4 ms·

What's irrelevant about "some of the major points you said are factually wrong"? It just sounds like you're okay with misrepresentation of the facts, because i

What's irrelevant about "some of the major points you said are factually wrong"? It just sounds like you're okay with misrepresentation of the facts, because it agrees with your overall point. Also, like I said in the above comment, bartenders can lose their license and get fined heavily for continuing to respond to requests for drinks once a user is "saturated", so I don't think it's the best analogy possible for your argument. A better analogy might be water usage, which lends itself well to an "Internet as a utility" segue.

ubernostrum 12y ago
You wrote: Well, Netflix is pushing traffic to Verizon. Saying they're not is factually incorrect. Then you wrote: They're just doing so in response to requests coming out of Verizon networks. The point at hand, of course, was whether it's fair to frame things in terms of "Netflix pushing traffic to Verizon" when the reason for the traffic is requests initiated by customers on Verizon's network. Nit-picking about whether someone is "pushing" data when responding to a request does not in any way further the discussion. Hence, downvote into invisibility. Incidentally, the way to continue the script here is for you to ignore everything I just wrote and continue focusing with laser-beam intensity on bartenders serving drunk people in order to cover the fact that you did not have any relevant point to make in your original comment.
- diminoten 12y ago
  Netflix wrote all of the apps people are using to make requests to Netflix. It's important to note that, because that means Netflix is in complete control over the number of requests that come "from" Verizon. To say that customers are directly making the requests is factually incorrect - Netflix is making the requests, to itself, over the connections of Verizon customers. Important distinction, because Netflix is in control the whole time, and can do things, if it wants to, to mitigate the flood of requests. It's not, and in fact is intentionally ramping up the volume of requests by offering content such as 4k resolution videos, most likely to further push this issue. So no, again, this isn't a nit-pick, it's a central point to this conversation. I don't really understand why you're being such a jackass about this, though.
  - FireBeyond 12y ago
    Wow, so your claim is that Netflix is maliciously, and intentionally, offering high(er) definition content not to please its customers, but to spite ISPs? And you're saying that with a straight face... And wondering why people aren't taking you seriously? Just like your argument that Netflix is 'pushing content to Verizon consumers', ignoring that 'Verizon consumers are requesting said content'. Maybe one of the things Netflix could do to deal with the volume of data is let Verizon customers know that that their service is being degraded because of that volume... Wait... I'm getting deja vu...
    - diminoten 12y ago
      Maliciously? I haven't said. Intentionally? Yes. I guess it's more of the, "added bonus" of further stressing ISP networks to further push the issue. Like I've been saying, I'm offering no "ought" statements, only "is" statements[0]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

ubernostrum 12y ago

You wrote: Well, Netflix is pushing traffic to Verizon. Saying they're not is factually incorrect. Then you wrote: They're just doing so in response to requests coming out of Verizon networks. The point at hand, of course, was whether it's fair to frame things in terms of "Netflix pushing traffic to Verizon" when the reason for the traffic is requests initiated by customers on Verizon's network. Nit-picking about whether someone is "pushing" data when responding to a request does not in any way further the discussion. Hence, downvote into invisibility. Incidentally, the way to continue the script here is for you to ignore everything I just wrote and continue focusing with laser-beam intensity on bartenders serving drunk people in order to cover the fact that you did not have any relevant point to make in your original comment.

diminoten 12y ago
Netflix wrote all of the apps people are using to make requests to Netflix. It's important to note that, because that means Netflix is in complete control over the number of requests that come "from" Verizon. To say that customers are directly making the requests is factually incorrect - Netflix is making the requests, to itself, over the connections of Verizon customers. Important distinction, because Netflix is in control the whole time, and can do things, if it wants to, to mitigate the flood of requests. It's not, and in fact is intentionally ramping up the volume of requests by offering content such as 4k resolution videos, most likely to further push this issue. So no, again, this isn't a nit-pick, it's a central point to this conversation. I don't really understand why you're being such a jackass about this, though.
- FireBeyond 12y ago
  Wow, so your claim is that Netflix is maliciously, and intentionally, offering high(er) definition content not to please its customers, but to spite ISPs? And you're saying that with a straight face... And wondering why people aren't taking you seriously? Just like your argument that Netflix is 'pushing content to Verizon consumers', ignoring that 'Verizon consumers are requesting said content'. Maybe one of the things Netflix could do to deal with the volume of data is let Verizon customers know that that their service is being degraded because of that volume... Wait... I'm getting deja vu...
  - diminoten 12y ago
    Maliciously? I haven't said. Intentionally? Yes. I guess it's more of the, "added bonus" of further stressing ISP networks to further push the issue. Like I've been saying, I'm offering no "ought" statements, only "is" statements[0]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem