User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 12:35:59 PM EDT
[#1]
Awesome, so now a $50 internet connection is $58 so that someone else's $50 internet connection can be free.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 12:37:21 PM EDT
[#2]
It's just the way he operates. Knows it will take a while for it to be challenged and make it through the courts. It's how he rolls. Community organizer.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 12:38:54 PM EDT
[#3]
Goodie
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 12:39:21 PM EDT
[#4]
WOW just WOW..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 12:40:47 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's just the way he operates. Knows it will take a while for it to be challenged and make it through the courts. It's how he rolls. Community Communist organizer. FIFY 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 12:46:38 PM EDT
[#6]
Net neutrality the concept is good.
Net neutrality as applied and interpreted and perverted by the government is bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 12:46:47 PM EDT
[#7]
The FCC controlling the INTERNET.
Shit Piss Fuck Cunt Cocksucker Motherfucker Tits |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 12:52:41 PM EDT
[#8]
Obama is so, like, awesome. It's so great that we have someone so intelligent and stuff.
Another piece of American Liberty disappears. Progressivism will continue until all the pieces are gone. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 12:53:32 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Net neutrality the concept is good. Net neutrality as applied and interpreted and perverted by the government is bad. Why? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 12:55:22 PM EDT
[#10]
The emperor has decreed, make it so.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:02:51 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Net neutrality the concept is good. Net neutrality as applied and interpreted and perverted by the government is bad. Why? Because when the .gov puts their hands on anything, it always cost 250% more than anticipated, works about 10% as well as they said it would, and gives the .gov more authority over us peasants. Have you not payed any attention to how our government works? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:03:29 PM EDT
[#12]
ATLEAST ROMNEY DIDNT WIN RIGHT???????
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:03:39 PM EDT
[#13]
Free broadband for some people.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:04:54 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because when the .gov puts their hands on anything, it always cost 250% more than anticipated, works about 10% as well as they said it would, and gives the .gov more authority over us peasants. Have you not payed any attention to how our government works? I don't share your pessimism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:07:20 PM EDT
[#15]
Everyone in power grabs more power and will never relinquish power.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:11:48 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't share your pessimism. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Because when the .gov puts their hands on anything, it always cost 250% more than anticipated, works about 10% as well as they said it would, and gives the .gov more authority over us peasants. Have you not payed any attention to how our government works? I don't share your pessimism. You are alone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:15:09 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The FCC controlling the INTERNET. Shit Piss Fuck Cunt Cocksucker Motherfucker Tits You forgot: Fart Turd And twat 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:16:01 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't share your pessimism. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Because when the .gov puts their hands on anything, it always cost 250% more than anticipated, works about 10% as well as they said it would, and gives the .gov more authority over us peasants. Have you not payed any attention to how our government works? I don't share your pessimism. Your comment reminds me of that Geico Insurance commercial where the the two guys are living under a rock and oblivious. Wow... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:17:50 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Everyone in power grabs more power and will never relinquish power. Until heads start a rollin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:20:17 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't share your pessimism. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Because when the .gov puts their hands on anything, it always cost 250% more than anticipated, works about 10% as well as they said it would, and gives the .gov more authority over us peasants. Have you not payed any attention to how our government works? I don't share your pessimism. Of course you dont. Im sure Hussein picking which websites are GTG will be great. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:21:50 PM EDT
[#21]
MY net, MY rules.... oh, wait....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:26:15 PM EDT
[#22]
I think that businesses in the internet sector need to decide if they are a service provider or a content provider.
If they are a content provider then they need to either make their service paid or ad sponsored. If they are a service provider, then they need to provide their bandwidth to their customers (content providers and end users) for a fair price and with no regard to what traffic passes through the pipe that the customer is paying htem for. If a customer is paying for 20Mbits, then the ISP should do their best to provide that bandwidth for all content passing through their infrastructure. This model should go all the way up to and include the backbone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:26:32 PM EDT
[#23]
You didn't build that internet.
