MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Net Neutrality Nixed: Why John Oliver Is Wrong

The internet did just fine before bureaucrats started micromanaging it.

Democrats and progressives are concerned that the internet is about to descend into a corporate hellscape since the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is moving to repeal Net Neutrality regulations, which prohibit internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking particular sites or throttling traffic from specific services. We tackle the issue in the latest episode of Mostly Weekly. The idea that Net Neutrality and Title II regulations are a vital barricade protecting the internet is an interesting position to arrive at given that a free-and-open internet managed to exist without these edicts for decades. Net Neutrality rules are still on the books, but the FCC made a procedural vote on Thursday to begin the prospect of peeling off Obama-era internet regulations like an old Band-Aid.

The main progressive arguments in favor of Net Neutrality are really arguments guarding against hypotheticals: that ISPs could otherwise block and censor content (they never have) or that they'll run their operations like shakedowns, requiring content providers to pay up or slow their traffic to molasses. The main documented instance of an ISP favoring one content provider over others wasn't sinister collusion. Metro PCS offered unlimited YouTube in a budget data plan but not unlimited Hulu and Netflix, because YouTube had a compression system that could be adapted to the carrier's low-bandwidth network. In a different context, critics might have applauded Metro PCS, since bought by T-Mobile, for bringing more options to lower-income customers.

Net Neutrality is a proxy battle over what type of internet we want to have—one characterized by technocratic regulations or one based on innovation and emergent order. Progessives are generally suspicious of complex systems existing without powerful regulators present and accounted for. Small-government folks are repulsed by bureaucrats in general, and think the internet will fair better in a state of benign neglect. The FCC has come down on the side of an organic internet, instead of treating the internet more like a public utility.

We don't know how the internet is going to evolve over time, but neither do the government administrators trying to rein it in. But given the record of free-market innovation vs. government-regulated services, the odds are with market forces and entrepreneurs.

Written and performed by Andrew Heaton, with writing assistance from Sarah Rose Siskind and David Fried.

Edited by Austin Bragg and Sarah Rose Siskind.

Produced by Meredith and Austin Bragg.

Theme Song: Frozen by Surfer Blood.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Roberticus101||

    The issues against eliminating Net Neutrality are not hypothetical; they have happened. Netflix had to pay Comcast to allow its users to stream at full capacity. Much of the second half of 2013 was consumed by this stand-off.


    See this Consumerist article (I had to shrink it to make this post):

    https://tinyurl.com/nxwxr94


    Keep in mind this was not related to any phone service providers, which often have data caps in place; this was Netflix paying money to a land-line internet provider so that its customers could have an uninterrupted/untainted Netflix experience. It is exactly the kind of thing that Net Neutrality has prevented since then.

  • Roberticus101||

    I forgot to add that Net Neutrality was strengthened after this took place:

    https://tinyurl.com/k4u6pwa

  • BYODB||

    Do you have any idea how much of all internet traffic is Netflix streaming?

  • ||

    Netflix had to pay Comcast to allow its users to stream at full capacity.

    This is not what the article you linked says. The article you linked says:

    Much like Netflix's ongoing standoff with Verizon FiOS, the drop in speeds wasn't an issue of the ISP throttling or blocking service to Netflix. Rather, the ISPs were allowing for Netflix traffic to bottleneck at what's known as "peering ports," the connection between Netflix's bandwidth provider and the ISPs.

    IOW, Netflix required special treatment from Comcast in order to get its streaming service to happen without interruption by standard procedures. Comcast informed Netflix that this would require extra fee. Netflix agreed.

    I don't understand why we "need" Net Neutrality to "prevent this." I'm just not seeing the evil that's being done here.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The only fair way to handle all of this is to allow Netflix to crowd out all other traffic and be charged the same flat fee as everyone else. Oh, and surge pricing should be illegal everywhere. That's just sound economics. /sarc

  • Radioactive||

    I think a Claymation Deathmatch between the respective CEOs might be a better way to go...

  • Microaggressor||

    Indeed, Netflix places a burden on Comcast's infrastructure at the expense of other network traffic, and the fee can be used by Comcast to expand capacity. This is the invisible hand at work, making the Internet faster and more robust for the benefit of consumers. Net neutrality aims to stop this and would cripple infrastructure development if thoroughly enforced.

  • SomeGuy||

    I dont understand how this is so complicated to the average reason poster but maybe they fail to understand how the internet works and are not tech savvy.

    Net neutrality is a good thing because it treats all data equally and removes extortion and cronyism.

    Netflix has its own IPS (assume Level3) that connects to other "Peering ports" like comcast, sprint, verizon excreta.

    Backstory:
    Level3 offered to upgrade Comcast sites for FREE but Comcast declined because they wanted more money from netflix.

    Customer (you and me) pay Comcast for (ideally) an unmetered line.

    Comcast is responsible for providing me according to my contract X level of service.

    If 150 dollars a month is not enough to run their fucking business my prices go up so they can expand their network.

    It is not Netflix responsibility to pay Comcast because they suck at managing their shit. If their "Peering port" gets clogged that hurts my quality and service and i will level them for being a shit ISP.

    No other ISP has this issue because they run a good business. Look at SureWest. They have offed 50/50 and 100/100Mbps FTTP since 2000s at like 90 dollars a month.

    It is the responsibility of the ISP to charge enough money to keep a working network. Net neutrality forces ISPs to practice good business and not extort money, which is what Comcast was trying to do.

  • SomeGuy||

    It is the same with Data Caps. They are a means to extort money. ISPs claimed only 1% of people used over 150GB per month. So your telling me 1 or 2 people on a node with 100-200 AT MOST houses can clog a node? You have the shittiest most over loaded network possible....or your just trying to extort money and be cheap.

  • SomeGuy||

  • SomeGuy||

    Remember Netflix pays its ISP for for all its data to their (level 3) "Peer port" So netflix goes through level3 network to level 3 "peer port" to the "internet" once in the internet or directly reaches cocmasts "peer port" it goes to comcast customer.

    Basically Comcast is trying to get NetFlix to pay for Level3's and comcast's network, which is ridiculous because it is Comcast's subscribers responsiblity to pay for their own network.

    Think of it like this. You own 100 acres. You want to reach netflix on a paved road. You are basically trying to tell Netflix they need to pave their 1000 acres and pave your 100 acres and also maintain it.

    That is beyond ridiculous because your 100 acres is your own fucking problem. You want to reach netflix? than pave your god damn land yourself!

    Comcast peering port is comcast subscribers responsibility.

    Also as I stated above it was found it it was pure extortion because level 3 was even willing to pay for the new equipment to expand their peering port but Comcast declined because it was about greasing their wheels, which is why net neutrality is so important. It prevents double dipping and controlling of information you just don't like.

    https://tinyurl.com/moyuxyc

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    You want to reach netflix? than pave your god damn land yourself!

    Comcast is the one who did the paving, dumbass. You think that infrastructure popped up like magic?

  • SomeGuy||

    You failed to understand that basic of analogy...thats just sad.

    Let me expand it since your an idiot.

    You have 100 acres you contract with comcast to pave and manage it.

    netflix does the same thing and contracts with level3.

    each pays for their own end. If subscribers are wanting more data than their host can offer for 150 dollars than the subscriber needs to pay more to access more data.

    How is that hard to understand dumbass.

  • SomeGuy||

    netflix does not need to pay more. Its the fucking subscriber you twit.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    netflix does not need to pay more. Its the fucking subscriber you twit.

    And yet there you are above whining about data caps. Make up your mind, you stupid child.

  • MarkLastname||

    So why should a subscriber who doesn't use Netflix support net neutrality?

  • SomeGuy||

    Because this issue isn't specific to netflix.

    You want an ISP blocking porn? Reason? Charging you 10x per packet for accessing a search engine because they can? The same thing can happen with the internet as what oil companies have done in the past. Same with Monitor manufactures. Monitor manufactures have been busted several times for price fixing and so has cell phone companies.

    This is what happens when you don't put any kind of safe guards against monopolies with industries with excessively high barriers to enter. Comcast to easily milk a market it owns to fund extremely low prices to force a smaller ISP out so they can charge higher prices after they kill competition or just collude and price fix.

    Are libertarians honestly again anti monopoly laws? And preventing monopolies from controlling what you can and can't do on the internet and squashing speech?

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    You want an ISP blocking porn?

    You have an objection to a private service running their business as they see fit?

    Comcast to easily milk a market it owns to fund extremely low prices to force a smaller ISP out so they can charge higher prices after they kill competition or just collude and price fix.

    Sounds like something a good old-fashioned anti-monopoly suit would cure--funny that Net Neutrality advocates propose a complete overhaul of FCC rules and increased regulations rather than enforcing laws that are already on the books. I guess it's no accident that there's a high intersection between NN advocates and single-payer healthcare advocates.

  • SomeGuy||

    You aren't increasing regulations by simply stating you can't charge difference rates you dishonest fuck and practice monopoly tactics.

    There is no way to tell if an ISP is messing with data or to prove it unless someone on the inside leaks it.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    You have 100 acres you contract with comcast to pave and manage it

    Except Comcast is managing more than your 100 acres--there's about 100,000,000 acres that are being demanded, but only so much is available to use at one time for all the farmers. So the landlord installs a system that will allow the person who only needs 40 acres to make use of it as the one who needs 100 acres.

    So yeah, you can't even understand your own analogy, because you're an idiot, and one who's obviously projecting their own idiocy at that.

    Maybe if you actually understood data transport, and realized that ALL data packets are prioritized on delivery, you wouldn't sound like a moron when you whine to use 100 acres at all times.

  • SomeGuy||

    again....netflix is not responsible for demand from a comcast subscriber....how the fuck is basic logic this hard for you.

    I pay comcast to manage a network. If comcast is charging me too little for the amount of data I am demanding than comcast needs to charge me more not netflix. Basically my rates should go up. Neflix is not responsible for Comcast being cheap and a shitty ISP. The comcast subscriber is making the demand for data so the subscriber should be billed accordingly.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    again....netflix is not responsible for demand from a comcast subscriber....how the fuck is basic logic this hard for you.

    Netflix is the service flooding the ISP with bandwidth demand, dummy.

    If comcast is charging me too little for the amount of data I am demanding than comcast needs to charge me more not netflix.

    Stop whining about data caps, then.

    Christ, you can't even keep your arguments consistent because you're in so much asspain about Comcast.

  • SomeGuy||

    wow you seriously are retard.

    Does netflix flood ISP? Is netflix DOSing Comcast? Is netflix sending unrequested data?

    No moron.

    Netflix is sending data demanding by Comcast subscriber.

    The subscriber is responsible here for that cost...christ your dumb.

    If Netflix was DOS/DDOSing Comcast sure....Netflix would be responsible but this is data demanded by the subscriber.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Does netflix flood ISP? Is netflix DOSing Comcast? Is netflix sending unrequested data?

    The bandwidth on the network is limited, moron. Stop arguing like you think it's not.

    The subscriber is responsible here for that cost...christ your dumb.

    Stop whining about data caps, then, you idiot. Once the data cap is breached, YOU'RE PAYING MORE FOR THE DATA YOU'RE USING.

  • SomeGuy||

    I have no data cap dumbass. I buy an internet without one.

