Because some of us don't take all of the pennies from the "Take a penny" plate, and we don't take all the free chips home.
Servers cost money to buy, power, cool, and replace. Networks cost money. Getting that cat video to you isn't free, why do you expect that you get to take and give nothing?
They seem to be implying that is a bad thing, I don't know what the distribution of those states are but it wouldn't be very smart for Northern states to build a utility grade solar plant even if they wanted to.
Germany gets more power from solar than California (as a percentage), and they're about the same latitude as most northern US states. In fact, I think their northern border is much farther north than all US states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
The story is about how a group of men were coming to Lot's house to rape the visitors. As the host, it was Lot's job to protect them, and he even offered his daughter up for rape to protect his guests.
Now, find a story about two people of the same sex being in a committed loving relationship and show me where it is condemned.
Homosexuality in the Bible was always related to violence or the worship of other gods. There is not a reference to the type of homosexuality that exists today, so it is very hard to get a Biblical case, pro or con.
With only 3 non-overlapping channels, and often wifi access points choosing their own overlapping channel (like 3 or 8), your parent's wireless is likely interfering with a neighbor's wireless. This is much more likely in an apartment complex.
If someone is running 802.11g (or, 802.11b because they only have 6mbps DSL and 11mbps 802.11b is more than enough for their DSL), they are occupying the wireless channel for an extended amount of time.
Even a group of grandmas in an apartment complex running 802.11b only to access their 6mb DSL connection would quickly see their speeds plummet because of CMSA/CA causing a cascade failure of the wireless signal.
Going with the current wireless standard (802.11n in both 2.4 and 5ghz) is the right answer. 802.11ac is very new, so I would agree for now that the additional cost isn't worth it. At the very least, 802.11n 2.4ghz should be default.
The coffee WAS way too hot. 40 degrees (f) above industry standard
The facts of the case state it was between 180-190F.
-This is the minimum temperature coffee is brewed at. Most consider the ideal to be at or just over 200F. -Starbucks has served me coffee, this year, right as it was brewed at 200F, without me asking for it hot. -The large print that almost every place now has declaring that COFFEE IS HOT is FUCKING STUPID, and can be traced directly to this stupid case.
This is the story of how McDonalds nearly killed a woman
SHE spilled the coffee, not McDonalds. Hot liquids can be dangerous. A 79 year old woman should know this. It isn't McDonald's job to educate her on this.
she sued begrudgingly because she couldn't afford her medical bills
Her estimate of past and future medical bills was $20,000 for her mistake. McDonald's offered $800, because it wasn't their fault. Less that $640,000 for $20,000 in medical bills that were her fault is exactly the type of stuff that makes people upset.
To be clear: I hate McDonald's: They have unhealthy food, pay their employees slave wages, and from what I've witnessed when I was a customer years ago, they treat their employees like shit. There are a lot of reasons they should be penalized, but coffee served at coffee temperatures isn't one of them.
Imagine taking a network offline from the ISP level due to some bogus botnet claim.
That's exactly my point. They're wanting the ability to take you completely offline. I'm proposing a middle ground where you're not knocked completely offline, and getting back online can be automated.
Always, ALWAYS question the motives of any governmental request for additional powers.
We agree, that is why I want them to be a coordinator, not the executioner.
Coordinate with the Ad Council to get them to run PSA showing the standard redirect page and how to check the SSL cert of that page. Remind the viewers that this is the ONLY way their ISP will notify them of an issue and that your hardware and software vendor will never call you.
Man, the more I think of it, I REALLY like the idea of a standard remediation zone that all ISPs could deploy.
DNS would be filtered, only DNS responses to hosts on the allowed list. I would even be ok with MitM changes to DNS queries in this case.
Again, the idea is that you are only placed in this zone when your device has attacked another. Once you think you've fixed the issue, they could allow all DNS traffic again, but watch your traffic to see if the attacks resume. This could be automated, so the end user doesn't have to constantly call the ISP.
If you have a malicious device connected to an ISP, the ISP should be the one to disconnect it. The problem is that the target of the malicious device is often on another ISP.
Rather than allowing the government to be the hammer and force people offline, the government should create a coordination point where attacks can be reported and the proper ISP and their customers alerted to the activity.
One of the activities could be creating OSS that allows for firewall logs to send attack information to this central resource.
Another could be creating a help page that assists end users with understanding why they're having this issue and how to correct it.
Finally, proposing a Internet remediation zone would be the best end result. Instead of pulling the cord on infected devices, put them on a standard ACL/web filter that only allows them to software updates and AV signatures.
