Personally I wonder how vz and Comcast and the likes manage to stay afloat. I bet all their board members are on food stamps.
"To TWCs knowledge, no broadband provider has expressed any intention of prioritizing one class of Internet traffic at the expense of another."
Who has forgotten the AT&T guy saying that content providers should pay AT&T to use their "pipes". The implication being that if they don't pay, they don't get to use the pipes. But technically, they're right, it's not prioritizing. It's downright banning one class of traffic, unless they pay the toll, that AT&T's customers already pay for on their monthly bill.
And wasn't it Verizon that talked about a fast lane and a hyper-fast lane?
Mount Juliet, TN
|reply to kinda pissed |
Re: poor things
lol -- ^^^^^ Too funny!
|reply to erqa |
Re: bald faced!
Now you're just being unfair. I'm pretty sure using their own words against them is a violation of their religious rights as a corporation. The past is the past, what's said or promised has no bearing on what's going on right now. Brian L Roberts USED to have a Gulfstream IV. Now, he had to sell it and get a Gulfstream III. The Gulfstream III doesn't even have a remote control for its surround-sound DVD system. Still think picking on the megacorps is a good idea? Thomas Rutledge was hoping to have a gold-plated shark tank bar installed right next to the pool, but thanks to people calling out his lies, he may need to wait a month. Their religion allows them to forget everything they promised, and make new promises, and then forget them. If you don't allow them to do that, then you are taking away their god given 1st amendment right to practice whatever religion they want.
The best way to defeat religion it to ignore it. Look at Ra/Thor/Zeus, they all thought they were forever.
Coming up next on Judge Tom Wheeler:
"The plaintiff, Mr. CableCos claims that he developed pain in his hand after punching Mr. Consumer square in the face 2-3 times a year every year for the last fifteen years. Plaintiff is seeking compensation for pain, suffering, and defamation of character from Mr. Consumer telling the rest of his family of Mr. CableCos actions."
wtf? apps.govnt thing?
I used my phone and browsed this page then it downloads a PDF.
Poor goliaths... they only have money, size, and the federal and state governments in their pockets. And there's only about 10 of them.
·Verizon Online DSL
The Consumers are the real victims here
when ISP's increase the price every year. where I live there is Verizon and Comcast.
Comcast here is pricey plus there is a 300gb cap, verizon has DSL max speed is 7.1 meg but when there is a problem with service they slow the speed down until it is stable.
both comanies throttle netflix and youtube,
San Diego, CA
maybe ...In the sense the public not understanding transit agreements
That Level 3 example of Netflix congestion with Verizon took advantage of the general public not understanding transit agreements. Certainly in the negotiations there could be some anti-competitive behavior on the ISPs part but that example exploited the public's ignorance to get public support on Level 3's/Netflix's side.
I mean of course the slow down is happening as they explained, that was a given, but which side is being unfair in negotiating to correct the problem is hidden deep inside negotiations and the economics of network management, and none of us really know what's going on there.
Not to hard to understand ISPs want more money
|reply to bluefox8 |
said by bluefox8 :
And there's only about 10 of them.
Well that there's the problem -- if there was only one of them, then they could charge as much as they wanted to!
I wonder how many more Congresspeople they'll have to buy out to make this a reality...
|reply to kinda pissed |
Re: maybe ...In the sense the public not understanding transit agreements
Bingo, more money -- isn't the ever increasing fee for internet service enough? Not for the shareholders; they want to cut off the companies/services that are actually the reason why people have internet service to begin with.
I remember when there were only News groups to browse -- I remember it took minutes to download a picture usually. Back then, internet service was only at a few houses and it wasn't fast enough to stream netflix(had it existed). Most people in my small town didn't want anything to do with that "slow internet thing", as they already had a Tv with 50+ channels, and computers were a couple of grand back then. Fast forward to our current times, and you can see that faster internet brought more services to more people, and low and behold, the people responded.
Of course, lots of people responded by cutting the cord to their cable tv service and only using broadband(been doing this since 2000). At first, it was only the tech types that were moving to using streaming and downloaded videos - once their friends saw how easy it could be to "watch what you wanted" at anytime practically, more cut the cable tv cord and elected broadband only. The cable companies know this fact, as do the old Bell offspring with the "home phone line cord cutting" that has been happening since affordable/usable mobile phones have been available.
What really bothers me about the greed that our communication companies in the US have is -- we already paid for service to the "internet". STOP trying to get a piece of a pie that is not yours.
AFAIK, from the data centers that Google and Netflix are housed in(billion dollar buildings), they already "pay for their internet access" also. I am quite certain that all those AMPS of electricity and 10g & 40g interconnects to the internet run into the hundreds of thousands, per month.
I paid for my internet access, which allows me to connect to a service that has also paid for it's access. Asking for payment, for a service that was paid for already by both parties, seems like pure extortion.
Although I know nothing of Comcast/Xfinity services, I assume they have a "netflix" competitor service available? I am not sure if it's available to non-comcast users, or what the pricing is, but I would consider using their service over Netflix, if they didn't have an agenda to bleed us dry of money. Same with my DSL provider, I would probably consider using their offering for streaming video, if they had one(not sure), but I have never seen it advertised and if I did, it might have been more expensive that I wanted it to be.
Note to ISP's -- We paid for our internet access, and the service on the other side of your pipes does also. If you want to compete with services that are on the internet, try using innovation to build these services, rather than government lobbying to stop these "competitors". This is one of the worst examples of greed I have seen in my short life, and after working in IT for the last 14 years, I am considering a new career, as I am sure we will sit back and watch Comcast/Vz and others win this dispute. I believe Comcast alone has 70+ millions dollars being funneled to DC lobbying - I am not sure how this is even legal, but we do live in the US of Corporations...run by the corporation, for the corporation.
Imagine all the cruises, vacations, toys, and other favors that have been purchased in DC, on your dime -- your elected(if you voted) officials are just laughing at us, while taking big gifts and pushing agenda's of the highest payer. If you have an option in your area, please try not to use Comcast or the other big hitters -- there has to be a smaller, good enough option in your area, as you can see where those "ever increasing" fee's every couple months are going...