but yourself (for starters).
You also do realize you're a "ne'er-do-well" that attacked me 1st don't you do-nothing Dave420??
So again - Who are you trying to fool here? Again, yourself only.
* I give it back like I get it & that's what you got - shot the fuck down!
APK
P.S.=> What drives you to give me guff is apparent above, nothing more really needs to be said... apk
I'm not saying Netflix should get free internet. I'm saying they should get paid by Comcast! Along with Google and Facebook, and all of the other content providers on the internet.
You are wrong about the internet. Peering was traditionally a non-counted flow. If it was unbalanced then no one really cared. Customers have always paid for incoming bandwidth. The failure of obligation here is with Comcast - they are failing to provide content for Netflix (or rather Netflix's ISP). They are no longer a peer on the internet, they are a consumer, and should be required to pay for the content they are consuming.
Under your logic, power stations would have to pay to put energy into the grid! Or Amazon customers would be required to pay USPS extra delivery fees on at their home! Or TV stations would have to pay Comcast to carry their channels! To see the ridiculousness of your assumptions, you are saying that Netflix would be better off if they piped the contents from /dev/zero on all of their clients back to their servers.
Don't fall for the nonsense logic of "tier one" peers. They are rent seeking, and have taken over control of the internet in many ways (this, NN, anti-competitive municipal broadband). Comcast wants to get paid on both ends, and the bigger they grow the more they think they should be paid. They really should be paying some of their ~$25 per month profit from their 25 million to the content providers who are making it so that thousands of clients sign up monthly for their service.
See subject & You've done better, especially earlier, amicusNYCL? Oh hell no - you're just mere TALK!
APK
P.S.=> My program IS the best of its kind & does far more for FAR less vs. any other "so-called 'solution'" for more speed, security, reliability & anonymity from 1 "moving part" only - period (& you KNOW it)... apk
I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to the person saying this " Why should Netflix pay anything?"
Moreover, Netflix can hook into all the backbones they want. The issue is when the traffic from one backbone provider to another network far exceeds the traffic FROM that network, and it's a settlement free link.
Try to realize that providers also have to pay each other - either with equal traffic exchange (settlement free peering) or money (paid peering).
The idea that an ISP should have unlimited bandwidth into another ISP's network effectively makes that first ISP a reseller of the second.
See subject & NEW APK Hosts File Engine 10++ 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/
Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy/bandwidth.
Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!
Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99++% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster via local RAM!
* Via what u NATIVELY have in a FASTER kernelmode IP stack (does more w/ less).
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/ (self checking vs. infection of it built-in)
I'm astounded by how myopic so many people are on this issue.
Apparently if Netflix pays their ISP, then it ends there. Their ISP should have unlimited bandwidth towards another ISP.
Gee, what are the long term consequences of that?
Every network pays the networks they connect to. Some do it with money, others with mutually beneficial, and equal, traffic exchange.
Netflix pays/paid Cogent (and later Level3) who had settlement free interconnections with Comcast. The traffic FROM Cogent's network far exceeded the traffic TO Cogent's network, creating an imbalance that used to be considered an unacceptable practice on an settlement free link. The link also apparently congested in that direction as well, a similarly poor practice.
In the past, such a one sided imbalance would have led to the recipient of this excess traffic demanding payment for the overage OR throttling the connection in one direction to maintain traffic ratios.
Now, they're apparently not only supposed to accept this excess, but expand to accommodate more. This means Cogent gets free access to Comcast's network, which they can then resell.
If anyone can show that this is normal for the internet, or practice that was accepted in the past, I'd love to see it.
Hogwash - end CONSUMERS are paying for the connection at the other end while Comcast/AT&T/Verizon are still making record profits
Again, an ISP a service you're paying for connectivity. As a business, monitor your backbone and if you need to replace your switch faster with more/redundant switches, decrease switch planned replacement periods and if that makes you unprofitable, increase monthly rates. But that's not what they're doing. They want to carve up the internet and sell your personal data.
These greedy bully's are just trying to extract more revenue and using "elected" officials and laws to do so while removing consumer protections.
I'm not saying Netflix should get free internet. I'm saying they should get paid by Comcast! Along with Google and Facebook, and all of the other content providers on the internet.
Yes, everyone's ISP bill should go sky high because some people want to use Google, Facebook, and/or Netflix.
Good god.
You are wrong about the internet. Peering was traditionally a non-counted flow. If it was unbalanced then no one really cared. Customers have always paid for incoming bandwidth. The failure of obligation here is with Comcast - they are failing to provide content for Netflix (or rather Netflix's ISP). They are no longer a peer on the internet, they are a consumer, and should be required to pay for the content they are consuming.
It was indeed largely non counted because no one ever did things that resulted in 10:1 or 100:1 traffic imbalances.
Comcast is not Netflix's provider, and has no obligation to give more bandwidth to accommodate their traffic.
Netflix was Cogent and Level 3's customer.
Comcast is not a peer? I'm sure that's news to just about everyone.
When they said why should Netflix pay anything, that would be why should they pay anything other than their own connectivity. Obviously they pay a tremendous amount of money right now for infrastructure, if you're assuming that someone is arguing that Netflix should stop paying for their multiple data centers and multiple backbone connections then I think you're missing the point.
The idea that an ISP should have unlimited bandwidth into another ISP's network effectively makes that first ISP a reseller of the second.
OK. That also has nothing to do with Netflix though. Netflix isn't an ISP. What you're talking about is between the different ISPs. They've decided that charging each other is a zero sum game and they can make a lot more money if they start double-dipping by charging the content companies in addition to us.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
The answer is not more regulation by way of net neutrality. Fucking break up the geographical monopolies and let them compete with each other. Jesus fuck this isn't that fucking complicated. Instead, we'll NEVER get that and we'll just end up with layers and layers and layers of various government regulation.
Netflix in particular has driven the need to massively increase bandwidth across the whole internet. The rest of the internet is subsidizing their business, in effect. That's not exactly fair, either.
Uh, no. Netflix pays it's ISPs to send data to users. Users pay their ISP to receive data - from Netflix, and other places. Anything else is double dipping.
The result of this isn't a transfer of profits from Netflix to Comcast. Oh no. Netflix will raises prices. This is just a way of Comcast double-charging YOU the consumer. You pay your bill, and also pay to receive certain other services. In case you felt the $179 a month you are paying Comcast is unfair to them.
Why do they have to pay your provider also?
Oh, they won't. Netflix will raise your bill. You'll be paying your ISP 2x to receive the same data.
amicusNYCL criticizes names? You're a FAKE NAME for a FAKE "ne'er-do-well" do-nothing life & haven't done better yourself & how'd EATING YOUR WORDS vs. me taste here https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8641837&cid=51371259/ ?
(A bit like your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming your clucking back down your chicken-neck throat, washing them down w/ the BITTER TASTE of SELF-defeat?)
APK
P.S.=> You're a do-nothing fool & you not only KNOW it (behind your fake name for your fake life) but you PROVE it constantly... apk
The problem arises when Netflix's ISP (Cogent) won't pay for the added bandwidth they want from Comcast. The links congest and Netflix plays the victim before finally buying transit directly on Comcast's network or, even dumber, paying Comcast to add capacity to the CogentComcast connection.
Why didn't Netflix complain to their ISPs (Level 3 and Cogent) about their lack of bandwidth to Comcast? It was their responsibility to get Netflix what they paid for.
Netflix's ISP pays my ISP and/or vice versa to interconnect. They usually just forgo monetary payment and agree to exchange equal amounts of data.
Others, usually smaller regional ISPs will pay money and have a specific connection level and SLA they are entitled to.
The problem is when Netflix's ISP doesn't want to pay my (or your) ISP for connectivity or they have a settlement free link they are congesting in one direction.
My ISP is not obligated to give another ISP (or user) unlimited bandwidth for free. Cogent (and later Level 3) were knowingly abusing settlement free links while acting as though they should get unlimited bandwidth on Comcast's network for free.
This is all of us residential ISP users being told we should subsidize Netflix by letting them pick cheap ISPs who get unlimited bandwidth on the same network we all have to pay for.
"Have you ever seen a single developer put "++" in their version number?" - by amicusNYCL ( 1538833 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @12:26PM (#55644323)
Additionally, EAT YOUR WORDS yet again (notepad++ moron) & it shows you don't know dick - as to WHERE I got "++" from?
Charlie Chaplin's message, notice his sleeve (greatest speech I've ever heard - VERY inspiring) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8HdOHrc3OQ/ - NOT where notepad++ (look it up, it's been out there for years) got it from (C incrementor operator).
"He likes to make his stuff look more impressive than it actually is (this is a text sorting program that makes HTTP requests and writes to a file)" - by amicusNYCL ( 1538833 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @12:26PM (#55644323)
Dimwit, again you show you're an imbecile who opens his mouth & INSERTS FOOT as you did here https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8641837&cid=51371259/ before stupid!
