Net Neutrality and Comcast/Netflix agreement

[barbzilla]

Are you a Comcast user? I am, and I'm here to tell you that streaming netflix is a nightmare on Comcast with a 50mb download speed (which shouldn't be an issue, since I can stream it over AT&T's 4g without issue). Well, it turns out that Comcast has been "affecting" the streaming speeds somehow since November (for me and millions of other users) and has decided to strong-hand Netflix into paying them (Comcast) extra money to make "direct" connections and enhance the streaming speeds and qualities.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-02-24/business/sns-rt-us-comcast-netflix-20140223_1_netflix-broadband-network-providers

What does this say for the current state of Net Neutrality laws in the US, and would you support the FCC in its attempts to restructure the law in an attempt to get it back in place? As for Comcast, how many of us use them for their ISP, and if you do, do you also have issues with Netflix?

 

[Zontar]

November, sounds about right. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but net neutrality in the US died recently after a federal judge basically destroyed it. Right now the whole law is in a gray area since it's in legal limbo as non-profits are trying to appeal the ruling.

 

[Zontar]

November, sounds about right. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but net neutrality in the US died recently after a federal judge basically destroyed it. Right now the whole law is in a gray area since it's in legal limbo as non-profits are trying to appeal the ruling.

Except it's not net neutrality if the government regulates it. The Internet is no longer free if the government obtains authority over it. Just calling it "net neutrality" doesn't make it neutral. The Internet is the freest thing on the planet in freedom and liberty lovin' countries. It is the because the government doesn't regulate the Internet, pretty much at all. And I like that. It is already free. Leave it alone, government.

It died in court because the FCC tried to say it had the authority to regulate the Internet. Hell, the FCC doesn't even have authority over print media.

Uh, you do realize that the reason the government tends to have authority over large parts of the internet, is because almost all the critical servers that maintain the internet (not those small ones that host websites, I mean the ones that are the size of a small building that cost millions each year to keep running) are owned, operated and maintained by the government.

You also seem to be confusing net neutrality with content regulations, which are very different things. Net neutrality at its core is to prevent major corporations in positions of power over the network from 1) using it to abuse customers, 2) using it to abuse other corporations, 3) using it to abuse the government, and 4) using it to abuse any other party. Simply put, it's the regulations that are in place that are the reason why (before being removed) an internet provider would be sued for internationally making their service slower for websites (ex: making Google load slower to try and make people use Bing or Yahoo).

You seem to have a very odd idea of what net neutrality is, as well as what the internet is and has been since its creation.

 

[Kolby Jack]

November, sounds about right. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but net neutrality in the US died recently after a federal judge basically destroyed it. Right now the whole law is in a gray area since it's in legal limbo as non-profits are trying to appeal the ruling.

Except it's not net neutrality if the government regulates it. The Internet is no longer free if the government obtains authority over it. Just calling it "net neutrality" doesn't make it neutral. The Internet is the freest thing on the planet in freedom and liberty lovin' countries. It is the because the government doesn't regulate the Internet, pretty much at all. And I like that. It is already free. Leave it alone, government.

It died in court because the FCC tried to say it had the authority to regulate the Internet. Hell, the FCC doesn't even have authority over print media.

When it comes to big business versus government, I'll stick with the government. The FCC was 100% in the right on this one; private companies have no right to limit the content produced by OTHER private entities. We pay them for bandwidth, and we pay the content providers for content (directly or otherwise). Having the content providers pay the ISPs just to provide content is bullshit. It'd be like paying a publisher for the promise of books, then paying for the books when they come out, while ALSO having the author give a portion of the earnings to the publisher as well. Hopefully this shit won't fly.

 

[barbzilla]

You also seem to be confusing net neutrality with content regulations, which are very different things. Net neutrality at its core is to prevent major corporations in positions of power over the network from 1) using it to abuse customers, 2) using it to abuse other corporations, 3) using it to abuse the government, and 4) using it to abuse any other party. Simply put, it's the regulations that are in place that are the reason why (before being removed) an internet provider would be sued for internationally making their service slower for websites (ex: making Google load slower to try and make people use Bing or Yahoo).

Yes, the concept of "throttling" Internet, which also prevented them from doing it to websites with much higher bandwidth requirements (which companies should have the authority to do as such things are expensive.) It also stopped them from selling Internet contracts with data caps, which also doesn't make sense why they'd ban that. If somebody uses little of the Internet in a month, but needs it for e-mail and small other sundry things, getting a small data plan (like cell phone contracts have) makes sense to them.

