Al Franken Says FCC Proposed Rules Are "The Opposite of Net Neutrality" 282
An anonymous reader writes "Senator Al Franken can be counted among the many who are at odds with the FCC's proposed net neutrality rules. From the article: 'Senator Al Franken has a pretty good idea of what the term "net neutrality" means—and that, he says, puts him head-and-shoulders above many of his colleagues in the U.S. Congress. "We literally have members of Congress—I've heard members of the House—say, 'We've had all this innovation on the Internet without net neutrality. Why do we need it now?'" he told TIME in an interview last week. "I want to say, 'Come on, just try to understand the idea. Or at least just don't give a speech if you don't know what you're saying. Please—it hurts my head."'"
When Al Franken... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:When Al Franken... (Score:5, Insightful)
If all our senators at least gave as much thought to issues as he does, we'd be in a much, much better place.
Re:When Al Franken... (Score:4, Insightful)
If all our senators at least gave as much thought to issues as he does, we'd be in a much, much better place.
Al Franken thinks that the "place" for America is under NSA surveillance. Is that the place you were thinking of?
Franken defends NSA surveillance [thehill.com]
Al Franken is often wrong and not especially thoughtful or informed on the issues. He is a pretty reliable "progressive" vote and hence the confusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Have an example?
What, you expect people who complain about other people not being informed to care so much about being informed that they would be informed and also attempt to appear so?! Wow, that's a high bar!
Parent is a Troll (Score:5, Interesting)
I lived in MN during his election and I even listened occasionally to his radio show. He was nothing like Rush Limbaugh and at least he bothered to look for facts instead of make them up on the spot. I didn't listen long enough to his show to find fault and it wasn't entertaining; but I read his book which was the most funny thing I've ever read (and why I knew who he was, I never heard of him otherwise.) I wouldn't blame the failure of that radio station on Franken; that is baseless, he quit the show to run for office. One could make equally baseless claims that Franken was keeping that radio station alive.
He didn't steal the election. I was a volunteer. I WAS THERE. No cheating. They video taped and disputed every single stupid thing no matter how pointless (for example, somebody who marked and wrote in the same person.) The GOP propaganda machine lied about the whole thing and their disrespect for the legal system got them into hot water with the judges -- the majority of which were REPUBLICAN judges!!! They let it drag out a year with no chance to win solely to stall because they are so partisan. Plus creating outrage is a good way to raise money-- for both parties, but in this situation 1 side was being quite unethical. Every ridiculous situation was fought in court with a republican majority of judges and they lost most of it (hey, I didn't say the democrat lawyers were perfect... they ARE lawyers...) It's pretty bad when the Republican judge makes comments about how sleazy the Republican lawyers are.
The debate in the senate is mostly BS. I spent years watching CSPAN in the background. We are so bad now it doesn't matter what is said because filibusters have DoS the senate. It's the fall of rome all over again; just waiting for the death count to rise (maybe the "accidents" will just turn into out right murders.)
Re:Parent is a Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
The law is the law when it comes to voting. You can lose the right to vote by committing a felony just like you can lose your freedom. It may not sit well with you, but there it is. Do you want a society that respects the rule of law or not?
Most Western countries allow felons to vote. It's considered an inalienable right.
And those countries appear to have more respect for the law than here in the US, where the ratio of imprisoned to free men is higher than most any other country.
What people have here in the US isn't respect for the law. These days, it's fear of it. That doesn't seem to work too well.
Re:Parent is a Troll (Score:5, Informative)
In Oregon a felon's right to vote is restored when they have completed their sentences and post-release supervision. Gun rights can be restored by applying with the local Sherrif's Office. (usually granted)
Re: (Score:2)
You are confused on a couple of points. First, it wouldn't be illegal to take a way the right to vote of a convicted felon since it is the legislature doing it by passing a law. Second, losing the right to vote doesn't make someone subhuman.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry to be the one to inform you, but you appear to have drank spoiled koolaid.
Re: (Score:2)
How else are people going to listen to his remote satellite uplink?
Re:When Al Franken... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you kidding? Al Franken is one of the most intelligent, ethical, fair, and progressive-minded people in the Senate. It drives people like you crazy he's in there, doing good works, is loved and appreciated, and is there to stay.
Re:When Al Franken... (Score:4, Informative)
Al Franken is one of the most intelligent, ethical, fair, and progressive-minded people in the Senate.