These are harder tasks for any one ISP to do, but a good thing for government to do.
I personally think that vertical wind turbines (that look like an egg beater sticking up, rather than a large propeller ) are the way to go.
Like most things, there are reasons they're better and reasons they're worse.
You can look up the differences between VAWT and HAWT (google it), but basically, VAWT that you're talking about is likely a good idea for personal turbines, but isn't the best for large wind farms. That said, some have discussed using VAWT close to the ground in large HAWT wind farms so they can harvest both ground level wind and wind aloft.
8 ms sounds good, but if caching adds 100 ms to it then I lose.
I agree, with FPS gaming and other "twich" games, you're at a disadvantage.
That said, this is still useful for about all other applications, unlike geosynchronous orbit Internet which has latency of 1000ms or so. When you get to levels that high, you can still stream movies and browse web pages, but VoIP and teleconf is unusable, and even casual games become unplayable (poker, etc).
Still, it is a big deal. I know a lake near me that has no options for broadband other than geosynchronous Internet with a very low monthly cap and very high latency. They'd love this!
Yik Yak isn't a valid comparison to the rest of the Internet, because it is only anonymous. It is the smartphone app for/b/, and it comes with the same issues.
If they want to change the app to something that has a persistent ID, then there is all sorts of methods to start weeding out assholes. The moment they do that, though, it stops being completely anonymous and starts becoming just a localized version of Twitter.
Even this site relies on pseudonyms to maintain some level of reputation. Anonymous posts have no reputation, no history of being a productive or disruptive member. The idea of being able to be completely anonymous requires acceptance that some will misuse it. Either embrace it or stay away from it, because there simply is no way to "fix" it without changing it into something else entirely.
So yeah, you do have a pretty good idea, based on the time, if people are likely to be working, awake or sleeping at certain times of the day.
Your reference only looked at 3rd shift.
When you look at all workers in the US, your 97% figure turns into 52.6% when you factor in all of the various work arrangements outside of the normal working arrangements.
So, only slightly better than flipping a coin. Try again.
However, if we took all of the money we're spending on trying to find this wreck and build a next-gen blackbox system that streams all cockpit voice and aircraft telemetry over satellite links, we'll never have to search like this again to get those answers.
I downloaded Yik Yak and used it for about a week. I saw what was going on there.
If you are disturbed by what you see on there, delete the app. Let those idiots spew toxic shit at each other, and you can go on unaware of their ramblings.
Eventually, Yik Yak will die off, and the "problem" is solved.
Or, do you somehow think we can pass some law that will change human nature?
The network *sending* the traffic pays the other network to deliver the traffic. That is the way it has always been.
That is only for transit. If I want to send traffic THROUGH Comcast to reach Mom & Pop ISP, then yes, I have to pay Comcast.
The way that it has always been is that the ISP charges their customers ONLY, and the ISP has to pay for connections unless they can arrange peering. What is crazy is that Comcast should actually have been paying Cogent for requesting so much traffic from them without sending an equal amount of content in return.
Again, Comcast's customers are the ones increasing the traffic. Netflix has nothing to do with the traffic on Comcast's network.
That would be like blaming UPS and FedEx for creating too much traffic on my street because I'm ordering so much product. I'm the cause of the traffic, not UPS or FedEx. They wouldn't be on my street unless I ordered something. In this example, the owners of the street (government) pay to make the street able to handle the traffic, and charge the uses of the street (residents) more in taxes to cover it.
Peering is a good thing. Peering can *save* money for the content producer.
Sure, and I never said it was a bad thing. I just don't think it should be legal for a duopoly to impose a fee for peering, nor should they be required to peer. The ISP and the content producer can look at their costs and decide if they want to peer or not.
Netflix has not asked for a dime of ISP money to peer, and will even provide caching devices for free. They're not keen on paying for ISP infrastructure, though, and I don't see why they should.
Stop talking about stuff you do not understand.
I'm a network engineer that has been working with ISPs since the early 90's. I do understand this.