When it comes to big business versus government, I'll stick with the government. The FCC was 100% in the right on this one; private companies have no right to limit the content produced by OTHER private entities. We pay them for bandwidth, and we pay the content providers for content (directly or otherwise). Having the content providers pay the ISPs just to provide content is bullshit. It'd be like paying a publisher for the promise of books, then paying for the books when they come out, while ALSO having the author give a portion of the earnings to the publisher as well. Hopefully this shit won't fly.

Then, you're a little foolish. Big business can't force you to do something. Government can and does on a regular basis.

No, the FCC was not. They do not have statutory authority to regulate the Internet. That's out of their purview. That's why the FCC lost the case. And why so many on the right made a big stink last week about that "editorial bias" study the FCC wanted to conduct. As the FCC has zero authority over print media.

You might not like that, but certain sites take a massive amount of bandwidth, which uses a lot of data, which screws over the ISPs, who under the rules could only offer "unlimited" plans. So, if you want massive price increases or for them to be able to charge you what you actually use, fine. I'd rather the market shape itself.

Fair enough, I'm all for free market, but when that market is borderline violating anti-trust laws already (see Comcast + Time Warner Merger) there is an issue. This is the first example of why something needs to be in place to protect citizens, internet denizens, and businesses from each other. With the final nail in the coffin being that Comcast has apparently been violating this since before Net Neutrality was abolished (November is when the issues start, and Net Neutrality went down in January I believe).

 

[Louzerman102]

I for one greatly enjoy my general internet package from Comcast (Yahoo, Google, Bing, Wikipedia, Vimeo) and am glad I sprung for the social media package as well (Myspace, google+). I just with I could afford the video gaming package (Gamespot, Kotaku) but I'm already pay 200 dollars a month to access 7 websites.

 

[loa]

It is quite amazing how some peoples reaction is to stand up for those poor, poor US internet service providers who are notorious for ripping people off.
Now they can take it to the next level with no incentive to improve their bad service to show for it.

 

[Something Amyss]

"Protect citizens" from voluntary contracts they don't have to have makes no sense.

Howabout fraud? Because Comcast claimed they were done with throttling years ago. Or should the "free market" decide whether a borderline monopoly can lie to you?

 

[shirkbot]

"Protect citizens" from voluntary contracts they don't have to have makes no sense. I can understand the reasoning for protecting water basins and reservoirs. That makes sense. Protecting people from voluntary consumer interactions makes no sense. Do your own research before taking the plunge like any reasonable person. Netflix has become a streaming giant in the last few years with their insanely popular and all-dropped-at-once-seasons-of shows. They're chugging down data like it was a Jaeger Bomb. Comcast responded to what was probably screwing their bottom line like it was hot.

In this day and age, is it really feasible to argue that the internet has not become a public utility on par with water? Think of all the things you use it for every single day, not to mention the willful deception involved in selling someone a 50mb/s connection and throttling certain sites to well below that to force them to pay more. We no longer live in a world where the internet is strictly voluntary, and companies like Comcast and Time Warner not only take advantage of that with high prices and slow speeds, but they also often operate in near-monopoly conditions. What you're suggesting is tantamount to saying entire segments of the country should just go dark, so to speak, until the existing ISP either changes policy or collapses. These are huge corporations with a lot of money, and it cannot be the sole responsibility of consumers to hold them to account.

Howabout fraud? Because Comcast claimed they were done with throttling years ago. Or should the "free market" decide whether a borderline monopoly can lie to you?

Well said.

 

[sir neillios]

I for one greatly enjoy my general internet package from Comcast (Yahoo, Google, Bing, Wikipedia, Vimeo) and am glad I sprung for the social media package as well (Myspace, google+). I just with I could afford the video gaming package (Gamespot, Kotaku) but I'm already pay 200 dollars a month to access 7 websites.

Fu.....

Like, for reals? Poe's Law is kicking in here, are you serious?

Another reason I'm happy I don't live in the US.

 

[Zontar]

I for one greatly enjoy my general internet package from Comcast (Yahoo, Google, Bing, Wikipedia, Vimeo) and am glad I sprung for the social media package as well (Myspace, google+). I just with I could afford the video gaming package (Gamespot, Kotaku) but I'm already pay 200 dollars a month to access 7 websites.

Fu.....

Like, for reals? Poe's Law is kicking in here, are you serious?

Another reason I'm happy I don't live in the US.

It's a joke, I believe he is mocking Big Willie Styles' comments on the fact that he thinks net neutrality basically shouldn't exist.

 

[barbzilla]

Fair enough, I'm all for free market, but when that market is borderline violating anti-trust laws already (see Comcast + Time Warner Merger) there is an issue. This is the first example of why something needs to be in place to protect citizens, internet denizens, and businesses from each other. With the final nail in the coffin being that Comcast has apparently been violating this since before Net Neutrality was abolished (November is when the issues start, and Net Neutrality went down in January I believe).

That has nothing to do with the FCC rules. I just feel bad for Comcast. They bought the worst network from GE and have thus far done nothing to change that, at all. Now, they want to buy the worst customer service rated ISP. Why do they keep buying bad companies?

"Protect citizens" from voluntary contracts they don't have to have makes no sense. I can understand the reasoning for protecting water basins and reservoirs. That makes sense. Protecting people from voluntary consumer interactions makes no sense. Do your own research before taking the plunge like any reasonable person. Netflix has become a streaming giant in the last few years with their insanely popular and all-dropped-at-once-seasons-of shows. They're chugging down data like it was a Jaeger Bomb. Comcast responded to what was probably screwing their bottom line like it was hot.

Yes, it has everything to do with the FCC since the FCC is the one who was recently banished from the books on this scenario. You can avoid it all you like, but lobbying for big business is like saying you want Walmart to run for President.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I want the government far far far fucking away from the Internet.

Honest? Lets let, for once, the free market decide. I mean this is technology, one of the few places the free market can really make an impact. All it takes is someone to come along, bring a faster download speed for less a price or even the same price and there ya go. The only problem is educating Joe Public... because hell, I myself I don't know my download speed. All I know is I haven't had much problems with anything.

the moment we bring the FCC into it... I mean thats a whole can of worms, and I'd really rather not pay taxes for it.

 

[Zontar]

I want the government far far far fucking away from the Internet.

Honest? Lets let, for once, the free market decide. I mean this is technology, one of the few places the free market can really make an impact. All it takes is someone to come along, bring a faster download speed for less a price or even the same price and there ya go. The only problem is educating Joe Public... because hell, I myself I don't know my download speed. All I know is I haven't had much problems with anything.

the moment we bring the FCC into it... I mean thats a whole can of worms, and I'd really rather not pay taxes for it.

Given that you already ARE paying taxes for it (government run servers and the backbone of the internets infrastructure) and that it is in practice an essential service, why would you be against a few regulations that prevent service providers from intentionally slowing down the internet speed for websites? Are you really telling me that an industry only the multi-billion dollar corporations can enter due to costs and that has a de-facto monopoly in the hands of a few companies can really exist without regulations? Did you skip economics class? Net neutrality was to prevent corporations from strong-arming other companies, customers and the government, what is wrong with that?

 

[BakedSardine]

The Netflix/Comcast deal has nothing to do with net neutrality - in fact, the arrangement is likely cheaper for Netflix. This article explains why the media coverage has been dead wrong: http://l.curry.com/6p9

Today?s news is very simple to understand. Netflix decided it made sense to pay Comcast for every port they use to connect to Comcast?s network, like many other content owners and network providers have done. This is how the Internet works, and it?s not about providing better access for one content owner over another, it simply comes down to Netflix making a business decision that it makes sense for them to deliver their content directly to Comcast, instead of through a third party. Tied into Netflix?s decision is the fact that Comcast guarantees a certain level of quality to Netflix, via their SLA, which could be much better than Netflix was getting from a transit provider. While I don?t know the price Comcast is charging Netflix, I can guarantee you it?s at the fair market price for transit in the market today and Comcast is not overcharging Netflix like some have implied. Many are quick to want to argue that Netflix should not have to pay Comcast anything, but they are missing the point that Netflix is already paying someone who connects with Comcast. It?s not a new cost to them.

It has nothing to do with net neutrality.

 

[RoonMian]

I for one greatly enjoy my general internet package from Comcast (Yahoo, Google, Bing, Wikipedia, Vimeo) and am glad I sprung for the social media package as well (Myspace, google+). I just with I could afford the video gaming package (Gamespot, Kotaku) but I'm already pay 200 dollars a month to access 7 websites.

HAHA!!! Glorious, right on the spot!

And to all the people who seem to not be able to grasp what net neutrality is: Net neutrality is treating every single paket of data transported over the internet as equal, no matter where it comes from, where it goes or what is its content. That is the only way the net can stay free. The invisible hand of the market will only bitchslap you if you think the market should enfore net neutrality because the market is not there for you, it is there for the people making money off of it. There is no other way to ensure net neutrality than have it politically enforced.

Luckily, European courts seem to be willing to do exactly that.