I would just like to thank OzzFan for his 'easier to understand than many' explanations of just what is going on and why it is important.
Cat dancing videos are more important to some people than others. Just as unfettered Netflix access is more important to some than others.

The point as I see it is that the backbone providers should not be able to hold those supplying cat dancing videos to slower data rates unless they agree to pay a ransom for faster transfers. Any more than Netflix should have been forced to cave in and pay more so they could give their customers what they already paid for.

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

Ozz said:

but that doesn't mean that Comcast wasn't doing it elsewhere or to other accounts that consumed Netflix more than I do

I'm not on Com Cast.

Anyways, as a rough guess, I might 'Stream' 1 Hour every threee daaayssss. Sometimes I go weeks without 'Ssssssstreeeeeeeeeeeming. Sometimes, couple hours a day for few days. Still, no Heavy 'User'. Snort, sniff, cough.

Back a ways, when I might do 12 to 20 Dvds in a month, Net Flix would 'Throttle' the account and 'take their time' sending out The Next Ones. 'It' was well Known as 'A Practice'. Now, I might do 8 a month, cause My 'Fix' has leveled. Sniff, snort, cough.

Been 'Using' Snort, sniff, cough, spit, Net Flix since mid '05. And 'Throttling', or Lack of Server Capacity or 'Whatever' da Reason, THE SLOWDOWN is QUITE NOTICEABLE now, for the last 6 months or more.

Again, Ama Zon Pr ime and H BO G O YOoooooooooooooooooooo through Same Same Roku, is Fast Fast Fast. I 'use' them as little as Net flix.

And I have the Original Roku.

Got Stream? Steamed? Not Me. Just 'goin' wif The Dancin'.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

What I expect is to get what I pay ATT for from my end.
X up, X down.
And I expect that no matter what internet site I happen to be trying to connect to.
If it's cat dancing videos, Netflix, Youtube, or CNN or Fox.
I don't expect my access to be throttled to one site more than the next because they have not paid an extortion access fee to somebody above them.

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

So net neutrality has been gone since January and in February Netflix paid and got a fast lane from Comcast. Yet in June they were still complaining about Verizon's speeds. Why don't they buy a fast lane? Anyway no one noticed except Comcast's Netflix customs who got a better stream. Netflix should not have paid as it shows that net neutrality didn't work and removing it does. That gives the ISP lobbyists a gunboat full of ammunition.

Verizon did negotiate a peering deal with Netflix, but Verizon has bigger infrastructure problems in some areas:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/07/theres-no-congestion-verizon-says-despite-continued-netflix-problems/

Ozz said:

but that doesn't mean that Comcast wasn't doing it elsewhere or to other accounts that consumed Netflix more than I do

I'm not on Com Cast.

Excellent, then that removes Comcast from your specific equation.

Been 'Using' Snort, sniff, cough, spit, Net Flix since mid '05. And 'Throttling', or Lack of Server Capacity or 'Whatever' da Reason, THE SLOWDOWN is QUITE NOTICEABLE now, for the last 6 months or more.

Again, Ama Zon Pr ime and H BO G O YOoooooooooooooooooooo through Same Same Roku, is Fast Fast Fast. I 'use' them as little as Net flix.

There's much more going on in between you and content providers than you realize. Just because other services you use don't have problems and Netflix does, doesn't mean the problem lies strictly with Netflix. It does mean that the routes or pathways that Netflix is being delivered to you is being throttled by someone 'in between'. Correlate that with the fact that I have not had Netflix problems strongly suggest that the problem isn't on Netflix's side.

Sounds like someone in between wants a paid peering deal from Netflix since they are [sarcasm] quite obviously a big company with 1/3 of all internet traffic. [/s] Since Netflix has been forced to pay for peering deals in the past, there's nothing to prevent other companies from demanding the same unless we make sure that they are unable to do that through passing net neutrality laws.

You people don't have a clue about how this works. Post your numbers as I did.

How will you promote competition? Each ISP would have to run a wire to the premises. Is this what you want?

