Level 3 Says Six Broadband Providers Jam Traffic for Profit - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 6Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 101 Old 05-06-2014, 05:28 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,056
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1479 Post(s)
Liked: 2771

Level 3 Communications Mark Taylor, VP of Content and Media, recently blogged about how six major ISPs intentionally restrict traffic, resulting in poor streaming video performance. The new accusation comes on the heels of news that Netflix has agreed to pay Comcast and Verizon for "fast lane" access to subscribers in order to assure smooth streaming.

 

According to an article published on CNET, Level 3 Communications claims the culprits are "broadband providers which have near monopolies in their markets" who declined to perform network upgrades on congested connections, despite Level 3's requests.

 

Quote:
"Level 3 explained in the blog post that it has interconnection arrangements with 51 providers throughout the world, but has only seen persistent congestion on 12 of those connections. It is currently working with six providers to get enough capacity to alleviate the issue. But it said the other six providers, which Level 3 claims are broadband providers which have near monopolies in their markets, have refused to upgrade their networks. And this they claim is what is causing issues for customers." - read more at CNET

 

 

With the FCC staying out of the fray for now, it's up to these companies to work things out amongst themselves. However, If you read the CNET piece, you'll see that the issue is far from black and white—nor are these disputes anything new. It's not clear if Level 3 is being hypocritical when it levels accusations at other ISPs—evidently, the company has been on the other side of the fence before:

 

Quote:

"What's ironic given Level 3's accusation against Comcast and the current argument it is using against the six unnamed broadband providers it calls out in its blog post is that the company took the opposite stance in a stand-off with Cogent in a peering dispute several years ago. In 2005, Level 3 threatened to terminate its peering relationship with Cogent because Cogent was sending too much traffic to Level 3 and refused to pay for it." - read more at CNET

 

 

What is clear is that the future of cloud-based content delivery depends on good, reliable Internet service. I hope the major players can work it out among themselves, instead of forcing the FCC to step in and regulate the Internet like a public utility. What do you think, are broadband providers deliberately creating Internet traffic jams in order to get the upper hand in negotiations with content providers?


Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 101 Old 05-06-2014, 10:41 PM
Advanced Member
 
trans_lux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In my theater
Posts: 981
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 136
Like we need more proof that these guys are the devil.
Google fiber save us!

As I've posted before, it's only a matter of time.....

trans_lux is offline  
post #3 of 101 Old 05-08-2014, 12:54 PM
Newbie
 
gentlegeorgia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I have been fighting with my provider for more than 6 months. They admit the problem is at the head-end in St.Louis. Because of the cost it will be at LEAST a year before they start to deal with this issue in my community. In the meantime they charge for a 30meg download while we receive between 5-12megs.
rtheen likes this.
gentlegeorgia is offline  
post #4 of 101 Old 05-08-2014, 01:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HopefulFred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,869
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 178 Post(s)
Liked: 215
I guess I'm forced to agree that they should work it out without the FCC, but I only say that because I doubt the FCC would end up ruling for net neutrality.
HopefulFred is offline  
post #5 of 101 Old 05-08-2014, 01:18 PM
Member
 
myriadcorp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 27
ISP's have a monopoly and throttle bandwidth that you pay for to different areas of the internet. The end of Net Neutrality is a tragedy for all people. It's sad when you have to use a VPN to receive the bandwidth you are paying for because your ISP throttles traffic.

myriadcorp is offline  
post #6 of 101 Old 05-08-2014, 01:49 PM
Member
 
DistractedJohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 177
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 26
The rich get richer...
Dan Hitchman and videobruce like this.
DistractedJohn is offline  
post #7 of 101 Old 05-08-2014, 02:33 PM
Senior Member
 
Digitally challe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 235
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
www.openinternet@fcc.gov EVERYBODY, LET'S RAISE HELL!!
Digitally challe is offline  
post #8 of 101 Old 05-08-2014, 02:33 PM
Senior Member
 
degobah77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 49
The flipside is that it costs millions upon millions of dollars to buy, install, and keep a staff to run all the eq that is supposed to be passing all this traffic.

This business ain't cheap. When you're at capacity and can't afford upgrades, you're not really left with much choice. Private networks have to do it too, ya know.

