To be honest, there's a lot more smarter people out there that would find ways around this issue. Ultimately the ISPs have the last say, but that doesn't change that someone is going to find a way around any restrictions they impose.
Nope sorry, they were being dicks. Networks don't have any real restrictions unless you want them to. This is a fact. If Verizon has a router that's bottlenecked, then they should improve their infrastructure. The fact you can bypass this problem with a VPN suggests that there isn't any real physical limitation. Even though today Netflix doesn't allow VPN's, but when it did that's how people got better speeds.
Did you read the article I linked? It was not throttling and Comcast was in their rights to do so. If Netflix overloads a peering port, it is not Verizon's responsibility to give them even more resources without compensation. Nothing is free, particularly when VZ spent billions of their own money to build out their network.
“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.” -- Voltaire
"He who awaits much can expect little" -- Gabriel Garcia Marquez
According to who?
Again, according to who?and Comcast was in their rights to do so.
Why is Netflix even being held responsible? This is a consumer issue. If everyone starts using Netflix and your service bottlenecks somewhere, then your service wasn't prepared to handle all the traffic. Instead you're hoping people are just masturbating to porn, or on Facebook. But again, how come a VPN will fix the problem?If Netflix overloads a peering port, it is not Verizon's responsibility to give them even more resources without compensation.
Don't forget the billions in subsidies as well. We literally gave them money to give us better coverage and they even failed at that.Nothing is free, particularly when VZ spent billions of their own money to build out their network.
http://gizmodo.com/after-billions-in...map-1682854728
Last edited by Vash The Stampede; 2017-05-19 at 10:56 PM.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.
-Kujako-
Thought this would only affect high bandwith stuff like Netflix but then someone made this post on reddit.
Well... FUCK.If you have been following the news on you'll know that the FCC has begun the process of dismantling Net Neutrality, if not here is an article that will bring you up to speed.
I know this may not seem like its directly related to games, but loss of Net Neutrality would allow ISPs to regulate the priority of traffic at whim. We've gotten used to having free online play with minimal latency with a good connection, but this might become a thing of the past. In addition to game servers for multiplayer games, ISPs would also be able to control digital game distribution services like Steam. I encourage everyone to stay informed on this issue.
But wait! Don't multiplayer games hardly use any bandwidth?
Yes, but this doesn't limit the ISPs to only restricting bandwidth. Net Neutrality prevents ISP from favoring traffic from a specific source. People have been talking about how this could effect sites like Netflix, which needs a lot of bandwidth. The ISPs could ask Netflix to pay extra for the bandwidth or favor their own streaming sites. This same idea can be applied for game servers and packet priority. If there are tolls for low latency connections, then it ultimately it will increase the cost of hosting game servers and potentially kill small indie titles that might not have the funds to pay for low latency tier internet.
It's not as though the bandwidth is scarce, but having a premium tier for low latency internet will become an other source of revenue for ISPs without Net Neutrality stopping them.
Fffffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
Hahahaha!
No, it's not.
This is going to result in companies having to pay ISPs more to not get throttled. Those companies will in turn have to increase their revenue. To increase their revenue, they're going to charge their customers more. It doesn't matter one fucking bit if you're in the EU or the US, you're going to be paying more to use services like that.
And if even one of those services has to pass through a US ISP before reaching you, you're going to feel the throttling, too.
1) I am not a Republican, bonus points for the pathetic argument there. 2) Title II isn't stopping them from making money (which should be apparent), but it sets the basis for *all* freedom of the internet to be stripped; if you actually read Title II you would know that. The current issue is exactly what the FTC is designed for, anything further should be from Congress. The fact this thing has been bouncing around like a ping pong ball in the FCC (who has very little accountability, btw) for over a decade is ridiculous.
United States of America, land of the free*
* restrictions may applies
Those companies want to remain competitive in EU and they won't be going to raise prices nilly-willy, because it's a large market where nations actually still have say on things. While sad, it is mostly an US issue. Most of the companies have data-centers in Europe and as such oversea costs do not really apply.
Modern gaming apologist: I once tasted diarrhea so shit is fine.
"People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an excercise of power, are barbarians" - George Lucas 1988
1) Sure you're not. You're such an independent thinker that you're sitting here parroting Republican/industry lobbyist talking points.
2) The bolded part is literally a lie made up to justify opposition to title II. "Freedom of the Internet" is not in danger. The only thing Title II endangers is the ability of telecom companies to use their government subsidized networks and monopolies as a weapon to choke out competition and charge users whatever the hell they want for whatever they want.
Last edited by Deathquoi; 2017-05-20 at 01:10 PM.
Beta Club Brosquad