Prioritization only comes into play when there is congestion. Yes, QoS can be designed to let the little game packets ahead of the big video packets, but as a network engineer, I constantly see this:
1. Congestion starts 2. Someone implements QoS, taking a TON of time and using all sorts of advanced features on the gear. Sometimes this causes CPU use to spike, requiring more faster hardware. Sometimes you run into a bug that only relates to QoS, etc. Lots of time, money, and maybe some downtime before the dust settles. 3. Everyone is happy for a week because it works right. 4. Since everyone is happy, no additional capacity is ordered 5. Traffic continues to increase, causing even small packets to get delayed 6. Buy extra bandwidth anyhow 7. QoS tuning done before is not used because there is ample bandwidth 8. Traffic increases, reaching bottleneck again 9. QoS engages again, no one notices the increase 10. High-priority packets start dropping again, requiring more bandwidth that takes a long time to show up. 11. Order more bandwidth, and piss everyone off as they wait. 12. GOTO 3 Why do all of that when you can:
1. Monitor usage. Look at history to predict congestion 2. Order more bandwidth 90 days before you must have it. 3. Repeat
Also, keep in mind that QoS only works on traffic your're SENDING, not the traffic you get. By the time you get it, it has already dropped the packets and your link is full.
So, all of this QoS work needs to be done by the people that want you to buy more bandwidth. This is why it will never happen at the ISP level.
Bandwidth and latency are interlinked in most cases.
Bandwidth is how much you can fit down the pipe.
Latency is how long it takes to get there.
If you don't have enough bandwidth, you get latency as the packet queue up trying to get past the bottleneck. Increasing the bandwidth in this case decreases latency.
The only other reason you get latency is because of the speed of light and the distance you're trying to cover. The only cure for this is to reduce that distance.
QoS is only a bandwidth management practice, only coming into play when you have a bottleneck. I've found that in terms of overhead and headache, more bandwidth is ALWAYS cheaper than QoS.
So, for your desire for low latency for one and high bandwidth for the other, they're likely the same thing.
Net Neutrality say if X service (lets say Netflix) is killing your entire network's performance you have to live with it. You can't partition Netflix into it's own walled garden....But the mom and pop shops have to take months to buy more bandwidth.
Keep something in mind here. Netflixs is not sending a SINGLE PACKET to Mom and Pop's ISP that their paying customers didn't ask for. Those customers are paying Mom and Pop for a service, which in your example, seems to be getting to Netflix.
Now, if Mom and Pop don't like that and can't afford more bandwidth, they have a few choices. They can reduce the speed to all customers, thereby reducing the demand for Netflix. Their customers won't be able to stream an HD movie, for example, because the customer pipe isn't big enough. They could also allow 30-minute full-speed bursts, followed by 30 minutes of reduced speed. This would allow all non-streaming customers faster downloads in most cases, but would limit streaming video equally, because after 30 minutes your movie quality goes to crap.
They could also prioritize ALL video as lower priority than ALL VPN or HTTP traffic. NETWORK neutrality does not mean PACKET neutrality. It just means I can't give preference to Netflix and screw Hulu over.
As for your Walmart comparison, the reverse is also true. If you allow ISPs to slow traffic from a content provider unless they pay more, only the Walmarts of streaming video will be able to pay more.
The up and coming Mom and Pop streaming video company won't be able to pay off Comcast and AT&T, so Netflix and Hulu will be the only ones that live.
Network Neutrality means NOT picking winners and losers.
But users end up paying the subscription fee to those content providers, do they not?
Not for the service they're getting. Let's say I'm a Speakeasy customer, and I also pay for Netflix.
You're a Comcast customer, and you also pay for Netflix.
Speakeasy is network neutral, so Netflix has no disadvantage compare to any other provider. If Speakeasy has congestion, Netflix and Amazon will be just as slow. To relieve this, they increase their bandwidth do their peering points, and all networks are again running fast. I may have to pay more to Speakeasy for this speed increase.
However, in your case, Comcast segregates Netflix's traffic and slows it down to relieve congestion, instead of treating all networks as equal. Comcast says their networks are not the issue, because they show you perfect speed from Amazon. You complain to Netflix, who must pay Comcast to get their speed increased.
Now, this is where the bullshit starts: Netflix passes the cost for the Comcast toll on to both you and ME, even though I'm not a Comcast customer, and this toll did nothing to increase MY speed. In fact, I already had to pay extra to my ISP to get my speed fixed.
Slashdot Mirror
What would it take to build something that you can point in a direction and go, come back, repeat?
A small, portable power source that would be several orders of magnitude more powerful than what we have today, for one.
Get working on that Mr. Fusion and I think we'll have something more to your liking.
Why would anyone pay for this?
Because some of us don't take all of the pennies from the "Take a penny" plate, and we don't take all the free chips home.
