tzm41

About

Username
tzm41
Joined
Visits
38
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
259
Badges
1
Posts
95

Reactions

109Like0Dislike10Informative

  • Flash is dead: Adobe announces end-of-life plans, will stop distribution in 2020

    tzm41tzm41
    mubaili said:
    i just did a quick check on Google Finance, from 2010-10-1 to 2017-07-25,
    Adobe is up 455.18% while Apple only up 267.52%. So much for Flash is dead. 

    Adobe is much more than Flash
    techprod1gyrandominternetpersonlolliverdysamoriawelshdog

  • Apple appoints Isabel Ge Mahe as managing director of Greater China

    tzm41tzm41
    Takes seven posts to go from announcing Apple director appointment to bashing Chinese political atmosphere. Impressive...
    anantksundaram

  • Smuggler busted with 102 Apple iPhones by Shenzhen, China customs officials

    tzm41tzm41
    lkrupp said:
    And in China she’ll probably get the death penalty with a bullet to the head and a bill for the bullet sent to her family.
    Ha ha ha, funny /s
    Solichia[Deleted User]

  • Amazon, Google, Microsoft & Spotify among companies pushing Day of Action for net neutrali...

    tzm41tzm41
    steven n. said:
    tzm41 said:
    I find the arguments that some folks are making here a bit hard to understand.

    So yes, Netflix or Pornhub make up a large portion of Internet traffic, but that's because the users that paid for the Internet service are using these websites. It is not like these companies just pour water down the pipes and it flows into the ocean. The users paid for their Internet, and they have all their rights to enjoy it, be it transferring data from Netflix or Wikipedia. The ISPs shouldn't be penalizing popular (or data-intensive) services. Users are not transferring data at higher rate than what they paid for.

    Now you say ISPs should double dip and charge both Internet endusers and content providers? Why? In the (physical) parcel delivery world, the entities shipping more packages get a discount. You wouldn't hear UPS asking CocaCola to pay more per pound because they ship more than Pepsi.

    The only obvious reason I can think of that these ISPs are lobbying so hard against NN is that they do something like AT&T prioritizing DirecTV over Netflix traffic.
    I don't think you understand what any of this means. Content providers AND content subscribers have to pay for bandwidth. Period. If you run a web site (from AWS, GoDaddy or what not) you have to pay for the traffic you use. Likewise, consumers of your content have to pay some ISP for access to that data. This is simply how it works. It has been this way for decades.

    If you are a massive supplier of data (Netflix for example) you have the technical option to place content directly into ISP server's (assuming the ISP has the ability to do this) allowing you direct access to your user base without going through the backbone. This is not a free service. It benefits you as a consumer by putting you closer to the data and allows you to stream higher bit rates of movies. It benefits the ISP somewhat by decreasing the traffic they pull from the backbone (that costs money as well). It benefits Netflix a bit by minimizing the traffic they put on the backbone. But it added hardware and software and over all system complexity and this costs money. There is this mis-conception data traffic is free.

    This is one example of the "evil fast lane" people talk about. The full Net Neutrality advocates would make these types of arrangements illegal.
    I fully understand that both content providers and consumers all pay a price (notice how I said CocaCola has to pay UPS), but maybe my phrasing was confusing when I say double dipping.

    And sure, putting data across a CDN and hook the data centers up with fast connection is what all those content providers would like to do, have been doing, and will do fine under NN, because you pay for what you get - data centers, CDN servers, and fast connection all cost money. I don't think NN is making that illegal. Data traffic has never been and will not be free. For the past two years it worked fine, before now we are trying to roll NN back.

    You see, when you talk about these types of arrangements, they seem to be a good deal for both the content providers and the ISPs. Content providers pay more to make their data more available, and ISPs earn more money and will be able to improve their service. If your statement is true, why are most of these content providers actively and vocally pro-NN and ISPs spending hundreds of millions lobbying against NN (https://maplight.org/story/for-every-1-net-neutrality-comment-internet-cable-providers-spent-100-on-lobbying-over-decade/)?

    Therefore I am more convinced that data providers paying more for more bandwidth is simply not the heart of the debate here. "Treating all web traffic equally and fairly" doesn't mean ISPs are distributing contents and ensuring everyone has gigabit connection to Netflix servers for free. It means given what data providers and consumers are paying for, ISPs are not deliberately throttling data transfer based on the content.
    StrangeDays

  • Amazon, Google, Microsoft & Spotify among companies pushing Day of Action for net neutrali...

    tzm41tzm41
    I find the arguments that some folks are making here a bit hard to understand.

    So yes, Netflix or Pornhub make up a large portion of Internet traffic, but that's because the users that paid for the Internet service are using these websites. It is not like these companies just pour water down the pipes and it flows into the ocean. The users paid for their Internet, and they have all their rights to enjoy it, be it transferring data from Netflix or Wikipedia. The ISPs shouldn't be penalizing popular (or data-intensive) services. Users are not transferring data at higher rate than what they paid for.

    Now you say ISPs should double dip and charge both Internet endusers and content providers? Why? In the (physical) parcel delivery world, the entities shipping more packages get a discount. You wouldn't hear UPS asking CocaCola to pay more per pound because they ship more than Pepsi.

    The only obvious reason I can think of that these ISPs are lobbying so hard against NN is that they do something like AT&T prioritizing DirecTV over Netflix traffic.
    StrangeDays