Current Events > Comcast hints at plan for paid fast lanes after net neutrality repeal

Topic List	Page List: 1
Antifar 11/27/17 1:33:24 PM #1:	https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-quietly-drops-promise-not-to-charge-tolls-for-internet-fast-lanes/ For years, Comcast has been promising that it won't violate the principles of net neutrality, regardless of whether the government imposes any net neutrality rules. That meant that Comcast wouldn't block or throttle lawful Internet traffic and that it wouldn't create fast lanes in order to collect tolls from Web companies that want priority access over the Comcast network. This was one of the ways in which Comcast argued that the Federal Communications Commission should not reclassify broadband providers as common carriers, a designation that forces ISPs to treat customers fairly in other ways. The Title II common carrier classification that makes net neutrality rules enforceable isn't necessary because ISPs won't violate net neutrality principles anyway, Comcast and other ISPs have claimed. But with Republican Ajit Pai now in charge at the Federal Communications Commission, Comcast's stance has changed. While the company still says it won't block or throttle Internet content, it has dropped its promise about not instituting paid prioritization. Instead, Comcast now vaguely says that it won't "discriminate against lawful content" or impose "anti-competitive paid prioritization." The change in wording suggests that Comcast may offer paid fast lanes to websites or other online services, such as video streaming providers, after Pai's FCC eliminates the net neutrality rules next month. Comcast is the largest home Internet provider in the US, with more than 23.5 million residential Internet subscribers. In May 2014, Comcast Senior Executive VP David Cohen wrote the following: To be clear, Comcast has never offered paid prioritization, we are not offering it today, and we're not considering entering into any paid prioritization creating fast lane deals with content owners. Six months later, Comcast made the promise again, saying, "We don't prioritize Internet traffic or have paid fast lanes, and have no plans to do so." The circumstances in 2014 were different than they are today. Back then, the FCC clearly intended to impose at least some restrictions on paid prioritization, and ISPs were trying to avoid the Title II classification. Comcast had also agreed to some limitations on paid prioritization as a condition on its 2011 purchase of NBCUniversal. But the NBCUniversal conditions expire in September 2018, and Pai's proposal would undo the Title II classification and get rid of the net neutrality rules entirely. Both legally and politically, Comcast now has an opening to retreat at least partially from its net neutrality promises. Comcast's change in strategy was evident in July of this year when Comcast urged the FCC to overturn the Title II order. "[W]e do not and will not block, slow down, or discriminate against lawful content," Comcast wrote at the time, omitting its previous promise to avoid paid prioritization. The FCC, Comcast said, could remove the Title II classification while still having "clearly defined net neutrality principlesno blocking, no throttling, no anti-competitive paid prioritization, and full transparency." As it turned out, Pai's final plan that will be voted on December 14 doesn't even ban blocking or throttling. Comcast could thus pull back even further from its net neutrality promises, but as of last week it was still promising that it won't block or throttle lawful Internet traffic. The cable lobby group NCTA similarly promised this year that its members will not "block, throttle or otherwise impair your online activity," but it made no promises about paid prioritization. In 2014, the NCTA said that "no ISPs offer" paid prioritization. --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:891145820] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote>https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-quietly-drops-promise-not-to-charge-tolls-for-internet-fast-lanes/ <quote>For years, Comcast has been promising that it won't violate the principles of net neutrality, regardless of whether the government imposes any net neutrality rules. That meant that Comcast wouldn't block or throttle lawful Internet traffic and that it wouldn't create fast lanes in order to collect tolls from Web companies that want priority access over the Comcast network. This was one of the ways in which Comcast argued that the Federal Communications Commission should not reclassify broadband providers as common carriers, a designation that forces ISPs to treat customers fairly in other ways. The Title II common carrier classification that makes net neutrality rules enforceable isn't necessary because ISPs won't violate net neutrality principles anyway, Comcast and other ISPs have claimed. But with Republican Ajit Pai now in charge at the Federal Communications Commission, Comcast's stance has changed. While the company still says it won't block or throttle Internet content, it has dropped its promise about not instituting paid prioritization. Instead, Comcast now vaguely says that it won't "discriminate against lawful content" or impose "anti-competitive paid prioritization." The change in wording suggests that Comcast may offer paid fast lanes to websites or other online services, such as video streaming providers, after Pai's FCC eliminates the net neutrality rules next month. Comcast is the largest home Internet provider in the US, with more than 23.5 million residential Internet subscribers. In May 2014, Comcast Senior Executive VP David Cohen wrote the following: To be clear, Comcast has never offered paid prioritization, we are not offering it today, and we're not considering entering into any paid prioritization creating fast lane deals with content owners. Six months later, Comcast made the promise again, saying, "We don't prioritize Internet traffic or have paid fast lanes, and have no plans to do so." The circumstances in 2014 were different than they are today. Back then, the FCC clearly intended to impose at least some restrictions on paid prioritization, and ISPs were trying to avoid the Title II classification. Comcast had also agreed to some limitations on paid prioritization as a condition on its 2011 purchase of NBCUniversal. But the NBCUniversal conditions expire in September 2018, and Pai's proposal would undo the Title II classification and get rid of the net neutrality rules entirely. Both legally and politically, Comcast now has an opening to retreat at least partially from its net neutrality promises. Comcast's change in strategy was evident in July of this year when Comcast urged the FCC to overturn the Title II order. "[W]e do not and will not block, slow down, or discriminate against lawful content," Comcast wrote at the time, omitting its previous promise to avoid paid prioritization. The FCC, Comcast said, could remove the Title II classification while still having "clearly defined net neutrality principlesno blocking, no throttling, no anti-competitive paid prioritization, and full transparency." As it turned out, Pai's final plan that will be voted on December 14 doesn't even ban blocking or throttling. Comcast could thus pull back even further from its net neutrality promises, but as of last week it was still promising that it won't block or throttle lawful Internet traffic. The cable lobby group NCTA similarly promised this year that its members will not "block, throttle or otherwise impair your online activity," but it made no promises about paid prioritization. In 2014, the NCTA said that "no ISPs offer" paid prioritization.