Servers cost money to buy, power, cool, and replace. Networks cost money. Getting that cat video to you isn't free, why do you expect that you get to take and give nothing?
I hope these clowns bankrupt themselves one day with their stupidity.
No, based off what happened last time, they don't go bankrupt. They don't go to jail.
Everyone else's retirement funds take a huge hit and lose value, but assholes^H^H^H^H business leaders like this are too important to fail.
They seem to be implying that is a bad thing, I don't know what the distribution of those states are but it wouldn't be very smart for Northern states to build a utility grade solar plant even if they wanted to.
Germany gets more power from solar than California (as a percentage), and they're about the same latitude as most northern US states. In fact, I think their northern border is much farther north than all US states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Desalinization requires a LOT of power. So, maybe they are focusing on it, but they're taking care of prerequisites first.
Go read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah again.
The story is about how a group of men were coming to Lot's house to rape the visitors. As the host, it was Lot's job to protect them, and he even offered his daughter up for rape to protect his guests.
Now, find a story about two people of the same sex being in a committed loving relationship and show me where it is condemned.
Homosexuality in the Bible was always related to violence or the worship of other gods. There is not a reference to the type of homosexuality that exists today, so it is very hard to get a Biblical case, pro or con.
With only 3 non-overlapping channels, and often wifi access points choosing their own overlapping channel (like 3 or 8), your parent's wireless is likely interfering with a neighbor's wireless. This is much more likely in an apartment complex.
If someone is running 802.11g (or, 802.11b because they only have 6mbps DSL and 11mbps 802.11b is more than enough for their DSL), they are occupying the wireless channel for an extended amount of time.
Even a group of grandmas in an apartment complex running 802.11b only to access their 6mb DSL connection would quickly see their speeds plummet because of CMSA/CA causing a cascade failure of the wireless signal.
Going with the current wireless standard (802.11n in both 2.4 and 5ghz) is the right answer. 802.11ac is very new, so I would agree for now that the additional cost isn't worth it. At the very least, 802.11n 2.4ghz should be default.
The coffee WAS way too hot. 40 degrees (f) above industry standard
The facts of the case state it was between 180-190F.
-This is the minimum temperature coffee is brewed at. Most consider the ideal to be at or just over 200F.
-Starbucks has served me coffee, this year, right as it was brewed at 200F, without me asking for it hot.
-The large print that almost every place now has declaring that COFFEE IS HOT is FUCKING STUPID, and can be traced directly to this stupid case.
This is the story of how McDonalds nearly killed a woman
SHE spilled the coffee, not McDonalds. Hot liquids can be dangerous. A 79 year old woman should know this. It isn't McDonald's job to educate her on this.
she sued begrudgingly because she couldn't afford her medical bills
Her estimate of past and future medical bills was $20,000 for her mistake. McDonald's offered $800, because it wasn't their fault.
Less that $640,000 for $20,000 in medical bills that were her fault is exactly the type of stuff that makes people upset.
To be clear: I hate McDonald's: They have unhealthy food, pay their employees slave wages, and from what I've witnessed when I was a customer years ago, they treat their employees like shit. There are a lot of reasons they should be penalized, but coffee served at coffee temperatures isn't one of them.
Imagine taking a network offline from the ISP level due to some bogus botnet claim.
That's exactly my point. They're wanting the ability to take you completely offline. I'm proposing a middle ground where you're not knocked completely offline, and getting back online can be automated.
Always, ALWAYS question the motives of any governmental request for additional powers.
We agree, that is why I want them to be a coordinator, not the executioner.
Capture their DNS and have it be a website.
Coordinate with the Ad Council to get them to run PSA showing the standard redirect page and how to check the SSL cert of that page. Remind the viewers that this is the ONLY way their ISP will notify them of an issue and that your hardware and software vendor will never call you.
Man, the more I think of it, I REALLY like the idea of a standard remediation zone that all ISPs could deploy.
DNS would be filtered, only DNS responses to hosts on the allowed list. I would even be ok with MitM changes to DNS queries in this case.
Again, the idea is that you are only placed in this zone when your device has attacked another.
Once you think you've fixed the issue, they could allow all DNS traffic again, but watch your traffic to see if the attacks resume. This could be automated, so the end user doesn't have to constantly call the ISP.
If you have a malicious device connected to an ISP, the ISP should be the one to disconnect it. The problem is that the target of the malicious device is often on another ISP.
Rather than allowing the government to be the hammer and force people offline, the government should create a coordination point where attacks can be reported and the proper ISP and their customers alerted to the activity.
