FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
TYT - Not Neutrality

TYT - Not Neutrality

(7:49) Get the money out of politics, now! It may be the end of the Internet as we know it. That was the reaction from consumer advocates and some web sites after the Federal Communications Commission announced new rules governing Internet service providers. The rules effectively put an end to net neutrality - the idea that all web traffic should be treated equally.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1259 days ago)

capitalism 101 people

ReplyVote up (142)down (70)
Original comment

capitalism 101 people

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1258 days ago)

When the bandwidth is limited, it can sometimes make sense to purposely slow down abusers of the bandwidth so the rest of your customer base has a good internet experience. It's not necessarily about making more money.

About 10 years ago, I received a cease and desist letter from comcast. I was upset about it because I had paid for unlimited bandwidth. The problem, they say, is that 10% of their customers were taking up 90% of their bandwidth and I was in that 10%. Either I had to stop using so much bandwidth or they would terminate me as a customer.

I switched to a different provider and that company never complained until AT&T bought them and established a 50 GB monthly bandwidth. I could easily use that much in one day so I had to switch to option #3 -- business class. It is now costing me $120/month but I have no limits.

As you can see, there was never any net neutrality before. Even in my home-office, I setup the network to give priority to certain packets for quality of service reasons. For example, my VOIP lines have a higher priority than NNTP so my clients can have a better experience when they call. If I didn't do this, my call quality would be crap.

If anyone is on a cable internet provider, understand that there is one cable going through your neighborhood. If a couple people are using a lot of bandwidth, they can slow down the internet for the rest of the neighborhood.

I'm not an advocate for or against net neutrality but did want you to see the other side of the issue.

Regarding the Netflix and Comcast issue, from my understanding, Comcast did not slow down Netflix packets but what was happening is that there wasn't a direct connection between Netflix and Comcast so those packets could go all over the place before reaching their desired destination. Collaborately, the two companies created a more direct connection and that did cost a lot of money so they had to enter into a multi-year agreement but the terms of that agreement was not made public. Comcast is not giving Netflix packets any higher priority than the rest of the internet even though Netflix accounts for 1/3rd of all internet traffic.

ReplyVote up (100)down (112)
Original comment

When the bandwidth is limited, it can sometimes make sense to purposely slow down abusers of the bandwidth so the rest of your customer base has a good internet experience. It's not necessarily about making more money.

About 10 years ago, I received a cease and desist letter from comcast. I was upset about it because I had paid for unlimited bandwidth. The problem, they say, is that 10% of their customers were taking up 90% of their bandwidth and I was in that 10%. Either I had to stop using so much bandwidth or they would terminate me as a customer.

I switched to a different provider and that company never complained until AT&T bought them and established a 50 GB monthly bandwidth. I could easily use that much in one day so I had to switch to option #3 -- business class. It is now costing me $120/month but I have no limits.

As you can see, there was never any net neutrality before. Even in my home-office, I setup the network to give priority to certain packets for quality of service reasons. For example, my VOIP lines have a higher priority than NNTP so my clients can have a better experience when they call. If I didn't do this, my call quality would be crap.

If anyone is on a cable internet provider, understand that there is one cable going through your neighborhood. If a couple people are using a lot of bandwidth, they can slow down the internet for the rest of the neighborhood.

I'm not an advocate for or against net neutrality but did want you to see the other side of the issue.

Regarding the Netflix and Comcast issue, from my understanding, Comcast did not slow down Netflix packets but what was happening is that there wasn't a direct connection between Netflix and Comcast so those packets could go all over the place before reaching their desired destination. Collaborately, the two companies created a more direct connection and that did cost a lot of money so they had to enter into a multi-year agreement but the terms of that agreement was not made public. Comcast is not giving Netflix packets any higher priority than the rest of the internet even though Netflix accounts for 1/3rd of all internet traffic.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1258 days ago)

You miss the point entirely. The new rules allow "individualised bargaining and discrimination", which will likely result in a 2 tier fast/slow internet.

The risk is that corporations will use their 'negotiating' power to disadvantage smaller competitors, or dissenters like TYT, or even BoreMe.

It's one big step nearer a world run by a handful of people. Why would anyone want that unless they are one of those people? Cenk is absolutely right - get the money out of politics!

ReplyVote up (118)down (125)
Original comment

You miss the point entirely. The new rules allow "individualised bargaining and discrimination", which will likely result in a 2 tier fast/slow internet.

The risk is that corporations will use their 'negotiating' power to disadvantage smaller competitors, or dissenters like TYT, or even BoreMe.

It's one big step nearer a world run by a handful of people. Why would anyone want that unless they are one of those people? Cenk is absolutely right - get the money out of politics!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1257 days ago)
Latest comment:

You missed the part where I said I was neither for nor against net neutrality. I see pros and cons for both.

Being in a free-market situation, if I don't like what my ISP is doing, I have the ability to pick a different provider. So, in other words, if you use comcast and they slow down a website that you frequently go to and you don't like that, then go to AT&T Uverse or someone else. You're not forced to use any particular service company, at least in the USA. In socialist countries where many of the large companies are owned by the government, you might not have any choices.

I can see why they might want to slow down particular protocols like P2P ones but I don't think it's fair for them to slow down packets from individual websites. This is where I have the mixed feelings about this issue.

If money was taken out of politics, then you would only get to know about those candidates that are mentioned on the biased news channels. The candidates need money to advertise their campaign and to travel around to the states to give their opinions on the issues to the people direcly.

ReplyVote up (151)down (100)
Original comment
Latest comment:

You missed the part where I said I was neither for nor against net neutrality. I see pros and cons for both.

Being in a free-market situation, if I don't like what my ISP is doing, I have the ability to pick a different provider. So, in other words, if you use comcast and they slow down a website that you frequently go to and you don't like that, then go to AT&T Uverse or someone else. You're not forced to use any particular service company, at least in the USA. In socialist countries where many of the large companies are owned by the government, you might not have any choices.

I can see why they might want to slow down particular protocols like P2P ones but I don't think it's fair for them to slow down packets from individual websites. This is where I have the mixed feelings about this issue.

If money was taken out of politics, then you would only get to know about those candidates that are mentioned on the biased news channels. The candidates need money to advertise their campaign and to travel around to the states to give their opinions on the issues to the people direcly.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Casey (1259 days ago)

Government regulations 101 people...

ReplyVote up (68)down (111)
Original comment

Government regulations 101 people...

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1259 days ago)

d americun government is owned by capitalism.

ReplyVote up (158)down (127)
Original comment

d americun government is owned by capitalism.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Harvey Weinstein body language
Harvey Weinstein body language
David Pakman - Trump doesn't understand how money works
David Pakman - Trump doesn't understand how money works
David Pakman - Trump furious with consequences of his policies
David Pakman - Trump furious with consequences of his policies
Gwyneth Paltrow on Harvey Weinstein (1998)
Gwyneth Paltrow on Harvey Weinstein (1998)
TYT - Does Trump have Alzheimer's?
TYT - Does Trump have Alzheimer's?