So, in my opinion, some shoddy companies throttle, but most of the time, it's just bad capacity management causing the congestion - and getting really expensive to keep up with, what, close to 3 billion people using the internet.

Yeah, 3 billion people are expected to be online by the end of this year. That's as insane amount of traffic.

Oh yeah, I work for one of the Tier I providers, and while I'm no expert, I think there's a lot of hoodoovoodoo going on here. It's a bit more complicated than the "Dr. Evil is hitting the JAM THE INTERNET button and putting his pinky to his lip" conspiracy.
dnoonie likes this.

Boom
degobah77 is offline  
post #9 of 101 Old 05-08-2014, 02:44 PM
Senior Member
 
Digitally challe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 235
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by degobah77 View Post

The flipside is that it costs millions upon millions of dollars to buy, install, and keep a staff to run all the eq that is supposed to be passing all this traffic.

This business ain't cheap. When you're at capacity and can't afford upgrades, you're not really left with much choice. Private networks have to do it too, ya know.

So, in my opinion, some shoddy companies may throttle, but most of the time, it's just bad capacity management and getting really expensive to keep up with, what, close to 3 billion people using the internet.

Yeah, 3 billion people are expected to be online by the end of this year. That's as insane amount of traffic.

You're right, it aint cheap. But when cities and communities want to build their own networks, these ISP bastards get the states to pass laws prohibiting this action. The ISP's say it costs too much to build out and won't do it, but they raise hell when the community wants to do it themselves. Hypocritical bastards.
Digitally challe is offline  
post #10 of 101 Old 05-08-2014, 03:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
MPNASCAR24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Batavia, NY
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 20
I'm not surprised the big internet providers are slowing down the internet, they will do anything that will help them increase their profits. Plus if services like Hulu Plus & Netflix won't work very well on cable internet there customers may get cable or satellite service just so they don't have to deal with a slow netflix.
MPNASCAR24 is offline  
post #11 of 101 Old 05-08-2014, 03:43 PM
Senior Member
 
degobah77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 49
I don't think giving customer slow internet increases their profits (it's in their best interest to give you the best they can so you STAY a customer) - unless you're in an area where there's no competition - which may be the case in a lot of places unfortunately due to the comment made above yours. Nothing you can do if it's a monopoly except move somewhere else.

There are 3 Tier I providers I can choose from here and at least 2 other options. If I don't get the fastest for the cheapest, they don't get my money.

Boom
degobah77 is offline  
post #12 of 101 Old 05-08-2014, 04:17 PM
Senior Member
 
Digitally challe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 235
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Call and email the FCC relentlessly. If ALL of us scream loudly and continuously they will listen. The FCC will hold a meeting a week from today on the 15th. If you care about Net Neutrality and your First Amendment rights of free speech and free press, make your voices heard to the FCC. During Hitler's rise to power, his propaganda minister,Joseph Goebells stated that if you control the media of the people, you can control the mind of the people. Unless we stand together for a common goal/good, we will move towards a Fascist, Corporate America and you can say goodbye to OUR Constitution of the United States of America. I will not go down without a fight. Will you?
Digitally challe is offline  
post #13 of 101 Old 05-08-2014, 04:56 PM
Newbie
 
racervortex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
While there have been cases of traffic shaping (a euphemism the industry uses for throttling) by service type in the past, the current discussions around net neutrality simply come down to economics.

It is generally in the interest of all Tier1 backbone providers to establish and maintain private peering relationships with each other. This is sometimes referred to as settlement free peering as no money is exchanged between the peering partners. No money is exchanged because the backbone providers strive to have similar rates of traffic passing from one company to the other across the peering point. The providers mutually pay for their own share of the expense to maintain the peering relationship and fund capacity upgrades when needed. These relationships enable backbone providers to more efficiently manage their networks and as a result provide better service to their customers (lower packet loss and latency).

Along come very successful streaming platforms like netflix, hulu and amazon prime to name a few. These services by their very nature are high bandwidth, always on services. When these very successful streaming services are connected to only one backbone provider (or even worse a 2nd tier provider) they cause an imbalance in the peering between backbones. It is no longer mutually beneficial for all the peering partners to invest in upgrades to satisfy what starts to resemble a one way flow of bandwidth. A large telco literally has to invest hundreds of millions of dollars every year just to keep up with the growth in traffic. When more than 30% of that growth benefits a handful of companies that aren't even customers, share holders get a little pissy.

