That nudge and the ability to fulfil that need as well as communicating with your customer base will be severely hampered if you are not on the preferred website package…
Im telling because im worried that my employment will suffer because of this. We get orders exclusively from the net, if we are throttled then im screwed…
It wasnt neutral before. 2008 Comcast throttled peer-to-peer networks. 2012-2014 Time Warner intentionally allowed interconnections with content providers to degrade unless they paid TW (lawsuit from NY still active). 2014 Comcast throttled Netflix until Netflix paid Comcast. Early 2015 report showed that the 5 largest ISPs were purposefully throttling certain websites.
2015 true net neutrality rules went into effect.
Net neutrality won’t expire until June. So, we haven’t seen what will happen when it’s gone. I think what happened before it went into effect is a good indication.
No, Comcast did no such thing. Netflix chose to use carriers who did not have the bandwidth to handle their traffic and wanted Comcast to upgrade those connections to handle it, for free. Nothing in net neutrality could force them to do so. You swallowed a lie whole. It was congestion, not intentional throttling and it affected everyone, not just Netflix. Educate yourself
You talked about one of the examples I gave, and did so incorrectly.
When Netflix approached Comcast regarding the lack of uncongested settlement-free routes available to its network, Comcast suggested that Netflix return to using CDNs, which Comcast could charge access fees that would then be passed on to Netflix, or use a Tier 1 network like which charged its own access fees. Comcast made clear that Netflix would have to pay Comcast an access fee if Netflix wanted to directly connect with Comcast or use third-party CDNs. In essence, Comcast sought to meter Netflix traffic requested by Comcast’s broadband subscribers.
Sigh, paid peering agreements are not new, nor did net neutrality regulations do away with them. In fact, Netflix caved and paid afterwards. They tried to piggyback on free peering deals that were based on mutual amounts of traffic and got called on it. Oh and add to that, the courts struck down both the FCC’s anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules already.
For the forgoing reasons, although we reject Verizon’s
challenge to the Open Internet Order’s disclosure rules, we vacate both the anti-discrimination and the anti-blocking rules.
See Northern Air Cargo v. U.S. Postal Service, 674 F.3d 852, 860–61 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (appropriateness of vacatur dependent
on whether “(1) the agency’s decision is so deficient as to raise serious doubts whether the agency can adequately justify its decision at all; and (2) vacatur would be seriously disruptive or
costly”); Comcast, 600 F.3d at 661 (vacating the
Comcast Order). We remand the case to the
Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
If you don’t want to read the whole PDF you can see a synopsis here
Almost there. In February of 2015, after and partially in response to the ruling you listed, the FCC reclassified broadband as a common carrier. This reversed the findings of your lawsuit. The US Telecom Association led an unsuccessful lawsuit later in 2015 on the same grounds as the original Verizon lawsuit (United States Telecom Assoc. v. FCC, No. 15-1063 (D.C. Cir. 2016)).
So, your “anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules” are currently in effect.
And now the FCC has reversed that. All of which is beside the point. Had you read the case you would have seen the court scoffed at the FCC’s insistence that discrimination was happening and marveled they could only come up with four instances of it happening out of billions of internet interactions, the Netflix Comcast dispute not being one of them. And at no time did it ever prohibit paid peering in any case.
Again, repeal of net neutrality happens in June, so it has not yet been reversed. You continue to confuse paid peering with throttling. Paid peering is an agreement between an ISP and edge provider to ensure delivery to end users. Throttling, in this case, is an ISP demanding an edge user pay extra in order to ensure the end user recieves content without degredation. If you think those are somehow the same, you’re wrong, and the FCC says so.
With the no-throttling rule, we ban conduct that is not outright blocking, but inhibits the delivery of particular content, applications, or services,or particular classes of content, applications, or services.272 Likewise, we prohibit conduct that impairs or degrades lawful traffic to a non-harmful device or class of devices. We interpret this prohibition to include, for example, any conduct by a broadband Internet access service provider that impairs, degrades,slows down, or renders effectively unusable particular content, services, applications, or devices, that is not reasonable network management.273 For purposes of this rule, the meaning of “content, applications, and services” has the same as the meaning given to this phrase in the no-blocking rule.274 Like the no-blocking rule,broadband providers may not impose a fee on edge providers to avoid having the edge providers’ content, service, or application throttled.275 Further, transfers of unlawful content or unlawful transfers of content are not protected bythe no-throttling rule.276 We will consider potential violations of the no-throttling rule under the enforcement provisions outlined below.