One of the activities could be creating OSS that allows for firewall logs to send attack information to this central resource.
Another could be creating a help page that assists end users with understanding why they're having this issue and how to correct it.
Finally, proposing a Internet remediation zone would be the best end result. Instead of pulling the cord on infected devices, put them on a standard ACL/web filter that only allows them to software updates and AV signatures.
These are harder tasks for any one ISP to do, but a good thing for government to do.
I personally think that vertical wind turbines (that look like an egg beater sticking up, rather than a large propeller ) are the way to go.
Like most things, there are reasons they're better and reasons they're worse.
You can look up the differences between VAWT and HAWT (google it), but basically, VAWT that you're talking about is likely a good idea for personal turbines, but isn't the best for large wind farms. That said, some have discussed using VAWT close to the ground in large HAWT wind farms so they can harvest both ground level wind and wind aloft.
Your redundant post ignores the fact that I've talked about first and second shifts half a dozen times in various ways.
Forgive me for not looking for all of your posts in other threads. I was responding to this thread.
8 ms sounds good, but if caching adds 100 ms to it then I lose.
I agree, with FPS gaming and other "twich" games, you're at a disadvantage.
That said, this is still useful for about all other applications, unlike geosynchronous orbit Internet which has latency of 1000ms or so. When you get to levels that high, you can still stream movies and browse web pages, but VoIP and teleconf is unusable, and even casual games become unplayable (poker, etc).
Still, it is a big deal. I know a lake near me that has no options for broadband other than geosynchronous Internet with a very low monthly cap and very high latency. They'd love this!
Yik Yak isn't a valid comparison to the rest of the Internet, because it is only anonymous. It is the smartphone app for /b/, and it comes with the same issues.
If they want to change the app to something that has a persistent ID, then there is all sorts of methods to start weeding out assholes. The moment they do that, though, it stops being completely anonymous and starts becoming just a localized version of Twitter.
Even this site relies on pseudonyms to maintain some level of reputation. Anonymous posts have no reputation, no history of being a productive or disruptive member. The idea of being able to be completely anonymous requires acceptance that some will misuse it. Either embrace it or stay away from it, because there simply is no way to "fix" it without changing it into something else entirely.
So yeah, you do have a pretty good idea, based on the time, if people are likely to be working, awake or sleeping at certain times of the day.
Your reference only looked at 3rd shift.
When you look at all workers in the US, your 97% figure turns into 52.6% when you factor in all of the various work arrangements outside of the normal working arrangements.
So, only slightly better than flipping a coin. Try again.
However, if we took all of the money we're spending on trying to find this wreck and build a next-gen blackbox system that streams all cockpit voice and aircraft telemetry over satellite links, we'll never have to search like this again to get those answers.
I downloaded Yik Yak and used it for about a week. I saw what was going on there.
If you are disturbed by what you see on there, delete the app. Let those idiots spew toxic shit at each other, and you can go on unaware of their ramblings.
Eventually, Yik Yak will die off, and the "problem" is solved.
Or, do you somehow think we can pass some law that will change human nature?
The network *sending* the traffic pays the other network to deliver the traffic. That is the way it has always been.
That is only for transit. If I want to send traffic THROUGH Comcast to reach Mom & Pop ISP, then yes, I have to pay Comcast.
The way that it has always been is that the ISP charges their customers ONLY, and the ISP has to pay for connections unless they can arrange peering. What is crazy is that Comcast should actually have been paying Cogent for requesting so much traffic from them without sending an equal amount of content in return.
Again, Comcast's customers are the ones increasing the traffic. Netflix has nothing to do with the traffic on Comcast's network.
That would be like blaming UPS and FedEx for creating too much traffic on my street because I'm ordering so much product. I'm the cause of the traffic, not UPS or FedEx. They wouldn't be on my street unless I ordered something.
In this example, the owners of the street (government) pay to make the street able to handle the traffic, and charge the uses of the street (residents) more in taxes to cover it.
Peering is a good thing. Peering can *save* money for the content producer.
Sure, and I never said it was a bad thing. I just don't think it should be legal for a duopoly to impose a fee for peering, nor should they be required to peer. The ISP and the content producer can look at their costs and decide if they want to peer or not.
Netflix has not asked for a dime of ISP money to peer, and will even provide caching devices for free. They're not keen on paying for ISP infrastructure, though, and I don't see why they should.
Stop talking about stuff you do not understand.
I'm a network engineer that has been working with ISPs since the early 90's. I do understand this.
