Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 81
  1. #51
    #freeshit 2020 Chris's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    33,489
    Ajit Pai, the FCC Commissioner leading the charge to rig the internet, was appointed by Obama.
    mein neger
    _____________________________




    The devil trembles when he knows the body is the temple and God is in you
    It's hard to continue when it's hard to offend you
    He snarls and sets traps, that have you setback
    The last round in this death match
    So strengthen where you're best at
    I promise you won't regret that
    -KP

  2. #52
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    32,265
    LOL Chris.

  3. #53
    #freeshit 2020 Chris's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    33,489
    The truth shall set us free.

  4. #54
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    32,265
    The truth shall set us free.
    No. It shall make us slower. And censored.

  5. #55
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    125,294
    It's Trump's fault, right? Not so fast, O-bots:
    The composition of the FCC commission always has been, 3 of the ruling party and 2 of the opposition. That's why Barry appointed him, he had to pick somebody from the (R) side as recommended by the Rs.

    Obviously, this might be news to people that don't know anything about the FCC, tbh...

    He used to be a lawyer for Verizon too, IIRC...

  6. #56
    Lab Animal Capt Bringdown's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    10,907
    The composition of the FCC commission always has been, 3 of the ruling party and 2 of the opposition. That's why Barry appointed him, he had to pick somebody from the (R) side as recommended by the Rs.

    Obviously, this might be news to people that don't know anything about the FCC, tbh...

    He used to be a lawyer for Verizon too, IIRC...
    Perhaps, you missed the point entirely. To wit:

    Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party

    In other words, Obama could have nominated a pro-Net Neutrality independent, and chose not to.
    Instead, he:

    He used to be a lawyer for Verizon too, IIRC...
    And it gets even worse for the Democrats:


    Politico:

    DEMOCRATS FOR PAI? — FCC Chairman Ajit Pai locked down his reconfirmation Monday evening in a largely party-line 52-41 vote. But Pai did win votes from four of the six Democrats who voted in favor of last week’s procedural vote on his confirmation: Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.)….

    — So why did these four buck Democratic colleagues? “I disagree with him on net neutrality, but the president has a right to the chairman because he won the election,” McCaskill told John. “I have worked with him closely on the Lifeline issues and found him to be easy to work with on those issues — and he’s qualified.” [credentialism!] Peters echoed her on Pai’s qualifications and also cited his interest in working with Pai to address the Lifeline program./p>

    — The senators like his broadband views. “I just need a lot of help in West Virginia, and he’s been moving in that direction,” former Commerce Committee member Manchin said, lauding Pai’s work in “trying to get the rural broadband fund moving.” Pai is “working with us,” Manchin said. Peters also mentioned rural broadband, singling out Michigan’s Upper Peninsula as an area in need: “I found him very receptive to ways to expand broadband access.” But like McCaskill, Manchin is “still very concerned about net neutrality,” as is Peters, they told POLITICO. Pai’s move to roll back net neutrality regulations dominated the Democrats’ opposition on the floor in the last week. Peters said he “will hold him accountable” and try to ensure “the internet is free and open.”
    Liberals appointing a militant anti net-neutrality advocate/ exVerizon lawyer and holding him accountable (LOL) by voting for his reconfirmation.

    _____________________________
    Yours for the O.B.U

  7. #57
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    125,294
    nobody is defending the senators or politicians in general... just dispelling the notion that Obama selecting a (R) was outside the norm for the FCC... much like (R) presidents have appointed (D) commission members...

    There hasn't been an 'independent' (ie: not D or R) member of the FCC commission since 1947... again, people unfamiliar with the FCC political process would find this surprising, tbh, but it's more of the same...
    Last edited by ElNono; 11-24-2017 at 10:42 PM.

  8. #58
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    125,294
    And Tom Wheeler, the previous commish that p ed the net neutrality regulations, was voted in unanimously by the senate

    http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/29...new-fcc-chief/

    I guess conserva s were for net neutrality before they weren't? How could it be?

  9. #59
    Veteran Xevious's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Post Count
    3,727
    I have exactly two ISPs available to me (unless Google moves into the neighborhood in the coming months/years). I've not had a cable tv package in around three years because of the different, cheaper, streaming options available. Ditching net neutrality would give these two companies the option to effectively price streaming services out of reach for cord cutters like myself, forcing us to go back to their ty cable tv packages. And that's just one example. It hands too much power over to these companies that already have a monopoly.

    Regardless of your political affiliation, or who appointed who, everybody should be pissed about this.

  10. #60
    Veteran baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    72,911
    I have exactly two ISPs available to me (unless Google moves into the neighborhood in the coming months/years). I've not had a cable tv package in around three years because of the different, cheaper, streaming options available. Ditching net neutrality would give these two companies the option to effectively price streaming services out of reach for cord cutters like myself, forcing us to go back to their ty cable tv packages. And that's just one example. It hands too much power over to these companies that already have a monopoly.

