What should you have to worry about legality, you paid for the roads through your taxes. Or maybe someone had the insight to think that some use of public road were not acceptable, and thus deemed "illegal". The same way Comcast network was not built to transport Netflix traffic, which, if it was carried who result into unfairness toward other users. There is a nice quote from James Q Wilson, the second part is very relevant here: "Without Liberty, Law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without Law, Liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness". All in all, the problem with libertarianism is that too much people think they can abuse the system. Law is merely here to remind them that every behavior has boundaries.
I WANT my ISP to treat different traffic differently if at the end of the day, I can get cheaper access. Is it so difficult to understand ? The consumer pays for what he consumes, which is what "fairness" is.
Netflix pays Cogent, Cogent pays Comcast, at the end Cogent is just a proxy in a dispute between Netflix and Comcast. Nothing really change to the debate we are having here.
What is your problem with profit ? Or maybe are you just jealous not to have your share "for free". Telcos are private, for-profit, businesses, as long as they keep customer sufficiently happy, there is no need to upgrade. What you want is merely for the government to use the compulsory nature of the law to constraint another entity to serve you. Said differently, YOU are the initiator of violence, though, you don't want to get your hands dirty...
AFAIK, Comcast is only throttling down Netflix, not fully blocking it. So the real issue, is more that you are not able to live stream a 4k feed, not that "nytimes.com" is not accessible _at_all_. You are waiving the flag of freedom of information (toward which private company have no obligation to) where the real problem is that you are slightly disturbed because you cannot watch SNL feed.
I am more worried about Government over-power/over-control on telcos than anything else.
Less competition, more double dipping is only due to regulatory capture, ie. the very same regulation that YOU want. I want no regulation. I want a system where a player like Iliad (owner of French ISP "Free") can come into the market and re-distribute the cards. The fun point is that the French government recently threatened to intervene because cell/internet access was about to become too cheap for the customer and was threatening the interest of historical bloated telcos...
Guess what ? The "Internet" is more and more used for entertainment, it is normal that those who wants entertainment pay for what they want, instead of free-riding on the back of those who don't want it.
My point exactly, I pay for more than I need and this is terribly unfair. See my above hauling truck example. What you call "Internet access" is truly bandwidth and latency. I do not need to be able to stream Netflix 1080p all day long, as such, why should I pay for a pipe capable of doing so ?
I am a pirate, they never came for me. I willingly choose to disclose my private info, so this point is irrelevant. And finally, I DO NOT want to pay for free-rider, so this other point is irrelevant as well.
Though, it would seem that/. is populated by a bunch of content-glutton free-rider. I should not pay for them if I don't want/need the same as they do.
Bandwidth and latency are neither free or infinite. Your argument is the same as saying that if you pay for a bridge with your taxes, you should be able to drive a fully loaded hauling truck (type Caterpillar 797F) on it. But guess what ? The bridge has not been designed to handle that load, it has been designed for lighter load (car, 40' truck, etc.).
The current one-size-fit-all billing scheme of the internet is utterly broken from my point of view. I do not have choice of the content's quality I watch. I used to watch youtube on a 5Mbps link, now, I do over a 25Mbps link, but I don't really care about watching HD videos, nor do I give a frack about 720p, 1080p video. Ever if I select youtube "I have a slow connection. Never play higher-quality video", I am always getting a better quality video than I need. The current system is utterly UNFAIR to the customer. I want to be able to have a basic access if I WANT TO. When I have no money, I WANT a cheap basic access, if I have more money and can afford better content, then I am free of doing so. The current system, or what is called "net-neutrality", is actually a bad system for customers as it forces the low-bandwidth consumer to pay for high bandwidth consumer who are free-riding on my subscription.
All in all, don't tell me about what you cares about, this is none of my business. You are free to have YOUR needs, I am free to have MINE, but don't make ME pay for your content gluttony
Bandwidth is neither unlimited or free. It's rather fun to see people who wand to have those with high income pay more tax, but not having big bandwidth consumer pay more for the pipe access. I, for one, would be happy to subscribe to a cheaper basic service I don't mind to have youtube (or youporn) in 144p if at the end that saves me money.
You pay for a general internet access, not a specific, resource consuming, service.This is basic peering agreement where Netflix is sending more traffic to Comcast than Comcast is sending to Netflix. Bandwidth is not free. As such, either you want Netflix to free-ride over Comcast investment, or you agree for the asymmetry to be compensated to Comcast.
Slashdot Mirror
I very much doubt all contractual details have been made public.
I will not mind.
You paid nothing for the Internet, your parents did. You are merely free-riding past investments.
Indoctrination and sex-based segregation is no communism.
I am glad to see you resort no name calling. Very... unfortunate behavior of yours.
What should you have to worry about legality, you paid for the roads through your taxes. Or maybe someone had the insight to think that some use of public road were not acceptable, and thus deemed "illegal". The same way Comcast network was not built to transport Netflix traffic, which, if it was carried who result into unfairness toward other users. There is a nice quote from James Q Wilson, the second part is very relevant here: "Without Liberty, Law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without Law, Liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness". All in all, the problem with libertarianism is that too much people think they can abuse the system. Law is merely here to remind them that every behavior has boundaries.
By your reasoning Karl Benz's inheritors should still have oversight power on the automobile...
You don't need cable... I have been watching streamed feed without a cable connection for years...
I WANT my ISP to treat different traffic differently if at the end of the day, I can get cheaper access. Is it so difficult to understand ? The consumer pays for what he consumes, which is what "fairness" is.
Netflix pays Cogent, Cogent pays Comcast, at the end Cogent is just a proxy in a dispute between Netflix and Comcast. Nothing really change to the debate we are having here.
I wish I had. Selfishness and greed are GOOD.
What is your problem with profit ? Or maybe are you just jealous not to have your share "for free". Telcos are private, for-profit, businesses, as long as they keep customer sufficiently happy, there is no need to upgrade. What you want is merely for the government to use the compulsory nature of the law to constraint another entity to serve you. Said differently, YOU are the initiator of violence, though, you don't want to get your hands dirty...
The US is originally a federation of States, not a centralized country. The Federal government has no business in telcos.
Hutterites are not such a particularly "free" communities, more alike to a religious sect... http://lethbridgeherald.com/ne...
Youtube at 5Mbps would actually be quite a luxury, but very few would understand this nowadays.
AFAIK, Comcast is only throttling down Netflix, not fully blocking it. So the real issue, is more that you are not able to live stream a 4k feed, not that "nytimes.com" is not accessible _at_all_. You are waiving the flag of freedom of information (toward which private company have no obligation to) where the real problem is that you are slightly disturbed because you cannot watch SNL feed.
I am more worried about Government over-power/over-control on telcos than anything else.
Less competition, more double dipping is only due to regulatory capture, ie. the very same regulation that YOU want. I want no regulation. I want a system where a player like Iliad (owner of French ISP "Free") can come into the market and re-distribute the cards. The fun point is that the French government recently threatened to intervene because cell/internet access was about to become too cheap for the customer and was threatening the interest of historical bloated telcos...
Guess what ? The "Internet" is more and more used for entertainment, it is normal that those who wants entertainment pay for what they want, instead of free-riding on the back of those who don't want it.
My point exactly, I pay for more than I need and this is terribly unfair. See my above hauling truck example. What you call "Internet access" is truly bandwidth and latency. I do not need to be able to stream Netflix 1080p all day long, as such, why should I pay for a pipe capable of doing so ?
I am a pirate, they never came for me. I willingly choose to disclose my private info, so this point is irrelevant. And finally, I DO NOT want to pay for free-rider, so this other point is irrelevant as well.
I support you, pal'.
Though, it would seem that /. is populated by a bunch of content-glutton free-rider. I should not pay for them if I don't want/need the same as they do.
Bandwidth and latency are neither free or infinite. Your argument is the same as saying that if you pay for a bridge with your taxes, you should be able to drive a fully loaded hauling truck (type Caterpillar 797F) on it. But guess what ? The bridge has not been designed to handle that load, it has been designed for lighter load (car, 40' truck, etc.).
I will develop one of my previous comment.
The current one-size-fit-all billing scheme of the internet is utterly broken from my point of view. I do not have choice of the content's quality I watch. I used to watch youtube on a 5Mbps link, now, I do over a 25Mbps link, but I don't really care about watching HD videos, nor do I give a frack about 720p, 1080p video. Ever if I select youtube "I have a slow connection. Never play higher-quality video", I am always getting a better quality video than I need. The current system is utterly UNFAIR to the customer. I want to be able to have a basic access if I WANT TO. When I have no money, I WANT a cheap basic access, if I have more money and can afford better content, then I am free of doing so. The current system, or what is called "net-neutrality", is actually a bad system for customers as it forces the low-bandwidth consumer to pay for high bandwidth consumer who are free-riding on my subscription.
All in all, don't tell me about what you cares about, this is none of my business. You are free to have YOUR needs, I am free to have MINE, but don't make ME pay for your content gluttony
Bandwidth is neither unlimited or free. It's rather fun to see people who wand to have those with high income pay more tax, but not having big bandwidth consumer pay more for the pipe access. I, for one, would be happy to subscribe to a cheaper basic service I don't mind to have youtube (or youporn) in 144p if at the end that saves me money.
You pay for a general internet access, not a specific, resource consuming, service.This is basic peering agreement where Netflix is sending more traffic to Comcast than Comcast is sending to Netflix. Bandwidth is not free. As such, either you want Netflix to free-ride over Comcast investment, or you agree for the asymmetry to be compensated to Comcast.