Why are Republicans against Net Neutrality?

[Lee978]

Yea that's just one article that refutes the bandwidth throttle claim. How about all the other articles saying the opposite?

How about Cogent CEO Dave Schaeffer, whose company is one of the largest providers of internet backbone?

Cogent CEO: Comcast Purposefully Slowed Down Netflix Traffic.






Now your minimizing it. You said "it isn't even clear that discrimination and anti-competitive practices are a problem in the industry."

I just gave you 3 concrete examples with the court documents to back it up.

The point is: The ISP's CREATED the problem in the first place by not agreeing to abide by "no paid prioritization".

The ISP's TOOK THE FCC to court so they could prioritize traffic.

Dude you're starting to embarrass yourself. That "one article" (actually it was two articles but who's counting?) that you admit refutes the throttling claims made by Netflix against ISPs happens to cite a study conducted by a bunch of computer scientist from MIT. And if that wasn't evidence enough, I even linked to the actual FCC filing where Netflix ADMITS they were full of shit.

So yeah, that may be just "one article" but for reasonable people, hearing it from the horses mouth holds more weight than a million articles saying otherwise.

And btw, I'm not "minimizing" anything, you just clearly don't understand what is meant by the term "problem" in this context. A "problem" here is used to mean something prevalent and on going that actually makes consumers worse off. The fact that you can only muster 4 examples (and one of them was thoroughly refuted) when the internet has been around for decades goes to show that there is no "problem" as the term is being used in this context.

 

[dabausplaya]

Has it been suggested that Republicans are mostly corporate cronies? Because they are.

 

[Hog-train]

And btw, I'm not "minimizing" anything, you just clearly don't understand what is meant by the term "problem" in this context. A "problem" here is used to mean something prevalent and on going that actually makes consumers worse off. The fact that you can only muster 4 examples (and one of them was thoroughly refuted) when the internet has been around for decades goes to show that there is no "problem" as the term is being used in this context.

Don't backtrack on your own words. You asked for examples of ISP's doing shady shit because you claimed there weren't any. I gave you examples.

How about you? Can you give any examples? Anything specific?

And the internet has been around for decades, but we are talking about high speed BROADBAND here. Not dial up. Nice try though- trying to conflate the two.

And you have yet to show how these no paid prioritization rules have left consumers worse off.

If consumers were so worse off as you claim, HOW COME YOU CAN'T NAME ANYTHING SPECIFIC?

 

[Lee978]

So you're going to completely ignore the first part of my post that completely obliterates your belief that Comcast was the culprit behind the slowdowns in Netflex traffic. Can't say I'm surprised.

I'm not backtracking you're apparently just not reading anything I write. Reread my posts again, i never asked for examples nor did i ever claim that ISPs never misbehave. What i did do is make the assertion that there isn't any strong evidence that backs up the claim that discrimination and anti-competitive practices are a problem (aka prevalent, on going, and leaving consumers worse off). Your subsequent posts validated my point.

 

[Hog-train]

So you're going to completely ignore the first part of my post that completely obliterates your belief that Comcast was the culprit behind the slowdowns in Netflex traffic. Can't say I'm surprised.

You're completely ignoring the Cogent CEO whose company was the one delivering Netflix content.

He testified at a congressional hearing. Not write some partisan article.

Schaeffer said that after Cogent began delivering Netflix's traffic in mid-2012, its relationship with Comcast worsened and Comcast began to stop increasing the capacity of its hardware to accommodate the increase in traffic.

I'm not backtracking you're apparently just not reading anything I write. Reread my posts again, i never asked for examples nor did i ever claim that ISPs never misbehave. What i did do is make the assertion that there isn't any strong evidence that backs up the claim that discrimination and anti-competitive practices are a problem (aka prevalent, on going, and leaving consumers worse off). Your subsequent posts validated my point.

You say there isn't strong evidence that online discrimination isn't going on or will happen:

Then HOW COME THE ISP'S SUED REPEATEDLY TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO JUST THAT?

You are simply refusing to call a spade a spade, when it's blatantly obvious the ISP's want to charge differently for different companies. (paid prioritization)

This is the gist of the discussion.


YOU: The ISP's have shown no history of discrimination and anti-competitive practices!

Reply: How about this case where a Telecom carrier blocked a third party VoIP service because they had their own VoIP service?

You: No answer.

Reply: How about when Comcast blocked and throttled p2p connections in 2008?

You: No answer.

Reply: How about when the ISP's sued repeatedly challenging the FCC's rule that you can't discriminate?

You: But I have this one article that says it was Netflix's fault! This Title 2 will only hurt consumers.

Me: Can you name anything specific in the new rules that hurts consumers?

You: Crickets.... but Netflix!!


You're simply not being honest on the issue.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Hogtrain laying a smack down on Lee in this thread.

 

[gigantalor]

Hogtrain laying a smack down on Lee in this thread.

Newsflash: Liberal agrees with another liberal in thread

Film at 11!

 

[Hog-train]

Newsflash: Liberal agrees with another liberal in thread

Film at 11!

Newsglash: This isn't a liberal vs conservative issue. Conservatives, liberals, libertarians and people of all stripes strongly believe ISP's shouldn't be able to do paid prioritization. A huge majority of people in fact. Everyone hates their cable company.

