FCC Net Neutrality Ruling: Do you agree?

[bootman]

Why did Netflix lie about ISPs throttling them?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydo...d-the-net-neutrality-debate/?partner=yahootix

They they go to big network ISP to give them direct access into their networks at a cheaper rate than they were getting before.

Will this new ruling prevent that from happening in the future?
Is Netflix passing down their network cost savings down to the customer?

 

[shadyJ]

Why did Netflix lie about ISPs throttling them?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydo...d-the-net-neutrality-debate/?partner=yahootix

They they go to big network ISP to give them direct access into their networks at a cheaper rate than they were getting before.

Will this new ruling prevent that from happening in the future?
Is Netflix passing down their network cost savings down to the customer?

That article is misleading and very slanted BS. If the author's point about Cogent prioritizing retail customer bandwidth over wholesale bandwidth were true, this video would not be possible, because the congestion, according to the author, would happen at a higher point upstream than the VPN would connect to:

I don't keep up with Forbes, but I am surprised they would publish a hackish and such an easily debunkable article.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Why did Netflix lie about ISPs throttling them?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydo...d-the-net-neutrality-debate/?partner=yahootix

They they go to big network ISP to give them direct access into their networks at a cheaper rate than they were getting before.

Will this new ruling prevent that from happening in the future?
Is Netflix passing down their network cost savings down to the customer?

Sir you're having zero grasp on the Netflix / Comcast stand off.
First of all Netflix pays it's bills to deliver the content using CDNs. It always did so. The issue is Comcast wanted to double dip and the purposely slowed down the traffic, holding Netflix with random demands.

In general, the word debate is very often misused by media for sole purpose of making more money.
I would not be surprised if Fox would create such new debate on whatever the Earth is flat or Sun rotates around it.
This net neutrality "debate" is exactly of similar type.

It's not a debate at all. ISPs needs to become dump pipe, same as your water or electric provider. You don't get charged more on your electric bill if you turned on the TV or used electric weed wacker. Just watts/hour, regardless of how you used it.

Only people who creating this "debate" are large Telcos and their puppets.

 

[bootman]

Sir you're having zero grasp on the Netflix / Comcast stand off.
First of all Netflix pays it's bills to deliver the content using CDNs. It always did so. The issue is Comcast wanted to double dip and the purposely slowed down the traffic, holding Netflix with random demands.

In general, the word debate is very often misused by media for sole purpose of making more money.
I would not be surprised if Fox would create such new debate on whatever the Earth is flat or Sun rotates around it.
This net neutrality "debate" is exactly of similar type.

It's not a debate at all. ISPs needs to become dump pipe, same as your water or electric provider. You don't get charged more on your electric bill if you turned on the TV or used electric weed wacker. Just watts/hour, regardless of how you used it.

Only people who creating this "debate" are large Telcos and their puppets.

Sorry but this isn't true.
Comcast was held to net neutrality rules because of the NBC deal till 2018.
I don't think they would be stupid enough to throttle any traffic.
Netflix signed a deal with them for ~5TB of network connections so they can get their service to their customers at a cheaper rate than going through Cogent.
So I don't feel any sympathy for Netflix or any of the ISPs they also made similar deals with. It is all business.
That aside, now that ISPs are considered the same as a utility, are we as consumers going to get our service charged just like the other metered utilities here in the US? (along with the Fed utility taxes that will pay for the greater good lines to rural sites)

Anyone that thinks this will lower your ISP bill in the US will be sadly mistaken.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Unfortunately it is you who is very much mistaken. Comcast is bound by "rules", but they are also notorious at bending them.
This article should provide you some background :
http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/...peeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/

As for lowering prices : you're might be right on this. The Fcc ruling stopped short of decoupling cables from service - the only measure which would guarantee to increase the competition and lower prices. Just look what it did for uk isp market - what used to be a heavy handed bt monopoly.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Unfortunately it is you who is very much mistaken. Comcast is bound by "rules", but they are also notorious at bending them.
This article should provide you some background :
http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/...peeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/

As for lowering prices : you're might be right on this. The Fcc ruling stopped short of decoupling cables from service - the only measure which would guarantee to increase the competition and lower prices. Just look what it did for uk isp market - what used to be a heavy handed bt monopoly.