There are plenty of Internet based content providers that have already dealt with the problems that come from success. I'm talking about financial services, online gaming, content distribution networks and pick your top 10-20 internet sites. The successful ones subscribe to more than one internet provider. They do this for a variety of reasons including capacity, latency, reliability and price arbitrage. All this to maximize profits and better serve their end customer. This is exactly what Netflix agreed to do with Comcast. They might even pay lower bandwidth charges as a result of delivering traffic directly on the network where the subscribers reside.

The dirty secret in this article is Level 3 is being somewhat disingenuous. They are in the top 3 in terms of route miles buried fiber in North America, in addition to markets in Asia-Pac and South America. When Internet providers need to increase capacity on their own network, circuits to other providers or new customers, there is a very good chance an order is placed with Level 3 for one of their high capacity fiber services. Even the Telco's buy from Level 3.

So who's being 'greedy' in all this? Everyone. The Internet providers want to make money, the streaming services want to make money and the consumer wants to spend less money. So when you write your letters to congress and the internet providers, remember to include the 'greedy' streaming providers who don't invest to give you better service.

The internet stopped being an entitlement when Al Gore invented it. This is known biggrin.gif

-
About me: I've been in the Internet business for 30 years now and currently work for one of the largest telecom companies.

.John
DeadEd and TeflonSoul like this.
racervortex is offline  
post #14 of 101 Old 05-08-2014, 06:57 PM
Member
 
kleenex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by degobah77 View Post

I don't think giving customer slow internet increases their profits (it's in their best interest to give you the best they can so you STAY a customer) - unless you're in an area where there's no competition - which may be the case in a lot of places unfortunately due to the comment made above yours. Nothing you can do if it's a monopoly except move somewhere else.

There are 3 Tier I providers I can choose from here and at least 2 other options. If I don't get the fastest for the cheapest, they don't get my money.

 

If all three providers in you area are doing it then you have no shot at the real internet speeds they are giving you.

kleenex is offline  
post #15 of 101 Old 05-08-2014, 08:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
chirpie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Olathe, Kansas
Posts: 3,587
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 82
Dang, joined 9 years ago, and just now breaking the silence? Welcome to the club! :-)
chirpie is offline  
post #16 of 101 Old 05-08-2014, 08:36 PM
Newbie
 
racervortex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Heh - I realized that after posting as well. Figured I would get called out biggrin.gif

I'm a lurker because I know very little about AV but enjoy all things tech. I responded on this topic because of my deep technical and business expertise on the subject

I actually just read the original CNET article and feel silly cause my post looks like a recap of that article...
racervortex is offline  
post #17 of 101 Old 05-08-2014, 08:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
LowellG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Helotes, TX
Posts: 1,431
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistractedJohn View Post

The rich get richer...


Supply and demand. I am not saying I like or approve of it, but we keep thinking "things" are necessities and they are not. If we don't buy their crap, quality and service will improve and prices will go down. You just have to be able to live without it. It's a want not a need?

Lowell


The MARVELous Home Theater: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-ded...e-theater.html
LowellG is online now  
post #18 of 101 Old 05-08-2014, 09:02 PM
Member
 
rtheen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 26
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am also in st. Louis and are you talking about charter or AT&T? Both in my opinion are awful, but they convince reasonably intelligent people that its faster than you will ever need. Why would you need unlimited downloads or need any faster.
rtheen is offline  
post #19 of 101 Old 05-08-2014, 10:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tenthplanet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Mexico, South of Oregon, Not as far east as Vegas
Posts: 1,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitally challe View Post

Call and email the FCC relentlessly. If ALL of us scream loudly and continuously they will listen. The FCC will hold a meeting a week from today on the 15th. If you care about Net Neutrality and your First Amendment rights of free speech and free press, make your voices heard to the FCC. During Hitler's rise to power, his propaganda minister,Joseph Goebells stated that if you control the media of the people, you can control the mind of the people. Unless we stand together for a common goal/good, we will move towards a Fascist, Corporate America and you can say goodbye to OUR Constitution of the United States of America. I will not go down without a fight. Will you?
Keep the FCC away from my internet. Net neutrality is a back door for a level of gov't regulation we just don't need. The internet is still a luxury not a utility. Net neutrality was intended more free speech, not for streaming.

