The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Internet freedom (1991 - 2014)
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 23rd, 2014 3:10 PM Author: exhilarant cruise ship http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/23/5439566/the-wall-street-journal-confirms-multiyear-traffic-deal-between (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2501881&forum_id=2#25072173) |
Date: February 23rd, 2014 5:54 PM Author: exhilarant cruise ship (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2501881&forum_id=2#25073313) |
|
Date: February 23rd, 2014 6:15 PM Author: exhilarant cruise ship (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2501881&forum_id=2#25073467) |
|
Date: February 23rd, 2014 6:16 PM Author: razzmatazz obsidian property What a dumb article. They're paying Comcast for bandwidth just like everyone else. All they've done is cut out the middleman (Cogent). This has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2501881&forum_id=2#25073471) |
 |
Date: February 23rd, 2014 6:23 PM Author: slap-happy school to be fair i read somewhere in that the past 6 months speeds of netflix to comcast consumers fell by like 30%. seems like comcast may be extorting $$ from netflix. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2501881&forum_id=2#25073517) |
|
Date: February 23rd, 2014 6:25 PM Author: Odious angry yarmulke http://mattvukas.com/2014/02/10/comcast-definitely-throttling-netflix-infuriating/ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2501881&forum_id=2#25073531) |
|
Date: February 23rd, 2014 6:31 PM Author: razzmatazz obsidian property this is dumb. his VPN server is likely taking a completely different route to Netflix than when he connects directly through Comcast. you can't prove throttling based on that.
and he tries to relate it to the FCC net neutrality ruling when net neutrality still applies to Comcast? |
|
Date: February 23rd, 2014 6:28 PM Author: razzmatazz obsidian property the speeds were down because Cogent's connections to Comcast were shitty, and Cogent demanded that Comcast pay all the costs of upgrading. ISPs traditionally exchange bandwidth with each other for free because the traffic both ways balances out, but that doesn't work now that Netflix uses massive amounts of bandwidth unlike anyone else.
So Netflix cut out Cogent as the middle man and started doing business directly with Comcast. Of course they have to pay for the bandwidth they're using. Facebook also pays Comcast for the exact same service, how come nobody raised a stink about that?
Keep in mind that net neutrality still applies to Comcast because of a previous settlement. They're the 1 ISP that isn't allowed to discriminate against content providers in that way. |
|
Date: February 23rd, 2014 6:29 PM Author: Irate Bipolar Police Squad uh no, not like everyone else. Do you think rach pays Comcast for XO to be delivered into your rape dungeon?
The net neutrality implication is that the only viable ISP has financial arrangements to privilege certain content providers, and correspondingly to degrade or choke others - namely those who can't pay. |
|
Date: February 23rd, 2014 6:34 PM Author: razzmatazz obsidian property Rach pays his host/data center/colocation provider/whatever for bandwidth. And yes, that provider (or its supplier) has peering agreements with other ISPs. The only difference here is that Netflix is paying for peering instead of getting it settlement free, which makes sense given that their uploads are far greater than the traffic coming in the reverse direction.
Netflix used to pay Cogent to use Cogent's connection to Comcast. Now Netflix is just paying Comcast directly for a connection to Comcast. How is this a problem? |
|
Date: February 23rd, 2014 6:43 PM Author: Irate Bipolar Police Squad Ok, he pays for bandwidth. But is his content privileged or throttled by the ISP (or some other intermediary) in comparison with other racist chatboards?
Peering, as I understand it, is a pretty loose agreement among major bandwidth providers to carry each other's traffic as long as it's roughly equal. It simply doesn't have the same content-discriminatory implications. |
|
Date: February 23rd, 2014 6:47 PM Author: razzmatazz obsidian property As far as I can tell, this is just a peering agreement. Understandably, Comcast got tired of free peering with Netflix's ISP because the traffic was not roughly equal, so now they're charging.
I haven't seen any convincing evidence of throttling, people are just assuming it's throttling when Netflix is slow.
Comcast does refuse to let Netflix store movies/TV shows inside of its network so that it's closer to customers, faster, and saves bandwidth. It's a huge dick move, but not really a net neutrality issue. |
|
Date: February 23rd, 2014 6:53 PM Author: Irate Bipolar Police Squad If you look at the follow-up post to the blog you blew off, he did some more digging. It's pretty hard to prove throttling, though.
Anyway, I think understanding the incentive structures is more relevant. If ISPs are allowed to ignore content neutrality, they can extort huge amounts from content providers, because ISPs are generally monopolies. This will distort the content that's available to consumers and simply line ISPs' pockets, with no benefit to consumers. It also makes it much harder for new/non-establishment content providers to break in and become popular. |
|
Date: February 23rd, 2014 7:01 PM Author: razzmatazz obsidian property You're arguing for net neutrality, but I don't see how this is a net neutrality violation. Netflix was more than welcome to continue using Cogent or switch to another tier 1 provider instead of paying Comcast. But Comcast shouldn't be obligated to trade free peering with someone who is using far more than 50% of the resources.
the blogger's last update is admitting a bunch of problems with his proof that they're "definitely" throttling. sorry, but it's a half assed experiment that doesn't prove anything.
plus comcast swears up and down that they aren't throttling and would be open to huge lawsuits if they're lying. Comcast is still legally required to have net neutrality through 2018--they promised the feds a few years of net neutrality in exchange for approval to acquire NBC. they would obviously get in massive trouble for breaking that. even Comcast isn't that dumb. |
|
Date: February 23rd, 2014 7:13 PM Author: Irate Bipolar Police Squad Peering does not make sense in the context in which you're using it. It refers to agreements among companies that _carry_ a lot of bandwidth to do some carrying work for each others' customers, as long as it's relatively equal. If it gets too out of whack, they can agree on what one should pay the other.
Netflix is not at all like the Tier 1s or Comcast. It is a content creator/"edge provider".
Also, re throttling, they wouldn't even need to throttle. They could just have a "fast lane" for select content providers like Netflix and leave everyone else to languish on their "normal speed." That appears to be what this deal is about, actually.
I don't think it's a great argument that Comcast "promised" net neutrality until X date and so we should trust them because otherwise they would get FCC-pwned. There's enough gray area, technical obfuscation, and regulatory problems that, at least if you believe in the principles of net neutrality, they need to be monitored. |
|
Date: February 23rd, 2014 7:22 PM Author: razzmatazz obsidian property i don't get your point. you agree that somebody should be paying $$ if data usage is out of whack, and it's obviously extremely out of whack here. Cogent refused to pay up. they were the ones being unreasonable, and Cogent/Netflix made a deal to get around using them.
there is nothing wrong with paying extra to be in the "fast lane." that's exactly what you do when you pay more for a faster internet connection. what do you want to do, ban ISPs from offering different tiers of service for different prices?
sure, maybe Comcast is engaging in a massive corrupt scheme that violates their contracts, lying to investors, and breaking a settlement agreement with the feds. or maybe not. |
|
Date: February 23rd, 2014 7:13 PM Author: carmine adventurous ticket booth rigpig some idiots in this thread don't realize that comcast is forcing them to pay more, and they will do the same to other such websites in the future. this will destroy creativity and innovation.
oh what a free market! |
|
Date: February 23rd, 2014 7:30 PM Author: razzmatazz obsidian property Netflix would not have agreed to this if Comcast was charging them more than they could get through traditional tier 1 providers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2501881&forum_id=2#25073989) |