Then time warner needs better peering agreements. Net neutrality will do nothing to fix their crappy network. You should switch to DSL.

They already have control of content. Go watch the latest season of game of thrones on netflix. Oh wait you can't. And not because of net neutrality.

And I got a starter for my 911 from napa.

slackjaw, is your argument "because they already have some control we might as well give them more control" ?
I CAN watch Game of Thrones on HBO GO -- at least until Time Warner decides otherwise.

Re: starter, I stand corrected. I'm surprised Wayne allows that.

Re: peering, companies like Netflix are pushing for Net Neutrality to address that. But again, "there are already some situations where business interests run counter to consumer interests" is not an argument for allowing more situations.

My argument is that everything the net neutrality people claim will happen is false. ISPs want to give you a good experience and things like voip require lower latency than things like torrents. Nobody is going to shut off your netflix or charge extra for access to YouTube. If they do end up throttling something it will be so small you won't even notice it. Reasonable network management is what the ISPs want to do.


Netflix used to use cogent for ip transit. No wonder. Cogent gets peering agreements pulled all the time because they suck. Here is an article that explains it.

The Comcast-Netflix Deal: Fact vs. Fiction

Cable companies want to make as much money as possible, like every other company. When that's in line with "giving me a good experience" sure, I agree. But every cable company horror story (like the one that started this thread) suggests more often than not, it ain't. The hundreds of millions they've spent lobbying the government to pass legislation the public previously rejected, or block legislation they've supported, suggests it ain't.

If this will actually benefit consumers, why are companies like Amazon, Google and Netflix against it?
If it will improve the VOIP experience, why Skype is against it?

None of those companies have any actual network infrastructure. Of course they are for it. They can pay someone like cogent dirt cheap ip transit and the ones that actually built infrastructure have no choice but to allow it. People never blame amazon, they blame their ISP.

Lets forget peering agreements and focus on one example: take Time Warner Cable and Skype.

Time Warner wants to give Skype/VOIP traffic priority, to improve the Skype service for its end users, so they're lobbying against Net Neutrality. But Skype doesn't want improved service, so they're lobbying for Net Neutrality.

Do I have that right?

Skype wants a cheaper pipe. Skype probably doesn't care about it since nobody blames them anyways.

For the most part traffic is currently treated neutrally.
Net Neutrality aims to codify what is (again, peering aside) current practice,
so more precisely, rather than making the pipe cheaper it'll prevent it from getting more expensive.

As I Skype user, I don't want those increased costs passed on to me. Why shouldn't I (and anyone who uses internet services like Netflix, Amazon, etc.) be for net neutrality?

Seems like Google has figured out how much it costs to put fiber in the ground to let anarchy rule on their pipes probably isn't a good idea. Did they flip flop on Net Neutrality?

Now That It’s in the Broadband Game, Google Flip-Flops on Network Neutrality | Threat Level | WIRED

I think their position is "evolving". Looks like they figured out an agnostic attitude towards what's in their pipes probably will cut into their youtube, google online shopping, google centric traffic...

It's more about stopping outfits like cogent being able to offer dirt cheap transit and then just handing off all their traffic to those with infrastructure. But whatever dude. I'm sure it will end up passing. It's going to slow down broadband buildout. Whatever, I give up. No longer care.

That headline's pretty misleading.

The language does seem overly broad but equal treatment of traffic (net neutrality) has little to do with restricting certain types of upstream usage. Every residential ISP service I've purchased has similar TOS.

That's not true. Even in the article it gives a link to the FCC web page. It is not misleading at all.

"Moreover, the net neutrality rules (.pdf)regarding devices are plain and simple: ”Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.”

Direct TV is here now installing equipment. We were going to keep Comcast for our internet but wifey cancelled that as well and went with AT+T.

Bite me Comcast!!SmileWavy

Internet should be considered a utility. It is.

mods spam mods spam mods spam

Still haven't gotten my refund. Every time I call, I am told that a check will be issued. Any ideas on things I can do to force Comcast's hand?

If it won't cost you much, file a suit in your local small claims court.

I'm considering that.

In socialist republic of Sweden, we were recently offered a fiber-to-house installation (with 1Gbit media converter) for 2000$. When fiber is installed, we are free to pick the provider. Thus local fiber is one-time expense and owned by municipality. You then pick the provider you fancy. We call this "city network".

I can chose between seven providers. All offer at least 100/10Mbit, some offer 1Gbit symmetric.

100/10M bit connection costs roughly 30$ month. 1Gbit is around 100$ a month. This way, you are free to pick any provider you want (provided they peer with "local fiber") and if you don't like their throttling, you just switch. The fibre network is 1Gbit-to-home, then throttled down to what you pay for.

I'm somewhat miffed that you have expensive monopole situation regarding broadband connections in USofA. Personally I see it as utility, just as water/electricity/sewage system etc.