"Bring out yer dead!".."Wait I'm not dead yet!"..(Sound Austrian here) "WRONG !!" (You know what happens next..)
tenthplanet is offline  
post #20 of 101 Old 05-09-2014, 05:21 AM
Senior Member
 
kevon27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 481
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Solution to get back to the ISP's.. We should STOP using internet and cable TV for about a year.. Only watch OTA TV, Listen to free radio, Read more books, Actually talk to people and be less antisocial (facebook and twitter is not social)..
This way we save money and the ISP's lose money..
kevon27 is offline  
post #21 of 101 Old 05-09-2014, 05:46 AM
Advanced Member
 
trans_lux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In my theater
Posts: 981
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthplanet View Post

Keep the FCC away from my internet. Net neutrality is a back door for a level of gov't regulation we just don't need. The internet is still a luxury not a utility. Net neutrality was intended more free speech, not for streaming.

Its really a no win situation.
On one hand if you leave up to the monopolies I mean free markets you get shafted, get the government involved and now its a real mess.
Either way we get the hairy sucker.
I guess it was a good ride that will be coming to an end.
trans_lux is offline  
post #22 of 101 Old 05-09-2014, 06:06 AM
Member
 
Steve Crowley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston,Tx
Posts: 149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
If you live far enough away from a metropolitan area, we only have 1 provider. When your phone is going through cable, it rings and guess what, internet stops. That is what an antique system is all about. But try and get a community to put in there own network, watch the local gov't suddenly protect that provider.

Klipsch so much it Hz
Steve Crowley is offline  
post #23 of 101 Old 05-09-2014, 07:47 AM
Senior Member
 
degobah77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by kleenex View Post

If all three providers in you area are doing it then you have no shot at the real internet speeds they are giving you.

I pay for 50mbps down and I've never gotten anything less at any time of the day so I'm pretty happy. Thankfully, it's not with Comcast, either smile.gif Though I can use them as leverage if I ever have an issue.

As far as the bigger picture goes, this Fast Lane nonsense is just going to make this whole thing worse. Should be an interesting next couple of years.

Boom
degobah77 is offline  
post #24 of 101 Old 05-09-2014, 07:50 AM
Senior Member
 
Digitally challe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 235
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Crowley View Post

If you live far enough away from a metropolitan area, we only have 1 provider. When your phone is going through cable, it rings and guess what, internet stops. That is what an antique system is all about. But try and get a community to put in there own network, watch the local gov't suddenly protect that provider.

Usually, the individual cities, towns, and localities, will want to build. It is the STATE governments that have been financially persuaded by A/ALL major telcoms/ISP's to enact statewide laws preventing growth.
Steve Crowley and mo949 like this.
Digitally challe is offline  
post #25 of 101 Old 05-09-2014, 12:12 PM
Newbie
 
gentlegeorgia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtheen View Post

I am also in st. Louis and are you talking about charter or AT&T? Both in my opinion are awful, but they convince reasonably intelligent people that its faster than you will ever need. Why would you need unlimited downloads or need any faster.
Sorry about that, Charter is the culprit!
You are right, I dropped AT&T several years ago because of their speed,cust. service, and constantly being "knocked off" the web.
gentlegeorgia is offline  
post #26 of 101 Old 05-09-2014, 12:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Digitally challe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 235
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
May15.savetheinternet.com If you like the internet the way it is now,as I do, please visit the afore mentioned website and tell them how you feel.
Digitally challe is offline  
post #27 of 101 Old 05-09-2014, 03:52 PM
Member
 
flvinny521's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Lake Worth, FL
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
If anybody is interested, here's the letter I wrote to the FCC. Feel free to use it and/or modify it to fit your needs and beliefs. I also advise writing to/calling your local government officials and letters to the editor of your newspapers calling out your reps BY NAME for a comment on the situation. Supposedly, that's more effective at getting a response that contacting the rep directly.


Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The proposed Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet bill that would allow ISPs to charge online content creators for access to faster data lanes would cause irreparable damage to arguably the most important means of communication ever created. Not only should this proposal be shot down, but future legislature with similar goals should be illegal. Regardless of what misleading name is assigned to it, there is nothing at all "open" about the idea that the largest corporations in the country should be able to determine what information its citizens can reliably receive. While this may have been a popular idea at Chairman Wheeler's former role as head of the National Cable Television Association, it is an absolute violation of his current responsibility to represent the best interests of the United States public.