    You still fail to form a counter argument based in any logic so keep trollin.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    I have no data cap dumbass. I buy an internet without one.

    And that data is still prioritized, even on that network. You're not getting 100 MB/sec at all times, or whatever allocation you signed up for, despite your apparent belief to the contrary.

  • otto von doom||

    Why is it the responsibility of Comcast subscribers to make sure that Netflix subscribers can get their content. Wouldn't that just be forcing Hulu and A' viewers to subsidize my Netflix habit?

  • SomeGuy||

    Comcast subscriber pays Comcast for an internet connection. Comcast Subscriber has a netflix account and requests data from netflix server on level3 network.

    Comcast subscriber (has netflix account)
    ->
    Comcast network
    ->
    Comcast peer port
    -
    Level3 peer port
    ->
    Level3 network
    ->
    netlfix server

    netflix pays it half of the road via level3

    comcast subscriber pays Comcast for its half of the road.

    Its ridiculous to make netflix pay for both sides of the road because Comcast side should be paid for by the comcast subscriber.

  • DarrenM||

    Yes. Any fees Netflix pays will ultimately be be passed along to their consumers. Netflix will need to raise *its* prices to cover those fees. So, the consumers that are actually using Netflix are paying for the fee rather than everyone using the network.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    I have no data cap dumbass. I buy an internet without one.

    And yet there you were up above, whining about Comcast establishing them--even though it fits in just fine with your argument that Comcast users who use more data should pay more for the privilege.

    Hilarious that you accuse me of being a troll when you can't even maintain consistency in your own.

  • SomeGuy||

    They didn't offer an internet for a long time without data caps. You had no choice but an outlandish 10 dollars per 50GB when data only could about 1-5 cents a GB....or less.

    For awhile i had no options to choose due to the monopolies they are.

    I have been nothing but consistent in this topic. its just you being intellectually dishonest.

  • SomeGuy||

    costs not could

  • SomeGuy||

    again either trolling or dumb.

    Comcast subscriber is the one requesting the data so comcast subscriber is responsible for its own network to support such a request.

    Should comcast install and upgrade my home network and pay me for the expense of my network since comcast is sending me data?

    No because my home network is my responsibility just like comcast subscribers network is their responsibility.

    You sound like an entitled liberal on this issue.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    If comcast is charging me too little for the amount of data I am demanding than comcast needs to charge me more not Netflix

    Huh, Comcast doesn't have tiered pricing based on how many MB/sec you signed up for? Who knew?

  • MarkLastname||

    Feel free to send them more money voluntarily if you'd like, I'd rather not. But at least you admit what net neutrality is: a gratuitous quality control regulation effectively necessitating a price increase.

    Yeah, that's a big issue for me, I really want a law to make me pay more money so other people can stream Netflix faster.

  • SomeGuy||

    Pay per GB than? Or buy a capped conncetion that is cheaper. Comcast offers several tiers of internet.

    data capped and uncapped.

    I pay for the fastest speed that is uncapped. I pay 250 per month for my connection. You cna pay 50 for bottle speed with 1TB of data.

    I pay 200 more for faster speed/unmetered/high up time. It is called Consumer with no data cap or a business line.

    They sell plenty of cheaper lines for people who hardly use the internet. Christ your dishonest.

  • Headache||

    I remember when gubment stated regulating cable TV. At the time gubment said it was in the consumers' interest, so cable companies would not increase prices to high to fast. I had cable TV at $14.95/month. Then gubment stepped in. Cable co. started raising rates as allowed by gubment. Now I get more channels I don't want at 3 times the price.

    Now for Comcast. I pay for 100Mbps. I have never come close to 60Mbps(56.42 max). The reason is its a wire/fiber which has limited properties. So if Netflix subscribers are using more of the limited line, then I am paying as well by forfeiting 40%.

  • SomeGuy||

    yes it is only netflix subscribers causing your whoas /sarc

  • Brendan||

    Time to buy a delivery service since I will no longer have to pay any road taxes since the delivery was requested by someone else.

  • SomeGuy||

    Is the road your driving on a private road owned by the person who requested the delivery?

    Should you have to pay 1 dollar to access the guys driveway who ordered the package?

    No because that would be idiotic like the situation with Comcast and netflix.

  • Robbzilla||

    So, you're so much in favor of corporate charity and protectionism for Netflix, that you'll happily pay Comcast more money to make sure Netflix gets their subsidy? /boggle

  • SomeGuy||

    yes blocking monopoly type practices is corporate charity /sarc

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    That is beyond ridiculous

    Why? If it's in Netflix's interest for your stretch of road to be paved, what's ridiculous with pressuring them to pay for it?

  • SomeGuy||

    Why not charge the subscriber?

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Why not charge the provider?

  • SomeGuy||

    The subscriber is the one requesting the data not netflix.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    The subscriber does pay more based on the size of the pipe they sign up for. Since Netflix was flooding those servers with data using settlement-free interconnect, they and Comcast worked out a deal (huh, didn't even need government coercion to do so) for Netflix to pay for a portion of the maintenance on the network infrastructure that their customers were increasing the demand for.

    So a Netflix customer can pay more for a larger pipe, or they can pay Netflix more for the service they use which sucks up bandwidth--so OTHER customers, you know, people who may not use Netflix, can also have a decent internet use experience.

  • SomeGuy||

    Mandating that the subscriber who is demanding data pay for his own network has nothing to do with government coercion. It is about stopping monopoly coercion...Jesus.

    You still fail to understand its the Comcast subscriber requesting the data (netflix is just fulfilling a request from comcast...netflix isn't sending unsolicited data...fuck) and its a Comcast subscriber who is responsible for their own network.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Mandating that the subscriber who is demanding data pay for his own network has nothing to do with government coercion. It is about stopping monopoly coercion...Jesus.

    So stop whining about data caps, then. Comcast is doing exactly what you supposedly want--charging people more money when they use more data.

    And what fucking monopoly are you talking about? Is there some ISP that Netflix isn't allowed to pipe their data through? If Netflix was really getting screwed over here as you claim, then why on earth did they even agree to give Comcast money for the demand their product is producing on Comcast's network, or agree to have it offered through Comcast's X1 package?

    This is why Net Neutrality advocates are morons. They're so autistically focused on MUH PRESHUS DATA PACKETS that they can't even keep up on basic developments regarding the parties in question.

  • Ragoftag||

    Netflix is the one

  • Ragoftag||

    Netflix is the one REQUIRING an interstate to every subscriber. Let them pay, not the Grammy who just wants pix of her Grand kids.

  • DarrenM||

    Nothing. If Netflix thinks it's worth it to them to do so, they will. They are not in the business of charity. Also, Netflix may pay for it, but the costs get passed on to Netflix's consumers. People seem to have trouble thinking this far.

  • SomeGuy||

    Yes so netflix subscribers on SureWest or any other none shit ISP is paying for comcasts network. Instead of Comcast subscribers pay for their own network.

    Your the one failing to see how this breaks down and who is getting a shaft and is getting over charged.

    And as history has shown with comcast that money always goes to improving network rofl

  • SomeGuy||

    The same is for data caps. They are on a mathematical/logic level 100% bullshit. They exist to grease wheels and nothing about QoS.

    Also Comcast and Verizon have a long history was running shitty networks in order to expand profit margins at customer expenses and when a company like this is given a legal monopoly please.....please don't give them extra tools to jew customers. It is not like anyone can open up an ISP.

  • BYODB||

    This hits the nail better than your other commentary, as the big telecom companies are basically a monopoly in many places, although it was interesting to read from both perspectives from people who at least sound like they know what they're talking about.

    It would be nice if there was more ISP competition, it's concerning that there's literally only one option in plenty of places, but at the same time at least there's at least one connection in most places?

    One thing I do know for sure is that when you sign a contract with said ISP they do not guarantee that your connection will actually meet the speeds they advertise. At the very least that is pretty misleading to people, since I can tell you our connection has -never- come close to what they advertised as their 'up to' speed.

    This is what I think people mean when they say that traffic will be prioritized, as the network can only 'carry' x amount of traffic at a time and what it amounted to with netflix on your 'road' anaology is Netflix demands (as a part of it's very nature) more and more of the 'fast' lane on said road forcing everyone else onto the shoulder. So yes, if it's a problem with the ComCast network (and they are indeed shady from everything I've heard) than that is a problem for the FTC not the FCC.

  • BYODB||

    And the reason for that is because it's an issue with ComCast lying to their customers and then blaming NetFlix and their own customers.

    The rules from the FCC were bad rules, end of story, because it would mean everyone would have a slower connection overnight if anyone wanted to still use NetFlix. Email, as an example, should not have the same network priority as HD video. That's insane.

    The FTC is simply a better fit in regulatory terms if ComCast is bilking their customers and making false advertisements in my view.

  • SomeGuy||

    100% agree the application that government tried to do with net neutrality with archaic laws was beyond retarded.

    Additionally it isn't just netflix. You have Steam, GOG, Origin, Dropbox, pornhub, and so on.

    You want an ISP to play favorites? Force Netflix to pay 10x more while hulu which is partially own by comcast gets cheaper prices?

    Letting monopolies play favorites is dangerous. What if comcast hates reason and just blocks it? What if Comcast blocks VPNs in an order to colludes with Federal government to block peoples privacy? or blocks or fucks with TOR/Tails?

    Your giving them so much power to abuse....its idiotic.

    Also here is a good page on Comcast provisional speeds.

    https://tinyurl.com/mlrxl7k

    You can pay 50 more dollars to get unlimited internet verse having the 1TB data cap. You can also get business cable with better up time and shorter outages and no data cap and some other perks that are good/bad in terms of net neutrality.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Force Netflix to pay 10x more while hulu which is partially own by comcast gets cheaper prices?

    Someone doesn't appear to realize that Netflix is being offered by Comcast through their X1 package. If Netflix thought they were getting a raw deal from Comcast, why would they ever agree to allow this?

  • DarrenM||

    I think we'll reach improved internet reach faster without "net neutrality". This is really what the focus should be. Improved coverage and quality. If the hypotheticals used a justifications for net neutrality do appear, these can be addressed at that time. It's always better to leave well enough alone if there is no problem. It would be foolish to trust politicians to honestly consider secondary and tertiary effects of their preferred policies, assuming they could even be bothered to think on it that deeply.

  • SomeGuy||

    not even close. No where in history has businesses shown consistently and regularly that extra money ever goes to the consumer or gets reinvested. That is the opposite of the core concept of a business.

    Also this further hurts competition because it allows powerful networks to use unethical business practices to force a high barrier of entry and can now allow larger companies to force smaller ones out.

    Genius!

    You need a history lesson in business history and anti competitive practices.

  • Robbzilla||

    "No where in history has businesses shown consistently and regularly that extra money ever goes to the consumer or gets reinvested."

    ...except, of course, in the Internet ISP industry, where they've invested 1.4 trillion (Private investment) over the last 20 years.

    Oops. Guess someone didn't do their homework, did they? Any other patently false statements you'd like to blather out? I mean, you're on SUCH a roll here!

  • SomeGuy||

    none. Comcast/Verzion have many times recieved billions from government and never developed the network they claimed they would with tax payer money.

    Additionally, their profit margins are massive yet service is shit.

    Totally, reinvesting.

