Comcast-Time Warner Merger

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but some of us like Internet porn.

Comments

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Dozens of people with documented complaints is evidence of something, and our friend Occam's Razor tells us that Verizon complying with current law (i.e. allowing throttling of certain services if it chooses to) is probably the case. What other situations aside from that do you think it is?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, it tells us that there are some people on the internet who have problems. Net neutrality was stupidly the law for the last few years, these "problems" have been ongoing.

The answer is that networks communicate differently based on the service providers, bandwidth providers, settings on all ends, and geography. It's not one thing.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

...these "problems" have been ongoing.

So no company has ever broken the law before?


The answer is that networks communicate differently based on the service providers, bandwidth providers, settings on all ends, and geography.

Did you read the very first link I provided to you? It's the same exact bandwidth provider (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Web_Services), same locations (you know, traceroutes), just different sections of it.

But you'd have known that if you'd even cursorily read into this. So that must not be the case, right? (some kind of evidence disputing the evidence I linked would be helpful for you here)

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So no company has ever broken the law before?

The likelihood of it happening is low.

Did you read the very first link I provided to you? It's the same exact bandwidth provider, same locations (you know, traceroutes), just different sections of it.

Again, I'm aware of some of the individual claims from the consumer end. They don't tell us much of anything at all except what one person is seeing from a partial viewpoint.

It's like looking through a keyhole, seeing a head with long hair, and assuming it's a female supermodel.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

The likelihood of it happening is low.

If it's hard to prove, as you seem to assert, then why is it unlikely? The gains are significant.


Again, I'm aware of some of the individual claims from the consumer end. They don't tell us much of anything at all except what one person is seeing from a partial viewpoint.

So what's another reasonable explanation that is not caught by Occam's Razor?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If it's hard to prove, as you seem to assert, then why is it unlikely? The gains are significant.

The gains are far from significant. It's actually incredibly risky, as it gets the eye of regulators, legislators, and customers.

So what's another reasonable explanation that is not caught by Occam's Razor?

The reasonable explanation, again, is that it's an issue either on the consumer side or on the service provider (like Spotify, Netflix, etc) side.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Far from significant? They use the same set amount of bandwidth but can have vastly more customers. That's why Comcast did it before the law changed. Now that the law has changed, why wouldn't Verizon do it when it's more profitable?


The reasonable explanation, again, is that it's an issue either on the consumer side or on the service provider (like Spotify, Netflix, etc) side.

All at the same time? When some AWS sources are affected but otherwise-identical AWS services aren't? Why is that likely?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That's why Comcast did it before the law changed. Now that the law has changed, why wouldn't Verizon do it when it's more profitable?

Comcast did it for one type of traffic mostly due to facilitation of copyright infringement issues. It was a very specific type due to a very specific reason.

Verizon's problems existed before and after the law changed. There's nothing correlating the two.

All at the same time? When some AWS sources are affected but otherwise-identical AWS services aren't? Why is that likely?

Impossible to say as I'm not on the AWS end.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Comcast did it for one type of traffic mostly due to facilitation of copyright infringement issues. It was a very specific type due to a very specific reason.

So you're saying instead of reporting users who were most likely breaking the law, they instead reduced their culpability instead of completely negating it? Abetting their customers in breaking the law only a little instead of a lot?


Verizon's problems existed before and after the law changed. There's nothing correlating the two.

Your own graph disproves that.


Impossible to say as I'm not on the AWS end.

What's a likely non-ISP-throttling reason?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So you're saying instead of reporting users who were most likely breaking the law, they instead reduced their culpability instead of completely negating it? Abetting their customers in breaking the law only a little instead of a lot?

More discouraging it using their own resources.

Your own graph disproves that.

No, it supports it. Look at November onward.

What's a likely non-ISP-throttling reason?

Networking issues, programming not talking to each other well, Netflix being more advanced at data optimization than the ISPs, user error, geography...