Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Netflix and other websites down 9/10/14Follow

#1 Sep 09 2014 at 9:44 PM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
In protest of internet "fast lanes"
Quote:
(CNN) -- Your Internet won't be any slower than usual on Wednesday, but it might look like it is.

Top sites on the Internet, including Netflix and Reddit, will be displaying a constant "loading" symbol -- the so-called "loading pinwheel" or, alternately, the Spinning Wheel of Death.

It's part of a protest called "Internet Slowdown Day," a push against the U.S. government's support for so-called Internet fast lanes.

The Federal Communications Commission in May proposed allowing broadband providers to charge companies like Amazon and Netflix for prioritized access to consumers. The proposal is now open for public comment and could be changed before a final vote to implement it.

As part of the Internet Slowdown Day protest, the websites will also include a prompt to contact your lawmakers about the FCC proposal.

"It's always hard to explain complicated topics to a lot of people, and the FCC made it harder by trying to fool the public into thinking their proposal was real net neutrality, when it was actually what the cable and phone lobbyists always asked for," said organizer David Segal, executive director of civil liberties group Demand Progress and a former Rhode Island state representative.

Net neutrality refers to the principle that high-speed Internet providers should treat all types of Web content equally, which led to a set of rules the FCC approved in 2010, designed to keep the companies that hold the keys to the Web from playing favorites.

'Pay to play' on the Web? Net neutrality explained

Sites including Netflix, Reddit, Vimeo, Etsy, Upworthy and Digg plan to take part in this week's demonstration, which will last from midnight Wednesday to midnight Thursday.

Broadband Internet providers, many of them cable companies, argue that as businesses providing a service, they have a right to charge websites. Netflix accounts for around a third of data consumption online during peak hours, and Internet providers say the company should therefore help foot the bill for delivery.

But those fees would be easier to absorb for the Web's biggest, and richest, sites, activists say. Smaller, less profitable sites would have a tough time competing.

Segal said altering the FCC plan is an uphill battle, but he's optimistic.

"We can never ever underestimate the power of cable and phone companies in D.C., but we definitely have a shot of winning," he said. "We have the momentum and are building impressive support in the public, industry, and policymakers."
#2 Sep 09 2014 at 10:06 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
I was gonna post about it, but then Gbaji would call me unamerican and possibly a broken record for always whining about net neutrality and smth smth smth..

I am conflicted; kinda. I was sure since Netflix already signed a blood pact, this will be the way they do business.

Also before someone decides to defend the poor ISPs so misunderstood by subscribers and gouged by Netflix, I would like to post this lil gem. Comcast is taking bandwidth of paying users, uses it to offer free wifi spots and then serve their own ads to those who use'em.

Tomorrow should be fun.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#3 Sep 10 2014 at 5:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Netflix is normal speed for me, so far.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#4 Sep 10 2014 at 6:24 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
I saw some pop-over dealy on random sites last night that said something like "without net neutrality you'd still be loading".
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#5 Sep 10 2014 at 6:41 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Just so long as it doesn't interfere with this evening's gaming session. Hate that.

Here's something sad; My tv remote control broke last saturday (battery leaked). I have no way of turning on the box without it. For lack of a remote I've been tv-less for 3 days. I'm kind of missing the tube.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#6 Sep 10 2014 at 6:55 AM Rating: Good
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
Elinda wrote:
Just so long as it doesn't interfere with this evening's gaming session. Hate that.

Here's something sad; My tv remote control broke last saturday (battery leaked). I have no way of turning on the box without it. For lack of a remote I've been tv-less for 3 days. I'm kind of missing the tube.


Are universal remotes no longer being made?
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#7 Sep 10 2014 at 6:56 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Just so long as it doesn't interfere with this evening's gaming session. Hate that.

Here's something sad; My tv remote control broke last saturday (battery leaked). I have no way of turning on the box without it. For lack of a remote I've been tv-less for 3 days. I'm kind of missing the tube.


Are universal remotes no longer being made?
I dunno. I called the Dish company. They're sending me a new one. It's just not arrived yet.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#8 Sep 10 2014 at 7:23 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I'm sure the slow down will have a huge impact on this issue.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#9 Sep 10 2014 at 7:27 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Elinda wrote:
Here's something sad; My tv remote control broke last saturday (battery leaked). I have no way of turning on the box without it. For lack of a remote I've been tv-less for 3 days. I'm kind of missing the tube.

Your TV doesn't have buttons? Every device I have has buttons on them.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#10 Sep 10 2014 at 8:58 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Debalic wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Here's something sad; My tv remote control broke last saturday (battery leaked). I have no way of turning on the box without it. For lack of a remote I've been tv-less for 3 days. I'm kind of missing the tube.

Your TV doesn't have buttons? Every device I have has buttons on them.

The tv has buttons. Technically speaking, I can turn on the tv. The signal comes through the box though. There's no button on the box.

It's a secondary box. The primary box is in the basement attached to the hubbies tv. I think that one might have an on/off switch.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#11 Sep 10 2014 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Hoppah? Is it hoppah? It's hoppah, right?