Do you mean there is no competition now? I see plenty of competition between the ISP's, they are all promising faster internet for the lowest price. But whatever internet I get, be it max 30 Mbps or 60 Mbps, all content I wish to access gets delivered to me at the same speed. Every content deliverer has the same access to me.

Think of the internet as a road and the ISP the guy that owns the road. I pay money to the ISP so I can use the road. Now there are also delivery companies that need to get to my house because I ordered something from them. They need to go over the road my ISP owns and under normal circumstances there is an uniform speed limit. Every company has to stick to that speed limit. Now the ISP is whining that it needs to pay for the road but wants more profit so they introduce a measure where delivery companies need to pay extra and then they will get a faster speed limit than everyone else. At least, this is what the ISP promises. In reality, they just keep one lane on the road open with the old maximum speed limit and they close down all other lanes or they signficantly reduce the maximum speed limit on those lanes. And the lane with the old speed limit now costs a lot extra.

Well, thats what happens when net neutrality ends. Nothing competition with ISP's, all it does is distort competition for companies that operate over the internet and the source of the distortion will be the ISP.

Oh but the ISP claim they won't do these things, you can trust them. Honestly, you think you can trust a corporation? You're an idiot if you do. Corporations do not deserve your trust because they have shown over and over and over again that they cannot be trusted. Especially not in this case because how many ISP's have links to Television? How many of them have an interest in that area? Right, they have a significant interest in that, and the internet is currently killing television with services like Netflix or Youtube. They will happily screw everyone and everything over if it means more profit to them and in this case doubly so because they have an interest in killing off services like Netflix. And they easily can because they have a virtual monopoly given their ownership over the infrastructure and the huge starting costs for any would be competitor that wants to start his own ISP.

You people don't have a clue about how this works. Post your numbers as I did.

How will you promote competition? Each ISP would have to run a wire to the premises. Is this what you want?

Do you mean there is no competition now? I see plenty of competition between the ISP's, they are all promising faster internet for the lowest price. But whatever internet I get, be it max 30 Mbps or 60 Mbps, all content I wish to access gets delivered to me at the same speed. Every content deliverer has the same access to me.

Think of the internet as a road and the ISP the guy that owns the road. I pay money to the ISP so I can use the road. Now there are also delivery companies that need to get to my house because I ordered something from them. They need to go over the road my ISP owns and under normal circumstances there is an uniform speed limit. Every company has to stick to that speed limit. Now the ISP is whining that it needs to pay for the road but wants more profit so they introduce a measure where delivery companies need to pay extra and then they will get a faster speed limit than everyone else. At least, this is what the ISP promises. In reality, they just keep one lane on the road open with the old maximum speed limit and they close down all other lanes or they signficantly reduce the maximum speed limit on those lanes. And the lane with the old speed limit now costs a lot extra.

Well, thats what happens when net neutrality ends. Nothing competition with ISP's, all it does is distort competition for companies that operate over the internet and the source of the distortion will be the ISP.

Oh but the ISP claim they won't do these things, you can trust them. Honestly, you think you can trust a corporation? You're an idiot if you do. Corporations do not deserve your trust because they have shown over and over and over again that they cannot be trusted. Especially not in this case because how many ISP's have links to Television? How many of them have an interest in that area? Right, they have a significant interest in that, and the internet is currently killing television with services like Netflix or Youtube. They will happily screw everyone and everything over if it means more profit to them and in this case doubly so because they have an interest in killing off services like Netflix. And they easily can because they have a virtual monopoly given their ownership over the infrastructure and the huge starting costs for any would be competitor that wants to start his own ISP.

I always thought that the U.S. like a free market and that have anti-trust laws regulating this.
But perhaps it is not so anymore.
Sad. Hope this is a trend that does not spread.

Fun with facts.

I always thought that the U.S. like a free market and that have anti-trust laws regulating this.

We still do but this is such a complicated subject that even experts don't know who's doing what to whom. Don't think that Netflix is innocent in all this. They were caught fudging numbers also. Why did Netflix buy a fast lane so quickly? Even with a fast lane Netflex on Comcast is not their fastest ISP. So there are problems on both ends as well as in the middle.

If/when the FCC brings back net neutrality Comcast customers will once again get buffered dancing cat videos. Then we are back to who is doing what to whom.

Verizon did negotiate a peering deal with Netflix, but Verizon has bigger infrastructure problems in some areas:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/07/theres-no-congestion-verizon-says-despite-continued-netflix-problems/

Yet customers are still complaining about bad performance. The reason is that Verizon and Netflix haven’t set up enough connections to make much of a difference, and Verizon has said work may not be completed until the end of 2014.

So what happens to these connections when net neutrality is back? Also why should I pay for these connections I will never use?

Proof Netflix can't keep up even with a fast lane.

Did you notice the 75 meg download? I know that is only the last mile but The Phone Company still getting it done.

---

There is not much competition.
I have two possible bandwidth providers.
One is ATT. I have my services from them at present, have negotiated, believe it or not, my best deal from them, and it still sux.
They are providing me a fraction of what they could, at the highest cost they can, and are capping me.
My second possible choice would be Roadrunner from Time Warner....
Now, that would seem like a good second, but there are some things..........
First, I had not good service from them years ago when I had a TV. And promises are promises. And freaking Comcast is about to take them over unless somebody of moderate intelligence sees through their argument that 'oh, this will not compromise competition because we each have our own markets'... Yeah, right.

ATT early this year imposed a cap on bandwidth. And I have been paying surcharges since. Where do you think these surcharges go? Into their profits, as they have done nothing to change or improve the infrastructure that supports my usage. It's has been the same for at least 10 years, and I can lead you to the street box where I connect, as I once met a tech there to figure out a connection problem. No fibre. No improvements, they are still milking the same DSL over copper connection I have had for years now.

Except it now costs me more.

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

From the Article Great and Wonderful OZZ linked:

“We are working aggressively with Netflix to establish new, direct connections from Netflix to Verizon’s network,” Young wrote. “The benefit of these direct connections will be two-fold. First, Verizon customers who use Netflix will have a significantly improved experience as Netflix traffic flows over non-congested links. Early tests indicate that this is the case. The other benefit will be that the congestion that we are seeing today on those links between these middleman networks and our L.A. border router will likely go away once the huge volume of Netflix traffic is routed more efficiently. This will improve performance for any other traffic that is currently being affected over those connections.”

I'll be waiting patiently, especially when Slug Speeds are da norm. heeeheeeheee

batter up said:

Also why should I pay for these connections I will never use?

Your Help in The Cost is Appreciated. We All Suck 'it' Up in This Vrold. heeeheeeheee.

batter up oozed again:

Proof Netflix can't keep up even with a fast lane.

The article clearly states, Netflix does NOT have the Fast Lane Yet due to Ver i zon's slow implementation.

Compared to Comcast, Verizon’s infrastructure team was unprepared for the deal. In June, a Verizon statement said, “we will be incrementally rolling it out starting next month and progressing through the fourth quarter.”

Having Fun Yet?

Sweetness

kittyman said:

they are still milking the same DSL over copper connection I have had for years now.

I dig 'it'. The Fibre Optic Line into The Fibre Optic Box in My Basement, feeds into RG58 COPPER Lines to my STBs>TVs. And Router/Modem COPPER to the Computers via Ethernet Cable. My Wi Fi devices, COPPER to Air to COPPER again.

Love dat COPPER. Get 'it', heeeheeeheee.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

One is ATT. I have my services from them at present, have negotiated, believe it or not, my best deal from them, and it still sux.
They are providing me a fraction of what they could, at the highest cost they can, and are capping me.

Do you have DSL with a 250 gigabyte a month limit? I don't use 250 gigabyte in four months. Why should grandmothers who won't use 250 gigabyte in their lifetime subsidize your dancing cat videos?