I think you've touched upon the real issue... Comcast is not just an ISP, they are a Netflix competitor. And I'm sure it's just my imagination that I get better download speeds when I stream from Comcast than I do from Amazon. Or is it?

I admit to flip-flopping on the net neutrality issue. Comcast's vertical integration looks at times like a big commerce killer. Having the Feds involved is no picnic either. Prices usually fall when they get out. Sometimes I wonder if breaking up the verticals but eliminating net neutrality is the right combination of changes.

 

[Schurkey]

Anyone that thinks this will lower your ISP bill in the US will be sadly mistaken.

I don't expect this to lower my ISP bill. I expect that Net Neutrality etc. will prevent degradation of service from companies too small to pay for "non-throttled" transfer of data.

 

[TheWarrior]

Yeah but I've accosted Comcast sales people who call trying to sell me cable packages, and remind them that my Internet would be a lot cheaper if they stopped sending crap in the mail and paying these people to call me!

I've been 'clean' from cable for almost a decade. And will fight tooth and nail to keep the internet free.

Next target on the radar, the 'Internet Freedom Act'. Not to be confused with the 1998 'Internet TAX Freedom Act'. This one started last month aims to wipe out net neutrality and somehow disable the FCC from performing its intended function. Probably from the same people who want to disable the IRS...

 

[Wayde Robson]

As usual the EU want to do the opposite and fracture the Internet.

America has the economic power to end the EU and should.

One factor - many Europeans see the internet as a US-dominated infrastructure that enables the domination of the European economy by US-based corporations. It is not surprising there's a fracture-the-internet mentality over there.

I agree that the EU is fundamentally broken, but what would you replace it with?

On EU etc. I too agree with what you're both saying with one major addition:

America should do something more productive with its economic power than breaking up the EU. How about fixing its roads, bridges and schools?

Although dissolved EU would actually be cheered on by over half the residents of the EU.

I get a bit disheartened when I hear Americans think that "they" have some economic or military power to affect change in the world.

The will of American people/voters factors low on the scale of spending priority for the US Federal Government. There are publicly held corporations that get priority in Congress and many of those holders live in the EU.

So, the snake is eating its own tail.

 

[Irvrobinson]

On EU etc. I too agree with what you're both saying with one major addition:

America should do something more productive with its economic power than breaking up the EU. How about fixing its roads, bridges and schools?

Although dissolved EU would actually be cheered on by over half the residents of the EU.

I get a bit disheartened when I hear Americans think that "they" have some economic or military power to affect change in the world.

The will of American people/voters factors low on the scale of spending priority for the US Federal Government. There are publicly held corporations that get priority in Congress and many of those holders live in the EU.

So, the snake is eating its own tail.

First of all, it was TLS Guy who wanted to break up the EU, and while he does live in the US I suspect he is (also?) a citizen of GB. I'm not sure my investment portfolio would appreciate actually breaking up the EU. As for fixing roads and bridges, we need to do this in the US; the EU countries should be taking care of their own infrastructure, not the US. Frankly, as a US citizen, sometimes I'm not a big fan of how we use our economic or military power either, though I have very little sympathy for the EU countries and their plight right now. They are a drag on the world economy for no good reason, other than idealistic socialist leanings that often make them profoundly uncompetitive. They're better than that.

 

[Hobbit]

I think you've touched upon the real issue... Comcast is not just an ISP, they are a Netflix competitor. And I'm sure it's just my imagination that I get better download speeds when I stream from Comcast than I do from Amazon. Or is it?

I admit to flip-flopping on the net neutrality issue. Comcast's vertical integration looks at times like a big commerce killer. Having the Feds involved is no picnic either. Prices usually fall when they get out. Sometimes I wonder if breaking up the verticals but eliminating net neutrality is the right combination of changes.

I'm a believer that we need to break up ISP's, just like we did with Ma Bell. We basically have a duopoly in most the US which means they are better off serving their profits to work together than to compete. We need to create real competition. The US is way down the list on average internet speeds and way up the list on user cost. What incentive to they have to upgrade our infrastructure or offer better rates? A monopoly (or 3 or less competitors) is capitalism's worst nightmare.

 

[SurvivalDad]

Watch prices rise!