Al Gore did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:32:27 PM EDT
[#24]
Can anyone explain what is really going on by leaving all the fuckobama and fcc gon tax ur kids away bullshit out of it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:32:53 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think that businesses in the internet sector need to decide if they are a service provider or a content provider. If they are a content provider then they need to either make their service paid or ad sponsored. If they are a service provider, then they need to provide their bandwidth to their customers (content providers and end users) for a fair price and with no regard to what traffic passes through the pipe that the customer is paying htem for. If a customer is paying for 20Mbits, then the ISP should do their best to provide that bandwidth for all content passing through their infrastructure. This model should go all the way up to and include the backbone. The problem is the connection between your ISP and Netflix that Netflix doesn't want to pay for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:33:17 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think that businesses in the internet sector need to decide if they are a service provider or a content provider. If they are a content provider then they need to either make their service paid or ad sponsored. If they are a service provider, then they need to provide their bandwidth to their customers (content providers and end users) for a fair price and with no regard to what traffic passes through the pipe that the customer is paying htem for. If a customer is paying for 20Mbits, then the ISP should do their best to provide that bandwidth for all content passing through their infrastructure. This model should go all the way up to and include the backbone. By the time Hussein and his ilk are done with it, every website except DU and huffington post will take 3 days to load. All in the name of fairness mind you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:40:13 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You forgot: Fart Turd And twat Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The FCC controlling the INTERNET. Shit Piss Fuck Cunt Cocksucker Motherfucker Tits You forgot: Fart Turd And twat Whoosh. Right over yer head. Those are the "Seven Dirty Words". Miss ya George |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:43:19 PM EDT
[#28]
By far one of the worst decisions of 2015 so far.
Not a good start of the year for Supreme Leader Obama |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:52:28 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't share your pessimism. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Because when the .gov puts their hands on anything, it always cost 250% more than anticipated, works about 10% as well as they said it would, and gives the .gov more authority over us peasants. Have you not payed any attention to how our government works? I don't share your pessimism. clearly, you're not paying attention chokinghazard |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:54:40 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Net neutrality the concept is good. Net neutrality as applied and interpreted and perverted by the government is bad. Why? Because you value HOPE over experience 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:55:15 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The FCC controlling the INTERNET. Shit Piss Fuck Cunt Cocksucker Motherfucker Tits Ill take most common internet searched words for 500, Alex. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:56:34 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
By far one of the worst decisions of 2015 so far. Not a good start of the year for Supreme Leader Obama Keep that chin up, he still has 349 days left to top this. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 2:06:43 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Net neutrality the concept is good. Net neutrality as applied and interpreted and perverted by the government is bad. Which net neutrality are you talking about? Two versions came out: 1) Allows things to continue more-or-less as they have been. 2) The above when applied to a bill was morphed into mandating that the current crop of big-boys were explicitly allowed to throw their weight around as they saw fit and the consumer is screwed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 2:18:46 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can anyone explain what is really going on by leaving all the fuckobama and fcc gon tax ur kids away bullshit out of it? 'Net Neutrality' has been warped in several iterations through Congress. At heart: The desire to keep the internet from becoming 'enclaves' owned by the various companies that provide backbone (ATT, COMCAST, etc) who then charge companies like Netflix for access to their networks, or they will throttle their link speeds. As well, it would (in theory) keep the big companies from simply preventing the consumer from accessing website they decide they don't like (like www.ar15.com); or chargin higher prices for access outside of their backbone to consumers, effectively creating tiered levels of access to the internet. What some people believe is going to happen with the FCC taking over is that the above things will be prevented by regulation. The fact is that the regulations are going to be whatever the FCC decides it is going to be, with influence by . . . someone. Also with influence by whoever holds the reigns of power at the moment (so look forward to constantly changing regulation). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 2:20:59 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem is the connection between your ISP and Netflix that Netflix doesn't want to pay for. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think that businesses in the internet sector need to decide if they are a service provider or a content provider. If they are a content provider then they need to either make their service paid or ad sponsored. If they are a service provider, then they need to provide their bandwidth to their customers (content providers and end users) for a fair price and with no regard to what traffic passes through the pipe that the customer is paying htem for. If a customer is paying for 20Mbits, then the ISP should do their best to provide that bandwidth for all content passing through their infrastructure. This model should go all the way up to and include the backbone. The problem is the connection between your ISP and Netflix that Netflix doesn't want to pay for. Netflix pays for internet access, just like you do. In fact, what you are paying you ISP for is access to XXmbps from the internet . . . without regard to where it comes from. The big ISP's see the money that Netflix generates, see that their subscribers aren't buying cable as much, now they want to see if they can squeeze more cash from Netflix, instead of competing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 2:26:34 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem is the connection between your ISP and Netflix that Netflix doesn't want to pay for. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think that businesses in the internet sector need to decide if they are a service provider or a content provider. If they are a content provider then they need to either make their service paid or ad sponsored. If they are a service provider, then they need to provide their bandwidth to their customers (content providers and end users) for a fair price and with no regard to what traffic passes through the pipe that the customer is paying htem for. If a customer is paying for 20Mbits, then the ISP should do their best to provide that bandwidth for all content passing through their infrastructure. This model should go all the way up to and include the backbone. The problem is the connection between your ISP and Netflix that Netflix doesn't want to pay for. Bullshit. If the ISP has overprovisioned their network to the point that they can't handle 20% of their subscribers using a few megabits concurrently, that's their problem not Netflix's. Also, many cable providers have purchased major networks. They would just love to artificially cripple Netflix so they can pimp their own lucrative HD on demand service. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 2:27:26 PM EDT
[#37]
This should go well with BHO's "war on extremism," especially since anyone that disagrees is extremist.
Oh well, at least I get to watch a bunch of idiots cheer about how great this is... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 2:36:08 PM EDT
[#38]
Shameless plug. My world will be complete when this comes to my town.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 2:49:47 PM EDT
[#39]
The idea of net neutrality is good, every type of data costs the same, charge by the volume or speed. I don't have anything against real time prioritization...QOS type stuff but charging end users extra money to access certain areas of the internet is not good....they are trying to monetize something that has always been a flat rate access type deal..think cable packages or cell phone services.
The flip side is that .gov doesn't have a great track record of fixing....anything....and once it's under the aegis of the FCC...apparently government can just make rules as it goes... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 3:50:15 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which net neutrality are you talking about? Two versions came out: 1) Allows things to continue more-or-less as they have been. 2) The above when applied to a bill was morphed into mandating that the current crop of big-boys were explicitly allowed to throw their weight around as they saw fit and the consumer is screwed. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Net neutrality the concept is good. Net neutrality as applied and interpreted and perverted by the government is bad. Which net neutrality are you talking about? Two versions came out: 1) Allows things to continue more-or-less as they have been. 2) The above when applied to a bill was morphed into mandating that the current crop of big-boys were explicitly allowed to throw their weight around as they saw fit and the consumer is screwed. A good idea occurs... Government gets a hold on it and decides to label their bad idea with the name of the good idea... then they claim anyone who argues against their bad idea is arguing against the original good idea... Same thing happened with common core. Having common standards is good. The standards applied by the government? really really bad. Good idea... Net neutrality. That the ISPs should treat every bit of data traveling over their network the same as any other bit and not throttle their competitors. Bad idea... Leaving it up to a government agency with little to no oversight to regulate as they see fit and for whom ever can "lobby" them hardest. If they really cared to have Net neutrality they would be ending the ISPs government endorsed monopoly status and allowing competitors to flood the market. The free market will prevent ISPs from throttling because they'd lose all their customers to a company that doesn't do that. But that hinges on there being a free market for ISPs themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 3:56:55 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1 is the first thing I said... 2 is the second thing I said... where's your confusion? A good idea occurs... Government gets a hold on it and decides to label their bad idea with the name of the good idea... then they claim anyone who argues against their bad idea is arguing against the original good idea... Same thing happened with common core. Having common standards is good. The standards applied by the government? really really bad. Good idea... Net neutrality. That the ISPs should treat every bit of data traveling over their network the same as any other bit and not throttle their competitors. Bad idea... Leaving it up to a government agency with little to no oversight to regulate as they see fit and for whom ever can "lobby" them hardest. If they really cared to have Net neutrality they would be ending the ISPs government endorsed monopoly status and allowing competitors to flood the market. The free market will prevent ISPs from throttling because they'd lose all their customers to a company that doesn't do that. But that hinges on there being a free market for ISPs themselves. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Net neutrality the concept is good. Net neutrality as applied and interpreted and perverted by the government is bad. Which net neutrality are you talking about? Two versions came out: 1) Allows things to continue more-or-less as they have been. 2) The above when applied to a bill was morphed into mandating that the current crop of big-boys were explicitly allowed to throw their weight around as they saw fit and the consumer is screwed. A good idea occurs... Government gets a hold on it and decides to label their bad idea with the name of the good idea... then they claim anyone who argues against their bad idea is arguing against the original good idea... Same thing happened with common core. Having common standards is good. The standards applied by the government? really really bad. Good idea... Net neutrality. That the ISPs should treat every bit of data traveling over their network the same as any other bit and not throttle their competitors. Bad idea... Leaving it up to a government agency with little to no oversight to regulate as they see fit and for whom ever can "lobby" them hardest. If they really cared to have Net neutrality they would be ending the ISPs government endorsed monopoly status and allowing competitors to flood the market. The free market will prevent ISPs from throttling because they'd lose all their customers to a company that doesn't do that. But that hinges on there being a free market for ISPs themselves. Newsflash: the FCC already censors internet in the USA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 3:57:09 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Netflix pays for internet access, just like you do. In fact, what you are paying you ISP for is access to XXmbps from the internet . . . without regard to where it comes from. The big ISP's see the money that Netflix generates, see that their subscribers aren't buying cable as much, now they want to see if they can squeeze more cash from Netflix, instead of competing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think that businesses in the internet sector need to decide if they are a service provider or a content provider. If they are a content provider then they need to either make their service paid or ad sponsored. If they are a service provider, then they need to provide their bandwidth to their customers (content providers and end users) for a fair price and with no regard to what traffic passes through the pipe that the customer is paying htem for. If a customer is paying for 20Mbits, then the ISP should do their best to provide that bandwidth for all content passing through their infrastructure. This model should go all the way up to and include the backbone. The problem is the connection between your ISP and Netflix that Netflix doesn't want to pay for. Netflix pays for internet access, just like you do. In fact, what you are paying you ISP for is access to XXmbps from the internet . . . without regard to where it comes from. The big ISP's see the money that Netflix generates, see that their subscribers aren't buying cable as much, now they want to see if they can squeeze more cash from Netflix, instead of competing. Netfils is responsible for a very larg percentage of ISP bandwidth on movie nights. ISPs would like some compensation to carry that content for them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 3:58:19 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Net neutrality the concept is good. Net neutrality as applied and interpreted and perverted by the government is bad. Which proves net neutrality is a bad idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 4:02:25 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Netfils is responsible for a very larg percentage of ISP bandwidth on movie nights. ISPs would like some compensation to carry that content for them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think that businesses in the internet sector need to decide if they are a service provider or a content provider. If they are a content provider then they need to either make their service paid or ad sponsored. If they are a service provider, then they need to provide their bandwidth to their customers (content providers and end users) for a fair price and with no regard to what traffic passes through the pipe that the customer is paying htem for. If a customer is paying for 20Mbits, then the ISP should do their best to provide that bandwidth for all content passing through their infrastructure. This model should go all the way up to and include the backbone. The problem is the connection between your ISP and Netflix that Netflix doesn't want to pay for. Netflix pays for internet access, just like you do. In fact, what you are paying you ISP for is access to XXmbps from the internet . . . without regard to where it comes from. The big ISP's see the money that Netflix generates, see that their subscribers aren't buying cable as much, now they want to see if they can squeeze more cash from Netflix, instead of competing. Netfils is responsible for a very larg percentage of ISP bandwidth on movie nights. ISPs would like some compensation to carry that content for them. I'm looking at our bandwidth graph right now, we're moving ~70gbps... and pay for every fucking penny of that. There have been several instances where we've increased our bandwidth needs, and our service providers have brought in additional fiber and/or hardware as needed to accommodate our growth. We pay for that, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 4:13:39 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1 is the first thing I said... 2 is the second thing I said... where's your confusion? A good idea occurs... Government gets a hold on it and decides to label their bad idea with the name of the good idea... then they claim anyone who argues against their bad idea is arguing against the original good idea... Same thing happened with common core. Having common standards is good. The standards applied by the government? really really bad. Good idea... Net neutrality. That the ISPs should treat every bit of data traveling over their network the same as any other bit and not throttle their competitors. Bad idea... Leaving it up to a government agency with little to no oversight to regulate as they see fit and for whom ever can "lobby" them hardest. If they really cared to have Net neutrality they would be ending the ISPs government endorsed monopoly status and allowing competitors to flood the market. The free market will prevent ISPs from throttling because they'd lose all their customers to a company that doesn't do that. But that hinges on there being a free market for ISPs themselves. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Net neutrality the concept is good. Net neutrality as applied and interpreted and perverted by the government is bad. Which net neutrality are you talking about? Two versions came out: 1) Allows things to continue more-or-less as they have been. 2) The above when applied to a bill was morphed into mandating that the current crop of big-boys were explicitly allowed to throw their weight around as they saw fit and the consumer is screwed. A good idea occurs... Government gets a hold on it and decides to label their bad idea with the name of the good idea... then they claim anyone who argues against their bad idea is arguing against the original good idea... Same thing happened with common core. Having common standards is good. The standards applied by the government? really really bad. Good idea... Net neutrality. That the ISPs should treat every bit of data traveling over their network the same as any other bit and not throttle their competitors. Bad idea... Leaving it up to a government agency with little to no oversight to regulate as they see fit and for whom ever can "lobby" them hardest. If they really cared to have Net neutrality they would be ending the ISPs government endorsed monopoly status and allowing competitors to flood the market. The free market will prevent ISPs from throttling because they'd lose all their customers to a company that doesn't do that. But that hinges on there being a free market for ISPs themselves. this but instead we're gonna double down on government derp.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 4:14:41 PM EDT
[#46]
Actually I did not think that even in concept it was good.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 4:40:01 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm looking at our bandwidth graph right now, we're moving ~70gbps... and pay for every fucking penny of that. There have been several instances where we've increased our bandwidth needs, and our service providers have brought in additional fiber and/or hardware as needed to accommodate our growth. We pay for that, too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think that businesses in the internet sector need to decide if they are a service provider or a content provider. If they are a content provider then they need to either make their service paid or ad sponsored. If they are a service provider, then they need to provide their bandwidth to their customers (content providers and end users) for a fair price and with no regard to what traffic passes through the pipe that the customer is paying htem for. If a customer is paying for 20Mbits, then the ISP should do their best to provide that bandwidth for all content passing through their infrastructure. This model should go all the way up to and include the backbone. The problem is the connection between your ISP and Netflix that Netflix doesn't want to pay for. Netflix pays for internet access, just like you do. In fact, what you are paying you ISP for is access to XXmbps from the internet . . . without regard to where it comes from. The big ISP's see the money that Netflix generates, see that their subscribers aren't buying cable as much, now they want to see if they can squeeze more cash from Netflix, instead of competing. Netfils is responsible for a very larg percentage of ISP bandwidth on movie nights. ISPs would like some compensation to carry that content for them. I'm looking at our bandwidth graph right now, we're moving ~70gbps... and pay for every fucking penny of that. There have been several instances where we've increased our bandwidth needs, and our service providers have brought in additional fiber and/or hardware as needed to accommodate our growth. We pay for that, too. What if I told you, you're a fucking liar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 4:50:09 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Netfils is responsible for a very larg percentage of ISP bandwidth on movie nights. ISPs would like some compensation to carry that content for them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think that businesses in the internet sector need to decide if they are a service provider or a content provider. If they are a content provider then they need to either make their service paid or ad sponsored. If they are a service provider, then they need to provide their bandwidth to their customers (content providers and end users) for a fair price and with no regard to what traffic passes through the pipe that the customer is paying htem for. If a customer is paying for 20Mbits, then the ISP should do their best to provide that bandwidth for all content passing through their infrastructure. This model should go all the way up to and include the backbone. The problem is the connection between your ISP and Netflix that Netflix doesn't want to pay for. Netflix pays for internet access, just like you do. In fact, what you are paying you ISP for is access to XXmbps from the internet . . . without regard to where it comes from. The big ISP's see the money that Netflix generates, see that their subscribers aren't buying cable as much, now they want to see if they can squeeze more cash from Netflix, instead of competing. Netfils is responsible for a very larg percentage of ISP bandwidth on movie nights. ISPs would like some compensation to carry that content for them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 4:55:02 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What if I told you, you're a fucking liar. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm looking at our bandwidth graph right now, we're moving ~70gbps... and pay for every fucking penny of that. There have been several instances where we've increased our bandwidth needs, and our service providers have brought in additional fiber and/or hardware as needed to accommodate our growth. We pay for that, too. What if I told you, you're a fucking liar. I'd tell you to open your inbox, where I've attached a screenshot of the MRTG graph for our datacenter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 4:57:42 PM EDT
[#50]
It's "fuck you Friday " at the White House again.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