Really? Then you'll be interested in the items below. I assume you'll agree with him since you describe him as " one of the most intelligent, ethical, fair, and progressive-minded people in the Senate."
The NSA Has at Least 1 Liberal Friend Left: Sen. Al Franken [nationaljournal.com]
It's pretty lonely to be the National Security Agency right now. The revelation of a massive data-collection program has left many progressive senators criticizing the agency, from Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., to Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. But one of the other most liberal senators in Congress is so far speaking out in NSA's support: Al Franken.
Franken, the Minnesota Democrat who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, knew about the data-mining. Or at least that's what he told Minnesota's WCCO on Tuesday. "I can assure you, this is not about spying on the American people," Franken said. The senator also believes the data collection has saved American lives:
I have a high level of confidence that this is used to protect us, and I know that it has been successful in preventing terrorism. There are certain things that are appropriate for me to know that is not appropriate for the bad guys to know.
Franken defends NSA surveillance [thehill.com]
The Minnesota lawmaker told the St. Paul CBS affiliate that he "was very well aware of" the classified government programs that gathered personal data on telephone and Internet users.
“I have a high level of confidence that this is used to protect us and I know that it has been successful in preventing terrorism,” Franken said, adding that "this is not about spying on the American people." Franken also defended the program as striking the right balance between national security and the right to privacy, echoing recent assurances from the White House.
“There are certain things that are appropriate for me to know that is not appropriate for the bad guys to know,” Franken said.
The senator also said it was appropriate for the Justice Department to investigate Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old defense contractor who has claimed responsibility for the leak.
Well, who can argue with Al Franken since he is "...one of the most intelligent, ethical, fair, and progressive-minded people in the Senate"?
Unfortunately Al Franken owes his election to vote fraud.
Felons for Franken - Illegal felon voters may have handed Democrats 60-vote majority. [wsj.com]
Did illegal felon voters determine the outcome of the critical 2008 Minnesota Senate election? The day after the election, GOP Senator Norm Coleman had a 725 vote lead, but a series of recounts over the next six months reversed that result and gave Democrat Al Franken a 312 vote victory.
The outcome wound up having a significant impact, giving Democrats the critical 60th Senate vote they needed to block GOP filibusters. Mr. Franken's vote proved crucial in the passage of ObamaCare last December in the Senate. The next month Democrats lost their 60-vote Senate majority with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts.
Ever since Mr. Franken was declared the victor, the conservative watchdog group Minnesota Majority has combed through records comparing lists of those who voted with criminal rap sheets. It found that at least 341 convicted felons voted in Minneapolis's
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:When Al Franken... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How can a modern representative democratic country have segregation where whole classes of people can not vote? It's not the early 19th century anymore. And how do you know that those disenfranchised citizens didn't vote for other then Franken?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the criminal justice system isn't about just protecting the public, and it's barely about rehabilitation at all. It's about vengence. It's there to satisfy peoples' natural desire to see those who break the rules of society made to suffer. The appearance of civilisation says it is no longer acceptable to openly torture criminals (Though few will object to some accidential torture), but arbitary punishments are still ok.
Re:When Al Franken... (Score:4, Insightful)
Criminal behaviour is often based on class, race, sex, age and other factors. A black person is way more likely to be stopped, and if caught doing something illegal such as having a small amount of a banned substance, much more likely to be charged, convicted and have a worse sentence handed down then a well off white person. Amongst other things this makes them politically impotent as in unable to vote to change a law that was originally enacted for racist and economical reasons rather then hurting other people.
What's to say that the felons didn't vote for the libertarian or green candidate or even write themselves in?
Though I would agree that if people who shouldn't have voted, did vote and there was enough of them to swing the election then the election should be declared null by a judge and a bye-election held. Unluckily the American system seems pretty rigid when it comes to elections and their timing so I don't know if bye-elections are allowed.
Re:When Al Franken... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Until their right to vote is restored it would be illegal for them to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, I see what you did there. Your post was cleverly worded to imply that a vote by a convicted felon is legal when it isn't until their voting rights are restored at the end of their sentence. You aren't really stating that you know that those felons were voting legally, are you? Their names, voting registration, and sentencing status would be public record.
Re: (Score:3)
This whole "felons voting" thing is sort of bogus. You make it sound like inmates are finding a way to vote. In the State of MN, once you have been released from jail. Finished probation, and otherwise "paid your debt to society", you have to go in front of a judge and ask for your voting rights to be restored. Many people are unaware of this. If YOU got out of jail and did your time and were a normal citizen, wouldn't you just assume you would be able to vote? This whole schedule a court date, possibly hir
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It looks like our moderation tonight is "progressive," just not fair or honest.
Or maybe you are spamming that link and people who bothered to read it are down voting it as deceptive?
That's not all he did. He is also a big defender of the NSA [thehill.com]. Still a fan of Franken?
You keep posting that link with an irrational seeming fervor, and it doesn't seem like that's something Franken would do so I checked it out. Have you even read it?
"Sen. Franken voted against reauthorizing the FISA Act because of the lack of transparency after he cosponsored and voted for three separate amendments that would have improved the bill on transparency and privacy," Franken press aide Alexandra
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe you are spamming that link and people who bothered to read it are down voting it as deceptive?
No, that's not it. The early moderation in the story was modding up any fluffy pro-Franken comment and modding down anything that questioned that. And the link isn't deceptive, your post is. Either that or you should go back and read that story at the link from the top since you left out meaningful parts of it in a way that distorts the meaning of the story. I'm sure it was unintentional. And I hope you stop spamming your comment.
Re: (Score:2)
franken gets his bribes from hollywood and lawyers
he's only saying what he's told to
Re:When Al Franken... (Score:5, Informative)
He also defends the NSA and SOPA. He looks like a regular politician [opensecrets.org] to me
Re: When Al Franken...hard core liberal (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm stuck with what I have. How the fuck am I supposed to vote with my wallet this way?
It's called /move house/, unfortunately.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Obvious troll is obvious.
Re: Trolls (Score:2)
I am curious about the troll quotient in the responses to this submission. Could someone do a quantitative analysis to dispel my suspicions of Astroturfing?
I think some professionals are attempting to hijack the thread.
Re: (Score:2)
"I think some professionals are attempting to hijack the thread."
I certainly hope that's the case. It would be a shame if he was being an idiot on his free time.
Re: (Score:2)
Al Franken is one of the most intelligent, ethical, fair, and progressive-minded people in the Senate.
Indeed he is, and given his level of sheer stupidity and making his mind up before he has facts, that says a lot about the rest of the Senate, and the People who voted them in.
This was my point in the root post. I guess the point was lost on the moderators, however.
Secret! (Score:5, Funny)
Way to go, Al. The stupidity of your colleagues was supposed to be a secret!
Re: (Score:2)
And it still is! The whole US population, Europe, and the rest of the intertubes are keeping it a secret from this man:
Mr. Alphonse Di Rossi
1352 8th Avenue South #510B
Sarasota FL 34231
As long as he doesn't find out it is still a secret.
Mums the word. ;)
Good for Al Franken (Score:5, Interesting)
Good for him.
WRONG (Score:5, Informative)
Franken drew the map from memory BEFORE he was in office and during the campaign for office. He has served ONE term. He never spent tax payer money learning to draw the map.
Given how politicians are sold like products and put on an act to get elected, it makes him no different than anybody else--- EXCEPT he is not a lawyer which automatically makes him better.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's him doing it on the campaign trail in '88:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
He's a bought fool, but better than most of them.
I'd rather have a chipmunk than a snake representing me.
Congress (Score:2, Insightful)
Al Franken (Score:4, Interesting)
...is the only person in the Senate who seems to have not been bought and sold by lobbyists.
Re: (Score:2)
really?
check out open secrets. he's been bought by lawyers and hollywood
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
... it doesn't seem like that's something Franken would do so I checked it out. Have you even read it?
Yes, I did read it, and better than you apparently. You seem to have skipped some things there. Lets add a bit more, shall we?
Franken defends NSA surveillance [thehill.com]
The Minnesota lawmaker told the St. Paul CBS affiliate that he "was very well aware of" the classified government programs that gathered personal data on telephone and Internet users.
“I have a high level of confidence that this is used to protect us and I know that it has been successful in preventing terrorism,” Franken said, adding that "this is not about spying on the American people."
Franken also defended the program as striking the right balance between national security and the right to privacy, echoing recent assurances from the White House.
“There are certain things that are appropriate for me to know that is not appropriate for the bad guys to know,” Franken said.
The senator also said it was appropriate for the Justice Department to investigate Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old defense contractor who has claimed responsibility for the leak.