  • creefer||

    Average 4.5 profit margin over the last 5 years. Yeah, they're just tearing it up.

  • SomeGuy||

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    I dont understand how this is so complicated to the average reason poster but maybe they fail to understand how the internet works and are not tech savvy.

    ::Goes on to demonstrate a lack of knowledge about how the internet works::

    Comcast is responsible for providing me according to my contract X level of service.

    Apparently you're too stupid to understand that data will always be prioritized.

    They have offed 50/50 and 100/100Mbps FTTP since 2000s at like 90 dollars a month.

    Newsflash, dipshit--they prioritize data, too. That's how data transport works.

  • SomeGuy||

    QoS is not the same thing as what Comcast was doing. No other decent ISP has this issue because they manage their shit correctly and charge the subscriber the correct pricing.

    Where was my lack of understanding. I even provided a basic break down of how cable intertner works.

    Your just making shit up as you go....aka a troll

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    No other decent ISP has this issue because they manage their shit correctly and charge the subscriber the correct pricing.

    "It's the correct pricing because I say it is!!"

    Where was my lack of understanding. I even provided a basic break down of how cable intertner works.

    Yet you seem to have no understanding at all of how data transport works. "MUH 100 MB/SECOND!!" you screech, not realizing that no carrier is going to provide you with that at all times--even the ones you say are "managing their shit correctly."

  • SomeGuy||

    with proper over provisioning yes they can. How do DCs offer 1Gbps unmetered with no bottleneck? Because they over provision properly and charge the correct pricing for that level of service.

    Additionally, the issue is at peering ports which is not even the last mile or last node. This is at the major interconnects between other internet networks like level3, sprint, comcast, verizon, cogent.

    This is the last fucking place a bottleneck should ever happen and if it does....its a shitty managed network.

    This is a bottleck at the heart of the internet and not the last mile. That is laughable.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    How do DCs offer 1Gbps unmetered with no bottleneck? Because they over provision properly and charge the correct pricing for that level of service

    It's not a "bottleneck," it's packets being prioritized so the person NOT using Netflix can have their internet access operate at a level of speed that isn't throttled by millions of Netflix users. That's something that's ALWAYS happened and continues to happen--even by ISPs you claim are "managing their network properly." You're actually stupid enough to believe that when you sign up for 100 MB/sec, that you're going to get that at all times. And that's because you don't have a fucking clue how data transport works or how its delivery is actually managed.

  • SomeGuy||

    your trolling is laughably terrible.

    You spew the same 3 lines over and over like a politician.

    You have yet to post 1 meaningful post.

    throttling only happens if there is a bottleneck (why throttle than?)...and if there isn't one than your saying comcast is guilty of blatant extortion lol.

    But I am done responding to a troll. Let me know when you have something of value to add.

    Comcast subscriber is requesting the data plain and simple. The only party responsible is the Comcast subscriber for comcast peering port.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    You spew the same 3 lines over and over like a politician.

    Maybe the reality that all data packets are prioritized regardless of the ISP will sink into your brain, then.

    throttling only happens if there is a bottleneck (why throttle than?)...

    That "throttling" is normal data packet management, because BANDWIDTH ON THE NETWORK IS LIMITED, you dumbass. Why should I have my internet service fucked up by millions of Netflix users dominating bandwidth demand?

  • SomeGuy||

    QoS is perfectly acceptable in net neutrality. Forcing Netflix to pay for what a Comcast subscriber should be paying for is ridiculous.

    A Peering Port being a bottleneck is laughable. Anyone who knows anything about the internet would laugh at such an idea and blame it on netflix and say netflix should have to pay for data requested from a comcast subscriber.

    I know how the interent works but basic logic clearly escapes you. Netflix pays for level3 end of the road while comcast customer pays comcast for their end. If comcast peering site is bottlenecked because comcast subcribers are requesting too much data thats comcast/comcast subscribers problem to fix and not netflix.

  • Mr. Dyslexic||

    ( * )

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And zero rating is illegal under net neutrality. So explain in libertarian terms why vertical integration is something that the government needs to outlaw. This should be good.

  • SomeGuy||

    vertical integration??? how is this relevant? I never mentioned that.

    Zero rating is not against net neutrality. Maybe it is against the bastardization that FCC was trying to do. FCC making internet a utility is beyond stupid.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Before Pai became head the FCC sure as shit was headed towards cracking down on zero rating. I don't give a damn what your fever dreams tell you what you think "Net Neutrality" should mean when we've had ample history and recent progressive government power grabs over "Neutral" "Consumer-Friendly" laws.

  • SomeGuy||

    This statement is irrelevant. I already stated what the FCC did was stupid and has nothing to do with neutrality.

  • SomeGuy||

    At the same time we have plenty of history showing that monopolies are bad and will extort consumers.

    It is called human nature and that is why a balanced approach of checks and balances are needed.

    Whats the difference from government and market or any other human entities? Nothing. They all have humans in it and humans do what humans do. It is about limiting their powers so they can't abuse them.

    Governments can abuse power and so can companies and individuals. A libertarian should know human nature is shitty and you need a balanced approach to limit power. This doesn't just applie to governments...it also applies to any human entity.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    "with proper over provisioning yes they can."

    Holy fuck, that is about the DUMBEST statement anyone can make trying to argue about a shared bus/service. Virtually every service is overSUBSCRIBED because that is the most cost effective deployment of capital. The POTS was oversubscribed 30:1 because only about 3% of the customer base will be using the lines at any given time. Even fucking Netflix is oversubscribed on its content delivery. There is simply no way they have enough low latency storage to guarantee every single one of their streaming titles is available to every single customer simultaneously. That would require a ridiculous amount of trapped by still depreciating assets.

  • SomeGuy||

    WTF are you on? Everyone does over provisioning and plenty of companies offer enough headroom for all traffic to travel just fine. No decent DC has bandwidth congestion because people pay a fair price and it is managed well.

    Again this bottleneck was not at a node or a CO...it was at a peer port showing how overloaded comcast peer port is. This is where Comcast connects to other networks like Sprint, Level3, Surewest, Cogent, and more.

    Peer port should be the last thing to ever be bottlenecked.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Keep compounding the stupidity. It helps. Really.

    Communications Access Networks (Last-mile)

    In a communications system in which multiple users share a common resource, oversubscription refers to the ratio of the allocated bandwidth per user to the guaranteed bandwidth per user. Underlying the oversubscription model is the fact that statistically few users will attempt to utilize their allocated bandwidth simultaneously. Calculation and management of oversubscription ratios is common in the CATV industry.[14][15][16]

    In a cable network utilizing DOCSIS 1.1, for example, the full 38 Mbit/s download bandwidth [17] is typically shared by some 500 subscribers,[18] each of which may be allocated 7 Mbit/s.[19] Calculating the guaranteed bandwidth per subscriber in this case is accomplished by dividing the maximum total bandwidth of 38 Mbit/s by 500, the maximum number of simultaneous users. The advertised peak bandwidth per user of 7 Mbit/s is 92 times the guaranteed bandwidth per user of 0.076 Mbit/s. In this example, the download oversubscription ratio is 92:1.
  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    (cont.)

    Oversubscription is not the same as overselling, provided that the oversubscription ratio, for a given number of subscribers traffic, which is multiplexed over time, does not significantly impact performance. A significant impact to performance might be one in which the performance of the oversubscribed portion of the network is less than that of the end to end service that the subscriber is using. In other words, oversubscription works because not everyone uses it at the same time. Oversubscription is the basis for all non-dedicated telecommunications services. Even if a subscriber had a dedicated access network, that network is still oversubscribed against many others with respect to Internet access for example. The same is true in telephony and in wireless.

    It is not economically practical, environmentally reasonable, or technically feasible to provide dedicated access for every service to every customer. A well-engineered oversubscribed service appears to function as a dedicated service to a subscriber.

  • SomeGuy||

    You are failing to understand and posting irrelevant material.

    There are several types of over provisioning. 1: where you are putting 3:1 on a node. Putting 3 per per 1 bandwidth.

    2: Claiming an internet speed is 150Mbps while it is 180Mbps. Comcast does this for their lines.

    3: putting 30% more BW on a node than is normally used

    It sounds like comcast ran its Peer ports at 100% which any good company does not do that.

    Data Center have far more BW than 30% extra. I would Peer Ports would be similar considering the size of the port.

    Before you stay saying people are dumb maybe you should know what your talking about.

    I don't have the material on hand anymore but DC post the amount of total BW they have and the amount used if you want to google it.

  • SomeGuy||

    those 3 are not the only way that term can be applied and 1: is over subscribing but over provisioning refers to ensuring the node has more BW than it will ever realistically use. (assuming no botnets or DOS/DDOSing

  • SomeGuy||

    The bolded part is what i am talking about. Good ISPs over provision nodes to never bottleneck, which comcast was failing to do because it was being shitty.

  • SomeGuy||

    to break this down.

    A node has:
    3000 subscribers
    it has space for:
    500 subscribers
    :it has enough bandwidth for
    300 subscribers on a normal basic
    It at peak use of:
    400 subscribers

    It is Over provisioned by 25% so realistically it will never be bottlenecked.

    It sounds like comcast was running at 100% because it was being cheap and a POS.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    A node has:
    3000 subscribers
    it has space for:
    500 subscribers
    :it has enough bandwidth for
    300 subscribers on a normal basic
    It at peak use of:
    400 subscribers

    Why are you assuming that all those subscribers are imposing the same individual bandwidth demands on the network at any given time?

  • SomeGuy||

    You missed the point. It is a simple example showing that

    3000 subscribers

    normally use 384MBps total on average

    on a node that has 828MBps peak BW

    with subscriers peak usage of 682MBps.

    which results in 53.6% over provisioning on average load
    and
    17.5% over provisioning on peak load.
    Is that better?

    This results in no bottleneck unless there is oddly high usage or another part of the network goes down and that node acts as fail over for another node or there is some massive bot net DDOS.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    3000 subscribers
    normally use 384MBps total on average
    on a node that has 828MBps peak BW
    with subscriers peak usage of 682MBps.
    which results in 53.6% over provisioning on average load
    and
    17.5% over provisioning on peak load.
    Is that better?

    Congratulations on pulling a random set of numbers out of your ass. Doesn't change the fact that data packets always have been and always will be prioritized.

  • SomeGuy||

    notanotherskippy.

    as you bolded:
    A well-engineered oversubscribed service appears to function as a dedicated service to a subscriber.

    This is the issue with Comcast. They are overloading their network by being a poorly managed (or greedy) ISP as i have stated numerous times.

    This is done due to incompetence or being cheap or greedy and in regards to Comcast it was obviously greed.

    1) Level3 offered to upgrade it for free
    2) It is not normal for any ISP to have a bottled peer port
    3) Comcast was rent seeking as it was clearly shown by reports

    Some cheap DCs run at near 100% load because they are value based DCs which is fine because you choose to buy and specifically mail and contract with that DC.

    It is a known choice to rent a line at an overloaded DC. You can simply pay more to go to a more expensive DC that isn;t run so maxed out or has better Tier networks like Level3 instead of cogent.

    You can't choose between 100 ISPs at home and cant choose to have a cheap or expensive network...unless you custom drop fiber.....