I have a broadband cellular modem. For $50 I get 5 gigabyte a month with $10 for each gigabyte I go over. My DSL is truly unlimited. Both from Verizon.

batter up oozed again:

Proof Netflix can't keep up even with a fast lane.

The article clearly states, Netflix does NOT have the Fast Lane Yet due to Ver i zon's slow implementation.

I was referring to Netflix and Comcast and they do have a fast lane connection. Yet Netflix and Comcast do not have the fastest speeds compared to some other ISP.

Thank you for playing.

---

You people don't have a clue about how this works. Post your numbers as I did.

How will you promote competition? Each ISP would have to run a wire to the premises. Is this what you want?

Do you mean there is no competition now? I see plenty of competition between the ISP's, they are all promising faster internet for the lowest price. But whatever internet I get, be it max 30 Mbps or 60 Mbps, all content I wish to access gets delivered to me at the same speed. Every content deliverer has the same access to me.

I'm so glad you do. Here in the USA the city government controls access to the utility easement. Each person here has no choice in the ISP. They get the monopoly ISP that donated the most $$$$$ to the city council candidates.

---

I'm so glad you do. Here in the USA the city government controls access to the utility easement. Each person here has no choice in the ISP. They get the monopoly ISP that donated the most $$$$$ to the city council candidates.

There is satellite and cellular broadband available but they are expensive. Most have a choice between a cable and telephone provider so that is 6 or more choices, two wired.

Wired, as of now, is the only practical choice. How many wired choices do you want?

---

kittyman said:
they are still milking the same DSL over copper connection I have had for years now.

I dig 'it'. The Fibre Optic Line into The Fibre Optic Box in My Basement, feeds into RG58 COPPER Lines to my STBs>TVs. And Router/Modem COPPER to the Computers via Ethernet Cable. My Wi Fi devices, COPPER to Air to COPPER again.

Love dat COPPER. Get 'it', heeeheeeheee.

' '

I luv da copper thingys myself, being old school.
But it's when they try to tell me they have 'improved' my service, I get annoyed.
I am an electrician. And I can put a tone generator on my line at home and walk every foot of my line from my house to the box on the street some blocks away. It is the very same pair of copper lines that was in existence since the house was telephonified some 40 years ago. Even the box has not been changed out since. It's still in the same ditch, half cocked in the mud. You could run fibre up to it and MY service would not improve.

I have had dial-up, ISDN, and DSL service over the same lines from blocks away and yet they always tell me....
'We cannot upgrade your service at this time...'
Yeah, right. Copper is some amazing shit, dudes.

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

'We cannot upgrade your service at this time...'
Yeah, right. Copper is some amazing shit, dudes.

Wireless is where the money is. If the "Baby Bells" could they would stop supplying POTS and do away with copper; it is very expensive to maintain. The only reason you and I still have copper is because of legacy government regulation. Verizon spent 21 billion dollars placing glass (FiOS) to 1/2 its area. Most of it is unused because of lack of subscribers. No more FiOS will be placed.

Ma Bell is dead and yet the people weep.

---

There is not much competition.
I have two possible bandwidth providers.
One is ATT. I have my services from them at present, have negotiated, believe it or not, my best deal from them, and it still sux.
They are providing me a fraction of what they could, at the highest cost they can, and are capping me.
My second possible choice would be Roadrunner from Time Warner....
Now, that would seem like a good second, but there are some things..........
First, I had not good service from them years ago when I had a TV. And promises are promises. And freaking Comcast is about to take them over unless somebody of moderate intelligence sees through their argument that 'oh, this will not compromise competition because we each have our own markets'... Yeah, right.

ATT early this year imposed a cap on bandwidth. And I have been paying surcharges since. Where do you think these surcharges go? Into their profits, as they have done nothing to change or improve the infrastructure that supports my usage. It's has been the same for at least 10 years, and I can lead you to the street box where I connect, as I once met a tech there to figure out a connection problem. No fibre. No improvements, they are still milking the same DSL over copper connection I have had for years now.

Except it now costs me more.