    Regardless of your political affiliation, or who appointed who, everybody should be pissed about this.
    Meh like Obama said, elections have consequences. Anyone who voted for Trump has no room to complain, it was obvious this would happen under him.

  11. #61
    Veteran Xevious's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Post Count
    3,727
    Meh like Obama said, elections have consequences. Anyone who voted for Trump has no room to complain, it was obvious this would happen under him.
    I wish they'd complain a little more. This effects everybody. But all except the staunchest Trumpslurpers (who are defending this ) are silent. Which means they don't know, don't care, or don't want to say anything negative about the Trump regime.

  12. #62
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    15,024
    THE ISPs HAVE SOLVED IT.

    First you need to understand how this is all connected. In general, there are 2 types of ISPs. "Last mile carriers" and "Backhaul carriers" This gets a bit muddy because some last mile carriers have backhaul networks, and some backhaul carriers have last mile networks, but for the sake of this discussion we'll keep them in two separate groups.

    Last mile carriers are the ISPs that bring the cables (phone line, coax, fiber, wireless, whatever) from their core network to your house. This is the ISP that invoices you and you pay every month for your internet service. This Last mile carrier has something that's referred to as a "border" where they connect their core network with a backhaul carrier.

    The backhaul carriers are the BIG companies that built this whole "Internet" thing. They did that by investing trillions of dollars running and continuing to run fiber optic cables EVERYWHERE. These backhaul carriers all got together and realized that they needed to come up with a fair and equitable method and price structure for freely and openly exchanging the information on their networks. Thus the Symmetric Peering Arrangement was born.

    The Symmetric Peering Arrangement was basically this. "You have lots of data, and I have lots of data. Let us exchange this data equally, however much data you send me I will send you an equal amount of data and we'll all just agree to not charge each other any money for that exchange." But wait? What if they exchange an unequal amount of data? This is the Asymmetric Peering Arrangement, typically it's the same thing as the Symmetric Peering Arrangement except that the both parties agree to pay for the non-symmetric amounts of data. This is what lead to the internet. Basically all these carriers put all their interconnecting and cross connecting points in free and open spaces, called Internet Exchanges. Anyone who showed up and put a "point of presence" in the Exchange had the ability to talk to anyone else in the Exchange and negotiate peering arrangements or even just ask nicely to exchange traffic or whatever. Here's a guy who setup a peering point in an Internet Exchange and essentially became is own ISP for no other reason that he thought it would be fun.

    Now comes Netflix. Remember ANYONE can have a presence at an Internet Exchange including hosting companies, data center providers, whoever the wants to. So that's exactly what Netflix did, they set up POPs at various Internet Exchanges over dark fiber from their data centers (dark fiber is a service where you buy a fiber strand from point A to point B with no actual "service" on it, it's just the fiber and you put your own optical gear on either end.)

    Basically when they did this, they talked to everyone there and explained what they were about, that they provide a streaming movie service that's legit and legal and made the case that the carriers downstream last mile ISPs and orted home subscribers would probably love to have access to their content. They made a good case, and the carriers agreed that peering that content to their downstream customers was probably a good move. So they gave Netflix some 10Gbps and 40Gbps cross connects told them "hey this is on us, no charge" and called it a day. (This is extremely common, so common that there's an entire automated system in place run by the volunteers that operate the Exchanges to facilitate it)

    Well, you can probably guess what happened, Netflix grew and became crazy popular and their traffic eventually started beating those cross connects like red headed stepchildren. We're talking 100% full ALL the time. As others have touched on, when a link is 100% full, bad happens as one poster described as "a bunch of drunk guys screaming at each other in a bar." The end result of this would be the rest of the Internet works just fine, but Netflix runs like TOTAL . Stuttering, jitter, buffering, garbled frames, all that stuff. When this happened, Netflix was like "OMG can we please get some additional cross connects?" The carriers (or in the first case of it happening, Verizon) responded with statements to the affect of "Wow, yeah you need some more cross connects, but that's a lot of asymmetric traffic, we're going to have to work out an asymmetric peering arrangement where you pay for the difference in traffic, just like we've done for decades with everyone else we do this with."

    Now, you see what happened next was...Netflix didn't respond by saying "Oh ok, sure we'll sit down and work out the details" they responded by being pissed off and demanding that peering for FREE because having to pay for it like EVERYONE else had to do so up to that point was tantamount to an unfair business practice. Now the stories I've heard talking to people over at Verizon was that the business managers were kinda shocked and confused at the response, while the engineering teams nearly herniated themselves from laughing.

