now reverse that. without the infrastructure youtube is also worthless.

Agreed, that's why I pay Comcast for that infrastructure.

Is the chairman of Sprint in on the conspiracy?
America doesn't know how bad its Internet speed is: Sprint's Son

YouTube makes a TON of money off of us. Content they had no part in creating and have made no investment in. it is one hell of a business model. they get to pay for transit as well.

your ignorance is not an argument.

Kyle, you may be a super networking "hardware" guy, but if you don't think a networking/systems guy like myself could absolutely "play favorites" and degrade an "undesirable site's" performance (particularly if I were a technician at one of the "core carriers"), then you are simply incorrect. Now I "may" be a complete maroon since I don't agree with you, or maybe it's just possible that I have more knowledge and experience than you can imagine and am just looking at this from a different perspective :D.

ps: I absolutely guarantee you I could do it...easy peasy too :p

Myth, you say?

The Cost of Connectivity 2013 | NewAmerica.org

The Fastest Web On Earth - In Photos: Countries With The Fastest Internet Speeds - Forbes

Global Broadband and Mobile Performance Data Compiled by Ookla | Net Index

Download Speed by Country | Net Index from Ookla

BBC News - Why is broadband more expensive in the US?

Read a little, slak; get educated.

youtube is not a monopoly in ANY sense.

Masayoshi Son has an agenda. give Sprint T-Mobile and their spectrum and "we will fix Americas internet problems" Man its all a front I swear to god. Sprint used to be the company I thought would fix the broadband mess. Remember Sprints ION? it was the best thing of its day and was around way before anyone else. Now Sprint is a collection of people who have given up. Masayoshi is starting to realize he made a huge mistake.

I am sure you could. but you would get fired and the degraded service would get fixed. Does not seem worth it to me.

slackjaw, you're conflating "backbone" (tier 1, etc.) providers (who have to worry about peering and transit) and last mile providers. I pay comcast (or TWC) to hook me into that backbone -- and that's all, they don't provide me any other service. What's available once I'm hooked up is none of their business. Net neutrality seeks to guarantee is stays none of their business.

Give some facts to support then.

Actually, yeah it is. in many senses... lol smh lol

YouTube's monopolistic behaviour is hurting indie music labels | Media | theguardian.com

The video site uses bullying tactics to force down royalty rates – and now it is attempting to do the same with audio streaming

Monopolies and YouTube - Dinnerblog

ouTube is basically a monopoly at this point.

Attention Mr. Almunia: How YouTube Uses Its Monopoly Power to Silence Critics | MUSIC

Attention Mr. Almunia: How YouTube Uses Its Monopoly Power to Silence Critics

I did. Care to refute any of them?

Man, just because people here in the US don't want / need to pay for the fastest service available means we get bashed for stuff that is not true. there are a lot of people in the US who are fine with 896k DSL and there is nothing wrong with that.

Most of those countries who are at the top of that list Web Cam pr0n is there #1 export. of course it looks better when everyone has the highest speed available.

So now you've changed your position that it CAN'T be done ;)? I'd also venture that I could also "cover my tracks" quite effectively if I "needed" to. As far as getting fired goes...I might just get promoted too...depends upon what the bo$$ wants :D.

ps: I'm just pickin' with ya a bit...but it might be worthwhile to consider where I'm coming from. If there is a potential for abuse and BIG $ to be made then "I" would like some safeguards in place to assure an "even" playing field as the Internet continues to develop and evolve....YMMV.

youtube isn't even close to a monopoly. by your definition of a monopoly, walmart is one.

the real definition of a monoploy is is a company with no competition. as such, youtube has a lot of competition in terms of video hosting and sharing websites. vimeo, daily motion, flickr, metacafe, even the likes of photobucket and facebook have similar product and compete directly with youtube. hell even itunes. most of these websites are actually far better than youtube.

I get it man... And I could go upstairs right now and take a cisco CRS system and deliver it to you but there is a reason nobody does that kind of stuff. For enough money to live out my days in rio I might but it still ain't worth it

It's not just faster service it's faster service for less $$! It's crazy to suggest anyone wouldn't want that. And before you argue "the US is a big country, population density, etc" look at Sweden, lower population density and faster/cheaper service. In NYC with a ridiculously high population density my service was still relatively poor and expensive.

Yup, South Korea and Japan are known as the largest pr0n providers out there...:rolleyes:

What stuff are we getting bashed for that isn't true? Consumer internet rates are higher here than most other "civilized" places, and we have some of the worst service. That is fact--not myth, not bashed for something that isn't true--fact.

slackjaw is failing to disclose his personal financial bias. it would be quite profitable for his employer if net neutrally was struck down. and slack, as one of those guys who has been convinced by the supply siders despite the fact that he is small potatoes, and so he will toe the line, and vote and advocate against his own best interests.

mental note: the only person in this thread that is against net neutrality, is directly employed by a company that would benieft vastly by it being struck down.

