6 ms·

It would be enough for you to notice or else it wouldn't be an effective sales tool. It hasn't happened yet because the FCC has not ruled on it yet.

diminoten 12y ago
So we're talking, what, no HD from YouTube or Netflix? Is this just about video? Are my pings going to be artificially inflated in Starcraft? If they throttle based on service, can't I circumvent this by just using a VPN and buying a fast enough base service? Isn't this mostly a, "but the police man could shoot me whenever he wants if he gets to carry a gun!" argument?
- bitJericho 12y ago
  Yes except the gun is used to kill anybody who doesn't pay up. I think the general idea is that yes, all your services will degrade in quality except for the services that pay the ransom. Sure your VPN will make everything equal, except eventually if the QoS scheme works well for the ISPs they could also move to datacaps that don't get used up by the services that pay the ransom.
  - diminoten 12y ago
    So you'd arrest these ISPs for pre-crime then? Every gun owner could shoot you in the face if they wanted to, therefore they're all guilty?
    - bitJericho 12y ago
      I don't think I ever said that all ISPs are going to do this. I also don't think any ISP needs to charge customers twice for accessing the internet (eg, own the gun in the first place). I think this is where the gun simile breaks down because while a gun may have valid uses relating to protection, internet non-neutrality has no uses except to line the pockets of monopolies.
      - diminoten 12y ago
        The whole point of the gun analogy is to illustrate how terrible the, "just because they can, means they will" argument is. That's it. Think no more of it beyond that.
        bitJericho 12y ago
        They already are with Netflix. And it has been noticable by the users.
        diminoten 12y ago
        Currently? No, they're not. There is no "Netflix" option from Comcast that a consumer can purchase to increase their Netflix streaming speed.
- mynewwork 12y ago
  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

So we're talking, what, no HD from YouTube or Netflix? Is this just about video? Are my pings going to be artificially inflated in Starcraft? If they throttle based on service, can't I circumvent this by just using a VPN and buying a fast enough base service? Isn't this mostly a, "but the police man could shoot me whenever he wants if he gets to carry a gun!" argument?

bitJericho 12y ago
Yes except the gun is used to kill anybody who doesn't pay up. I think the general idea is that yes, all your services will degrade in quality except for the services that pay the ransom. Sure your VPN will make everything equal, except eventually if the QoS scheme works well for the ISPs they could also move to datacaps that don't get used up by the services that pay the ransom.
- diminoten 12y ago
  So you'd arrest these ISPs for pre-crime then? Every gun owner could shoot you in the face if they wanted to, therefore they're all guilty?
  - bitJericho 12y ago
    I don't think I ever said that all ISPs are going to do this. I also don't think any ISP needs to charge customers twice for accessing the internet (eg, own the gun in the first place). I think this is where the gun simile breaks down because while a gun may have valid uses relating to protection, internet non-neutrality has no uses except to line the pockets of monopolies.
    - diminoten 12y ago
      The whole point of the gun analogy is to illustrate how terrible the, "just because they can, means they will" argument is. That's it. Think no more of it beyond that.
      - bitJericho 12y ago
        They already are with Netflix. And it has been noticable by the users.
        diminoten 12y ago
        Currently? No, they're not. There is no "Netflix" option from Comcast that a consumer can purchase to increase their Netflix streaming speed.
mynewwork 12y ago
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?