But Denny!, Any thing faster than damn near immediate is foolish to pay the provider for the privilege. So faster doesn't mean shit when fast enough cost less. Damned if I can see why someone will pay bucks for pipe fast enough to download the movies being made. Hell, snail mail will get them here before they are needed.
That's a good analogy. I see it as a series of pipes of various sizes and the data flowing is like water in the pipes.
Your own link says Average Peak Connection Speed is a better measure and the US ranks in the low 40s in that measurement (but it is improving) And there ARE cases of companies cherry picking traffic to throttle. It seems like someone who claims to understand net neutrality would know that. Google is your friend.
You make the claim, you prove it. The only case of traffic cherry picked was Comcast and bittorrent. The company did it for two reasons: people were committing a crime and it was swamping their network. No matter how you view things, the companies must have the right to manage their networks when they're being overloaded with traffic. http://www.techpolicydaily.com/comm...thodology-cherry-picked-data-distort-results/ The New America Foundation just published its third annual Cost of Connectivity report, a so-called “consumer-focused” survey of broadband prices and speeds in 24 cities around the world. My review of last year’s edition noted a number of troubling issues, including listing operators in cities they did not serve, printing standalone broadband prices where the offer required a bundle purchase (fortunately disclosed in this year’s report), and failing to account for taxes and other mandatory fees on top of advertised prices. ... Furthermore, NAF’s focus on a few select European cities gives the impression that high-speed networks are widespread on the continent, when in fact they exist only in pockets. Point Topic’s EU-commissioned competition map clearly shows that much of the UK, France, Germany, Ireland, the Czech Republic, and Romania lack next-generation access coverage. As of 2012, only 54 percent of EU households had access to speeds in excess of 25 Mbps, compared to 82 percent of homes in the US. Moreover, many of the ISPs which the NAF report celebrates, particularly municipal providers, have abysmally low rates of subscribership. Even in the countries where NAF considers broadband prices to be low, subscribership to high-speed networks lags. More than 70 percent of households and businesses in Denmark can get speeds of 100 Mbps and higher, but less than 2 percent of households subscribe to the highest tier. People get the service they want at lower speeds. In any case, an EU report states that actual speeds experienced in the EU are 25% less than advertised speeds. In comparison, the FCC notes that Americans get 101% of speeds advertised.
So the only thing I can find related to blocking of anything are articles about corporations using firewalls on their corporate LANs, google filtering your mail into spam folders, people using Norton Utilities to filter out incoming viruses, etc. ISPs have traditionally blocked port 80 (WWW servers) and 25 (email). An old 486 computer could saturate a gigabit ethernet serving porn pictures via WWW. Port 25 is blocked to (mostly) prevent spammers from using unknowing users' systems to send out mass amounts of email. These things, and blocking of peer to peer file sharing protocols are not cherry picking and filtering any specific site. On top of these facts, the ISPs cannot examine https encrypted connections. All that they can do is block packets by IP address, which doesn't allow them to catch all of Netflix's hosts which may be on any of Amazon's 2.25 million servers. If they block all of Amazon, they'd be blocking tens of thousands of WWW sites, not just one.
This is awesome. http://fortune.com/2015/03/04/net-neutrality-is-not-for-europe/ Net neutrality is not for Europe The European Union is preparing to allow internet providers to run ‘two-speed’ data services, in a sharp contrast to a ruling last week in the U.S. that will enforce ‘net neutrality’. The Financial Times reported Wednesday that E.U. member states are drawing up proposals that would allow telecoms groups to prioritize certain services to ensure that the network worked properly, in stark contrast to a ruling by the Federal Communications Commission that will effectively ban differentiating the speed of services. The draft reflects, among other things, the greater lobbying power in the E.U. of the big European telecoms companies that run mobile networks, relative to the (largely U.S.) tech companies that fill those networks with ever more data. The FT noted that, at this week’s Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, the CEOs of both Vodafone Plc VOD -3.32% and Deutsche Telekom AG DTEGY -0.73% both argued for rules that would allow them to give priority to specific ‘essential’ services, like those connected to hospitals or driverless cars. The proposals, drafted by the Latvian government that currently holds the E.U.’s rotating presidency, still insist on a basic principle of treating all traffic equally, but allow network operators to be “free to enter into agreements” to deliver faster speeds at higher prices.
Whether or not internet traffic has been slowed or blocked in the past is irrelevant in my mind. Wouldn't this set lay the groundwork for traffic to be blocked in the future? Couldn't an ISP slow everything to a virtual stop, reducing the tunnel in your example to a straw, and only transmit data from corporations who pay the fee? I'm about as anti government regulation as anyone so I am surprised I'm falling on this side of the fence but it seems like the internet has really become public domain, though I can't think of a single other example of something moving from the private to the public sphere.
No. If the straw is full of water, any new water you want to put through it gets backed up. What the ISP does is sell the corporations direct connections to bypass the choke points. This is NORMAL and fair practice. The govt. is stepping in and running all the ISPs because of imaginary potential abuses that would never happen in the real world. It's an excuse for a power grab for the sake of central planning. It's anticapitalist.
Yeah but look at all the votes they get right here from the sheep that want that government protection.
It's dated 3 days ago. So, no I didn't. I posted that Google was one of the big corporations chosen as winners over the other big corporations. Looks like they paid for it. Maybe they even wrote the legislation.
