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.

The Net neutrality discussion isn't about bandwidth. Nor is streaming video strictly about bandwidth. Latency is far more important than bandwidth in most cases. Latency is affected by so many different things, including distance, poor routing paths, poor equipment, etc.

That some users are experiencing issues with Netflix on some ISPs simply means the pathways need to be examined further.

Why did Netflix buy a fast lane so quickly?

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

It took only 5 weeks from when it was legal to sell a fast lane that Netflix jumped on it. Now the FCC has to reverse what is working and go back to what didn't. To the casual observer it appears that ISP are building a new network for fast lane customers wile leaving what was as is. That's why Netflix is still congested on Verizon; Verizon has not finished Netflix's super highway.

A what may happen argument doesn't carry as much weight as what is happening. I wouldn't put it past Verizon to be choreographing this to prove that a fast lane will not harm the lanes in place.

The Phone Company learned how to play the competitive game and is now the teacher. Next the cerebrum communicator.

---

Why did Netflix buy a fast lane so quickly?

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

It took only 5 weeks from when it was legal to sell a fast lane that Netflix jumped on it.

Netflix had no other choice after the FCC's Net Neutrality order was struck down. Comcast had been trying to get content providers to pay for access to their customers for years, and with the courts saying that the FCC overstepped it's authority in issuing the Net Neutrality order, Comcast was sitting in a pretty powerful position, leaving Netflix with little choice for recourse.

Now the FCC has to reverse what is working and go back to what didn't.

Not quite right. The FCC attempted to keep what was already working right (i.e. free peering), was struck down for their effort, and must now re-examine it's options in order to keep things working right. Since the FCC's head is a former Cable Industry leader, he tends to lean in favor of their views instead of favoring what's best for all Americans like he should.

To the casual observer it appears that ISP are building a new network for fast lane customers wile leaving what was as is. That's why Netflix is still congested on Verizon; Verizon has not finished Netflix's super highway.

Verizon is arguing that the congestion is a myth, and even came up with a pretty chart to show everyone why they're right. In truth, they do not want to experience the bad PR that would go with admitting their infrastructure needs work, so much so that they require a peering deal directly with a content provider like Netflix just to deliver decent quality to their users.

A what may happen argument doesn't carry as much weight as what is happening. I wouldn't put it past Verizon to be choreographing this to prove that a fast lane will not harm the lanes in place.

Again, Net Neutrality is not about internet fast lanes. No one has an issue with ISPs working to make things faster or offering tiered speeds of ISP access to customers who can choose what they wish to afford.

At issue is double charging and mob-like negotiation tactics. "Say Netflix, that's a mighty fine service you have there. Shame if you couldn't access customers through our networks. Why don't you give us a little "incentive" to make your content reach our mutual customers and make it worth our while?"

What should have happened is Comcast and Verizon realizing that the demand for internet content is growing faster every day, and to either use R&D and their profit money to improve their networks, or to negotiate a free peering deal with Netflix - because that's how it always worked in the past - to benefit their mutual customers.

The Phone Company learned how to play the competitive game and is now the teacher. Next the cerebrum communicator.

Except that the phone company isn't playing competitively. It is double charging for access already paid for by their customers; you and me. That increases the business costs for Netflix, and any other startup that may wish to provide content to people on the internet. Those costs always get passed on to the customer - the customer whom is already paying for access to the internet in the first place!

Here, perhaps John Oliver can get through to you better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

What should have happened is Comcast and Verizon realizing that the demand for internet content is growing faster every day, and to either use R&D and their profit money to improve their networks, or to negotiate a free peering deal with Netflix - because that's how it always worked in the past - to benefit their mutual customers.

You keep saying peering when referring to Netflix. Netflix is not a peer and cannot offer to trade bandwidth as they are a consumer not a provider.

Except that the phone company isn't playing competitively.

I think they are playing the game quite well. They had enough money to buy out Vodafone's non controlling interest in Verizon Wireless for $130 billion. Yes that is billion with a B.

That said, I am in favor of bringing back net neutrality, I didn't even notice it was gone, as I don't watch dancing cat videos and wouldn't touch "the cloud".

---

What should have happened is Comcast and Verizon realizing that the demand for internet content is growing faster every day, and to either use R&D and their profit money to improve their networks, or to negotiate a free peering deal with Netflix - because that's how it always worked in the past - to benefit their mutual customers.

You keep saying peering when referring to Netflix. Netflix is not a peer and cannot offer to trade bandwidth as they are a consumer not a provider.

An ISP technically cannot peer either unless it is with other ISPs or they happen to be a backbone provider as well. An ISP buys access to the internet from a backbone provider and sells it to consumers.

This does not make it OK for ISPs to force content providers with deals for access to customers if they are not the content provider's ISP; and even if they were, the content provider has already paid for access, it doesn't get to double-charge.

Except that the phone company isn't playing competitively.

I think they are playing the game quite well. They had enough money to buy out Vodafone's non controlling interest in Verizon Wireless for $130 billion. Yes that is billion with a B.