  • Brendan||

    "This is the issue with Comcast. They are overloading their network by being a poorly managed (or greedy) ISP as i have stated numerous times."

    No, the traffic was coming from Level 3. They were the ones overloading the network.

    "1) Level3 offered to upgrade it for free"

    How generous of them. But, that's not how paid OR settlement free peering works. There are more costs to paid peering than the basic hardware costs. Settlement free peering still requires equal traffic exchange.

    Level 3 can't play the dummy in this since they had the exact same problem with Cogent, also caused by Netflix.

    Cogent and Level 3 both want paid peering type bandwidth accommodations on a settlement free link. This is unsustainable and unreasonable.

  • SomeGuy||

    reread what i posted because you clearly didn't read it right or are dense.

  • SomeGuy||

    additionally level3 even offered to upgrade it but comcast declined because it was about rent money and milking another company.

  • Brendan||

    So if I offer two SFPs and some patch cables. my ISP should upgrade my connection without charging me?

  • DarrenM||

    Perhaps you should become a consultant for Comcast and inform them that their business model is all wrong and how to do it right. I'm sure you could get a decent fee as a consultant and probably a huge bonus after you've enlightened them as to how to run their business.

  • SomeGuy||

    Maybe you should be intellectually honest and admit that human nature abuses power for personal gain at any cost.

    This will reduce overall competition and that's a bad thing. Monopolies and anti-competitive polices and tactics hurt competition. They don't breed it.

    You obviously want to go back to the days when monopolies had no restrictions and could kill any competition.

  • MarkLastname||

    IOW, you want to socialize the cost of using Netflix across all customers including this of us who don't use Netflix? Got it.

    The reason they charge Netflix and not the customers is because it's Netflix that is imposing the extra cost; effectively they are charging customers who use Netflix an extra fee because Netflix passes the loss on to them.

    And now you're asking me, a person who doesn't subscribe to Netflix, to support a measure that would force the ISP to raise their prices on all customers to cover a cost imposed by some customers? Why? Why would I support that. If I always by my plane tickets months ahead of time for cheap, why would I support a measure to ban price discrimination by airlines so the person who buys a week before the flight pays the same as me?

  • SomeGuy||

    That is factually false and logically flawed.

    Who is requesting netflix data?

    Comcast subcriber!

    Who pays for comcasts network and is a stake holder in ensuring it works?

    Comcast subscriber!

    No way in any shape or form is Netflix responsible here for comcast network.

    You can pay per GB or a simple monthly fee for internet on whatever contract you make with the company.

    I personally will never pay per GB because that is never a fair price (so far for local ISPs). Once ISPs sell internet at a fair per use price i may consider it.

    When I use DCs I pay per 10 or 30TB or per 100Mbps unmetered.

    Current DC I am looking at has a better price for 1Gbps connection with 10 or 30TB of data. This works out to be better than an unmetered 100Mbps line, which is why i go with it.

    You are not under any obligation to choose an ISP that uses any of those methods assuming you have multiple choices.

    Your either completely uninformed or dishonest in your post.

    The issue at hand is ISPs using and abusing their monoply type access and playing favorites.

  • SomeGuy||

    The issue is not netflix. This can happen with any company and the issue isn't even just high bandwidth content.

    If this is allowed you are allowing an ISP to control data and pick winners and losers and use their control to manipulate freedom of information.

    You want ISPs blocking reason, porn, wikipedia, science, religion, or any other kind of content they dont like or charging them 10x the normal fee because they can?

    You want an ISP to charge you 10x for a search engine because they can get away with charging 10 dollar per GB for access to google because you need it but charge only 1GB to access cnn.com

    If you dont have safe guards against that your giving an organization with immense power the ability to abuse it.

    ISPs are know for picking winners and losers and using pricing tactics to extort the shit out of the consumer.

  • Mark22||

    You want ISPs blocking reason, porn, wikipedia, science, religion, or any other kind of content they dont like or charging them 10x the normal fee because they can?

    Yes. There is no money in "blocking content they don't like".

    You, instead, want the government and politicians "blocking reason, porn, wikipedia, science, religion or any other content they don't like"; how do we know? Because they have already said they want to. That is what FCC regulation amounts to.

  • SomeGuy||

    I never said I agreed with FCC ruling. I constantly objected to it. So way to be a dishonest fuck.

  • Brendan||

    Do you understand the ramifications for this sort of thing?

    One ISP collects all the big business and streaming customers, then connects to the ISP with all residential ones and then gets as much bandwidth as they want on the peer links because the residential customers are the ones demanding the data.

    Essentially the big business ISP gets free access to the residential ISP with all internal infrastructure costs covered by the residents.

    If you want low speed/high cost plans, this is how you'll get it.

  • SomeGuy||

    Do you not understand it is the responsibility of the Comcast subscriber for its own network? If comcast subscriber wants to access data on level3 they need to have a network that meets their demand. Comcast network capabilities is comcast subscribers responsibility.

    Netflix is not DOS/DDOSing comcast.

    Can you be any less honest or illogical?

  • Brendan||

    So the answer is Yes, you want the costs to upgrade Comcast's network to handle Netflix traffic socialized across all subscribers and not just the ones who watch Netflix.

    The other streaming companies buy transit directly from Comcast, so the network upgrades are partially funded by them. This is how the internet has always worked.

    Netflix chose (deliberately) to go with cheaper providers who then play the victim when they congest paid peering links and allow settlement free links to seriously imbalance.

  • SomeGuy||

    not even close. This issue isn't limited to netflix so stop pretending it is.

    Internet ISPs can charge anyway they so please. It doesn't have to be socialized. DCs now charge per TB now and its a fair pricing strategy vs back in the 90s/2000s.

    ~150 dollars per 30TB of data last I checked some are more and some are less. It comes down to quality of network.

    a GB only costs about 1 cent in variable costs last I heard. vs Comcast wanting to charge 5 dollars per GB

    Your again blaming netflix for someone else's problem.

    Comcast sends all this data to my house and I have slow wif...booo hooo. Comcast should be forced to pay for my wireless AC and wire my whole house with GbE since it is outdated!

    It is comcasts fault my home network is slow!!!!

    Do you see how stupid your position is?
    My network is my problem
    Comcast network is its stake holders problem
    netlfix network is its own problem.

    If the situation was reverse should comcast be paying netflix because comcast has too many subscribers using netflix vs other ISPs?

    Fuck no because thats stupid.

  • SomeGuy||

    Should I make Comcast pay for my home network?

    You know Comcast should have to wire with Ethernet my entire house....don't they want my business? They are the ones trying to shove all this data into my house! It is their fault!

    Comcast should pay for my home network!

    Do you see how stupid your point is?

  • DarrenM||

    If Comcast thought they could make more money by doing so, yes they would wire your entire house with ethernet.

  • SomeGuy||

    If they wanted to; they could do that of their own free will with no duress but at the same time I should not be allowed to extort them to make them do that.

    What If I owned a bank? I used the bank to threaten comcast financials to force them to build my home network. That is unethical and should not be allowed.

    This is basically what comcast is doing to netflix.

  • SomeGuy||

    your airline analogy is not relevant in any way shape or form here.

  • Mark22||

    SomeGuy: you are both technically and economically illiterate.

  • Finrod||

    You should change your name to DumbGuy or SpamGuy.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    We don't need it, they just want it.

    It's agitprop for government control of the flow of information, just like the Citizens United freakout.

  • generalisimo14||

    Thank you for the clarity.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Oh God no, two private companies working out their problems through negotiation and contracts? Someone get the government to stop this, stat! I shudder to think that Netflix - which has so little funds at its disposal! - was led to contribute to the cost of the infrastructure upon which its entire business model now relies.

  • Robbzilla||

    The problem is obviously not enough government!

  • Herb Brooks||

    Absolutely correct. There is nothing hypothetical going on with this. Furthermore, should we just money control the internet. If we don't address this issue now, and the internet becomes dominated by those who pay for priority access it will be much harder to undo the damage. Wake up people, a pure free market for anything does not work in the long run. Sure, let's go back to the days of the Rockefellers controlling all of the oil and Carnegie controlling all of the steel. Competition is healthy but those in power with the most cash and influence can get the laws passed to allow them to establish monopolies that are not good for anyone.

  • DOOMco||

    I really can't tell if this is sarcasm.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    It hits all the beats I'd play, and even ends warning about the law being used to restrict competition.

  • Mark22||

    It's not sarcasm, it's not funny enough.

    Herb Brooks is either terminally stupid or paid by Soros/Steyer. Take your pick.

  • Robbzilla||

    The two are not mutually exclusive.

  • MarkLastname||

    You mean like Netflix using their money to Lenny for rules that force ISPs to lower their prices, deferring the costs to the those of us who don't use NetFlix?

    Nevermind that google fiber and AT&T entering the market and the increasing ubiquity of wifi have shaken the ISPs' monopolies and, if anything, they're on the verge seeing their market share collapse, not turning into Standard Oil or US Steel.

    Oh and btw, it was global competition that really demolished the great monopolies of old *despite* government attempts to impose rules to protect domestic industries.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Actually google is running screaming from the provider market. Turns out that having to buy and maintain capital is a lot less profitable than charging ad fees for (sorta) indexing the content of others.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Yep. Infrastructure doesn't scale the same way as electrons.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    It's hard to beat a business model where you don't have to pay your suppliers. All you have to do is rationalize away IP.

  • Mark22||

    Turns out that having to buy and maintain capital is a lot less profitable than charging ad fees

    In particular when those ads must be delivered free of charge by ISPs because of net neutrality.

    Make no mistake about it: net neutrality is really about Google and Facebook being able to deliver ads for free and have others pay for the bandwidth.

  • SomeGuy||

    that isn't even close to the issue.

    That has nothing to do with net neutrality. It has to do with anti monopoly practices but keep being dishonest.

  • Robbzilla||

    It's EXACTLY the issue. But thanks for lying some more.

    Oh, and if you want to actually get rid of monopoly, get rid of government control. Monopoly doesn't exist unless government is there to enforce it.

    Wow.... how long have you been hanging out here, and you miss such a basic tenet of libertarianism? You need to go read some Mises or something,

  • Robbzilla||

    It's EXACTLY the issue. But thanks for lying some more.

    Oh, and if you want to actually get rid of monopoly, get rid of government control. Monopoly doesn't exist unless government is there to enforce it.

    Wow.... how long have you been hanging out here, and you miss such a basic tenet of libertarianism? You need to go read some Mises or something,

  • XenoZooValentine||

    "Furthermore, should we just money control the internet."

    Is this a spambot?

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    You really don't know how data transport works, do you?

  • XenoZooValentine||

    Most people don't, and that's what the bastards are counting on.

  • Agammamon||

    Netflix had *to pay Comcast to get Comcast to upgrade its network to handle the Netflix traffic*. So Netflix didn't get to push off all the negative consequences of its high bandwidth requirement onto the ISP while pocketing all the profit - it had to share some.

    So cry me a fucking river. Negative externality existed *and* it was dealt with by the market without government interference and this is your go-to example for why NN is good?

  • Texasmotiv||

    This is exactly how I feel. Who was hurt?

    Comcast gets a better network.
    Netflix gets better experience for customers and therefore more revenue.
    Users have a better Netflix experience.

  • DarrenM||

    Bureaucrats will develop chronic mental issues by being thwarted in their altruistic desires to control the internet. They are only doing it for your own good and you are just a bunch of ungrateful SOBs. Don't you care about those mistreated bureaucrats? What did they ever do to you?

  • BYODB||

    You could always, y'know, wait until the carriers do something before karate-chopping them in the throat. That never seems to occur to some people.

  • Bgoptmst||

    I was listening to a TED talk by Samil Ismail and he was discussing how policy by its nature is defensive and reactive in nautre. He was talking about the FAA and drones, but I think its broadly applicable.

    Not to be a jerk, but we have become a country run by that annoying bossy kid in the 3rd grade that always wanted to be the line leader. You know who I'm talking about ... the smug look ...

  • ColoradoKook||

    Someone's jealous he had to be the caboose.

  • Rich Brown||

    The carriers have *already* "done something" See my comment at: http://reason.com/reasontv/201.....nt_6850956

  • DOOMco||

    oooooooo

  • DOOMco||

    oooooooo

  • Rich Brown||

    Really? Is that the best response you can offer?

    I think you're proving my point.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    In 2016, Netflix found it necessary to create their own speed measurement site to give customers an objective way to find out if their ISP was delivering the rated speed

    That's because you and Netflix' customers are idiots who don't know how data transport works.

  • Mark22||

    1) Back in 2007, BitTorrent transfers were mysteriously being aborted for Comcast customers. EFF report on Comcast affecting BitTorrent: http://bit.ly/2q2umnx

    And was the jackboot of the FCC required to stop this? No. Comcast just stopped when customers complained.

    2) In 2016, Netflix found it necessary to create their own speed measurement site to give customers an objective way to find out if their ISP was delivering the rated speed. https://fast.com

    Well, golly gee, was the FCC required to deal with that? No. Netflix took its case to its customers who pressured their ISPs.

  • SomeGuy||

    and how long did comcast get away with it before it took a massive rally to stop an unethical practice that should have never happened....

    Whats stopping them from doing it again or doing it in a different way?

    Nothing. Yep sounds like the problem was sure solved /sarc

  • Robbzilla||

    And yet, my bittorrent client chugs along nicely today... It's been running great for years now. So I guess it's still working, and you don't know what you're talking about, yet again?

  • SomeGuy||

    using a logical fallacy again...keep it up. Your intellectual dishonest is great

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Dalmia, Chapman and continued allowance of DanO. may be forgiven if you can keep posting Heaton, 2chilli, Remy and Lisheron.

    That is all.

  • ||

    Awwww.

    *pinches DanO's cheek*

  • Microaggressor||

    So, did your AddictionMyth handle really get banned? That's quite the achievement in a place like this. What was it for?

  • XenoZooValentine||

    My guess is he posted so many all caps comments that he tripped the spam filter.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Dang, I'm sure getting under the skin of Hit & Run's Republicans.

    they prefer to be called "conservatives".

  • Mark22||

    Dang, I'm sure getting under the skin of Hit & Run's Republicans.

    Oh, don't flatter yourself. Anybody with half a brain just finds you a funny fool to tease and toy with.

  • Microaggressor||

    I like Heaton. But he didn't make a very persuasive argument, as demonstrated by the stupidity in the YouTube comments. Spend less time defending the imaginary anti-competitive behavior, and spend more time describing the actual effects of enforcing net neutrality - a virtual end to innovation, crippling the expansion of capacity, essentially freezing in time the current technology, which if you look at the past technological trajectory of the Internet, is a really fucking stupid path to go down.

  • ||

    Spend less time defending the imaginary anti-competitive behavior, and spend more time describing the actual effects of enforcing net neutrality - a virtual end to innovation, crippling the expansion of capacity, essentially freezing in time the current technology

    ^ This.

  • Bgoptmst||

    +1

    Also, why is it noble for the government to get involved with how private companies who develop their own infrastructure do business with each other? I could be wrong, but Comcast and Netflix have a mutually beneficial relationship and its in their best interest to provide a superior product to their consumer base.

    Heck, Comcast is a vehicle for me to get Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Do we really need 23 different content providers while children are starving?

  • Agammamon||

    Apparently not as some people are able to operate perfectly fine with fewer.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yes. In fact, I keep hording them. I'm up to 27 now and I am more powerful than ever.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    YouTube comments are always fucking cancer, especially on issues like this.

    It's like a race to the bottom to see who has the worst filter bubble.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    John Oliver, the errant child that continuously disappoints you.

    In other news, this is what happens when crackpot sustainability vegans try to run a company.

    advises the environmentally conscious juicer that empty packs can be shipped, prepaid, to Terracycle—the same entity used by Keurig. For customers in Juicero's native California where the company first launched, Terracycle is headquartered over 2,700 miles away in Trenton, New Jersey. A Terracycle spokesperson confirmed to Gizmodo that consumers send their empty packs to Juicero where bulk shipments of empties are shipped to Trenton, then to a third-party facility for processing—four trips, including the initial purchase. Juicero declined to comment on the environmental impact of this extensive journey.

    "The experts who put this together—because Doug told them that we had to have that for marketing purposes—made it very clear to me and others that, through their research, they'd determined 100 percent that it would leave a much larger carbon footprint to ship these [...] empty juice packs back East," a former operations employee told Gizmodo. Another claimed this conclusion had been reached previously by the company's internal food science team as well as two packaging engineering consultants. The partnership with Terracycle was pursued regardless in the interest of marketing the juice subscription service as more environmentally conscious than it was, these sources allege.
  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • ||

    The third-party facility, of course, is in India.

  • Agammamon||

    Probably its in Africa - where a lot of the EU electronic waste gets shipped, burned in little makeshift ovens where the fumes are breathed in by the people who are taking the stuff apart to get at the valuable materials for resale. Because EU regulations make it too expensive to recycle in a proper plant in Europe.

  • Microaggressor||

    Who gives a shit what the environmental impact is when marketing good feelz is the best way to part idiots from their money?

  • ||

    Well - in theory the customers would be, but these are the same people who buy electric cars and think they're saving the world.

  • Agammamon||

    These are the people who thought it would be worth the money to buy a juicer that is dependent on a single source of *pre-cut* fruit packages to do what takes a whole freaking 5 minutes, tops, to do by hand. Hell, as expensive as ink cartridges are, they still provide several orders of magnitude more value for the dollar than this thing does.

    And that's before you find out that you don't even need the juicer - just squeeze the package itself.

  • Bgoptmst||

    I wont have you mock Wholefoods like this!

    I need free range kale because putting kale in neat rules is just cruel!

  • Sevo||

    "The partnership with Terracycle was pursued regardless in the interest of marketing the juice subscription service as more environmentally conscious than it was, these sources allege."

    There is no lack of hypocrisy among LIVE vegans; they're the ones eating animal protein extract (carefully labeled to conceal that fact).
    So if you're peddling to hypocrites, why not be a hypocrite yourself?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Militant vegans are just awesome, thoughtful people.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Fuck off, troll.

  • Tak Kak||

    The awfulness of that video convinced me that Net Neutrality is preferable... whatever it is. Get better writers, please.

  • Crusty Juggler aka "Chad"||

    What was wrong with it? You are pro-witches? Pro-4chan?

  • Crusty Juggler aka "Chad"||

    I enjoyed the video, however Heaton is far too dapper to be anything close to a libertarian, so let me be the first to state that he is making these videos just to get noticed by the big wigs over at WaPo and MSNBC.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    Obviously part of the cosmospiracy.

    Which I just realized looks like cosmos piracy.

    Conclusion: The Reason staff are secretly space pirates.

  • Crusty Juggler aka "Chad"||

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    One has to be a really pathetic piece of shit to suck up to WaPo, or MSNBC.

  • Jerryskids||

    We don't know how the internet is going to evolve over time, but neither do the government administrators trying to rein it in. But given the record of free-market innovation vs. government-regulated services, the odds are with market forces and entrepreneurs.

    That's the argument that some people scoff at as "libertarians are anarchists who believe the government is the root of all evil". Just playing the odds, it's a better bet that the free market* will come up with better solutions than government can. Not that the free market is going to magically solve all problems - many problems are zero-sum conflicts where it's simply not possible to make everybody happy. But it's generally cheaper and simpler and produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

    * BTW - you dumb fucks need to stop calling it "the free market". Call it "crowd-sourcing resource distribution" and it'll sell much better.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Crowd sourced sharing.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Progessives are generally suspicious of complex systems existing without powerful regulators present and accounted for. Small-government folks are repulsed by bureaucrats in general, and think the internet will fair better in a state of benign neglect.

    I would not call those descriptions unfare.

  • MarkLastname||

    Nor wood Aye.

  • DenverJ||

    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
    Are you this stupid in real life?

  • Mark22||

    Yes, DanO., HILLARY WILL STILL WIN! Just keep praying to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny!

  • MarkLastname||

    I hear some movie theaters actually enforce their bans on bringing outside food into the theater. Better make those a public utility too.

  • Rich Brown||

    I'm sorry to harsh your (pretty funny, if wildly inaccurate) video:

    > The main documented instance of an ISP favoring one content provider over others...

    Regrettably, this is simply false. ISPs *have* favored (or dis-favored) content of one kind or another:

    1) Back in 2007, BitTorrent transfers were mysteriously being aborted for Comcast customers. EFF report on Comcast affecting BitTorrent: http://bit.ly/2q2umnx

    2) In 2016, Netflix found it necessary to create their own speed measurement site to give customers an objective way to find out if their ISP was delivering the rated speed. https://fast.com

    Nothing hypothetical in either of these cases...

    re: Freeing up ISPs to innovate. The major innovation that I have seen is that ISPs lobbied Trump/Congress/FCC to overturn a (good) Obama-era regulation that prevented them from selling your data without your permission. (I don't imagine that any constituents marched into their congressman's office demanding to let their data be sold...)

    Finally, I have to say to all internet providers: "It must be nice to have a monopoly..." Outside dense urban areas, it is rare to find any competition between ISP. And in many states, the communications providers have lobbied legislatures to prohibit local bonding to fund locally-owned network infrastructure. In the rural states, this further cripples people's ability to create new jobs and find educational capabilities.

  • DOOMco||

    Finally, I have to say to all internet providers: "It must be nice to have a monopoly..." Outside dense urban areas, it is rare to find any competition between ISP. And in many states, the communications providers have lobbied legislatures to prohibit local bonding to fund locally-owned network infrastructure. In the rural states, this further cripples people's ability to create new jobs and find educational capabilities

    this is a lie.

  • Rich Brown||

    > this is a lie

    Citation?

    I have personal knowledge of the the condition of ISPs in both NH and VT, both extremely rural states. The competition's just not there (there isn't even Comcast or other cable provider in our small town.) Furthermore, in NH, towns are prohibited from bonding a network infrastructure project.

  • DOOMco||

    there's always satellite. My house in VT had 2 providers, before going to that option.
    my town was less than 6k.
    Mono means one.

  • DOOMco||

  • DOOMco||

    My home town is now at 4 providers. before sat.

  • Sevo||

    "Furthermore, in NH, towns are prohibited from bonding a network infrastructure project."

    Gee, I wonder who "prohibited' that action? Hmmm; must be those evul korpurashuns!!!!!