* CLUE - My program does a LOT more than that only which is a lot more than you ever have... & it does EXTREMELY WELL in the eyes of our /. peers that like & use it https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11351783&cid=55546175/
APK
P.S.=> ... & it's MORE than a FAKE NAME for your FAKE LIFE "ne'er-do-well" in yourself does, lol... apk
If Comcast's network doesn't have the bandwidth to handle Netflix then that sucks for Comcast's customers, but that's not really Netflix's problem. Comcast just needs to tell their customers that they won't be able to use Netflix, or Netflix can show a warning to Comcast IPs that their ISP sucks, and then their customers can go to another ISP if they want to watch Netflix. If Comcast does have the bandwidth, but they just don't want to give it away for free without extorting Netflix even though their own customers are already paying for it, then that's just Comcast being dicks. This may come as a shock to you, but Comcast is actually known for being dicks. They treat their own customers with contempt, there's no reason to think they wouldn't try to extort money from anyone they can.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
If Cogent's network doesn't have the bandwidth, that sucks for their customer Netflix.
I fail to see why you think Comcast should give Netflix (or Cogent) bandwidth for free. Are there other companies that should get free bandwidth? I'd love to be able to do this. I get free access to the network that you all pay for AND I get to charge you for my services. Sounds like a win.
Hahahahaha amicusNYCL EATS his WORDS vs. me yet again https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11415277&cid=55646849/ - you're a FOOL, bigmouth... lol!
APK
P.S.=> CLASSIC & priceless, lmao... apk
amicusNYCL for your own sake stfu. You look stupid enough as is after apk shredded you shooting your mouth off https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11415277&cid=55646849/
Interesting if they're concerned about imballance in their peering with L3 and Cogent that Comcast provisions their CPE asymetrically. Where is the outgoing traffic supposed to magically come from?
I'm astounded by how myopic so many people are on this issue.
So expecting ISP's to actually be able to deliver what they've already sold to people is somehow being myopic?
If they can't deliver what they've sold people they either need to be honest with people about not being able to actually deliver what they promised or make the investments necessary so that they can deliver what they've already sold to their customers. It's that simple. The deal between Netflix's ISP and Comcast isn't any different. If what's actually going on isn't what they agreed upon then they obviously need to re-negotiate and in that case Comcast most certainly doesn't need any regulations to be dropped. Hell, I also fail to see any reason why Comcast should be allowed to double dip this way when their customers are already paying for access to services Netflix, not the other way around.
To me public discussion on the subject ranges from repeating the same well known truths over and over again so much it becomes tedious to people dogmatically railing against something that is well established knowledge out of pure tribalism. Same goes for a number of other subjects like climate change.
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
If Cogent's network doesn't have the bandwidth then Netflix needs another ISP, end of story. But we both know there's a difference between a network having the bandwidth and the carrier wanting to extract as much money from as many people as possible even though their network is not at capacity.
I fail to see why you think Comcast should give Netflix (or Cogent) bandwidth for free.
I fail to see why you think that's my position.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Fuck off you no-class low-standards constantly-lying multiple-personality delusional racist shitbag. You're not worth the time it took to type this.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Yeah I am going to go to the other cable provider ummm.... no one.
I see you are upset with yourself for being so dumb here amicusNYCL https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11415277&cid=55646849/ but it is not my fault you are stupid.
The only thing we know is how stupid you are failing against apk again here amicusNYCL https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11415277&cid=55646849/
Around five or so years ago, maybe longer, I caught Comcast intercepting my web site requests and inserting their own javascript code into the page in order to send me a message -- a message they could have easily sent to my email.
Comcast is evil. Pure, unadulterated evil. Just like all large, wealthy American corporations.
I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone continues to vote for Republicans in the belief that they will somehow make things better for every-day people. They overwhelmingly voted to end net neutrality last spring -- yeah, I know, no one noticed because they "press" were to busy going ape-shit over one of The Donald's tweets. They not only made it legal for ISPs to ass-rape their customers, they gave them an unlimited, free supply of ass lube so that the poor corporations don't get sore dicks in the process.
Are you joking right now?
No fucking fuck they don't support net neutrality.
Comcast is literally the reason the 2015 OIO happened, because of their proven throttling of Netflix and the extortion therein.
What does this have to do with NN?
APK is a known piece of garbage. He's been proven wrong on several occasions. He frequently makes accusations without any proof, and when disproved he pretends it never happened.
As this point we can safely assume that APK is a psychopath with with traits such as antisocial harassment, a selfish world view that precludes the welfare of others, a lack of remorse or guilt, and blame externalization.
There are several hosts files out there at no cost, so you don't have to use one tainted by his hand.
See subject & really not much more to say than this. Everyone on ./ agrees with me, nobody agrees with APK. Some people use his hosts files, all of them regret dealing with this creep.