Perhaps they should stick with buying out other companies to increase capacity rather than extorting consumers and double-dipping. That they are doing well financially doesn't mean that their extortion is "playing the game well".

I'm glad that down here that we can choose any ISP we want to go with (unless that person lives in some very remote region where a satellite connection is required).

And no Batter Up, our phone poles do not look like that as it's all done on the same single line.

Cheers.

That they are doing well financially doesn't mean that their extortion is "playing the game well".

The name of the game is keep the owners happy by NEVER missing a dividend payment. If the board of directors didn't do everything legally possible to accomplish that they would be removed. I read your solutions and they are the same as the ones that held up FiOS for years. Go ahead get communist on TPC again and see what happens.

And no Batter Up, our phone poles do not look like that as it's all done on the same single line.

Our DSL is like that where the "Baby Bells" copper is still regulated and available to any ISP to leech off. Verizon would not have spent $21 billion US to run fiber to the premise if they had to let others leech of it. Anyway this net neutrality is not about the local loop but the backbone.

Who provides your local loop and is it on copper or fiber?

(unless that person lives in some very remote region where a satellite connection is required)

So you don't have universal service at a reasonable cost. US no longer do ether.

---

That they are doing well financially doesn't mean that their extortion is "playing the game well".

The name of the game is keep the owners happy by NEVER missing a dividend payment. If the board of directors didn't do everything legally possible to accomplish that they would be removed.

Not true. All they need to do is earn a profit. They are not required to engage in shakedowns for shareholders.

I read your solutions and they are the same as the ones that held up FiOS for years. Go ahead get communist on TPC again and see what happens.

WTF does this even mean? And exactly who are you to declare everyone else communist who disagree with you or your agendized views? Get real.

And exactly who are you to declare everyone else communist who disagree with you or your agendized views? Get real.

I'm waiting the hear how you are going to force ISPs to do your bidding. How about nationalization of the Internet?

---

And exactly who are you to declare everyone else communist who disagree with you or your agendized views? Get real.

I'm waiting the hear how you are going to force ISPs to do your bidding. How about nationalization of the Internet?

Doesn't sound like you're waiting to hear it at all. You've already labeled and judged. You're no longer having a discussion, you're trolololing for fun.

'sok, I spanked you pretty hard earlier. I can see why your fuming and looking to redeem yourself.

'sok, I spanked you pretty hard earlier.

You sure did. Now how are you going to force ISPs to do your bidding?

---

Now how are you going to force ISPs to do your bidding?

I'm not.

There are Thousands of Books on Shelves in The House.

I can read till the Day I Die, which is always sooner than later.

I can 'Stream' DEM Words into my mind, Nice and Slow. And all Stutterin' Bufferin' Like.

Finished One Last Night and Cried Like A Baby, due to 'It's' Content Provided to me By Paper{sorry trees}, Ink, My Eyes and Mind.

heeeheeeheee

Neutral Drive Reverse. Got Anything?

' '

---

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

Who provides your local loop and is it on copper or fiber?

Fibre optic cable to the local exchange and then copper to premise here though fibre to premise is being rolled out in more populated areas over the last few years, all of which is controlled by the federal government which guarantees freedom of choice, though the current government wants to change the later to fibre to node on new rollout contracts.

Isn't it amazing how many other countries have more advanced policies these days than the U.S. in this area?

Cheers.

Net Neutrality in the US is a DEEP STATE issue ... that is the REALPOLITIK of it all ...

I will leave it up to the reader to quantify how the two forces interconnect.

Definitions

Deep State
-- https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Deep_State
-- Wikipedia's State in a State does not quite convey the expansive meaning of the phrase, so I am using this instead...

In contrast to the publicly visible structures of the nation state, the phrases deep state, shadow government or permanent government refers to the more murky power structures which influence and/or control them from behind the scenes.

The term is a translation of a Turkish phrase (derin devlet) which evolved as a response to the 1996 Susurluk incident which dramatically unmasked the Turkish deep state.

The term "deep state" has experienced something of a surge in popularity in the last few years, not in the context of so called developing nations, but the US. This may reflecting a deep disillusionment with the kleptocratic state of affairs there.

Metaphors such as "bad apples in government" of "deadlock in congress" are still used by the commercially-controlled media, but as the revolving door between government and private industry becomes ever clearer, more and more people are seeing the bloody fingerprints of the military industrial complex on the levers of 'democratic' government.

As a powerful and self-interest groups (probably at least as dominated by psychopaths and sociopaths as other large hierarchical organisations), deep states seek to frustrate radical and progressive change, so as to preserve their own power, and that of the establishment in general. In contrast to overtly authoritarian rule, deep states must operate more or less secretly, like terrorist groups, so preserving secrecy is a high priority.

Control of the commercially-controlled media is essential to the effective preservation of secrecy need for the deep state to work effectively. In the US this is effected through deep state control of the CIA. With the apparatus of nation states under their control, their subterfuges can be elaborate and complex. The deep states of the world have a natural common interest in hiding their existence, which predisposes them to mutual assistance. As a Turkish cartoon put it in 1997 "Deep state protects its own."