It seems you may not really understand Franken's position as well as you think.
Re:Al Franken (Score:5, Informative)
...is the only person in the Senate who seems to have not been bought and sold by lobbyists.
But he is a strong defender of the NSA [thehill.com]. Are we still here to praise him? Or can we criticize him without being mod bombed?
Re:Al Franken (Score:5, Informative)
...is the only person in the Senate who seems to have not been bought and sold by lobbyists.
But he is a strong defender of the NSA [thehill.com]. Are we still here to praise him? Or can we criticize him without being mod bombed?
That's not all he did. He is also a big defender of the NSA [thehill.com]. Still a fan of Franken?
You keep posting that link with an irrational seeming fervor, and it doesn't seem like that's something Franken would do so I checked it out. Have you even read it?
"Sen. Franken voted against reauthorizing the FISA Act because of the lack of transparency after he cosponsored and voted for three separate amendments that would have improved the bill on transparency and privacy," Franken press aide Alexandra Fetissoff said.
In the interview on Tuesday, Franken says he does think the government programs should be more open, even if there was a reason for some government secrets.
“I don't believe that the American people should have to take the government's word for it," Franken said. "I think there should be enough transparency so that the American people understand what's happening.”
It seems like he's saying not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. He's hardly defending the NSA vacuum everything position.
Re: (Score:2)
... it doesn't seem like that's something Franken would do so I checked it out. Have you even read it?
You seem to have skipped some things there. (Was it an "accident"?) Lets add a bit more, shall we?
Franken defends NSA surveillance [thehill.com]
The Minnesota lawmaker told the St. Paul CBS affiliate that he "was very well aware of" the classified government programs that gathered personal data on telephone and Internet users.
“I have a high level of confidence that this is used to protect us and I know that it has been successful in preventing terrorism,” Franken said, adding that "this is not about spying on the American people."
Franken also defended the program as striking the right balance between national security and the right to privacy, echoing recent assurances from the White House.
“There are certain things that are appropriate for me to know that is not appropriate for the bad guys to know,” Franken said.
The senator also said it was appropriate for the Justice Department to investigate Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old defense contractor who has claimed responsibility for the leak.
It seems you may not really understand Franken's position as well as you think. Or do you actually understand it, and want to confuse people so they don't realize what Franken has actually been up to?
Re:Al Franken (Score:5, Informative)
He is owned by Time Warner, among others [opensecrets.org] and is probably why we see him defending things like SOPA. And in regards to our privacy, he's busy defending the NSA. I am certain that the industries that support him expect a return on their investments.
Re: (Score:2)
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
What if I think Franken is a moron? (Score:3)
If I happen to think Al Franken is a moron on the basis of past actions, does that mean I have to agree with the FCC? Ouch! Easier to re-examine Franken!
Re:What if I think Franken is a moron? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I happen to think Al Franken is a moron on the basis of past actions, does that mean I have to agree with the FCC? Ouch! Easier to re-examine Franken!
Or... you could just realize that it's possible for someone to agree with you on some topics and disagree with you on others. And it's even possible for someone who is not a moron to disagree with you. Personally, I disagree with Al Franken in far more areas than I agree with him, but I'm in complete agreement on this one.
Re:What if I think Franken is a moron? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not the Opposite of Reality (Score:2, Informative)
What the FCC is doing is the opposite of what people on the internet thought Net Neutrality is.
But anyone who knew better was warning you what the FCC is doing now is what Net Neutrality being implemented actually was or would be.
Yes, this is a told you so. And I will keep telling you all so until you realize asking the government to help you with something is like asking the man in the old windowless van to watch your kids for an hour while you go get a tan.
Re:Not the Opposite of Reality (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree this is not much of a surprise. I gotta ask, though. If not the government, exactly who has enough power to get the telecom industry to actually behave?
Re: (Score:2)
I gotta ask, though. If not the government, exactly who has enough power to get the telecom industry to actually behave?
The FCC is nakedly captured by telecom industry interests.
That leaves the SEC, the IRS, or the FBI.
Re: (Score:2)
If the content providers and telcos have approximately equal power (which they do), over time they will behave because they have to work together.
Any time you bring in a singular more powerful force that always has the effect of INCREASING inequality, not improving it.
Re: (Score:3)
Uhm, I'm not sure which Adam Smith you read, but my Capitalist Bible (Wealth of Nations) says that unless the government regulates them to ensure a level playing field, including for new players, then they will collude and the most established players will loot the customers and any smaller competition.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree this is not much of a surprise. I gotta ask, though. If not the government, exactly who has enough power to get the telecom industry to actually behave?
I think a Martian invasion is our last, best hope for that one.
Re: (Score:3)
going to their local governments and demanding an end to the franchise agreements that have locked them into a crappy duopoly (at best).
Finished That For You.
Re: (Score:2)
So true. But "small government" means to only allow the corporations to the negotiations.
Mobile Uplink Unit (Score:5, Insightful)
a bit off-topic, but it's worth noting that Senator Franken has a long history as leader on the forefront of new communications and broadcast technology.
some of his reports from his earlier journalism days are very informative, one might even say daring:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Al+Franken%27s+Mobile+Uplink+Unit+ [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I heard he invented the Internet!
Ha (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We know why true net neutrality cannot happen (Score:5, Insightful)
There's always an asterick and that leads to a note that says "well, you'll get 50mbps provided the rest of your neighborhood isn't trying to hit the pipe hard at the same time."
there is nothing wrong with it in principle. Even excellent road systems get congested during rush hours, even the best cellular networks shit their pants on the new year's eve at 23:59, even the best delivery companies experience massive delays around Xmas. The reason is that having huge capacity that goes mostly unused most of the time is expensive, you pay huge maintenance costs yet there is not much going on on the revenue side.
Re: (Score:3)
This is correct.
To elaborate a bit, reserved bandwidth is not the same as shared bandwidth.
The bandwidth that companies buy is reserved bandwidth, which is guaranteed capacity allocated to you and nobody else. That kind of bandwidth is expensive - let's say $10/Mbps (it's more in small quantities, less in large quantities, but let's make the math easy). So if you want 100 Mbps guaranteed, it'll cost you $1000/month. plus circuit fees, etc. In return for that money, you "own" the bandwidth, it's guaranteed a
Re: (Score:2)
Even excellent road systems get congested during rush hours, even the best cellular networks shit their pants on the new year's eve at 23:59, even the best delivery companies experience massive delays around Xmas. The reason is that having huge capacity that goes mostly unused most of the time is expensive, you pay huge maintenance costs yet there is not much going on on the revenue side.
massive delays: check
mostly unused: check
huge maintenance costs: check
not much going on on the revenue side: check
Are you sure you weren't also describing Congress?
Re: (Score:2)
There's always an asterick and that leads to a note that says "well, you'll get 50mbps provided the rest of your neighborhood isn't trying to hit the pipe hard at the same time."
Sorry buddy, but you should really re-read your fine print because that isn't the hedge at all. Worse, it really says "up to 50mbps." That is actually your hard cap, NOT a speed they are promising even under perfect conditions with no other load. They never promise you could actually get that speed. Just that you can't get more than that speed. Except that they don't promise that you can't get more, either. A totally useless metric, for all parties, but it is the one they're selling their account tiers base
Re: (Score:2)
we need to hold Obama responsible (Score:5, Informative)
he promised strong Net Neutrality on his platform, and yet his Administration appoints the CableCo foxes to live in the FCC hen house.
sign this to demand Net Neutrality and to remove Tom Wheeler and other lobbyists out of the FCC! [wh.gov]
Re:we need to hold Obama responsible (Score:4, Insightful)
You should probably pare down your petition to asking for just one thing. Asking for a bunch of things, some of them poorly worded, means that even if I think I probably agree with what you meant, I'm not going to agree with the entire package as stated. And that will probably always be the case when you have more than 1 thing on a petition.
Final Surge Needed for Net Neutrality Petition (Score:3)
We need one more big surge of traffic, ideally starting Monday or Tuesday morning at around 10 AM Eastern, to get the Net Neutrality petition [whitehouse.gov] to 100k votes on time. I've been tracking the vote rate and it runs fastest on Tuesday, during the work day. We will get the most traction if as many people as possible promote the petition on their social network channels starting early this week. Please consider raising the issue and the petition on your social network channels to help generate the final surge in traffic we need to hit 100k signatures. The petition may not have as much legal authority as we would like, but at least it is a potent rhetorical device for Jessica Rosenworcel [wikipedia.org] and Mignon Clyburn [wikipedia.org], the two FCC commissioners who are already raising opposition to allowing a fast lane [arstechnica.com].