(I hate those commercials)
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#12 Sep 10 2014 at 11:26 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
IM at this moment sitting alone in the loungy area of the car place waiting. They have a dish remote just like my broken one. It would be so easy to just slip it into my bag.........
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#13 Sep 10 2014 at 11:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Elinda wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Here's something sad; My tv remote control broke last saturday (battery leaked). I have no way of turning on the box without it. For lack of a remote I've been tv-less for 3 days. I'm kind of missing the tube.

Your TV doesn't have buttons? Every device I have has buttons on them.

The tv has buttons. Technically speaking, I can turn on the tv. The signal comes through the box though. There's no button on the box.

It's a secondary box. The primary box is in the basement attached to the hubbies tv. I think that one might have an on/off switch.
I'd be lost without buttons on the TV. Kids got to the various remotes years ago and they either are consistently lost, or don't work properly. You'll have to drag me into the 80's kicking and screaming.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#14 Sep 10 2014 at 4:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
I was gonna post about it, but then Gbaji would call me unamerican and possibly a broken record for always whining about net neutrality and smth smth smth..


You're unamerican and a broken record! Smiley: grin

Honestly, my issue isn't with whining about net neutrality, but the general lack of most people knowing a damn thing about what they're actually supporting or opposing. It's become the ultimate in buzzwords.

Quote:
I am conflicted; kinda. I was sure since Netflix already signed a blood pact, this will be the way they do business.


Yeah, it's a lot more complex than a for/against position IMO.

Quote:
Also before someone decides to defend the poor ISPs so misunderstood by subscribers and gouged by Netflix, I would like to post this lil gem. Comcast is taking bandwidth of paying users, uses it to offer free wifi spots and then serve their own ads to those who use'em.


What I got from that article is that a practice (which has absolutely zero to do with Net Neutrality) that's commonly used by "free" wi-fi providers is nefarious and evil when done by comcast because... Net Neutrality! Wow. Fantastic logic there.

Quote:
Tomorrow should be fun.


It's a pr stunt. Most of the companies involved either don't care about NN, or actively want the rules to be in whatever manner most benefits them (which is most decidedly *not* "neutral"), but they feel pressure to be socially aware netizens, so they stage something silly like this to placate the masses. It's the internet equivalent of bread and circuses.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#15 Sep 10 2014 at 5:04 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:


What I got from that article is that a practice (which has absolutely zero to do with Net Neutrality) that's commonly used by "free" wi-fi providers is nefarious and evil when done by comcast because... Net Neutrality! Wow. Fantastic logic there.


I agree. It does not have much to do with net neutrality. I did not add it as an argument; it is more about the perspective. It has more to do with comcast being a bunch of ****. I had, briefly, one of those free routers that were used to offer free wifi. I dislike having the bandwidth I have already paid for used by someone else.

Which reminds me, didn't comcast complain recently ( along with att ) that they have to deal with those moochers who are actually using their networks to their full capacity?

Is it that they don't have to care, because they purchased ( sorry, invested in ) sufficient amount of votes to do what they need?

Edited, Sep 10th 2014 7:04pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#16 Sep 10 2014 at 6:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
gbaji wrote:


What I got from that article is that a practice (which has absolutely zero to do with Net Neutrality) that's commonly used by "free" wi-fi providers is nefarious and evil when done by comcast because... Net Neutrality! Wow. Fantastic logic there.


I agree. It does not have much to do with net neutrality. I did not add it as an argument; it is more about the perspective. It has more to do with comcast being a bunch of ****.


Sure, but not because of injecting javascript ads into their free wifi though. So why talk about that at all?

Quote:
I had, briefly, one of those free routers that were used to offer free wifi. I dislike having the bandwidth I have already paid for used by someone else.


Interesting. Aren't you an advocate of Net Neutrality? Isn't the basic tenant of that position that it's unfair for those who pay for bandwidth to get priority use of it? Seems like you're for it when it's someone else paying, but not when it's you. Or am I misunderstanding your position? It's been awhile since we had a NN discussion, but I thought you were one of those on the "peer to peer folks should get full access to bandwidth even if they don't pay for it" side of the issue.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#17 Sep 10 2014 at 6:28 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
gbaji wrote:


What I got from that article is that a practice (which has absolutely zero to do with Net Neutrality) that's commonly used by "free" wi-fi providers is nefarious and evil when done by comcast because... Net Neutrality! Wow. Fantastic logic there.


I agree. It does not have much to do with net neutrality. I did not add it as an argument; it is more about the perspective. It has more to do with comcast being a bunch of ****.


Sure, but not because of injecting javascript ads into their free wifi though. So why talk about that at all?

Quote:
I had, briefly, one of those free routers that were used to offer free wifi. I dislike having the bandwidth I have already paid for used by someone else.


Interesting. Aren't you an advocate of Net Neutrality? Isn't the basic tenant of that position that it's unfair for those who pay for bandwidth to get priority use of it? Seems like you're for it when it's someone else paying, but not when it's you. Or am I misunderstanding your position? It's been awhile since we had a NN discussion, but I thought you were one of those on the "peer to peer folks should get full access to bandwidth even if they don't pay for it" side of the issue.

You are, but that is not new. ISP acronym has rather specific meaning. Comcast is only supposed to give me access. they are not supposed to mess with my access by arbitrarily adding code midstream
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#18 Sep 10 2014 at 6:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
You are, but that is not new.


So you oppose Net Neutrality legislation then? Maybe you should actually elaborate what your position actually is, rather than forcing me to play 20 questions?

Quote:
ISP acronym has rather specific meaning. Comcast is only supposed to give me access. they are not supposed to mess with my access by arbitrarily adding code midstream


Ok. But the article was pretty clear that the javascript ads were only injected into web connections made using the free wi-fi hotspots. So if you are a paying customer, you don't see any ads. If you are getting your internet "for free", you see ads. Which is hardly a new idea, right? Premium members on this site don't get banner ads. Free users do. This is a pretty standard practice, so why blast Comcast for it?

Additionally, your earlier statement, to which I replied, was about others using bandwidth you paid for. Now you seem to be complaining about receiving java ads even though you paid. Is that true? It's hard to be sure what your talking about You keep switching the topic around. I'm honestly not even 100% sure what you are actually complaining about. You're just complaining.

Care to elaborate?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Sep 10 2014 at 6:56 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
It is cute. You seem to think you cornered me with your flawless argument strategery.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#20 Sep 10 2014 at 7:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
He's... well.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#21 Sep 10 2014 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
It is cute. You seem to think you cornered me with your flawless argument strategery.


I don't think you needed much cornering, actually. More just pointing out the inherent inconsistencies of your statements.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Sep 10 2014 at 7:36 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
It is cute. You seem to think you cornered me with your flawless argument strategery.


I don't think you needed much cornering, actually. More just pointing out the inherent inconsistencies of your statements.


I take you see yourself as consistent¿


Edited, Sep 10th 2014 11:22pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#23 Sep 10 2014 at 9:32 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Quote:
Sure, but not because of injecting javascript ads into their free wifi though. So why talk about that at all?


Ok. I am back.

How is it their wifi when they ( comcast ) sold their service to a subscriber and then double dipped and added a forced wifi service.

So this is how Comcast is offering "free" wifi spots; they use the routers used by current subscribers. Can you see how this can be upsetting?



____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#24 Sep 11 2014 at 1:13 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
I have little problem with tiers of service for end users from ISPs, but controlling what sites get what speed or have to pay a premium is a horrific conflict of interest, especially when the sites they will most likely throttle down without a premium fee are their competition for other services they offer. You pay a company for speed X and you should get speed X across all websites.

I'm sure someone's already brought it up, but I started feeling like I should actually comment on the thread I posted and forgot about.until I ran across this video in my youtube subs list.
#25 Sep 11 2014 at 7:25 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Honestly, my issue isn't with whining about net neutrality, but the general lack of most people knowing a **** thing about what they're actually supporting or opposing.
Just to clarify for the viewers at home, you have issues with the general lack of other people knowing a damn thing about what they're actually supporting or opposing. You have no issue when you do it.
gbaji wrote:
It's become the ultimate in buzzwords.
Nah, that's still "liberal."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#26 Sep 15 2014 at 7:39 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
I have little problem with tiers of service for end users from ISPs, but controlling what sites get what speed or have to pay a premium is a horrific conflict of interest, especially when the sites they will most likely throttle down without a premium fee are their competition for other services they offer. You pay a company for speed X and you should get speed X across all websites.


Except the other end has to pay for bandwidth as well, right? Surely you don't think someone hosting a website from their home for $25/month should be able to provide the same amount of content to the same number of users as someone who pays tens of thousands of dollars per month for bandwidth. So, we accept that the "source" of data has to pay for bandwidth it's using as well, right?

Now, we have to extend that concept to "pass through" traffic. Imagine that I'm operating network "B" which is located physically between networks "A" and "C"? I charge my customers for their bandwidth to my network, both clients and servers. So customers in B pay me for their bandwidth. And servers in B pay me as well, so customers in A and C (whom I don't charge) generate revenue for using my network when using a server in B because that server will have to pay me for the bandwidth their using. The problem occurs when a client in network A wants to use content on a server in network B (or vice versa). I have to allow that traffic to use my network, but I don't get a penny for it.

That's a problem, right? At the risk of writing a ton of boring information, you'll just have to trust that the businesses which operate the networks have come up with systems to deal with this. And part of that is granting priority to companies which pay for it (and passing the cost/revenue around based on traffic patterns). But if net neutrality has its way, all packets will be treated "equally", eliminating any incentive for companies to pay for the total actual bandwidth they are consuming. The result will be a crappy network for everyone.

It's just a bad idea, all the way around. Outside of phony outrage created by trying to treat network packets like people, there's nothing wrong with the way things are handled right now. Someone has to pay for all those network cables, and it makes sense to adopt a system which requires people to pay based on the total share of the entire network system that they are using. It's already rigged such that home users have a huge subsidy advantage (basically getting to use a massive and expensive network for nearly free). It works. Don't "fix" it. Cause you'll almost certainly actually break it instead.

Edited, Sep 15th 2014 6:41pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 361 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (361)