  • DOOMco||

    OOH, OOH!
    I know!
    KOCHS!

  • XenoZooValentine||

    Show me on the doll where the Kochopus touched you.

  • DOOMco||

    a state sanctioned monopoly will never be supported by libertarians.

  • Sevo||

    Rich Brown|5.19.17 @ 8:32PM|#
    1) Back in 2007, BitTorrent transfers were mysteriously being aborted for Comcast customers. EFF report on Comcast affecting BitTorrent: http://bit.ly/2q2umnx
    2) In 2016, Netflix found it necessary to create their own speed measurement site to give customers an objective way to find out if their ISP was delivering the rated speed. https://fast.com
    Nothing hypothetical in either of these cases..."
    My goodness! Look at that innuendo, would you? "Mysteriously being aborted"! And some other company offering an app to see whether you're getting the delivery rate clearly stated to all who can read as "Up To".
    You wish they are as good as "hypothetical'; they're irrelevant bullshit.

  • Sevo||

    Cont'd.
    "re: Freeing up ISPs to innovate. The major innovation that I have seen is that ISPs lobbied Trump/Congress/FCC to overturn a (good) Obama-era regulation that prevented them from selling your data without your permission. (I don't imagine that any constituents marched into their congressman's office demanding to let their data be sold...)"
    It's always amusing watching lefties claim a law will do what the title says; "Affordable Care" anyone? While at the same time ignoring the costs of implementing such crap.
    And what a 'clever' way to packing bullshit; "Innovation"!

    "Finally, I have to say to all internet providers: "It must be nice to have a monopoly..."
    You should talk to the people who granted that monopoly. The same people you now hope will save you from your ignorant choices: THE GOVERNMENT!
    Growing up and taking some responsibility for your actions might help, but then you're a lefty, so it's too much to ask.

  • Brendan||

    BitTorrent is actually hard on a network. The massive number of connections and small transfers can be become a significant burden on DOCSIS (cable modem) networks.

    Netflix chose to use ISPs that abused peering agreements, leading to congestion between Cogent (Netflix ISP) and pretty much every other major ISP - Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Level 3, Comcast, etc. all had problems with Cogent.

    The only way that throttling would be tolerated without a lawsuit would be if Cogent were abusing a settlement free peering agreement by sending more traffic towards their peer than the received. Throttling a paying customer or paying peer would be a contractual or fair trade violation risking a lawsuit.

    Strange that Hulu, Amazon, Youtube, etc. didn't have this problem, just Netflix.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You are correct, Rich.

    "Libertarians" who support cartels are called conservatives.

  • DOOMco||

    I support no cartel.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    What is wrong with competition provided by an Open Internet?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You'd have to ask Barry and Wheeler that question.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Medicare for all.

  • DOOMco||

    that's different!
    government is perfect and beautiful!
    we have president Tr- fuck. hitler. we have to make sure the government doesn't kill all the women and children now.
    #deathpanels2.0

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Medicare for all.

    A horrible idea as well.

    A Closed Internet favored by conservatives is akin to Medicare for All.

  • DOOMco||

    define open and closed.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So an unfettered market is closed and supposedly conservatives are for cartels such as Medicare for all.

    Makes sense.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    An unfettered market is when every packet I request has equal treatment.

    Really, I hope AT&T buys Time Warner Cable and CNN then blocks the fucking Fox News sites.

    Nahh - I really don't.

  • DOOMco||

    have fun with slow internet, then.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Really? So basically price controls are an open market. Makes sense.

  • Sevo||

    "Makes sense."

    You have to make allowances for turd.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    An unfettered market is when every packet I request has equal treatment.

    Of all the dumb responses at your disposal, you chose what is arguably the dumbest. Impressive.

  • Sevo||

    "Of all the dumb responses at your disposal, you chose what is arguably the dumbest. Impressive."

    OK, it's the dumbest one available here, but it doesn't hold a candle to turd-all-time-dumb. I mean, this jack-off has hot lows that are hard to imagine!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I pay for internet access, you moron.

    I don't pay for Charter/Comcast/AT&T to direct me to their sponsors.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The fact that my tax dollars pay for your welfare check means that you don't pay for anything.

  • ||

    An unfettered market is when every packet I request has equal treatment.

    An unfettered market is when every package I order has equal treatment, whether that package is a refrigerator or a comic book.

    And by equal treatment I mean equal ship time.

    There oughtta be a law.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|5.19.17 @ 9:33PM|#
    "An unfettered market is when every packet I request has equal treatment."

    This is copied and pasted; I did not alter this 'answer' in any way at all.
    Turd believes an "unfettered" market will deliver a new Ferrari at the same cost as that broken-down Crown Vic he's driving.
    And the government fixing prices at the point of a gun is not "fettering' the market at all. Nope! The imbecile from Cow's Belly GA has spoken!

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    An unfettered market is when every packet I request has equal treatment.

    Your knowledge of data transport appears to equal your ability to pay bets you lose.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Sure you do PB. It's your inner totalitarian. The loathsome thing inside you that is in place of the souls that inhabit humans.

  • MarkLastname||

    So get rid of the state sanctioned monopolies... or do you need those government regulations to justify more government regulations?

    But no, you're right, nothing opens up a market like price controls.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    How DARE they interfere with the bondageing of local municipalities. I mean, just look at all of the success!

    In Provo, Utah, for example, local taxpayers spent $40 million on a fiber optic experiment called iProvo that quickly began hemorrhaging money. After a $5.35 monthly tax on residents' electric bills failed to bail out the disastrous broadband project, city officials were forced to sell the network for $1.

    Federal and local taxpayers spent more than half-a-billion dollars to build the infrastructure for the city-owned internet, telephone and cable television business in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Despite this enormous cost, promises the network would create thousands of new jobs and revitalize the city's economy never panned out.

    City leaders in Burlington, Vermont, spent $33.5 million to build a municipal broadband network. Lower than anticipated subscriber numbers forced officials to borrow an additional $17 million to keep the network afloat, causing Moody's to downgrade the city's credit rating six levels – to the edge of junk bond status. The system was ultimately handed over to a private company.

    Which state did you mention again...?

  • DOOMco||

    Oops.

  • Sevo||

    "City leaders in Burlington, Vermont, spent $33.5 million to build a municipal broadband network. [...] The system was ultimately handed over to a private company."

    Hey, at least Provo got a buck!

  • DOOMco||

    For Vermont's next act, Universal Healthcare!
    wait, that didn't work either.

  • DarrenM||

    Spending money to "create new jobs" is a myth. Any money spent "creating" one job is money that is NOT spent creating another. This is just diverting taxpayer money to one type of job over another. It's better to leave it in the hands of taxpayers.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I was already convinced that net neutrality is a front for BitTorrent piracy. Now you have proven it.

  • Agammamon||

    I live in a county bigger than most states on the East Coast that contains a whole 200,000 people. My town had less than 15,000 in it. Yo'd have to work hard to find a less dense rural area in the United States

    And we're served by at least a half-dozen cable ISPs and who knows how many satellite ones.

  • Mark22||

    Finally, I have to say to all internet providers: "It must be nice to have a monopoly..."

    Well, if you ensure (via FCC regulation and net neutrality) that Internet service is interchangeable, having only one provider within each market is the natural result.

    You don't like monopolies? Stop f*cking with markets.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    If ISPs willingly cooperate with an Open Internet why are wingnuts feverishly rushing to some blockage of internet sites?

    It is simple question.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Put more eloquently, why have a law that allows Comcast to block Netflix in favor of their movies?

    Really, open systems are better than closed ones.

  • MarkLastname||

    God you're dumb. You're the one who wants a law restricting how ISPs can price their services via *their* property, according to what some bureaucrat determines is fair.

    Imposing restrictions on the kind of service businesses can provide and what they can charge is not *opening* the market. But that is some Olympic quality mental gymnastics you demonstrate to convince yourself if that.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|5.19.17 @ 9:07PM|#
    "If ISPs willingly cooperate with an Open Internet why are wingnuts feverishly rushing to some blockage of internet sites?"

    Are those voices in your head beginning to get louder than the ones others hear?

  • XenoZooValentine||

    It's just more projection.

    The downward spiral of progs losing their grip on power is heartbreaking to watch.

  • Mark22||

    The downward spiral of progs losing their grip on power is heartbreaking to watch.

    That's sarcasm, I hope.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    I don't think anyone here has defined what Net Neutrality is.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Hey, when have conservatives ever understood anything?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    This is what happens when you don't vaccinate, kids. You don't want to grow up to be this stunted thing, do you?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Toby Keith to Subject Saudi Arabia to an All-Male 'Welcome Trump' Concert

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....mp-concert

    How fucking faggy is this shit? Trump, Toby Keith, and 50,000 camel fuckers alone together.

  • DOOMco||

    this seems homophobic.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I wouldn't want to be there. If that is homophobic I don't fucking care. I fucking hate Islam/conservatism and the very idea of that concert makes me want to drink heavily.

    What do you think I am, a SJW? I hate lots of groups of people.

  • DOOMco||

    not wanting to be there doesn't make you a homophobe.
    calling that concert faggy does.

  • DenverJ||

    No, calling himself Palin's Buttplug does.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    And misogynist, if we're going to go there.

    But he's "punching up" or something, so somehow it's OK.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    So I am a homophobe then?

    I don't care, snowflake.

  • DOOMco||

    I hate lots of groups of people.


    Maybe a bigot, too?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    A Maher Leftie. They're allowed to be actual misogynists and critical of muslims because they still maintain the catechism of redistribution.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Hey thanks. Maher is on now HBO 10 pm. Fucking dope smoking anti-war anarchist that he is.

  • ||

    Maybe a bigot, too?

    The term "camelfucker" has been known to offend certain Arabs. And Persians.

  • MarkLastname||

    But he's flip his shit and call you a racist if you criticize Obama's stimulus package.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    All progtards are vicious bigots.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|5.19.17 @ 9:51PM|#
    "So I am a homophobe then?"

    Who cares? You're a fucking lefty ignoramus.
    Go fuck your daddy.

  • Mark22||

    Just like Hillary then: friend to the LGBT community only when she wants our money and our votes.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Of course you do. Like every progtard, you are a vicious racist deep down.

  • Mark22||

    Sounds camelophobic to me.

  • DenverJ||

    My favorite part is how net neutrality was considered by Congress, then voted down because that's what the Congress critters' constituents wanted, so the Obama administration ordered the FCC to do it anyway.

  • DOOMco||

    It's like when you were a kid and dad said no, so you ask mom.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    "The people have spoken! Oh shit, they disagreed with us? Well, I have a pen and phone..."

  • GruffaloCrumble||

    Anyone who doesn't support net Neutrality doesn't know much about how the internet works, or the history of the network.
    The fact is, corporations have grown large enough where they exert undue influence on both individuals and Governments, and we need laws to protect us not just from abusive Governments, but also abusive companies and corporations.
    THAT is what the constitution is about, protecting the freedom of the people - not enshrining the rights of corporations over individuals.
    You can piss all day about who said what, but at the end of the day - ask yourself if you don't deserve whatever content you want, at the speed you're paying for it, unfiltered and not being cataloged so corporations can sell you more junk you don't need.

  • DOOMco||

    Crony capitalism =/= capitalism.
    what's the difference between the government and a CORPORATION?

  • DenverJ||

    All for free!!! The IPOs don't need to add infrastructure to meet increased demand, we can all just love on 1990's speeds!
    Whee, free and fast, the way good intended!!!!
    Moron.

  • DOOMco||

    Can you believe I have to pay more for Amazon to overnight my stuff??!
    Prime +free overnight for all!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Conservatives secretly want conservative ISPs to block Google, Disney, ESPN, CNN, NY Times, WaPost and other "lefty" sites.

  • DOOMco||

    do they, though?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Not taking is giving. Not giving is taking. Not regulating is restricting. Regulating is freeing. What don't you understand?

  • DOOMco||

    English, apparently.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    do they, though?

    Not yet. Again, a closed internet is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

    so why push for a closed internet?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Closed is open. Open is closed. Chains are our only freedom. How many lights are there again?

  • Brendan||

    What lights?

  • DOOMco||

    Where the fuck do you think what I want is a closed internet

  • XenoZooValentine||

    He's been arguing with the imaginary libertarians in his head again.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Look, freedom and responsiveness aren't something that happens in the free market where both sides have to agree to each and every exchange. The only way to be truly free is to make a choice of representatives every 2-6 years--well it's a collective choice and not necessarily YOUR choice, but, um, omelettes or something--who in turn will choose for you other regulators and laws with typically no end date and no escape clause except for some ephemeral hope of a future elected representative stumbling into the correct choice eventually. Now that, THAT, is freedom.

    Wake up, sheeple!

  • DOOMco||

    if we don't make a law, coporations RIGHTS will be ENSHRINED!

  • Sevo||

    GruffaloCrumble|5.19.17 @ 9:39PM|#
    "Anyone who doesn't support net Neutrality doesn't know much about how the internet works, or the history of the network."

    One more imbecile showing up to prove his/her total ignorance of government and market.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    One more imbecile showing up to prove his/her total ignorance of government and market.

    Thanks for announcing your arrival. You saved me the trouble.

  • Sevo||

    Oh! Oh! Look!
    Turd tries a funny!
    (and fails)
    Go fuck your daddy.

  • Sevo||

    "I see a pattern here. Eww."

    You should read more and post less; turd's admitted his 'daddy issues' many times. His daddy doesn't seem to like him.
    Along with the rest of the world.
    Oh, and I see a pattern: Lefty imbeciles posting bullshit

  • Finrod||

    Since when do lefty imbeciles post anything other than bullshit?

  • Sevo||

    OK, this has got to be sarc:

    GruffaloCrumble|5.19.17 @ 9:39PM|#
    "...ask yourself if you don't deserve whatever content you want, at the speed you're paying for it,..."

    Or you could ask yourself if you really don't 'deserve' that '60s V-12 Ferrari for what you're paying for that clacking 4-cylinder Hyundai, right?

  • DenverJ||

    Hey! I had a Hyundai (2005 model still had 6 cylinders), and I loved it.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Anyone who doesn't support net Neutrality doesn't know much about how the internet works, or the history of the network.
    ::Proceeds to demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge about how data transport works::

  • Jerryskids||

    It seems remarkable - as in, worth noting - that this is an internet video of a guy criticizing the net neutrality views of a guy who's appearing on a cable TV show. A guy who's getting a big fat paycheck from a corporation for his cable TV show, no less. Wait, a British guy who gets a big fat paycheck from a American corporation to appear on an American cable TV program talking shit about the American internet (and America in general). I've heard England uses some sort of government licensing scheme for their TV - how come John Oliver's not over there in England enjoying his government-regulated paradise?

  • XenoZooValentine||

    Hey, he's just a comedian! If you don't like him lying about you and/or things you care about, then you just have no sense of humor!

  • Sevo||

    "I've heard England uses some sort of government licensing scheme for their TV"

    "In the United Kingdom and the Crown dependencies, any household watching or recording live television transmissions as they are being broadcast (terrestrial, satellite, cable, or internet) is required to hold a television licence. Businesses, hospitals, schools and a range of other organisations are also required to hold television licences to watch and record live TV broadcasts.[1] A television licence is also required to receive on-demand programme services provided by the BBC, on the iPlayer catch-up service."
    Wiki.

    Now, I was told by a slimy statist apologist not long ago that no one in the UK objects to this fee, since they all agree it gives them 'quality' (government controlled) programming.
    Strangely enough, when asked if it was so popular, why did it have to be enforced at gun point, I got turd-like bullshit.

  • DOOMco||

    Ideas so good they have to be mandatory

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    How can you argue with quality tele?

  • ||

    Yeah - I spent a week in England once and flipped on the TV more than once to the stuff they don't export on BBC America.

    I watched an hour long show where English farmers rolled big logs of cheese down a hill because it was the best thing on.

  • Sevo||

    "I watched an hour long show where English farmers rolled big logs of cheese down a hill because it was the best thing on."

    I caught Charles Barkley commenting on a golf game. He took a look at what one golfer was wearing and said something like: 'imagine how ugly the other clothes in his closet if he chose to wear THIS!'

  • XenoZooValentine||

    "Anyone who doesn't support net Neutrality doesn't know much about how the internet works, or the history of the network."

    I love how every drive-by troll so far has demonstrated the opposite.

    It's like how every troll on the education articles is illiterate.

  • DOOMco||

    school choice is the evul!
    because choices are bad if they are the wrong ones.
    Why am I right? Well, because youre stupid, you stupid stupid.
    HA! look at me kill these dumbass republicans arguments!
    *pigeon strut*

  • XenoZooValentine||

    Maybe it's like four-dimensional pigeon chess and I'm too educated stupid to understand it.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The key is not to realize that there is no spoon. The key is to realize that the spoon is for the pigeon poop.

  • DenverJ||

    "Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pidgeon: no matter how much you beat them, they still strut around and shit all over the board "

  • Sevo||

    Rich Brown|5.19.17 @ 8:32PM|#
    "I'm sorry to harsh your (pretty funny, if wildly inaccurate) video:"

    I'm not sorry to call you on your lies and bullshit.
    You were asked specific questions and offered specific criticisms of your claims. Now prove you're not just one more lefty imbecile and answer some of them.
    Or admit you're a lefty imbecile, Rich.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    The best part is anybody complaining about a "pretty funny, if wildly inaccurate video" while siding with John Oliver.

  • MarkLastname||

    Are you suggesting John Oliver is funny? Ew.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Progtards confuse smug with funny.

  • Sevo||

    OT:
    Oh! Oh! News flash!:
    "First on CNN: Russian officials bragged they could use Flynn to influence Trump, sources say"
    "Washington (CNN)Russian officials bragged in conversations during the presidential campaign that they had cultivated a strong relationship with former Trump adviser retired Gen. Michael Flynn and believed they could use him to influence Donald Trump and his team, sources told CNN.
    The conversations deeply concerned US intelligence officials, some of whom acted on their own to limit how much sensitive information they shared with Flynn, who was tapped to become Trump's national security adviser, current and former governments officials said."
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/19/.....index.html

    I'm sure that DanO and other lefty idiots will find some reason to blame Trump for this rather than the FBI which decided to act as a 'government in exile'.
    It 'deeply concerns' me that the FBI appointed themselves as keeper of the flame.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    More like keepers of the diaper rash.

    A lot of powercreeps are still butthurt that they didn't get the boss they wanted.

  • Sevo||

    DanO excuse:
    "I have criticized Trump,
    therefor I am a "lefty."
    Servo logic."

    No, DanO you're a fucking lefty imbecile, therefore you're a lefty and an imbecile besides.
    You lost, loser, get over it.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    "First on CNN: Russian officials bragged they could use Flynn to influence Trump, sources say"

    So, they're in like Flynn?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I see what you did there.

  • earthandweather||

    There is a strong market protection that never seems to be discussed - The customer buys internet service. My contract with Comcast grants me a certain speed with no mention of throttling me as a way of extorting money from any of my chosen content providers. Putting aside the hazards inherent in the monopolies granted to cable providers by local governments - The end buyer (me) has the market control and would definitely seek alternatives if their service were throttled....Not to mention the possibility of legal action as the terms of service would be being violated.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    The customer buys internet service. My contract with Comcast grants me a certain speed with no mention of throttling me as a way of extorting money from any of my chosen content providers.

    Uh, yeah they do, it's right in your contract--"UP TO 100 MB/sec". Because claiming they're going to deliver 100 MB/sec at all times would get them sanctioned by the government for false advertising. It's also not how data transport works, because all packets are prioritized so Netflix users don't push out other users.

  • pan fried wylie||

    Pro Tip: skim the Terms of Service for the things you pay for

  • Brendan||

    The customers buys access to provider's network and speed UP TO a certain amount.

    Under your rationale, a streaming company should get infinite bandwidth without paying more simply because other people requested it. I guess Netflix and other large streaming companies should just get free internet access. By free, I mean paid for all the other customers.

    Lefties calling for corporations to be subsidized by the people.

    Next up, delivery services owned/operators by large companies no longer have to pay any road taxes since the delivery was requested by someone else.

  • DarrenM||

    You need to read the fine print.

  • jerryg1018||

    When the politicians and Congress failed in their attempts to seize control of the Internet in the late 1990's early 2000's with restrictive child porn prevention laws that were struck down by the Supreme Court, they turned to the unelected bureaucrats at the FCC to craft regulations rather than statutes to give them control of the Internet.
    Thus was born Net Neutrality which was sold as protecting users from ISP abuse but was really a gateway to eventual government censorship of subjects ranging from pornography, [ which the Supreme Court legalized in 1973 ] to silencing conservative news outlets and individual political speech. Not only was the goal of Net Neutrality to silence Breitbart, Drudge and other conservative news outlets it was an attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's Citizens decision which invalidated most of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance law which severely restricted public participation in the political process with mandatory burdensome reporting requirements for minor campaign spending.
    Net Neutrality would have given the bureaucrats at FCC the power to block political speech just like they blocked the Citizens United video they planned to air on cable TV that was critical of candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Presidential primary race.
    You can read the FCC Net Neutrality proposal here.
    Commissioners Aijit Pai and Michael O'Reilly's dissents to the regulations can be found at pages 321 and 385.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/258494173/FCC-15-24A1

  • ThomasD||

    " Progessives are generally suspicious of complex systems existing without powerful regulators present and accounted for."

    Charitable to say the least. When viewed against over a century of malfeasance and "unintended" consequences it becomes an absolute laugher of naivete.

    How about we just boil it down to what is always true and accurate progressives are generally suspicious of anything existing beyond their direct control.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Replace suspicious with covetous and you've got it right.

  • Mark22||

    Net Neutrality is a proxy battle over what type of internet we want to have—one characterized by technocratic regulations or one based on innovation and emergent order.

    With net neutrality, end users are forced to subsidize advertising, because advertising is treated just like other content. Get rid of net neutrality and Internet advertising and "free" video streaming become much less attractive.

    That's the real reason companies like Google and Facebook push for net neutrality: their business models fall apart without it. But that's because their business models are based on implicit subsidies from low bandwidth users.

  • pan fried wylie||

    A 90sec commercial for Wix wouldn't make sense otherwise.

  • Roger Wilco||

    Every packet is sacred!
    Every packet is great.
    If a packet is throttled,
    Engadget gets quite irate

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    +1 'Meaning of Life' reference.