Re: (Score:2)
And I cannot believe that there are lickspittles like you, who try to disenfranchise others from taking every public stand available to them. Your shameless service to your masters may get you a favorable scrap from the table today, but you will never have a seat. You will die in the same place you are today, grovelling at their feet, whimpering about your impotence.
I'm a conservative (Score:5, Interesting)
In just about every category of politics, I lean more conservative than Slashdot's median. But I respect Al Franken than perhaps any other Congressman out there. Not because I agree with all of his positions, but because he seems to act with real integrity in striving to help the American people.
Its a good point (Score:2)
Quiz (Score:3)
Senator Al Franken has a pretty good idea of what the term "net neutrality" means
We should subject our congressmen to quizzes more often. Let them explain their understanding of the problem to the press. I'd love to see them stuttering.
A new term to describe this: (Score:3)
So, I'm surprised no one has come up with this term yet to describe the vision of the FCC: Net Neuterality.
I'm sure it has Bob Barker's support.
Re:ya (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually this brings up an important distinction.
1) If your ISP advertises X Mbps, and the ISP makes a deal with Netflix to put in a separate exclusive pipe that provides enough total bandwidth to keep up with demand, and you still get X Mbps to everything else, then I don't know that I have a problem with it.
2) If the ISP advertises X Mbps and suddenly Netflix is the only thing that gets X Mbps and everything else is slower, or specific services have slowed significantly compared with other ISPs, that is a huge problem.
I'm not sure if #1 is possible especially considering that what an ISP advertises is always "up to X Mbps" and they can always secretly throttle so long as it's not enough to cause a lot of complaints. So if we have to sacrifice #1 in order to maintain #2, so be it.
Re:ya (Score:5, Insightful)
"and the ISP makes a deal with Netflix to put in a separate exclusive pipe"
You should have a problem with it.
Netflix's costs are higher than they should be.
ISPs should not be picking winners and losers.
As the ISP's customer, you are being defrauded.
It's extortion.
Netflix paid for their connection to the internet
The customer paid for their connection to the internet. The whole reason the customer pays for their connection is access to such sites.
Re: (Score:3)
Stop with the Netflix boogeyman. Netflix is 60% of prime-time traffic in the US-- there can thus mathematically be only one Netflix. Any law designed to solve any problem with Netflix will thus by definition not be relevant any other company. Netflix can't mathematically be on any single network and have even peering with any other network, which is the core of how all the little networks become "the Internet". Which is the basic problem-- there is no "the Internet", but maintaining the illusion of one
Re: (Score:2)
There should not be a law to deal with Netflix.
I felt the same about it when it was google that was "using too much". I'd even feel that way if it was microsoft "using too much".
The principal is the same, regardless of the players.
ISPs and other internet participants should not be playing games to extort money.
If they are not making enough, they need to look to their customers and business model. I believe they make enough, they are just looking for more.
I understand that the internet is multiple particip
Re:ya (Score:4, Informative)
It doesn't make sense, but that's how it works. So everyone kills for 10% growth per year, even if unsustainable and borderline illegal extortion.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I get that. I disagree with applauding, approving or condoning it.
Re:ya (Score:5, Insightful)
What variations?
Netflix was not a Comcast customer. ( they are now, because of extortion ).
The various Comcast customers are the Comcast customers. And they paid for access ( bandwidth ).
So, Netflix was not trying to get anything for free, they are providing a service on the web that is part of what makes it attractive for Comcast's customer's to pay them for *their* bandwidth ( to Netflix, among other destinations ). Netflix paid their ISP for their access to the internet.
Nothing more should be required.
Re:ya (Score:4, Informative)
Careful, you are pushing a lie in distinction between push traffic and pull traffic. Netflix traffic is traffic it generates a request for, it pulls traffic. End user traffic is the traffic the end user requests, it pulls for. There is also push traffic, unrequested traffic this is called advertising, generally packaged with requested traffic.
Stop spreading the lie that content producer generate lots of traffic. Content producers connect a server to the internet, the server quitely sits there doing not much of anything and generating little or no traffic. What happens next it the end user, uses the bandwidth they have paid for to access that server via the internet and get it to send the requested data to them, the 'END USER" generated the traffic.