Information is a public good. The free and open transmission of information promotes the general welfare of our nation. This information should not be segregated into those that can afford to pay an ISP toll and those that cannot. Modern innovation is dependent on all entrepreneurs having access to the same infrastructure that their competitors do. Allowing large corporations to buy their way into prioritizing their content over all competition would be a huge barrier to any new company or individual attempting to offer a new and potentially innovative product or service to the public. True net neutrality means a free exchange of information between all people and organizations, regardless of their ability to contribute to election campaigns or hire politicians to cushy high paid executive roles.

It is in the best interest of all Americans (and ultimately all internet users worldwide, as our content creators deliver their data everywhere and this proposal would have far reaching effects) that we immediately classify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. Internet access is no longer a luxury; it is no longer a product. It is an essential tool for work, commerce, and the exercise of free speech, and a necessity for the vast majority of Americans. Broadband providers use public rights of way to install their cable across the country, and the government has an obligation to ensure that this allowed monopoly is not abused. Given that this installation of cable is controlled by local governments just as utilities are, it is only right that they should be classified and regulated as one. FCC Chairman Wheeler has already offered this as a solution if ISPs abuse this Open Internet legislation, indicating two things: first, that the Chairman acknowledges that this reclassification would be beneficial to a truly open internet, and second, that this current proposal does provide ISPs an opportunity for abuse. Although the Chairman feels that scrapping this proposal "invites delay that could tack on multiple more years before there are Open Internet rules in place,” there are Americans all over the country who know that this is a fight worth fighting, regardless of how long it takes to get right. This decision will set long lasting precedents that will shape the future of this and all countries for years to come.

In addition, many ISPs themselves publish online content like streaming video, television, music and news. These same ISPs could use these proposed laws to throttle or block their own competitors, an obvious conflict of interest. How this is not immediately apparent to any legislator considering this proposal is astounding. ISPs like Comcast should not have control over the flow of information; they should be held responsible for providing equal and unrestricted access to all content to each and every subscriber. There are repeated claims by these same ISPs that their infrastructure can not handle current demands, which is why their customers often experience far slower speeds than advertised. How these same companies can now promise improved service, but only to corporations that shell out large payments, indicates that they do not have the best interests of their customers at heart. The idea of data congesting their infrastructure is a complete fabrication. If there weren't such monumental barriers to entry for new ISPs, their clients could express their disappointment by moving to an alternative carrier. For most of the nation there is only one broadband carrier available, and you're about to give them a green light to further abuse their customers and hold hostage every individual and company, large and small, who has an online presence. Can we really trust them to act appropriately when the FCC Chairman himself has indicated that there is potential for abuse?

In closing, this issue will never slip under the public radar. Every time a new SOPA, PIPA or "Open Internet" proposal is made, citizens like me will be here to fight it. I repeat: the only acceptable solution is to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. Then, and only then, will we be on the road to the internet that we as Americans and all citizens of the world deserve.

Sincerely,

Edit: Also, as much I love the unannounced speed upgrades that Comcast and other providers sometimes implement, how about just keeping the speed that your customers agreed to and IMPROVE YOUR NETWORK so the "congestion" goes away? How is it that they can double the bandwidth for large markets, but then claim that their infrastructure can't handle it?
flvinny521 is offline  
post #28 of 101 Old 05-09-2014, 06:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wxman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,847
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Liked: 243
If people would drop the cable tv end and hit their profits, they would respond. But people don't. They pay for internet and cable tv and just sit back on their couch, get fat and vegetate. On top of it, 95% of the consumers don't care. They gladly accept what they think is good internet, and crappy HD quality.
wxman is offline  
post #29 of 101 Old 05-09-2014, 06:28 PM
Senior Member
 
degobah77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 49
That goes for most things, not just the media consumption industry. We're all happy enough to not really do anything about anything and the media runs the country.

Boom
degobah77 is offline  
post #30 of 101 Old 05-09-2014, 08:10 PM
Newbie
 
Krascher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopefulFred View Post

but I only say that because I doubt the FCC would end up ruling for net neutrality.

Quoted for truth.
Krascher is offline  
Reply Latest Industry News

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off