Comment on FCC explicitly prohibits fast lanes, closing possible net neutrality loophole

maynarkh@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  It’s also responsible for the last few years of streaming price hikes. ISPs throttle streaming services, customers complain, streaming services pay for fast lanes and pass the cost on to customers.

  Fuck Ajit Pai and his orange overlord.

  source

  • Kid_Thunder@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    The problem historically isn't that streaming services are paying for fast lanes but that they have to pay not to be throttled below normal traffic. In other words, they have to pay more to be treated like other traffic.

    Even crazier is remember that there are actual peering agreements between folks like cogentco, Level 3, comcast, Hurricane Electric, AT&T, etc. What comcast did that caused the spotlight was to bypass their peering agreement with Level 3 and went direct to their end customer (netflix) and told them they'd specifically throttle them if they didn't pay a premium which also undermined Level3's peering agreement with Comcast.

    Peering agreements are basically like "I'll route your traffic, if you route my traffic" and that's how the Internet works.

    source

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Netflix and im sure the other services also have “netflix in a box” media servers that they drop in these peering exchanges in order to get their media as close to the customers as possible.

      The basically bend over backwards to cause ISPs the least amount of traffic, and its still not enough.

      source

      • Kid_Thunder@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        I was trying to find the old Level 3 blog post but didn't because I believe they basically said that Comcast needed to upgrade its infrastructure and never did. Netflix was the cashcow they saw to essentially make them pay for it.

        You're right on about CDNs and edge / egress/ingress PoPs. It also keeps it cheaper for the likes of Netflix/Amazon/etc. in the long run with the benefits of adding more availability.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • subtext@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Do you have a link to an article or a Wikipedia page that I could read more on this?

      source

      • Kid_Thunder@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        I found this wikipedia article about backbones and peering but it really isn't that great but in the results it also came up with this pretty good presentation from Carnegi Mellon. I was only going to browser a few of the slides but the information isn't really all that much and the illustrations are good. I think Prof. Nace did an excellent job here. Much better than I would have.

        source
  • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    No. It really isn’t. If that were the case, the streaming services wouldn’t actually be making a lot more money. Netflix market cap has gone up by $120,000,000,000 over the last 5 years, for instance.

    Stop making up false excuses for simple greed. Streaming services are just after as much money as they can get from you.

    source

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      How do you figure? If they pay for fast lanes, then charge customers more, that’s operating cost, not profit.

      source
  • UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    And his fucking Reese’s Cup

    source

    • AtariDump@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Image

      source
• gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  If it wasn’t so goddamn infuriating, all of these “free market” enthusiasts trying to argue that introducing artificial scarcity into the market to try to game the whole system would be kinda hilarious.

  source

  • maynarkh@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    See also “deregulation” types arguing for even more stringent regulation of unions.

    source

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      its_the_same_picture.png

      source