Stop fucking lying liar, the end user the person who requests the content, the person who activates the server at the other end to send content, is in control, it is pull traffic, all controlled by the user who paid for their bandwidth.Netflixes traffic is their business traffic, the data their staff generates when they send emails, or request information from other servers on the internet. Making a server accessible and allowing end user to control the flow of data from that server to the end user is "END USER TRAFFIC" to and from.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop spreading the lie that content producer generate lots of traffic.
You are taking sides in a very old debate, and presenting your current opinion as fact, which it is not. This matter is a dispute to be settled by the parties coming to an agreement; it is not a lie that the content producer generates traffic. The receivers would not be 'receiving' such traffic, if the content provider was not choosing to serve that traffic.
The top eyeball network providers agree, that content producers push lots
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. I know we often talk about peering meaning an equal amount of traffic, but that's largely historical baggage. The direction of traffic is essentially arbitrary when it comes to the cost of setting up a network. If you know you're going to have asymmetric data flow, you just use more channels in one direction than the other. AFAIK, such configurations are possible over most network links.
More to the point, it really doesn't matter which side is pushing and whic
Re:ya (Score:5, Insightful)
Incidentally, this is why traditional ISPs like Comcast pay the backbone ISPs to carry their traffic, rather than being allowed to peer at no charge. They are essentially a leaf node in the graph, which means they benefit greatly from connecting to an upstream ISP, because such connections enable their customers to connect to the Internet. However, they don't provide any benefit to the upstream ISP, because the upstream ISP can't usefully route any traffic through Comcast to other ISPs.
The general rule is that backbone ISPs peer amongst themselves, but don't usually peer with traditional customer ISPs. Customer ISPs in the same region often peer with one other, because they're on the same level and can benefit from faster connectivity with one another and from having additional redundancy in their upstream connections. However, that peering only remains free so long as they route similar amounts of traffic over each other's upstream links. If the balance gets too skewed, they'll depeer each other.
Re:ya (Score:4, Informative)
Netflix was already paying for transit. Comcast was already being paid by their customers as well. Comcast said 'hey that's a lot of traffic on the interconnect.' Netflix offered to (as they have done with many other ISPs) install cache servers on Comcast's network, which would have improved the service for Comcast customers without requiring Comcast to upgrade their infrastructure (which Comcast really should have done years ago anyway but why would they spend money on it when they can apparently use it as an excuse to extort more payments instead?)
That's not asking for free bandwidth, that's making a very generous offer to help an ISP conserve bandwidth. Bandwidth, we should note, that the ISP already contracted with its customers to provide. Netflix is not a party to that and has no obligation to help at all, but obviously they do have an interest in making their own users happy, which is what they were after.
If as an ISP you do not like their offer then fine, dont take them up on it. You still need to provide the bandwidth you have already sold, just like if they had made no offer. But trying to spin that as a shakedown for free bandwidth? Are you freaking kidding me?
That's not just propaganda it's horrible propaganda, anyone that understands what you are talking about is going to laugh in your face.
Re:ya (Score:5, Interesting)
Netflix is paying level 3, a tier 1 provider for access. All the tier 1's interconnect with each other for free (by definition) - they're basically the backbone of the internet for global transit.
Customers pay a consumer ISP, like comcast, for access to the internet, i.e. access to the tier 1 network. So both ends are paying for their connection, all they need is for both networks to be connected in a datacentre somewhere - both ISPs pay for their own equipment, and when that link gets congested, they add more/faster interconnect ports, paid for by the customers that are paying for their side of the link. And that's how it works basically everywhere except the US now.
Because Comcast, along with the other big US consumer ISPs are saying to netflix - a customer of another ISP altogether - 'nice traffic, shame if something happened to it.' And charging extra for a 'fast' path to their network. They've deliberately let the interconnect to level 3 become congested, and are refusing to upgrade it, affecting netflix and all other services that comcast customers request from level 3's network. Netflix offers to host their CDN cache servers inside comcast's network, so it does't have to all go via the level 3 interconnect, comcast refuse.
So basically comcast are singling out netflix, as a competitor to their own video services, and demanding money with menaces. Successfully.
Comcast's argument that more traffic comes in from level 3 than goes out - well duh, they're a retail ISP, and they provide much faster download connections than upload, and put restrictions on what services customers can put on that upload. Of course they're largely going to be seeing more traffic come in than go out. Netflix said they could change their client so as much traffic went up as came down, and comcast said that wouldn't make a difference, thus blowing that argument out of the water.
