Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?

[Torris]

Internet Service Providers are more concerned with "data transfer" since that is their primary overhead. I'm sure if they were going to slow anyone's internet down it would be of those who consume large downloads of videos and software. I can't see them slowing down someone who looks at HA since it's of no threat to their expense.

Could this lead to non-profit ISP’s?

If Verizon and Comcast engage in throttling would that open up opportunities for an ISP that offers a Pre-2018 era net experience?

[skirtrustler]

... he [Trump] spends his days in his pajamas watching cable news and howling ...

The evidence for that I would love to see, I will file it next to the (alleged) kompromat of him pissing on a bed in a Russian hotel suite.

————

Back on thread. Remember the internet is far from neutral already, and neither it is a single homogenous network. The original ARPA net design (which I remember ...) would simply not handle the traffic today, and thus the emergence of ‘border gateways’ and internet exchange points that wormhole between parts of the internet. These are concentrated around the major cities. In EU it is London, Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, and Dublin to a lesser extent. similarly the US.

It is these IXP or wormholes, and the routes they advertise that underpin the fast ‘super highway’ that we have today,and why the tube sites actually work fast enough. Although these exchanges have to be neutral, they are NOT neutral in what infrastructure they connect. Rather like building a three lane motorway to one shopping centre (Facebook, google, AWS, Azure etc) or distribution park (e.g. Akamai) and leaving a dirt track to another: the road itself is neutral, but the road builders are not. Which is why facebook and google etc are building their own infrastructure. This is how telcos can offer ‘free Netflix’ or other ‘go binge’ type deals.

Question is if anyone has deep enough pockets to make a real difference?

[luvzbig1s]

Memo to the idiotic, Hillary WON the popular vote by 3 million. There are no more voters for the Dems to get, and they sure as hell don't need to spend an ounce of time trying to convince Trumpers why they should vote Democratic.

Hillary lost 3 key battleground states by less than a total of 80,000 votes, which is due more to GOP voter suppression and voter nullification, not some ideological shift in America.

Anyone who seriously voted for Trump without investigating who the candidate was only did so because they thought the presidential election was an episode of one of his reality TV shows.

Oh, and they were sick of seeing a Black guy as president of the United States.

Actually you are wrong Hillary got a little over 26% of the total voting public while Trump got slightly less in other words only about 52% of those people who are voting age and can vote did while 48% didn't As for the rest of your post you are quite correct indeed

[giovanni_hotel]

Actually you are wrong Hillary got a little over 26% of the total voting public while Trump got slightly less in other words only about 52% of those people who are voting age and can vote did while 48% didn't As for the rest of your post you are quite correct indeed

Hillary won the popular vote AMONG THOSE WHO DECIDED TO VOTE by 3 million.

Is that specific enough for you??

Everyone knows in the USA a major percentage of eligible voters simply choose not to vote.

If 90+% of all Americans voted in general elections, no Republican would ever get elected POTUS.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=skirtrustler;1804284]The evidence for that I would love to see, I will file it next to the (alleged) kompromat of him pissing on a bed in a Russian hotel suite.
/QUOTE]

The allegation is that it was the Prostitutes in the hotel room who pissed on the bed Obama had slept in.
Rest of your post an interesting angle to the debate.

[Ts RedVeX]

The fact that it is in their interest to provide you with the best "internet experience" which includes access to any site you want to see. Unless, of course you have silly laws made by communist politicians who do not want you to see certain stuff and know generally everything better than you or any ISP director.

There is no need to regulate the market. It works best without regulation, on the basis of contracts between consumers and providers.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Ts RedVeX;1804340]

Unless, of course you have silly laws made by communist politicians who do not want you to see certain stuff and know generally everything better than you or any ISP director.
--Where do you stand on child pornography, or websites dedicated to using violence to overthrow a government and giving zealots instructions/guidance on the best way to kill lots of people?

There is no need to regulate the market. It works best without regulation, on the basis of contracts between consumers and providers.
--What happens when the market fails, or when providers so monopolise the market consumers have no choice and no protection from any malpractice by those providers?

[Ts RedVeX]

If "net neutrality" makes ISPs treat all traffic equally then they must treat traffic to websites with content of that type just like content to any other website. If you are a paedophile or an eager firebrand then you may indeed be in favour of keeping net neutrality in power.

There is nothing wrong with a monopoly that delivers satisfactory services. As soon as there appears a group of people who require something else, emerge new companies who meet that group's needs. Free market does not fail consumers - ever. In fascist or other communist states it is regulations that are in the way of those new companies and it is regulations that prevent them from appearing. Regulation halts competition and lack of competition is a direct reason for lack of development.

[Jimmyhung1]

I suppose it's all a matter of balance between personal freedom and protecting the innocent. Have to hope the people enforcing it have the same ideology and don't abuse it.

[skirtrustler]

If "net neutrality" makes ISPs treat all traffic equally then they must treat traffic to websites ... just like content to any other website.

This is indeed true, the ISP may be neutral but if they Connect to IXP that are connected better to content provider X than content provider Y then the result is that users will get a better experience of X than Y.

This also provides the opportunity for the ISP to offer traffic to X at a discount to Y. This is how it works today. It is just that some traffic is better ‘connected’: thus users are getting some services either free or with higher performance.

Issue is that the IXP are expensive to set up and run, and under current rules have little flexibility in how they recover their costs for the bulk (streaming video) traffic. The interconnection of IXP is also a mess. One aspect of the net neutrality discussion is to enable these IXP to recover their costs and structure their interconnect proportional to the traffic that is driving their capacity: I.e. free streaming video will suffer, while bulk traffic paying an interconnect exchange fee will get priority.

What this is likely to mean is that paid for video content will get priority over ‘free content’, and thus we can expect the advertising driven free porn site xhamster / pornhub model to be challenged or have to forego 4K video quality, while ‘free Netflix 4K bandwidth’ type models to rise. I doubt that any of us will notice anything other than more free video bundles.