  • Lorenzo Valla||

    THANK GOD!

  • zerofoo||

    The issue isn't so much Net Neutrality as it is Anti-Trust.

    Network providers managing their networks and prioritizing certain types of traffic to ensure good quality of service for their customers is fine.

    Network providers intentionally limiting, restricting, or capping specific types of data services because the compete with their own in-house offerings should not be permitted.

    Comcast would love nothing more than to make Netflix such a crappy experience that your only acceptable streaming choice would be Comcast's own video services.

    That's an abusive monopoly - either eliminate the monopoly (best option) or tell the monopolist they can't use their monopoly to hurt competing services.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Comcast would love nothing more than to make Netflix such a crappy experience that your only acceptable streaming choice would be Comcast's own video services.

    You do realize you can get Netflix through Comcast via their X1 package now, right? Why would they want to then turn around and make watching it a crappy experience if you can get it through their own service?

  • zerofoo||

    The issue isn't so much Net Neutrality as it is Anti-Trust.

    Network providers managing their networks and prioritizing certain types of traffic to ensure good quality of service for their customers is fine.

    Network providers intentionally limiting, restricting, or capping specific types of data services because the compete with their own in-house offerings should not be permitted.

    Comcast would love nothing more than to make Netflix such a crappy experience that your only acceptable streaming choice would be Comcast's own video services.

    That's an abusive monopoly - either eliminate the monopoly (best option) or tell the monopolist they can't use their monopoly to hurt competing services.

  • Doug Heffernan||

    +1
    I think zerofoo has it right.

    Former Verizon attorney Pai's plan will at least provide a real world test to determine if a no-rules-at-all system will cause any problems.

    If wireline ISPs shake down video providers for extra scratch or make other's services run crappy, I'm sure we'll hear about it. Unless the big video providers just pay the protection fee and it is all concealed by contract, allowing them to become entrenched as well. In that case all we'll notice is nobody else even trying to enter the market.

    The solution is for wireline overbuilds to be cheaper, or for wireless spectrum to become more abundant. The former is not likely - running fiber just costs a lot both on the pole and underground. The latter has some degree of physical limitation that no amount of technology is likely to overcome enough to make it a wireline replacement for HD/UHD video.

    Pai's test will be interesting. The conclusive results should be coming in around the time he returns to work for the broadband industry.

  • Cattress||

    I am glad to see some intelligent discussion on NN, even if they devolved to insults and clearly no one is willing to concede that their view could be even partially wrong.
    It's not a partisan issue, though people want to argue like it is.
    The internet is a utility, like the telephone, and has become a necessity for nearly every household. While consumers have a good amount of choices for wireless service, fixed line is the opposite. Without any meaningful competition, the consumers have no power to push companies to offer the services and prices they want. Breaking up these monopolies requires far more government intervention, and thus, their selection of winners and losers, than NN. ISPs have something called a "natural" monopoly, because they initially invested in the infrastructure of cable and phone lines. ISPs have also lobbied local governments to prevent competition,

  • Sevo||

    Cattress|5.21.17 @ 11:03PM|#
    "I am glad to see some intelligent discussion on NN, even if they devolved to insults and clearly no one is willing to concede that their view could be even partially wrong."

    You deserve to be insulted; you're slinging bullshit.
    Fuck off.

  • ||

    The internet is a utility, like the telephone, and has become a necessity for nearly every household.

    Bull. Fucking. Shit.

    Seriously, no part of that sentence is a correct or factual statement from either end of history. More and more people are going without household telephone and it never was a necessity.

    Water is a utility. You die without it. Electricity and Natural Gas are utilities, you freeze or starve without them. Streaming digital entertainment is not a utility or a necessity. Not that anybody should have it forcibly removed against their will, but there's plenty of evidence that it's abundance is just as harmful as it is good.

    You're intentionally conflating several ideas and notions in order to bias thinking to a preferred outcome. You may as well just said, "Internet is essential to the survival of mankind the way kidneys are."

  • DarrenM||

    Luxury that other people have that I can't or don't want to pay for == necessity.

  • Sinomine||

    Here is why you're full of shit:

    Employers use your phone number to contact you. You're less likely going to be hired if you don't have a number they can reach you at. Ergo, a Telephone (even a cellular phone) is absolutely a utility. The consumer's preferred method may have changed from landline to cellular, but it is still very much a utility. Without a phone, one loses out on being hired because they are unable to contact you directly. Without a job, you get no water and no electricity (and/or natural gas if your residence uses it) to your dwelling because you are unable to pay for the utility.

    Internet service has become a utility because many employers have digitized their application process, many went so far as to stop using paper applications "to save the trees" or some other "moral" reason to go paperless. I actually walked into a Dollar General store, asked for a *paper application* and was told that I had to go online to fill out an application, by the hiring manager. The internet has become a utility whether you like it or not.

  • The Laissez-Ferret||

    I don't have in home internet, never have. I have a mobile phone which provides me the internet i need. Amazingly enough I managed to keep jobs over the last 23 years of my life. After reading your post, I'm amazed at how i could have accomplished this great deed without having a computer connected to the web in my own home.

  • Cattress||

    and even stymied other businesses attempts to enter the market, like Google Fiber, to make it difficult and expensive to run competing lines. As a respect to Federalism, it's better that we don't attempt to pre-empt the local decisions, right?
    And concerns of ISPs throttling, blocking, censoring, or even zero rating (which NN doesn't prevent) one form of content over another is not theoretical, because the ISPs are actively acquiring their own content. Comcast, of course, already has network television, AT&T acquired TimeWarner, Verizon bought a bunch of companies like Yahoo. ISPs can choose to make their own content more easily accessed and throttle competitors. ISPs can also cap data, so that consumers are driven to their own content. Consumers can't go to an alternative ISP in most of the US. Content providers, if they can afford it, can pay for exemptions to data caps, or equal speeds to reach their consumers. But how many start-ups and small businesses can afford that?

  • Brendan||

    Who made Google Fiber expensive to run, and how did they do it?

  • Cattress||

    In fact, with the lower likelihood of gaining mass audiences, how will start-ups be able earn ad-dollars necessary for their success?
    And with the large ISPs owning the content providers that are in demand, how will the smaller and municipal ISPs be able to offer that content at a competitive rate? It's not in Comcast's best interest to offer network television licenses to a competing ISP for a fair price. Again, it's better not to get into more meddling, and picking the winners and losers. But do people really want Comcast or Verizon picking the winners and losers? Where the biggest incumbents businesses can buy a "fast lane" that the smaller new business cannot afford? Or if Amazon buys the fast lane, which is out of reach for EBay, and the EBay shopping experience degrades quickly in comparison, you will shop at Amazon. But are you comfortable with losing the option of shopping on EBay, or Etsy, as Amazon usurps the online buying market? Or would you prefer that you have a wide array of competing businesses to shop from?

  • Cattress||

    NN is the "light touch" regulation that we want. There need to be a few ground rules when it comes to monopolies, which is what ISP are in most of the US. It has not hurt their investment in infrastructure, or stymied innovation. None of these businesses is known for good customer service, or a history of ethical business practices. NN does not permit the FCC to control prices. Businesses can manage network traffic as they wish, so long as they are not intentionally throttling one source of content on a consistent basis. The general conduct rule, is overly broad, and could be narrowed; however, it is written so openly because technology changes quickly and this allows for the FCC to investigate complaints. The FTC said they can't take on the ISP with their resources, and the FCC is better suited. The technology is above most of congress, and it would just become another partisan battle. NN was working and had not led to meddling in business, which should have continued well under Pai's leadership. But it's just a partisan issue for him to undo previous administration policy.

  • Sevo||

    Cattress|5.22.17 @ 12:00AM|#
    "NN is the "light touch" regulation that we want"

    No, it isn't. Regulations everywhere and always stifle innovation, regardless of your long-winded bullshit.

  • ||

    NN is the "light touch" regulation that we want. There need to be a few ground rules when it comes to monopolies

    So, is it a light touch or a fundamental change to the ground rules of business?

    The technology is above most of congress, and it would just become another partisan battle.

    Wow. Just... wow.

  • DarrenM||

    Ever hear of DSL?

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: Net Neutrality Nixed: Why John Oliver Is Wrong
    The internet did just fine before bureaucrats started micromanaging it.

    Comrades!
    The State is only looking after the little people of this wonderful proletariat paradise when it controls information. This way, the people will recognize how wonderful it truly is living in a socialist slave state if there is nothing to compare it with. One only has to look to North Korea and Cuba as wonderful examples of keeping the expectations of the unenlightened masses in check. Controlling information is a key element in keeping all the little people happy, and more importantly, keeping their ruling elitist turds oppressing them happy.

  • Jacks61||

    Yes many ISP will do the right thing and simply let you browse or stream from your favorite place. BUT, you know it, I know it, some of these ISP's WILL impose restrictions on certain things. Comcast already has (or had) data caps in certain areas. I'm not sure about Verizon, but I know AT&T has data caps on certain plans.

    With that in mind, simply streaming a few movies will eat those limits. Now you will probably say that has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. I disagree. Also, there was a massive issue for certain people streaming Netflix, I think on Verizon a few years ago. Many of them brought proof that their connection speed was slowed, ON PURPOSE.

    Saying ALL of these ISP's will do the right thing is like saying big banks will do the right thing. We saw how that turned out. We got f*cked and many bankers walked away multi-millionaires.

  • Sevo||

    "Saying ALL of these ISP's will do the right thing is like saying big banks will do the right thing. We saw how that turned out. We got f*cked and many bankers walked away multi-millionaires."

    So your solution is to regulate them ALL!
    Screw you. If you don't like the one you're using for whatever reason go somewhere else
    Get lost.

  • Sinomine||

    Ajit Pai is a shill for Verizon. He was their lawyer for fucks sake. Of course he would have a vested interest in removing Title II.

    ISPs have been fighting against Net Neutrality because it means they couldn't fuck over consumers and shake down their rivals. While I'm watching Netflix, my ISP wouldn't be able to impose an artificial throttle if no one else is using the connection. At the same time, they couldn't demand Netflix pay extra while giving Hulu a free pass. It also prevents stunts like Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile's imposed ban on Google Pay to favor their ISIS mobile pay app to happen to the internet.
    http://cnnmon.ie/2qf2kVZ

    I happen to run a website. I should't have to pay each of my viewer's ISP's just to reach them while a rival site can reach the same viewers for free. I'm already paying for MY OWN service PLUS my site's costs.

    Can anyone really trust a business NOT to do anything shady to increase the bottom line? After all, companies are for-profit and history proves they make shady decisions, often ones that go unnoticed until someone, somewhere builds a case with receipts/billing statements. Would you hope someone notices or would you rather it be prevented from happening? I'd rather not have to find out I've been scammed by the company, especially if it could have been prevented. All Net Neutrality did was re-enforce what was given, and secured it while it was enforceable. Now that protection is being stripped away and people are okay with that?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You're an idiot and you should kill yourself.

  • Sinomine||

    Also, for you anti-Title II Net Neutrality people, something you should read and why you should care about stripping away Net Neutrality:
    http://www.commlawblog.com/201.....heres-why/

Click here to follow Reason on Instagram

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online