6 ms·

Why are you being intentionally obtuse on this issue? I can't tell if you're trolling, shilling or just using poor rhetoric to support a genuine opinion. Endin

Why are you being intentionally obtuse on this issue? I can't tell if you're trolling, shilling or just using poor rhetoric to support a genuine opinion. Ending net neutrality is an opportunity for the very few large Telco companies to profit from their monopolistic position in the market at the expense of all customers. Aside from the direct and immediate impact of a degraded experience for internet users, in the long term it also kills innovation by making it harder or impossible for new services to compete with existing companies that can afford to pay AT&T, TimeWarner, etc their extortion. No, it's not just about video. Yes, your latency playing Starcraft will be effected (either blizzard pays your ISP to let you access their servers on the fast lane or your traffic gets deprioritized and you get more lag). No, you can't circumvent this by using a VPN and most importantly, you shouldn't have to even think about using a VPN to route around your own ISP intentionally degrading your connection to force payments from the services you're trying to access.

diminoten 12y ago
I want a legislative solution that doesn't stab me in the back, which is what I think I'm going to get if we don't talk these things out. I don't think it's as simple as, "No more peering agreements" (the internet infrastructure would be overloaded) or "every ISP must accept all peering agreements" (one-sided peering agreements are something that needs to be addressed somehow -- Netflix can't keep flooding Comcast's network with impunity). I absolutely don't want to pay extra to my ISP just to watch Netflix in HD, but I don't want to have my Netflix degraded to SD just because Comcast and Netflix aren't legally allowed to make deals together anymore. There's a middle ground here, and everyone seems to be ignoring it. People seem to have a chicken little view of this, and won't accept any dissent or disagreement whatsoever. Look at how you wrote what you did! You just threw in like 5 or 6 very uncertain things, and pretended like they're undeniable fact. That's not how a discussion happens. It's too bad Hacker News doesn't appear to be a place where a discussion can take place. It's sad, because if we can't get our heads out of our asses about this, there's zero chance anyone in congress has a hope of doing so.
- bitJericho 12y ago
  So let me get this straight, you want netflix in HD, but you don't want to pay for it? Who's going to pay for it if not you?
  - diminoten 12y ago
    I already pay for it. I pay Netflix in the form of a monthly subscription, and I pay Comcast to deliver me "blast" Internet speeds of 100mbps. An HD stream is well below 100mbps, so I expect to be able to stream Netflix.
    - bitJericho 12y ago
      Oh sure that's no problem, once netflix pays comcast.
      - diminoten 12y ago
        Which makes sense, given the lopsidedness of traffic in the peering agreement. And it's also what they're doing, currently. So yay for that.
        bitJericho 12y ago
        Why would that make sense when you the customer want to retrieve traffic at an advertised rate from a company you're paying? Surely netflix also pays for traffic at their advertised rate from their ISP. What's the problem? Oh yeah, comcast et al want to be greedy.
        diminoten 12y ago
        What makes sense about a free peering agreement where only one party benefits?
        bitJericho 12y ago

diminoten 12y ago

I want a legislative solution that doesn't stab me in the back, which is what I think I'm going to get if we don't talk these things out. I don't think it's as simple as, "No more peering agreements" (the internet infrastructure would be overloaded) or "every ISP must accept all peering agreements" (one-sided peering agreements are something that needs to be addressed somehow -- Netflix can't keep flooding Comcast's network with impunity). I absolutely don't want to pay extra to my ISP just to watch Netflix in HD, but I don't want to have my Netflix degraded to SD just because Comcast and Netflix aren't legally allowed to make deals together anymore. There's a middle ground here, and everyone seems to be ignoring it. People seem to have a chicken little view of this, and won't accept any dissent or disagreement whatsoever. Look at how you wrote what you did! You just threw in like 5 or 6 very uncertain things, and pretended like they're undeniable fact. That's not how a discussion happens. It's too bad Hacker News doesn't appear to be a place where a discussion can take place. It's sad, because if we can't get our heads out of our asses about this, there's zero chance anyone in congress has a hope of doing so.

bitJericho 12y ago
So let me get this straight, you want netflix in HD, but you don't want to pay for it? Who's going to pay for it if not you?
- diminoten 12y ago
  I already pay for it. I pay Netflix in the form of a monthly subscription, and I pay Comcast to deliver me "blast" Internet speeds of 100mbps. An HD stream is well below 100mbps, so I expect to be able to stream Netflix.
  - bitJericho 12y ago
    Oh sure that's no problem, once netflix pays comcast.
    - diminoten 12y ago
      Which makes sense, given the lopsidedness of traffic in the peering agreement. And it's also what they're doing, currently. So yay for that.
      - bitJericho 12y ago
        Why would that make sense when you the customer want to retrieve traffic at an advertised rate from a company you're paying? Surely netflix also pays for traffic at their advertised rate from their ISP. What's the problem? Oh yeah, comcast et al want to be greedy.
        diminoten 12y ago
        What makes sense about a free peering agreement where only one party benefits?
        bitJericho 12y ago