Just two!
And I have heard that several states have only one: (
In our country that is small, we have at least 5 to choose from.
How much does a subscription per month in U.S. cost?
And how much does a Big Mac cost?
Economists usually use Big Macs as a yardstick to compare countries in between.

'We cannot upgrade your service at this time...'
Yeah, right. Copper is some amazing shit, dudes.

Wireless is where the money is. If the "Baby Bells" could they would stop supplying POTS and do away with copper; it is very expensive to maintain. The only reason you and I still have copper is because of legacy government regulation. Verizon spent 21 billion dollars placing glass (FiOS) to 1/2 its area. Most of it is unused because of lack of subscribers. No more FiOS will be placed.

Ma Bell is dead and yet the people weep.

And ya know what?
If my power goes out and the substation's does not, I still got POTS.
God bless copper.

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

If my power goes out and the substation's does not, I still got POTS.
God bless copper.

During Sandy I lost electric, CATV and cell service for 11 days. My DSL and POTS didn't miss a beat. DSL needs power for the modem that I supplied from a small generator. One of the reasons FiOS doesn't get enough subscribers is because some don't want to give up copper connections. Verizon does not want to maintain two wired networks; actually they don't want any wired networks.

Net neutrality is one thing but bandwidth caps will prove to be more of a problem to streaming video watchers.

America once had universal service at an affordable cost but they listened to the Sirens Song of MCI and were dashed upon the rocks. Now there is weeping and gnashing of teeth but alas, Ma Bell is dead.

---

If my power goes out and the substation's does not, I still got POTS.
God bless copper.

During Sandy I lost electric, CATV and cell service for 11 days. My DSL and POTS didn't miss a beat. DSL needs power for the modem that I supplied from a small generator. One of the reasons FiOS doesn't get enough subscribers is because some don't want to give up copper connections. Verizon does not want to maintain two wired networks; actually they don't want any wired networks.

Net neutrality is one thing but bandwidth caps will prove to be more of a problem to streaming video watchers.

America once had universal service at an affordable cost but they listened to the Sirens Song of MCI and were dashed upon the rocks. Now there is weeping and gnashing of teeth but alas, Ma Bell is dead.

I think you are the one most wailing and gnashing.
Mind you, I was with yo' mama since 1980 when I bought this home and she or her stepsisters have shared my bed since. I have threatened to go astray, but that usually was enough to get them to woo me back home.

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

Why did Netflix buy a fast lane so quickly?

You call 4 years of battling it out "quickly"?

Even with a fast lane Netflex on Comcast is not their fastest ISP. So there are problems on both ends as well as in the middle.

Not sure how you figure and come to that conclusion. Sure, Netflix on Comcast not being the fastest even with a paid peering deal merely means that other ISPs are using poor routing or are fudging things to get money from paid peering.

If/when the FCC brings back net neutrality Comcast customers will once again get buffered dancing cat videos. Then we are back to who is doing what to whom.

Buffering =/= throttling

Yet customers are still complaining about bad performance. The reason is that Verizon and Netflix haven’t set up enough connections to make much of a difference, and Verizon has said work may not be completed until the end of 2014.

So what happens to these connections when net neutrality is back? Also why should I pay for these connections I will never use?

Excellent questions.

Proof Netflix can't keep up even with a fast lane.

[img snipped for brevity]

Did you notice the 75 meg download? I know that is only the last mile but The Phone Company still getting it done.

Did you simply go to the article and cherry pick what you think proves your point? Did you read that the chart is from a Verizon executive trying to "dispel the congestion myth", meaning that the chart is unreliable information from a source that has a vested interest in denying they are the problem?

Here's the important part of that link:

“We'd like to thank Verizon for laying out the issue so nicely,” a Netflix spokesperson said in a statement sent to Ars. “Congestion at the interconnection point is controlled by ISPs like Verizon. When Verizon fails to upgrade those interconnections, consumers get a lousy experience despite paying for more than enough bandwidth to enjoy high-quality Netflix video. That's why Netflix is calling for strong net neutrality that covers the interconnection needed for consumers to get the quality of Internet they pay for.”