    Now, looking at the situation, Verizon didn't "throttle" Netflix, they didn't demand payment for a "fast lane", they didn't stroke their bad guy mustache and say "Muhahahaha, we're going to use this situation give our own content delivery platform a market advantage!" It was literally just a standard negotiation for an asymmetric peering agreement with some minor middle manager's istant in the sub-division handling administrative and sales tasks for that region that the Internet Exchange was in. All it was, was a pretty basic business arrangement between two companies, as Netflix' traffic utilization scaled up, so would the amount they paid to deliver it and the necessary upgrades needed would be funded.

    Netflix wasn't having it. Not long after that, the CEO of Netflix did an interview with some trendy tech publication in Silicon Valley (I think it was Gizmodo, but I can't remember for sure) talking about how the big evil Verizon was "throttling" them and how we needed "Net Neutrality" to stop this.

    Yes, that was their argument, that them saturating their free interconnects and being required to pay for more capacity was "throttling" and it needed to be "stopped" by the FCC (that's code for using the federal government to force Verizon to give them that capacity for free).

    So the conclusion is that the carriers HAVE FIGURED IT OUT. They charged Netflix, and Netflix eventually paid. The Last mile carriers wound doing something similar by ins uting data caps and charging extra to those who had high utilization. Then everyone started implementing traffic shaping and management methods and technology to get the Netflix utilization under control at the last mile.

    Problem is now solved.

    Here's where Net Neutrality comes back in. Netflix and Google and Facebook and whoever all still want it because they want to force peering arrangements beneficial to them. But the end result of Net Neutrality would be to remove the carriers solution of dealing with this problem, namely charging Netflix and Google for their upstream consumption at the peering level, and using traffic shaping and management technologies at the last mile level.

    Let me state that again, NET NEUTRALITY WOULD REMOVE THE ALREADY EXITING SOLUTION. It would cut the revenue stream at the peering level, and it would remove the traffic shaping and management at the last mile level. This would INCREASE the strain on the carrier networks, AND reduce the spending on upgrading the carrier networks. It will LITERALLY make EVERYTHING worse.

    THAT is why the carriers are against Net Neutrality.

  13. #63
    Dončić Dynasty monosylab1k's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    13,441
    Oh TSA is on Trump’s side on this one? What a shock!
    _____________________________




  14. #64
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    32,265
    Oh TSA is on Trump’s side on this one? What a shock!
    TSA is eager to be paying extra to get priority access to 4chan.

  15. #65
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    15,024
    Oh TSA is on Trump’s side on this one? What a shock!


    Net nuetrality as an idea is great, much like Obamacare. It was the implementation that sucked.


    Excellent rebuttal by the way. You really took that down.

  16. #66
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    125,294
    It's also incorrect. Netflix had to pay for extra peering agreements because Verizon wouldn't flip a cable, something Netflix offered to do for them. Netflix pays for every penny of bandwidth they use, and it's customers do too.

    Obviously, Verizon wants more of the pie than just transporting bits (which, again, are paid for), because they actually offer competing services (ie: On demand video, etc).

    Plus, Verizon came clean on admitting they were indeed throttling Netflix, Youtube and other providers :https://www.fiercewireless.com/wirel...tent-providers

    The moral of the story here is that there would be no Netflix if you get penalized for innovating and bringing a better product than Cable Co.

    At the end of the day, Facebook, Google, Netflix, etc all pay for their bandwidth, and the users pay for their bandwidth too. If the ISP can't handle it, then they need to improve their networks, with the fees they collect.

    Most of the non-last-mile providers (Level 3, et all) do exactly that, and are not ing. The issue here are last-mile providers who have a captive audience and are largely monopolies and duopolies, which get to dictate terms.

  17. #67
    Dončić Dynasty monosylab1k's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    13,441
    Net nuetrality as an idea is great, much like Obamacare. It was the implementation that sucked.


    Excellent rebuttal by the way. You really took that down.
    Yeah I’m not gonna take some random ar-15.com troll’s post seriously.

  18. #68
    I cannot grok its fullnes leemajors's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Post Count
    22,460
    It's also incorrect. Netflix had to pay for extra peering agreements because Verizon wouldn't flip a cable, something Netflix offered to do for them. Netflix pays for every penny of bandwidth they use, and it's customers do too.

    Obviously, Verizon wants more of the pie than just transporting bits (which, again, are paid for), because they actually offer competing services (ie: On demand video, etc).

    Plus, Verizon came clean on admitting they were indeed throttling Netflix, Youtube and other providers :https://www.fiercewireless.com/wirel...tent-providers

    The moral of the story here is that there would be no Netflix if you get penalized for innovating and bringing a better product than Cable Co.

    At the end of the day, Facebook, Google, Netflix, etc all pay for their bandwidth, and the users pay for their bandwidth too. If the ISP can't handle it, then they need to improve their networks, with the fees they collect.

