Sorry; I honestly couldn't tell. There are a lot of people who genuinely make the argument that the end user basically won't feel anything with the death of net neutrality.
While this is definitely something to worry about, it's a bit of a slippery slope argument. I don't think Comcast (or any ISP) has much desire to go this route, they don't want to deal with either the billing hassle or customer blowback of charging the consumer for these fast lanes. Instead you'll see more of what we get with Netflix, which is the content provider getting shaken down for charges, and passing it along to their subscribers/customers...either in slightly increased fees, more ads, or less content.
Once you start treating bandwidth as a commodity to be traded around, I think that sort of outcome is inevitable - especially given that the disaster is percolating in the laissez faire capitol of the world. All it takes is a company that sees Netflix having dedicated bandwidth space and deciding that either they want the same thing, or deciding that they need the same thing, and all bets are off. Even if the ISPs decide that they don't want the hassle, companies could start suing them and claiming that they're denying them revenue / manipulating the market, "You 'sold' this service to Netflix. It says so right here in the FCC ruling. Why won't you sell a block to me? That's not fair!"
So, if you're Comcast, do you deal with that kind of pressure, or do you just take the money and send your customer's up shit creek? Afterall, you know those customers are going to be paying you anyway, because they're captive to whatever business practices you choose.
I don't see it as a slippery slope at all - just a matter of whether or not companies see bandwidth as something valuable enough to start vacuuming into their portfolios.
If Comcast could guarantee bandwidth, it would make them a real option for enterprise infrastructure. Companies pay a lot for traditional direct connects through telcos. That's not a bad thing.
Technical question - Is there a genuine shortage of bandwidth that justifies extra costs and rationing? Are we discussing the implications of genuine scarcity because the technology/cost of infrastructure is causing companies to lose money, or are we arguing about the right to create artificial scarcity for greater profits?
0
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Yes, but it has been artificially created by the big ISPs.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Technical question - Is there a genuine shortage of bandwidth that justifies extra costs and rationing? Are we discussing the implications of genuine scarcity because the technology/cost of infrastructure is causing companies to lose money, or are we arguing about the right to create artificial scarcity for greater profits?
There is a legitimate 'crunch' of sorts coming down the pipeline for bandwidth within the electromagnetic spectrum: basically, anything you broadcast via wireless transmission. There's a lot of spectrum to go around, but it turns out we're really, really good at using stuff up, and we're going to be running out of wireless space in a few years.
For fiber connections, the limit's only determined by how much fiber we can put down, and there's plenty of space for more fiber. It's just a question of who's going to pay for the infrastructure.
EDIT: The important thing to note, however, is:
1) Current infrastructure is only stressed in a few areas. The problem will probably get worse overall as people start demanding more and more high definition content, and if this were the end of it, I could agree that some sort of price structure compromise at the very least has to be reached. I'm not going to start weeping if what's lost is free, unlimited access to super mega ultra definition movies.
But that's not the end of it - it's just what's being used as leverage right now.
2) Current infrastructure was overwhelmingly built on the public dime. Comcast didn't put that fucking fiber down - not most of it, anyway. The state did. And most of the stuff actually put down by ISPs was either subsidized by the state or outright funded by the state through grant programs.
It's a huge part of why we got net neutrality in the first place - it's public infrastructure rather than John Walson's magic gizmo, so why should the public's access to what they paid for be gated-off, censored, etc, by private firms?
I'm curious, do we consider Netflix's throttling of disc rentals to be "artificial?" I'm assuming they still do that, of course. I mean, the disc is there in the warehouse, it's at the top of your queue, but they won't send it to you because you've already rented too many movies this month (on your "unlimited" plan). The only issue is that it would cost them money to send it to you.
So is that an artificial slowdown of your disc rental turnarounds? Or is that a legitimate business decision?
I think it's 'wrong'. In a sort-of apathetic 'I really don't care, but I guess it's still wrong?' kind of way.
If you're selling an unlimited plan without any strings attached, you don't get to backpedal after I've already paid you for this supposedly awesome unlimited plan. Yes, even if i demand your entire catalog - because you're the one who decided to strap pants to your head and market an unlimited plan.
...But, eh. I also think most consumers probably ought to be aware that there's always going to be strings attached somewhere. Paying for 'all you can eat!' at the buffet doesn't mean you can sit at the restaurant for 8 hours and eat all day long.
I'm curious, do we consider Netflix's throttling of disc rentals to be "artificial?" I'm assuming they still do that, of course. I mean, the disc is there in the warehouse, it's at the top of your queue, but they won't send it to you because you've already rented too many movies this month (on your "unlimited" plan). The only issue is that it would cost them money to send it to you.
So is that an artificial slowdown of your disc rental turnarounds? Or is that a legitimate business decision?
It is dishonest and would discourage me from using their service.
If I used Netflix disc rentals I would consider switching to a different means of content distribution. Probably something streamed or the occasion trip to red box, as I don't know of a direct competitor of Netflix's disc rental service.
Except that's not what's really happening for the most part. People aren't setting down battle lines between Netflix and Comcast, they are setting them down between the users and Comcast or it's equivalent. They aren't supporting Netflix, they are supporting a system that allows them to use Netflix among other services in a way that doesn't fuck them over. If Netflix were to vanish tommorow, people still wouldn't like what ISPs et all were up to.
There's also the problem with cloud systems, both the newer live-update storage systems like Dropbox and the older Torrent network. Both are growing, and growing faster as a newer generation comes into the picture. The users here are sometimes using 5-10 mb/s of data for hours at a time, dwarfing even the most mega of mega definition crap. The only reason it's sustainable is because, for now, it's niche - but it might not be in 5 years.
Then there's the problem of users demanding better upload connectivity so they can become streaming content creators. Again, niche - but it's growing, and there's money to made in what some people see as an easy gig, so it might be huge in a few years.
So, yeah - we need to either put down more fiber (best solution, but more expensive) or use pricing to control it... which basically means telling poor people to go fuck themselves to some extent. And I'm okay with telling people they can't have HD Netflix unless they want to throw down $$$, or they can't torrent their totally legit 10 gig .rar files unless they throw down $$$, or even telling a small business that, sorry, your cloud storage costs just went up.
But poor people rarely get off that easy, and the upgrades need to be made anyway at some point, so I'd rather see us go that route.
There's also the problem with cloud systems, both the newer live-update storage systems like Dropbox and the older Torrent network. Both are growing, and growing faster as a newer generation comes into the picture. The users here are sometimes using 5-10 mb/s of data for hours at a time, dwarfing even the most mega of mega definition crap. The only reason it's sustainable is because, for now, it's niche - but it might not be in 5 years.
Then there's the problem of users demanding better upload connectivity so they can become streaming content creators. Again, niche - but it's growing, and there's money to made in what some people see as an easy gig, so it might be huge in a few years.
So, yeah - we need to either put down more fiber (best solution, but more expensive) or use pricing to control it... which basically means telling poor people to go fuck themselves to some extent. And I'm okay with telling people they can't have HD Netflix unless they want to throw down $$$, or they can't torrent their totally legit 10 gig .rar files unless they throw down $$$, or even telling a small business that, sorry, your cloud storage costs just went up.
But poor people rarely get off that easy, and the upgrades need to be made anyway at some point, so I'd rather see us go that route.
It's truly amazing to me watching people in their teens or just past these days and just how much internets they use on a daily basis.
It's certainly heavily class-based, but the younger generation is fucking crazy about data download/upload.
There's also the problem with cloud systems, both the newer live-update storage systems like Dropbox and the older Torrent network. Both are growing, and growing faster as a newer generation comes into the picture. The users here are sometimes using 5-10 mb/s of data for hours at a time, dwarfing even the most mega of mega definition crap. The only reason it's sustainable is because, for now, it's niche - but it might not be in 5 years.
Then there's the problem of users demanding better upload connectivity so they can become streaming content creators. Again, niche - but it's growing, and there's money to made in what some people see as an easy gig, so it might be huge in a few years.
So, yeah - we need to either put down more fiber (best solution, but more expensive) or use pricing to control it... which basically means telling poor people to go fuck themselves to some extent. And I'm okay with telling people they can't have HD Netflix unless they want to throw down $$$, or they can't torrent their totally legit 10 gig .rar files unless they throw down $$$, or even telling a small business that, sorry, your cloud storage costs just went up.
But poor people rarely get off that easy, and the upgrades need to be made anyway at some point, so I'd rather see us go that route.
It's truly amazing to me watching people in their teens or just past these days and just how much internets they use on a daily basis.
It's certainly heavily class-based, but the younger generation is fucking crazy about data download/upload.
I'm not even sure it's that class-based anymore. Quite simply, everyone who can afford a phone or computer these days has one. The fact that ever poor people have older iPhones is a perennial rage point for talk radio types.
There's also the problem with cloud systems, both the newer live-update storage systems like Dropbox and the older Torrent network. Both are growing, and growing faster as a newer generation comes into the picture. The users here are sometimes using 5-10 mb/s of data for hours at a time, dwarfing even the most mega of mega definition crap. The only reason it's sustainable is because, for now, it's niche - but it might not be in 5 years.
Then there's the problem of users demanding better upload connectivity so they can become streaming content creators. Again, niche - but it's growing, and there's money to made in what some people see as an easy gig, so it might be huge in a few years.
So, yeah - we need to either put down more fiber (best solution, but more expensive) or use pricing to control it... which basically means telling poor people to go fuck themselves to some extent. And I'm okay with telling people they can't have HD Netflix unless they want to throw down $$$, or they can't torrent their totally legit 10 gig .rar files unless they throw down $$$, or even telling a small business that, sorry, your cloud storage costs just went up.
But poor people rarely get off that easy, and the upgrades need to be made anyway at some point, so I'd rather see us go that route.
It's truly amazing to me watching people in their teens or just past these days and just how much internets they use on a daily basis.
It's certainly heavily class-based, but the younger generation is fucking crazy about data download/upload.
I'm not even sure it's that class-based anymore. Quite simply, everyone who can afford a phone or computer these days has one. The fact that ever poor people have older iPhones is a perennial rage point for talk radio types.
Oh, it's still I think fairly class-based when it comes to the AMOUNT used, which is what I'm referring to.
Except that's not what's really happening for the most part. People aren't setting down battle lines between Netflix and Comcast, they are setting them down between the users and Comcast or it's equivalent. They aren't supporting Netflix, they are supporting a system that allows them to use Netflix among other services in a way that doesn't fuck them over. If Netflix were to vanish tommorow, people still wouldn't like what ISPs et all were up to.
I wouldn't say Netflix specifically, but more what Netflix represents. For a lot of people (at least among those that pay any attention at all) there's a strong affinity towards cord-cutting, and Netflix represents that future of on-demand streaming video media.
My thing is that most content providers/producers seem to already be paying to push their content closer to the consumer, paying CDNs that can route around congestion, etc. For some reason, the only major producer of consumer-bound packets that doesn't seem willing to pay is the one who produces a third of those packets during peak hours. The one who has something like 40% market penetration. Which might suggest that there are two parties here trying to use their market position as leverage, two sides to every story and all.
I'm not hearing about conflicts between Steam and Comcast, or Origin and Comcast, or PSN and Comcast, or anybody else really and Comcast. It's mainly Netflix, with a bit of YouTube mixed in.
That's you restricting the argment space though. Which is what I'm talking about. You are trying to narrow this down to only a Netflix vs Comcast issue, but most people who even care about this are concerned about far far broader applications of this kind of behaviour.
There's also the problem with cloud systems, both the newer live-update storage systems like Dropbox and the older Torrent network. Both are growing, and growing faster as a newer generation comes into the picture. The users here are sometimes using 5-10 mb/s of data for hours at a time, dwarfing even the most mega of mega definition crap. The only reason it's sustainable is because, for now, it's niche - but it might not be in 5 years.
Then there's the problem of users demanding better upload connectivity so they can become streaming content creators. Again, niche - but it's growing, and there's money to made in what some people see as an easy gig, so it might be huge in a few years.
So, yeah - we need to either put down more fiber (best solution, but more expensive) or use pricing to control it... which basically means telling poor people to go fuck themselves to some extent. And I'm okay with telling people they can't have HD Netflix unless they want to throw down $$$, or they can't torrent their totally legit 10 gig .rar files unless they throw down $$$, or even telling a small business that, sorry, your cloud storage costs just went up.
But poor people rarely get off that easy, and the upgrades need to be made anyway at some point, so I'd rather see us go that route.
It's truly amazing to me watching people in their teens or just past these days and just how much internets they use on a daily basis.
It's certainly heavily class-based, but the younger generation is fucking crazy about data download/upload.
I'm not even sure it's that class-based anymore. Quite simply, everyone who can afford a phone or computer these days has one. The fact that ever poor people have older iPhones is a perennial rage point for talk radio types.
Oh, it's still I think fairly class-based when it comes to the AMOUNT used, which is what I'm referring to.
I'd argue even that. From my experience, poor people consume A LOT of media. When going out is expensive and, especially in urban areas, the neighborhood is dangerous, there's a lot of pressure to find cheap things you can do outside.
It's one of the reasons that video game consoles are massive sellers among urban inner cities families. While the initial investment is high, the payback is that you have something your kids want to do that doesn't involve them being out on the streets. I wouldn't be surprised if Netflix has a massive audience among working class families.
There are two things about this hypothetical plan that really concern me.
1) I feel like there is a difference between preferential treatment over the internet backbone and preferential treatment over the so called "last mile" to consumers. Peering in particular seems like a totally legit place to allow for preferential treatment. If you want to hook up more data lines to a backbone providers network access point then you pay more money, a la the netflix/comcast agreement. But data throughput between NAPs and over the last mile to consumers should be 100% equal to all data. That way you completely decouple the internet infrastructure from private deals.
Allowing private deals to dictate infrastructure makes it much more likely that future upgrades will primarily benefit the few mega corps who are essentially funding the upgrades, while everyone else gets stagnating performance. The entire argument behind not making backbone providers common carriers is that the FCC wanted to reward innovation and upgrades so that the internet could flourish. Any benefit you gained goes right out the window the second you allow them to tie upgrades to filtering.
2) Which brings me to the second point, the first part only works if you regulate the shit out of the contracts being bargained. As a backbone provider you should be able to set rates for access to your NAPs from content providers, but only based on things like throughput not based on who the content provider is. I don't want infrastructure companies dabbling in content filtering by giving sister companies better rates/high throughput.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Isn't Youtube having the same issue? We don't have as many details but there were the same accusations about it as about Netflix I thought.
As far as I know on that front, Google made a deal with Verizon where they wouldn't pursue net-neutrality and in return they wouldn't have their data forced into a bottleneck.
0
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Yeah, but when all the other ISPs do it to them it isn't going to matter.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Isn't Youtube having the same issue? We don't have as many details but there were the same accusations about it as about Netflix I thought.
As far as I know on that front, Google made a deal with Verizon where they wouldn't pursue net-neutrality and in return they wouldn't have their data forced into a bottleneck.
Well... shit.
+1
Niceguyeddie616All you feed me is PUFFINS!I need NOURISHMENT!Registered Userregular
So the fast lane proposal was put to a vote today. It passed, 3/2 for the plan.
Except that's not what's really happening for the most part. People aren't setting down battle lines between Netflix and Comcast, they are setting them down between the users and Comcast or it's equivalent. They aren't supporting Netflix, they are supporting a system that allows them to use Netflix among other services in a way that doesn't fuck them over. If Netflix were to vanish tommorow, people still wouldn't like what ISPs et all were up to.
I wouldn't say Netflix specifically, but more what Netflix represents. For a lot of people (at least among those that pay any attention at all) there's a strong affinity towards cord-cutting, and Netflix represents that future of on-demand streaming video media.
My thing is that most content providers/producers seem to already be paying to push their content closer to the consumer, paying CDNs that can route around congestion, etc. For some reason, the only major producer of consumer-bound packets that doesn't seem willing to pay is the one who produces a third of those packets during peak hours. The one who has something like 40% market penetration. Which might suggest that there are two parties here trying to use their market position as leverage, two sides to every story and all.
I'm not hearing about conflicts between Steam and Comcast, or Origin and Comcast, or PSN and Comcast, or anybody else really and Comcast. It's mainly Netflix, with a bit of YouTube mixed in.
That's you restricting the argment space though. Which is what I'm talking about. You are trying to narrow this down to only a Netflix vs Comcast issue, but most people who even care about this are concerned about far far broader applications of this kind of behaviour.
I don't feel like I'm the one restricting the argument space, though. I'm not the one narrowing it down to a Netflix issue. It's just that, from what I can tell, Netflix is the only one generating a ton of packets but refusing (until now) to actually pay to get those packets onto end users' networks more efficiently. As far as content providers go, Netflix is the one setting themselves apart through their behavior. I apologize if I'm misunderstanding the issue, but that's what it seems like from what I've seen. OpenConnect is great, but from my understanding Netflix is only willing to provide the hardware; they expect all other expenses to fall to the ISP. And it's my understanding that this is not the norm for other content sources.
We can definitely take the argument outside of Netflix, or streaming video, sure. These deals do have implications outside of those applications. But outside of those application, every big generator of packets was (to my knowledge) already paying. So....yeah.
2) Which brings me to the second point, the first part only works if you regulate the shit out of the contracts being bargained. As a backbone provider you should be able to set rates for access to your NAPs from content providers, but only based on things like throughput not based on who the content provider is. I don't want infrastructure companies dabbling in content filtering by giving sister companies better rates/high throughput.
Very much this, yes.
I mean, we were already paying too. But we apparently just picked the WRONG people to pay.
Maybe not. The actual backbone middlemen are probably fine with the way things are plus there are existing peering agreements, and FCC rulings don't mean shit outside the us. Sadly the cons will no doubt try to do the same, but until that happens and unless it passes through a us last mile provider it should be fine
Maybe not. The actual backbone middlemen are probably fine with the way things are plus there are existing peering agreements, and FCC rulings don't mean shit outside the us. Sadly the cons will no doubt try to do the same, but until that happens and unless it passes through a us last mile provider it should be fine
Except that you will almost certainly be subsidizing the cost of peering in the us if you subscribe to any of these services, just like US customers with less greedy ISPs likely will.
I assume. I would actually like it if eventual price increases were itemized and based on ISP.
Posts
Sorry; I honestly couldn't tell. There are a lot of people who genuinely make the argument that the end user basically won't feel anything with the death of net neutrality.
Once you start treating bandwidth as a commodity to be traded around, I think that sort of outcome is inevitable - especially given that the disaster is percolating in the laissez faire capitol of the world. All it takes is a company that sees Netflix having dedicated bandwidth space and deciding that either they want the same thing, or deciding that they need the same thing, and all bets are off. Even if the ISPs decide that they don't want the hassle, companies could start suing them and claiming that they're denying them revenue / manipulating the market, "You 'sold' this service to Netflix. It says so right here in the FCC ruling. Why won't you sell a block to me? That's not fair!"
So, if you're Comcast, do you deal with that kind of pressure, or do you just take the money and send your customer's up shit creek? Afterall, you know those customers are going to be paying you anyway, because they're captive to whatever business practices you choose.
I don't see it as a slippery slope at all - just a matter of whether or not companies see bandwidth as something valuable enough to start vacuuming into their portfolios.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
There is a legitimate 'crunch' of sorts coming down the pipeline for bandwidth within the electromagnetic spectrum: basically, anything you broadcast via wireless transmission. There's a lot of spectrum to go around, but it turns out we're really, really good at using stuff up, and we're going to be running out of wireless space in a few years.
For fiber connections, the limit's only determined by how much fiber we can put down, and there's plenty of space for more fiber. It's just a question of who's going to pay for the infrastructure.
EDIT: The important thing to note, however, is:
1) Current infrastructure is only stressed in a few areas. The problem will probably get worse overall as people start demanding more and more high definition content, and if this were the end of it, I could agree that some sort of price structure compromise at the very least has to be reached. I'm not going to start weeping if what's lost is free, unlimited access to super mega ultra definition movies.
But that's not the end of it - it's just what's being used as leverage right now.
2) Current infrastructure was overwhelmingly built on the public dime. Comcast didn't put that fucking fiber down - not most of it, anyway. The state did. And most of the stuff actually put down by ISPs was either subsidized by the state or outright funded by the state through grant programs.
It's a huge part of why we got net neutrality in the first place - it's public infrastructure rather than John Walson's magic gizmo, so why should the public's access to what they paid for be gated-off, censored, etc, by private firms?
I think it's 'wrong'. In a sort-of apathetic 'I really don't care, but I guess it's still wrong?' kind of way.
If you're selling an unlimited plan without any strings attached, you don't get to backpedal after I've already paid you for this supposedly awesome unlimited plan. Yes, even if i demand your entire catalog - because you're the one who decided to strap pants to your head and market an unlimited plan.
...But, eh. I also think most consumers probably ought to be aware that there's always going to be strings attached somewhere. Paying for 'all you can eat!' at the buffet doesn't mean you can sit at the restaurant for 8 hours and eat all day long.
It is dishonest and would discourage me from using their service.
If I used Netflix disc rentals I would consider switching to a different means of content distribution. Probably something streamed or the occasion trip to red box, as I don't know of a direct competitor of Netflix's disc rental service.
I don't actually own a DVD player.
Then there's the problem of users demanding better upload connectivity so they can become streaming content creators. Again, niche - but it's growing, and there's money to made in what some people see as an easy gig, so it might be huge in a few years.
So, yeah - we need to either put down more fiber (best solution, but more expensive) or use pricing to control it... which basically means telling poor people to go fuck themselves to some extent. And I'm okay with telling people they can't have HD Netflix unless they want to throw down $$$, or they can't torrent their totally legit 10 gig .rar files unless they throw down $$$, or even telling a small business that, sorry, your cloud storage costs just went up.
But poor people rarely get off that easy, and the upgrades need to be made anyway at some point, so I'd rather see us go that route.
It's truly amazing to me watching people in their teens or just past these days and just how much internets they use on a daily basis.
It's certainly heavily class-based, but the younger generation is fucking crazy about data download/upload.
I'm not even sure it's that class-based anymore. Quite simply, everyone who can afford a phone or computer these days has one. The fact that ever poor people have older iPhones is a perennial rage point for talk radio types.
Oh, it's still I think fairly class-based when it comes to the AMOUNT used, which is what I'm referring to.
That's you restricting the argment space though. Which is what I'm talking about. You are trying to narrow this down to only a Netflix vs Comcast issue, but most people who even care about this are concerned about far far broader applications of this kind of behaviour.
I'd argue even that. From my experience, poor people consume A LOT of media. When going out is expensive and, especially in urban areas, the neighborhood is dangerous, there's a lot of pressure to find cheap things you can do outside.
It's one of the reasons that video game consoles are massive sellers among urban inner cities families. While the initial investment is high, the payback is that you have something your kids want to do that doesn't involve them being out on the streets. I wouldn't be surprised if Netflix has a massive audience among working class families.
1) I feel like there is a difference between preferential treatment over the internet backbone and preferential treatment over the so called "last mile" to consumers. Peering in particular seems like a totally legit place to allow for preferential treatment. If you want to hook up more data lines to a backbone providers network access point then you pay more money, a la the netflix/comcast agreement. But data throughput between NAPs and over the last mile to consumers should be 100% equal to all data. That way you completely decouple the internet infrastructure from private deals.
Allowing private deals to dictate infrastructure makes it much more likely that future upgrades will primarily benefit the few mega corps who are essentially funding the upgrades, while everyone else gets stagnating performance. The entire argument behind not making backbone providers common carriers is that the FCC wanted to reward innovation and upgrades so that the internet could flourish. Any benefit you gained goes right out the window the second you allow them to tie upgrades to filtering.
2) Which brings me to the second point, the first part only works if you regulate the shit out of the contracts being bargained. As a backbone provider you should be able to set rates for access to your NAPs from content providers, but only based on things like throughput not based on who the content provider is. I don't want infrastructure companies dabbling in content filtering by giving sister companies better rates/high throughput.
As far as I know on that front, Google made a deal with Verizon where they wouldn't pursue net-neutrality and in return they wouldn't have their data forced into a bottleneck.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Well... shit.
Fuck.
That's just the proposal. The rule doesn't go up for a vote til later sometime this year.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
The timing of this vote was pretty blatantly a "fuck you" to the number of calls they've been getting the past couple days.
They can and for just lump those together into a single comment.
I mean, we were already paying too. But we apparently just picked the WRONG people to pay.
Im expecting to get fucked just like everyone in the states.
Except that you will almost certainly be subsidizing the cost of peering in the us if you subscribe to any of these services, just like US customers with less greedy ISPs likely will.
I assume. I would actually like it if eventual price increases were itemized and based on ISP.