Given the natural and legally provisioned regional monopolies the cable companies in the US have got themselves, they've got their own customers over a barrel. They can let the interconnects go to shit, and the customers are stuck with it.
5 of the 6 permanently congested links to level 3's network are in the US. It's absolutely obvious that with the FCC unwilling to exert its existing regulatory authority, and congress' refusal to step in as it would be 'government regulating the internet', you have a textbook example of oligopoly abuse. Free markets cannot exist when monopolists abuse their market controlling power, and netflix is just the start. Enforcing regulation against monopolists abusing their position is the only practical, effective answer, and it's high time the FCC used its power to do just that.
Apply common carrier status to regional monopoly cable companies, and the sooner the better.
Re:ya (Score:5, Informative)
So, um, you do realize that there's not actually a technical differentiation between an ISP and anyone else peering with someone on the Internet, yes? None. A peer is a peer is a peer. There's a lot of companies that don't "pay an ISP for their bandwidth" because they're peering directly with all the big (and plenty of small) network players. The idea that a small handful of companies are "internet service providers" and everyone else must buy from them has never been an accurate representation of how the Internet actually works. And *I* most certainly *do* know the details.
Do you also realize that even if Netflix doesn't have "an ISP," that they still have to transit their own traffic to whatever peering points they use, right? That's far from free. The only reason Netflix would pay "their ISP" to start with would be to move Netflix's traffic from wherever Netflix originates it, to one of their peering points where they peer with Comcast. Not having "an ISP" do that for them doesn't negate the need. The data just doesn't magically appear at a peering point somewhere.
Also, do you realize that it's quite possible that Netflix would actually peer with Comcast in places that were actually *good* for Comcast? Netflix, in general, seems to want to offload their data onto end user's ISP's networks as close to those users as possible, since that's how their users get the best quality service. Doing so means that transiting Netflix's traffic is actually *cheaper* for Comcast, because they don't have to haul it as far across their network to deliver it.
(This is why Netflix actually offers, to major ISPs, *free* servers that the ISP can put on their network in whatever locations they like, which will originate a large portion of Netflix's traffic. This means that the ISPs could put the sources of that traffic in the places that are cheapest and best for the ISP, at virtually no cost to them, and save them lots of money in the process (since they wouldn't have to transit the traffic from wherever they peer at. Hell, shove one of those in the same buildings that terminate all your customers in a major metro area, and you practically eliminate Netflix as a source of traffic on that ISP's backbone in that area...)
Now, I realize you're just trolling, but I'm posting just in case someone out there doesn't realize that and tries to take you seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast isn't actually 'restricting' the connection. They are simply providing a poor service by not upgrading their network. That creates the problem of poor performance, and they can then charge extra to fix it.
Re: (Score:2)
The real issue is the perverse incentive it creates. If the 'regular' traffic class is good enough for reliable streaming, there is no reason Netflix et all will pay the ISP for prioritisation - so in order to protect that revenue stream, the ISP needs to make sure that the non-priority performane is sufficiently poor. The obvious way to do this is by withholding vital network upgrades in order to create congestion.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix also pays for the bandwidth its servers use.
ISPs want to be paid a three or perhaps four or more times for carrying Netflix bits to its customer.
Re:Don't care for the man (Score:5, Insightful)
Which means that by the standards of most of the rest of the world, he's probably a little to the right of centre. I can't understand you Americans - what's exactly so terrible about a little bit of social justice and equality? That's all the left stand for. You've been so brainwashed by years of anti-communist propaganda that anything that even slightly whiffs of "the left" is automatically, viscerally rejected without any real thought. For whatever the left's faults might be, the right's are far, far worse. We've now had thirty-odd years of right-wing government across most of the developed western world, and where has it got us? The rich have got richer and the poor are poorer, and no-one is any happier. What a great system! How about considering a few mild alternatives, or at the very least some moderation?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Just imagine the hoopla and media sound bites if there were a Republican in the White House while the FCC was doing this.
No, it wouldn't even make the front 10 pages of the newspaper, becaues those would all be about the new invasion of Beckybeckystanistan.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because we shouldn't assume mal intent where there might only be plain idiocy, that does not mean that anything awful or dangerous is automatically mistaken. It could be that they're not even clueless.
Re: (Score:2)
Good job, now you've got Al Franken doing your thinking for you! It is a small step, but you're making progress.