Page 4 of 19
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 3:45 pm
by GORDON
I've reproduced and planted an oak tree. I've done my part for the future. Now, I want fast, cheap internet.
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:30 pm
by TheCatt
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:53 pm
by Malcolm
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."
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:57 pm
by GORDON
One assumes this is good news to Google.
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:59 pm
by Vince
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.
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:03 pm
by Malcolm
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."
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:08 pm
by GORDON
Out of curiosity, I wonder how hard it would be for Netflix to decentralize their traffic, ala torrenting, so it can't be throttled.
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:11 pm
by TheCatt
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.
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:11 pm
by Malcolm
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?
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:17 pm
by GORDON
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.
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:29 pm
by Malcolm
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.
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:44 pm
by GORDON
Yeah, but legal, which is part of what I meant when I asked how hard it would be for Netflix to do that.
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:55 pm
by Malcolm
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.
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:57 pm
by TheCatt
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,
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 4:55 pm
by Vince
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.
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 8:11 pm
by Malcolm
Comcast.
Time Warner Cable.
Direct TV.
Three companies that make me believe there is a god and he hates broadband consumers.
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 8:16 pm
by GORDON
DTV doesn't do broadband internet, to my knowledge.
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 8:19 pm
by TheCatt
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.
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 8:40 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:DTV doesn't do broadband internet, to my knowledge.
Looks like they whore out their "internet service" thing to other people.
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:00 am
by GORDON
Are you saying they do? What?