 

[Lee978]

You're completely ignoring the Cogent CEO whose company was the one delivering Netflix content.

He testified at a congressional hearing. Not write some partisan article.

Your amazing. Netflix admits that intentionally slowed down their own traffic so that they can blame ISPs and you're still here telling me to listen to a CEO of a company that isn't Netlfix.

You say there isn't strong evidence that online discrimination isn't going on or will happen:

No. For the 5th time, I said "that there isn't any strong evidence that backs up the claim that discrimination and anti-competitive practices are a problem (aka prevalent, on going, and leaving consumers worse off).

Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? I've acknowledged on several occasions that misbehavior has/is going on and these cases should be adjudicated after the fact on a case-by-case basis.

So please stop misquoting me and misrepresenting my position.

 

[Lee978]

Hogtrain laying a smack down on Lee in this thread.

Considering that you have yet to put together a cogent argument in the 9 years I've been here, that isn't ringing endorsement.

 

[Hog-train]

No. For the 5th time, I said "that there isn't any strong evidence that backs up the claim that discrimination and anti-competitive practices are a problem (aka prevalent, on going, and leaving consumers worse off).

Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? I've acknowledged on several occasions that misbehavior has/is going on and these cases should be adjudicated after the fact on a case-by-case basis.

So please stop misquoting me and misrepresenting my position.

You are splitting hairs and using semantics.

Discrimination and anti-competitive practices are OBVIOUSLY a problem since the ISP's have already done it. And they SUED to have the right to keep doing so.

 

[Lee978]

Ok, boss, you can believe whatever you want. I'll continue to get my opinions and facts from reputable individuals and institutions that up to this point clearly disagree with your version of events.

 

[gigantalor]

Newsglash: This isn't a liberal vs conservative issue. Conservatives, liberals, libertarians and people of all stripes strongly believe ISP's shouldn't be able to do paid prioritization. A huge majority of people in fact. Everyone hates their cable company.

Oh, I'm sorry. I must have misread the title of the this thread (and a lot of the posts) bashing Republicans.

Not to mention the fact that Sohei is a left-wing hack.

 

[Hog-train]

Ok, boss, you can believe whatever you want. I'll continue to get my opinions and facts from reputable individuals and institutions that up to this point clearly disagree with your version of events.

It's not my version of events. It's a matter of public record. There's is no debate on whether it actually happened.

The ISP's took the FCC to court to stop them from enforcing no paid prioritization rules.

That happened. Don't know why you choose to completely ignore what actually happened.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Basically the counter argument seems to be "government is bad so the bad stuff that has actually happened should be ignored because of the potential for the government doing other undefined bad stuff"

 

[Lee978]

It's not my version of events. It's a matter of public record. There's is no debate on whether it actually happened.

The ISP's took the FCC to court to stop them from enforcing no paid prioritization rules.

That happened. Don't know why you choose to completely ignore what actually happened.

Dude you're being obtuse. I never denied it I just claimed it wasn't widespread.

 

[MeatheadMike]

Here is the Center for Boundless Innovation in Technology on the whole "Comcast intentionally slowed down Netflix traffic:"



http://cbit.org/blog/2014/09/netfli...e-to-gain-favorable-fcc-internet-regulations/

If that's not enough, here is the actual link to the filing itself. Knock yourselves out.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/v...g94rTfGN0fL!809722108!156529071?id=7521825167

Where in that filing does it say that Netflix purposefully slowed down its own traffic? Also the stuff in that cbit.org link is conjecture, not facts... sounds CTish too. Your detroitnews article from before does have facts, but is spinning them and leaving out important other facts.

As that article correctly states, Netflix developed its own CDN (called Open Connect) and was using that plus settlement free routes that it purchased to deliver traffic (to avoid paying Comcast directly). But the article tries to make it seem like that its was causing the slowness problem.

The problem was that all the Netflix traffic ended up getting bottlenecked at peering ports where it was trying to get into Comcast's network. Usually when this happens, its common practice for the ISP to open up new ports to maintain the dataflow. Obviously Comcast chose not to do this because they were demanding Netflix pay for direct interconnection to Comcast.... that was the problem.

As you see from the graph, there were no issues for netflix to deliver content to customers with Cablevision (an Open Connect partner), so clearly the problem was not on Netflix's end.

If anyone is interested in the events leading up to Netflix paying comcast:

http://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic/

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Still the same idiots defending big business who has brought us shit service at high prices.

So who better than to control everything?? Well let's give the power to the same companies who have given us that shit service at high costs.

The right wing is a Fn joke and their base is even more comical.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Considering that you have yet to put together a cogent argument in the 9 years I've been here, that isn't ringing endorsement.

You mean a cogent argument like:

"C'mon guys the cable companies have only had 3 or 4 abuses, THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM, once they've had like 3 or 400 then it might be a problem."

Good argument bawse

 

[James Keith]

Basically the counter argument seems to be "government is bad so the bad stuff that has actually happened should be ignored because of the potential for the government doing other undefined bad stuff"

One way to paraphrase an argument defending capitalism over central-planning I suppose.

Except for the "undefined bad stuff" part. Plenty of definition was provided.