Net Neutrality

Post by **GORDON** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 3:45 pm

I've reproduced and planted an oak tree. I've done my part for the future. Now, I want fast, cheap internet.

Post by **TheCatt** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:30 pm

AT&T stops building gigabit network until net neutrality is sorted out.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:53 pm

AT&T senior executive vice president Jim Cicconi, ever the dramatist, said that if the FCC followed Obama's suggestions it would be "a mistake that will do tremendous harm to the internet and to U.S. national interests.

Is AT&T going to back me into a corner where both B. Rock and myself will be entrenched?

"We can't go out and invest that kind of money deploying fiber to 100 cities not knowing under what rules those investments will be governed,"

Translation: "We're tired of not being able to buy our way. This is bullshit. This is what bribery was invented for."

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:57 pm

TheCatt wrote:AT&T stops building gigabit network until net neutrality is sorted out.

One assumes this is good news to Google.

Post by **Vince** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:59 pm

Makes perfect sense to me. Under the strictest net neutrality interpretation, AT&T can't prioritize traffic for voice or TV services over the raw data for their Uverse service. So will they even be able to offer voice service or TV service if they can't prioritize the traffic? They have to have a business model to ensure they make money back on this. I don't think this is a "temper tantrum" as the pompus do-nothing doesn't understand business writer of the article suggests.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:03 pm

If they get to prioritize traffic, then shit's over.

"Netflix streaming is downloading your movie. Come back in 90 minutes when AT&T decides to unthrottle enough bandwidth to let your shit through or you can pay $2 now to download it in 90 seconds. Have a nice day and eat a dick."

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:08 pm

Out of curiosity, I wonder how hard it would be for Netflix to decentralize their traffic, ala torrenting, so it can't be throttled.

Post by **TheCatt** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:11 pm

Vince wrote:Makes perfect sense to me. Under the strictest net neutrality interpretation, AT&T can't prioritize traffic for voice or TV services over the raw data for their Uverse service. So will they even be able to offer voice service or TV service if they can't prioritize the traffic? They have to have a business model to ensure they make money back on this. I don't think this is a "temper tantrum" as the pompus do-nothing doesn't understand business writer of the article suggests.

Right. I completely see this point.

If they get to prioritize traffic, then shit's over.

I also completely see this point.

Thus why I'm so torn on this issue.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:11 pm

GORDON wrote:Out of curiosity, I wonder how hard it would be for Netflix to decentralize their traffic, ala torrenting, so it can't be throttled.

Maintaining a legit swarm for each movie they have?

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:17 pm

Malcolm wrote:
GORDON wrote:Out of curiosity, I wonder how hard it would be for Netflix to decentralize their traffic, ala torrenting, so it can't be throttled.
Maintaining a legit swarm for each movie they have?

At least the most popular ones. When you watch it, you keep an image of it for others so what is available always adjusts itself. Give peeps a dollar off each month for a few k of their upstream bandwidth.

What I ponder is if they would need randomized ports. I don't know how bittorrent deals with that, not getting their ports throttled.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:29 pm

Give peeps a dollar off each month for a few k of their upstream bandwidth.

Now that would get interesting. A p2p bit torrent media player. Someone should really make one of those.

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:44 pm

Yeah, but legal, which is part of what I meant when I asked how hard it would be for Netflix to do that.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:55 pm

GORDON wrote:Yeah, but legal, which is part of what I meant when I asked how hard it would be for Netflix to do that.

Netflix would have to alter a fuckload of content agreements and pony up a lot of cash for hardware and infra.

Post by **TheCatt** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:57 pm

I'm guessing they would get into service delivery issues, but maybe not.

Current netflix hardware

They deploy those at colocation sites with ISPs.

Increases in density from HGST on spinning media from 3TB to 6TB have enabled the chassis storage to go from 108TB to 216TB of raw capacity

36 drives. Nice,

Post by **Vince** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 4:55 pm

Malcolm wrote:If they get to prioritize traffic, then shit's over.

They already get to prioritize traffic. We use MPLS circuits. We prioritize voice over those connections. The routers handle data and Voip. I bet you money the feds will screw this up and kill our voip, thus costing our company (and many others) millions of dollars.

The problem here isn't that that we don't have enough federal oversight. The problem is these are all heavily regulated industries. The feds involvement is what has already screwed things up. You don't go to the people that created the problem for solutions.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 8:11 pm

Comcast.
Time Warner Cable.
Direct TV.

Three companies that make me believe there is a god and he hates broadband consumers.

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 8:16 pm

DTV doesn't do broadband internet, to my knowledge.

Post by **TheCatt** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 8:19 pm

My community is one of the ones that AT&T said would get their gigabit service.

Of course, they also said I would get their current "high speed" internet, and that never came, so fuck em.

C'mon google.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 8:40 pm

GORDON wrote:DTV doesn't do broadband internet, to my knowledge.

Looks like they whore out their "internet service" thing to other people.

Post by **GORDON** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:00 am

Are you saying they do? What?