Prioritization only comes into play when there is congestion. Yes, QoS can be designed to let the little game packets ahead of the big video packets, but as a network engineer, I constantly see this:
1. Congestion starts
2. Someone implements QoS, taking a TON of time and using all sorts of advanced features on the gear. Sometimes this causes CPU use to spike, requiring more faster hardware. Sometimes you run into a bug that only relates to QoS, etc. Lots of time, money, and maybe some downtime before the dust settles.
3. Everyone is happy for a week because it works right.
4. Since everyone is happy, no additional capacity is ordered
5. Traffic continues to increase, causing even small packets to get delayed
6. Buy extra bandwidth anyhow
7. QoS tuning done before is not used because there is ample bandwidth
8. Traffic increases, reaching bottleneck again
9. QoS engages again, no one notices the increase
10. High-priority packets start dropping again, requiring more bandwidth that takes a long time to show up.
11. Order more bandwidth, and piss everyone off as they wait.
12. GOTO 3
Why do all of that when you can:
1. Monitor usage. Look at history to predict congestion
2. Order more bandwidth 90 days before you must have it.
3. Repeat
Also, keep in mind that QoS only works on traffic your're SENDING, not the traffic you get. By the time you get it, it has already dropped the packets and your link is full.
So, all of this QoS work needs to be done by the people that want you to buy more bandwidth. This is why it will never happen at the ISP level.
Bandwidth and latency are interlinked in most cases.
Bandwidth is how much you can fit down the pipe.
Latency is how long it takes to get there.
If you don't have enough bandwidth, you get latency as the packet queue up trying to get past the bottleneck. Increasing the bandwidth in this case decreases latency.
The only other reason you get latency is because of the speed of light and the distance you're trying to cover. The only cure for this is to reduce that distance.
QoS is only a bandwidth management practice, only coming into play when you have a bottleneck. I've found that in terms of overhead and headache, more bandwidth is ALWAYS cheaper than QoS.
So, for your desire for low latency for one and high bandwidth for the other, they're likely the same thing.
Net Neutrality say if X service (lets say Netflix) is killing your entire network's performance you have to live with it. You can't partition Netflix into it's own walled garden....But the mom and pop shops have to take months to buy more bandwidth.
Keep something in mind here. Netflixs is not sending a SINGLE PACKET to Mom and Pop's ISP that their paying customers didn't ask for.
Those customers are paying Mom and Pop for a service, which in your example, seems to be getting to Netflix.
Now, if Mom and Pop don't like that and can't afford more bandwidth, they have a few choices. They can reduce the speed to all customers, thereby reducing the demand for Netflix. Their customers won't be able to stream an HD movie, for example, because the customer pipe isn't big enough.
They could also allow 30-minute full-speed bursts, followed by 30 minutes of reduced speed. This would allow all non-streaming customers faster downloads in most cases, but would limit streaming video equally, because after 30 minutes your movie quality goes to crap.
They could also prioritize ALL video as lower priority than ALL VPN or HTTP traffic. NETWORK neutrality does not mean PACKET neutrality. It just means I can't give preference to Netflix and screw Hulu over.
As for your Walmart comparison, the reverse is also true. If you allow ISPs to slow traffic from a content provider unless they pay more, only the Walmarts of streaming video will be able to pay more.
The up and coming Mom and Pop streaming video company won't be able to pay off Comcast and AT&T, so Netflix and Hulu will be the only ones that live.
Network Neutrality means NOT picking winners and losers.
But users end up paying the subscription fee to those content providers, do they not?
Not for the service they're getting. Let's say I'm a Speakeasy customer, and I also pay for Netflix.
You're a Comcast customer, and you also pay for Netflix.
Speakeasy is network neutral, so Netflix has no disadvantage compare to any other provider. If Speakeasy has congestion, Netflix and Amazon will be just as slow. To relieve this, they increase their bandwidth do their peering points, and all networks are again running fast. I may have to pay more to Speakeasy for this speed increase.
However, in your case, Comcast segregates Netflix's traffic and slows it down to relieve congestion, instead of treating all networks as equal. Comcast says their networks are not the issue, because they show you perfect speed from Amazon. You complain to Netflix, who must pay Comcast to get their speed increased.
Now, this is where the bullshit starts: Netflix passes the cost for the Comcast toll on to both you and ME, even though I'm not a Comcast customer, and this toll did nothing to increase MY speed. In fact, I already had to pay extra to my ISP to get my speed fixed.