Power relations between deep state actors are more fluid than the visible organisational structures which they dominate. Relationships between Mafia families offer a suitable parallel, combining an often uneasy cooperation with occasional violent and sudden change. Deep state groups share a common interest in preventing exposure of the real goings on behind the facade of electoral politics and business as usual. Even violently opposed factions may therefore cooperate in an effort to suppress details of deep events.

Related terms, for the adventurous
-- https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Deep_event
-- https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Deep_Politics

Net Neutrality

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication. The term was coined by Columbia media law professor Tim Wu in 2003 as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier.

Proponents often see net neutrality as an important component of an open Internet, where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party.

A "closed Internet" refers to the opposite situation, in which established corporations or governments favor certain uses. A closed Internet may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content.

There has been extensive debate about whether net neutrality should be required by law, particularly in the United States. Debate over the issue of net neutrality predates the coining of the term. Advocates of net neutrality such as Lawrence Lessig have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even to block out competitors.

Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms.

Vinton Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol and considered a "father of the Internet," as well as Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web, and many others have spoken out in favor of net neutrality.

Opponents of net neutrality claim that broadband service providers have no plans to block content or degrade network performance.

Despite this claim, there has been a single case where an Internet service provider, Comcast, intentionally slowed peer-to-peer (P2P) communications.

Still, other companies have begun to use deep packet inspection to discriminate against P2P, FTP, and online games, instituting a cell-phone style billing system of overages, free-to-telecom "value added" services, and bundling.

Critics of net neutrality also argue that data discrimination of some kinds, particularly to guarantee quality of service, is not problematic, but is actually highly desirable. Bob Kahn, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, has called the term net neutrality a "slogan" and states that he opposes establishing it, but he admits that he is against the fragmentation of the net whenever this becomes excluding to other participants.

Opponents of net neutrality regulation also argue that the best solution to discrimination by broadband providers is to encourage greater competition among such providers, which is currently limited in many areas.

Who provides your local loop and is it on copper or fiber?

controlled by the federal government

Thank you. Central planning is the way to go. How did the government confiscate the network?

---

Excellent post. I'm sorry you are having so much trouble with you Interweb.

---

Net Neutrality, polling both humorous and realistic ...

HUMOR Department
-- http://www.lightreading.com/regulation/net-neutrality/d/d-id/709802

When will we see a solution to the net neutrality issue?

273 survey takers responded to this question

1 year = 3.30% [ 9 ]
2 years = 6.59% [ 18 ]
5 years = 11.36% [ 31 ]
When hell freezes over = 30.77% [ 84 ]
A long time after hell freezes over = 47.99% [ 131 ]

REALISM Department
-- http://advanced-television.com/2014/07/09/study-net-neutrality-is-dead/

Flash Networks, specialists in mobile Internet optimisation and monetisation, has published a study revealing that 69 per cent of operators and, 74 per cent of subscribers think that mobile operators should be allowed to offer a fast lane connection to premium content providers. Flash Networks’ annual LTE survey conducted at LTE World Summit polled both subscribers and mobile operators to uncover quality of experience trends.

Flash Networks’ survey also revealed that although 84 per cent of subscribers believe that operators are responsible for video stalls and buffers, only 63 per cent of operators claim responsibility for an unsatisfactory quality of experience.

However, 80 per cent of operators already optimise or plan to optimise video and data to adapt to network conditions. These responses suggest that while operators are reluctant to admit responsibility, they recognise that video quality is vital to customer satisfaction.

Compared with last year’s survey, there was a significant decrease in the percentage of operators who felt that their network was “Super fast – 20Mpbs download throughput” (48 per cent in 2013 versus 31 per cent in 2014), leading 75 per cent of operators this year to report that they already accelerate or plan to implement an acceleration solution within the next year.

These results reflect both a higher bar for 4G network speeds and operators’ concerns about their ability to provide their users with the best possible quality of experience while managing the rapid increase in mobile data traffic.

Furthermore, 58 per cent of subscribers revealed that speed is a deciding factor in choosing an LTE network, second only to coverage, and not surprisingly, 97 per cent think operators should invest in accelerating LTE networks.

[...]

Who provides your local loop and is it on copper or fiber?

controlled by the federal government

Thank you. Central planning is the way to go. How did the government confiscate the network?

It actually started the network here in the first place, though it did lose part ownership there for a while as it privatised Telecom Australia (becoming Telstra), though it still controlled the way the network was used and still owned 51% of it, but under the new NBN rollout the last federal government brought the infrastructure totally back.

This is why we get freedom of choice.

Cheers.

Who provides your local loop and is it on copper or fiber?

controlled by the federal government

Thank you. Central planning is the way to go. How did the government confiscate the network?

It actually started the network here in the first place,

We had one provider at one time. It was started by Alexandr Bell. It WAS known that wired delivery of communication is a natural monopoly so Bell was given the right to be a monopoly but a regulated one. Unlike what you have though he was required to provide universal service. That lasted for 100 years. I see you don't have universal service some on satellite, some on fiber. Bell would not be able to do that. Government should not be in business.

---