    Most of the non-last-mile providers (Level 3, et all) do exactly that, and are not ing. The issue here are last-mile providers who have a captive audience and are largely monopolies and duopolies, which get to dictate terms.
    _____________________________
    So it goes.

  19. #69
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    15,024
    Yeah I’m not gonna take some random ar-15.com troll’s post seriously.
    But all you do is post these days

  20. #70
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    15,024
    It's also incorrect. Netflix had to pay for extra peering agreements because Verizon wouldn't flip a cable, something Netflix offered to do for them. Netflix pays for every penny of bandwidth they use, and it's customers do too.

    Obviously, Verizon wants more of the pie than just transporting bits (which, again, are paid for), because they actually offer competing services (ie: On demand video, etc).

    Plus, Verizon came clean on admitting they were indeed throttling Netflix, Youtube and other providers :https://www.fiercewireless.com/wirel...tent-providers

    The moral of the story here is that there would be no Netflix if you get penalized for innovating and bringing a better product than Cable Co.

    At the end of the day, Facebook, Google, Netflix, etc all pay for their bandwidth, and the users pay for their bandwidth too. If the ISP can't handle it, then they need to improve their networks, with the fees they collect.

    Most of the non-last-mile providers (Level 3, et all) do exactly that, and are not ing. The issue here are last-mile providers who have a captive audience and are largely monopolies and duopolies, which get to dictate terms.
    Thank you for actually taking the time to respond with an informed opinion unlike gook pickle.

    I think you hit on certain points and missed on others. Specific thoughts on this claim.

    “It would cut the revenue stream at the peering level, and it would remove the traffic shaping and management at the last mile level. This would INCREASE the strain on the carrier networks, AND reduce the spending on upgrading the carrier networks. It will LITERALLY make EVERYTHING worse.”

  21. #71
    Dončić Dynasty monosylab1k's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    13,441
    But all you do is post these days

  22. #72
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    125,294
    Thank you for actually taking the time to respond with an informed opinion unlike gook pickle.

    I think you hit on certain points and missed on others. Specific thoughts on this claim.

    “It would cut the revenue stream at the peering level, and it would remove the traffic shaping and management at the last mile level. This would INCREASE the strain on the carrier networks, AND reduce the spending on upgrading the carrier networks. It will LITERALLY make EVERYTHING worse.”
    That statement only makes sense if the carriers would be losing money or were technically not capable of upgrading their networks, neither being the case. The sole reason there's a 'strain' on carrier networks (artificial or not) is that the network operators didn't increase their capacity (spending their well earned money to do so) or they simply want to nickel and dime you to death with 'tiered plans' (artificial too).

    You don't see the non-last-mile providers (who carry way more data) having their networks strained. So it's not a technical issue, and it's not a money issue. The real issue is that because they're monopolies or duopolies, they don't have to spend their money providing a better service, they have a captive audience. So they don't upgrade their networks, they pocket the difference, and then when their last-mile lines are overloaded, they don't have to give a because they're the only game in town. Since they're the last piece of the transport to the consumer, they wield major power.

    It's also well do ented that internet speeds in the US lag sharply with other 1st world countries, and internet service costs more.

    Ultimately, you have to look at this with historical perspective. There's a reason the term 'common carrier' came to be. Unlike a 'contract carrier', which gets to decide who it delivers to, a common carrier delivers information important enough where they can't be exclusionary. And in this day and age, the interwebs, Spurstalk in particular, is simply essential. You can't even apply for a job these days without an internet connection.

    Here's the contradiction: the government granted these guys monopolies because they deemed the internet important enough where they wanted them to build their networks even on remote areas where it might've not been profitable enough (like they did with phone companies, and this is a topic that's it's own can of worms), but then the internet is now not important enough to make them common carriers? It makes zero sense.

  23. #73
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    125,294
    I should add, expanding the network carries risks. It's an investment. You could 'over-provision'. From a shareholder perspective, you much rather get free money from Netflix than lay down fiber. But the only reason they can do that is because, again, they have a captive audience. If they had to compete, they'll be taking the risks. You can see that on the Wireless market, where prices have bottomed out for service and you get the latest 3G, 4G, LTE tech coming at the same price as the previous generation or cheaper.

  24. #74
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    15,024
    I should add, expanding the network carries risks. It's an investment. You could 'over-provision'. From a shareholder perspective, you much rather get free money from Netflix than lay down fiber. But the only reason they can do that is because, again, they have a captive audience. If they had to compete, they'll be taking the risks. You can see that on the Wireless market, where prices have bottomed out for service and you get the latest 3G, 4G, LTE tech coming at the same price as the previous generation or cheaper.
    Thoughts?

    https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232617

  25. #75
    Dončić Dynasty monosylab1k's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    13,441


    “Thank you for dignifying my knuckle dragger bull with an actual response, unlike gook pickle

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •