not true, a fraction of a second delay will not affect your email, but it can make games unplayable it's almost like you have no experience delivering bandwidth to customers, and shouldn't be dictating to those that do
Are ISPs going to throttle content "more sensitive to delays" from themselves and their parent companies? Errr... no.
I'm not following this premise. The network/transport layers of the internet (which is what ISP carriers provide) have no business logic. Adding business logic to route packets in some discriminatory, prioritizing fashion with the premise of added efficiency is questionable....when you aren't also managing the session and application layers (which ISPs don't do under their common-carrier status) but contract carrier or corporate IT depts do, for such things as managing mission-critical, globally-networked applications like Amazon's POS app, especially on Black Friday. So, imo, the premise of your question is in question, first. You'll have to convince me of why your question even has technical merit. But it probably won't be a fun conversation for either of us, unless maybe we were face-to-face over coffee or something. Doing it in delayed back and forth over the internet is not something that is very efficient for discourse. I'll just bow out now. Sorry if I interrupted.
You just are very ignorant on how business works. Consumers already pay for bandwidth. Charging providers is exactly what isp's want to do. It's bit Netflix and Google that would be hit by the way it's everyone. The isps would force us to get their content as they would then get a cut of the ad rev. You can't understand this because you are simply a stupid person.
I haven't a clue to what you're trying to convey ... but then again, I am the stupid person here. You went from customers paying bandwidth, to charging providers, to getting ISP's content (I haven't a clue what you're talking about here...what ISP content????) and then into ad revenue. Its like you took a bunch of NN buzzwords and mindlessly threw them in a couple sentences to make a point. If ISP's wanted to do this, why have they only decided to do this AFTER NN was passed? The answer is pretty simple; People like you created a fantasy monster to get your twisted agenda passed. Im not going to broadly insult you, but I will say you haven't a clue on how ISP's work. Shut it down and go home Sweet Lou. You have lost it ... again.
The dynamics of bandwidth and the need for bandwidth have DRASTICALLY changed over a decade. A simple site can host gigabytes worth of content. The threat of ISPs throttling services to benefit their end game of more revenue is a definite possibility. You've stated multiple times here to other posters a lack of knowledge relative to yours in this manner. Do you happen to be some sort of network/telecommunication engineer or worked for ISPs in the past or currently?
The short answer is yes. I have worked rural ISP's. I fully understand the cost aspect with the last mile(s). This is why I laughed at those who thought Google Fiber was going to take over the industry. This is why I laugh at those who think providers have a grand plan to create speed tiers for every website out there. I also understand why a provider may want to lower the priority of an alleged distributor from over-saturating their network ... not that I agree or disagree, but i certainly wouldn't want my network to crap out at 7pm because everyone else in my 500 house subdivision running 5 streams of video simply for background noise. And before you jump into your predictable 'they need to upgrade their networks' rant, I will say you're right. But its not like they have a console they click and drag a 10 million dollar upgrade option that happens instantaneously like your favorite RTS game. The last mile buildout is contingent on today's technology. Net neutrality was not that big of an issue until all the major players started buying up assets that had little to do with being an ISP. This has only started to happen in the last few years and will only perpetuate with wireless, hardline and content distributors merging. ATT is stifling the market and the damage has already been done. As I stated, there are legit concerns when it comes to net neutrality. But creating false monsters is not one of them.
Is there any legal ramifications if Comcast decided to do their own movie streaming service akin to Netflix and throttle Netflix to customers in monopoly regions where only Comcast is the only ISP in town? If there aren't any, is there any reason why Comcast wouldn't do such a thing?
Dont pick on Comcast because they are the popular kid to bully. Instead of a hypothetical, lets use a practical. Should ATT throttle all other video competitors and give priority to their DirecTV Now? First, this goes back to my comment on how companies who maintain communication infrastructure should not be involved in business that would create conflicts... such as this exact example. Second, if Netflix was ever throttled in the past (I am not going to debate the validity), it was due to network saturation and congestion, not some unholy war against Netflix for being so successful. It would be anti-competitive for ATT to disrupt another competitors traffic for the sole purpose of driving competition to them ... and you dont need more legislation (NN) to do something that is already illegal in the first place. Otherwise it would be pointless to 'throttle down' competitors if the bandwidth is available. Third, as Commodore pointed out, Zero Rating does not fall under NN. ATT lets DirecTV Now customers to steam video w/out counting against their data cap. How is that not anti-competitive and goes completely against the spirit of NN? Forth, NN was a catalyst for datacaps on cable/fiber customers. Again, this becomes a problem with ATT. ATT can lower their datacaps and give their customers a zero rating for anyone who subscribes to their DirecTV Now service, but all of the competitors will count against the datacaps. All while we are blundering on about hypothetical monsters, we are doing little to help make it cost effective to expand and upgrade our communications infrastructure. Again, we have companies like ATT who are doing everything they can to prevent competition. We should be much more concerned about these massive mergers than squabbling over traffic priorities.
Comcast did not throttle Netflix. Netflix had an agreement with Cogent and Cogent throttled them. Netflix proceeded to move away from Cogent and signed interconnects directly with Comcast. Lots of Liberals on this board providing false information to push forward their narratives...
I am sorry you don't understand and like most blind trumpsters you grossly over simplify the issues. once upon a time ISPs did control the content until the world wide web (thats the www you type) came into existence upended everything. ISPs want to control the content which would stifle innovation - but they need idiots like you to make it happen
Thanks for the history lesson. Its better to grossly over simplify than to get it completely wrong. To mansplain it for you, there were only a couple ISP's before WWW was created ... not that I understand your point on why you brought up WWW. Not that content control has anything to do with the WWW in this aspect, but how is one suppose to access content (let me reiterate, what content??) from another ISP if there is no WWW? What you're comparing it to is driving your Tesla off the Mayflower 500 years ago and expected to take nonexistent roads to San Francisco, a nonexistent city. WWW birthed the content, not the other way around. AOL, Prodigy, Compuserve, ect ... all came years later (again, thanks to the birthing of the WWW). As there was very little content and if these providers wanted to keep their customers, they needed content and ease of use, thus each creating their own ecosystems. The birth of broadband (DSL) killed this concept. Telephone DSL providers had no desire to create expensive ecosystems in which their customers had no interest in the first place. So again, you're trying to create boogie men that simply doesnt exist... all while insulting others in Sweet Lou's demeaning style.
SG is right, the way to improve quality and reduce costs is always choice and competition. FCC should be focused on removing barriers to entry into the marketplace, not telling ISPs how best to administer bandwidth.
I wish wireless catch up and provide real competition. Just not going to happen. There is not much of any competition or choice. https://arstechnica.com/business/20...t-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/ http://www.esa.doc.gov/under-secretary-blog/how-much-competition-exists-among-isps
This here. In addition to that, Comcast has to provide net neutrality as part of their agreement to purchase NBC Universal until 2018. This will likely be renegotiated once it expires.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE] Didn't this only place limits on Hulu specifically? And once the agreement expires, what points to any expectation that Comcast will agree to further limitations?
you are just wrong here. compuserve predated the worldwideweb. you are like trump and make up facts. thats why i call you stupid. it's a fact, just like your trump is stupid, so are you. You want to kill competition and innovation by giving ISP's which are utilities the ability to control what consumers view. Its big brother in the worst way possible. Idiocy, pure idiocy. Please look up things before posting space ghost, stop wasting my time