No it is not fact. People here also expect 100% up-time. Good luck finding that elsewhere. People here don't care about internet speed as much as other country's that's what is fact.

Excellent point cockerpunk. Although I'm not sure where Wayne stands -- maybe I misinterpreted his response.

What is your problem? you have lost every argument in this entire thread so you personally attack me. You don't know who signs my paycheck and the company I work for does not care about Net Neutrality one way or another. Why is it fair to you for those with infrastructure to be forced to give away service for free to those who do not have infrastructure or expenses of building one? Why do you think the world owes you something?

You Net Neutrality idiots ***** and moan about not having fast enough internet and it being sooooooooo expensive then you want to cripple the entire industry with your BS. Put a choke on them force them to support the little guys. I hope your internet bills go to 500 bucks a month and when you complain they send someone to your house to spit in your face.

And it already got struck down. And it will never pass in its current form.

Wayne is not in favor of net neutrality. how does that benefit him? oh but I am the only one who is against it in your imagination.

Something else that's not true is an excellent point? how does that work? WTF man why does the world owe you something for nothing?

why do you consistently try to re-define net neutrality? I don't want cable ISPs discriminating traffic by site. That's net neutrality. Given the industry's claim that it currently does not, that's "nothing for nothing" not "something for nothing."

Wayne's post seems? to suggest consumers should pay for the data they use. That has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Why do you not have a full understanding of something you blindly support?

People here don't care about internet speed? Not only is this laughable, it also points out you truly have no clue what you're talking about.

You keep saying people don't understand what net neutrality is all about, and calling them stupid. It honestly seems as if you're the only one here who really doesn't get it, Slak. Step back and do some more research. If you're going to be so passionate about something, it helps to also be educated about it.

I posted the link to the FCC's order. If you have other links or can point out where the order implies otherwise, post 'em! I'd be happy to further my understanding.

actually you have won nothing.

failing to disclose your personal bias due to employment is a key point in this argument.

wayne was talking about users paying for there access, which is not net neutrality. you don't even understand the terms you are discussing .... seriously ....

I haven't called anyone here stupid. Please stop making stuff up.

You are the one who needs to educate yourself. Tell me why those that own infrastructure should be forced to support those without infrastructure under all circumstances no matter what even if it means they go bankrupt. Go ahead and explain that to everyone here on this site. Please just answer the question.

OK. I work for Nokia. Better? I have no bias. Now point out your bias. what piss-ant company does your employer get IP transit from.

Wayne said more than that in his post. You do not understand this topic. seriously.

Infrastructure providers are nowhere near going bankrupt; they're making billions every quarter. They charge the consumer (you and me), and the content providers ride that gravy train. THAT is the business model.

What they are looking for now is to double dip: charge you and me more and more each and every year (for often lesser service), AND charge the content providers. They are the conduit--the middle man--of the internet. IF this goes forth, expect to see a lot more companies doing what Google is doing--creating their own infrastructure in order to cut out the middle man.

And Wayne can correct me if I'm wrong, but his position seemed pretty darn clear to me...if the CONSUMER (you and me) want faster speeds, they can pay for it--not Netflix or whoever.

Google gets their back-haul from Sprint and Verizon. They have nothing but last mile they cannot cut anyone out.

Man so since I pay for phone service I should be able to call any other phone for free because hey man I pay for mine so they should not have to. this is actually what you boys believe. whatever.

You didn't answer my question so I will ask again...

Tell me why those that own infrastructure should be forced to support those without infrastructure under all circumstances no matter what even if it means they go bankrupt. Go ahead and explain that to everyone here on this site. Please just answer the question.

This isn't calling people stupid?

I don't make stuff up....

Um...I do call everyone else for "free." They charge me for the service; the service includes free calls to anyone; regardless of what network the called party uses. I, the consumer, pay for access to that "pipe." My distant end also pays for access to that pipe. So, AT&T should charge Samsung for every call made by a Samsung phone? That's what your argument equates to...

is English your first language? You are saying Netflix should not have to pay for their connection. You just said that a few posts ago.

Tell me why those that own infrastructure should be forced to support those without infrastructure under all circumstances no matter what even if it means they go bankrupt. Go ahead and explain that to everyone here on this site. Please just answer the question.

What you're arguing against is not net neutrality.

Cable providers see their video content (cable) market declining. Whereas they exert near-monopoly control over video content via traditional cable, a 'neutral' internet allows all content providers equal access to all content consumers. Their goal is to discriminate among content providers and restore that monopoly. The goal of net neutrality is to prevent them.