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SamuelHayden 11/27/17 1:38:47 PM #2:	lmao hey guys, but nothing would change huh? LOL Wait until the 'fast lanes' are actually as fast as today's regular lanes and the 'regular lanes' are unbearably slow. This is not something unrealistic to think, do you remember American Airlines' 'basic economy'? You know, it was supposed to be a cheaper option than regular economy and turns out it's just as expensive but with less features. <cite>SamuelHayden posted [p:891146091] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote>lmao hey guys, but nothing would change huh? LOL Wait until the 'fast lanes' are actually as fast as today's regular lanes and the 'regular lanes' are unbearably slow. This is not something unrealistic to think, do you remember American Airlines' 'basic economy'? You know, it was supposed to be a cheaper option than regular economy and turns out it's just as expensive but with less features.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jiek_Fafn 11/27/17 1:39:36 PM #3:	This is where I assumed things would be headed. From a PR standpoint it comes across a lot better even if it's still a shitty practice. Plus, this is more of them fleecing companies instead of customers...which honestly idc about. --- PSN: Jiek <cite>Jiek_Fafn posted [p:891146133] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote>This is where I assumed things would be headed. From a PR standpoint it comes across a lot better even if it's still a shitty practice. Plus, this is more of them fleecing companies instead of customers...which honestly idc about.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dustin1280 11/27/17 1:40:29 PM #4:	I work for Comcast, as of right now they have no plans for fast lanes of any sort. Not sure if that will change, i certainly hope it doesn't. --- RIP: Canuklehead, Karma: 1369 // RIP: Gen_Lee_Enfield, Karma: 1731 // RIP: Orlando of the Axe, Karma: 1642 --They delivered! <cite>Dustin1280 posted [p:891146180] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote>I work for Comcast, as of right now they have no plans for fast lanes of any sort. Not sure if that will change, i certainly hope it doesn't.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Alucard188 11/27/17 1:43:10 PM #5:	Dustin1280 posted... I work for Comcast, as of right now they have no plans for fast lanes of any sort. Not sure if that will change, i certainly hope it doesn't. What level do you work at them under? Stuff like this is introduced at the executive level, not at the paid grunt level. --- Face it Cloud is a gaming icon and has appered in lots of games while mario has only appeared in 2 games sunshine and 64~xSlashbomBx <cite>Alucard188 posted [p:891146310] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dustin1280 posted...</cite> <quote>I work for Comcast, as of right now they have no plans for fast lanes of any sort. Not sure if that will change, i certainly hope it doesn't.</quote> What level do you work at them under? Stuff like this is introduced at the executive level, not at the paid grunt level.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dustin1280 11/27/17 1:43:30 PM #6:	Alucard188 posted... Dustin1280 posted... I work for Comcast, as of right now they have no plans for fast lanes of any sort. Not sure if that will change, i certainly hope it doesn't. What level do you work at them under? Stuff like this is introduced at the executive level, not at the paid grunt level. Upper Management, but not executive. --- RIP: Canuklehead, Karma: 1369 // RIP: Gen_Lee_Enfield, Karma: 1731 // RIP: Orlando of the Axe, Karma: 1642 --They delivered! <cite>Dustin1280 posted [p:891146322] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>Alucard188 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dustin1280 posted...</cite> <quote>I work for Comcast, as of right now they have no plans for fast lanes of any sort. Not sure if that will change, i certainly hope it doesn't.</quote> What level do you work at them under? Stuff like this is introduced at the executive level, not at the paid grunt level.</quote> Upper Management, but not executive.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 11/27/17 1:44:53 PM #7:	Dustin1280 posted... I work for Comcast, as of right now they have no plans for fast lanes of any sort. Not sure if that will change, i certainly hope it doesn't. I doubt an individual store will prepare to implement fast lanes until after it's repeal. This is something being looked at from the hq. --- http://i.imgur.com/BBcZDLJ.png <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:891146389] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dustin1280 posted...</cite> <quote>I work for Comcast, as of right now they have no plans for fast lanes of any sort. Not sure if that will change, i certainly hope it doesn't.</quote> I doubt an individual store will prepare to implement fast lanes until after it's repeal. This is something being looked at from the hq.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dustin1280 11/27/17 1:46:52 PM #8:	Just telling you what I know, but I am very worried that comcast's stance might change on this at some point... --- RIP: Canuklehead, Karma: 1369 // RIP: Gen_Lee_Enfield, Karma: 1731 // RIP: Orlando of the Axe, Karma: 1642 --They delivered! <cite>Dustin1280 posted [p:891146487] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote>Just telling you what I know, but I am very worried that comcast's stance might change on this at some point...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Medussa 11/27/17 1:49:08 PM #9:	Dustin1280 posted... Just telling you what I know, but I am very worried that comcast's stance might change on this at some point... my guess is December 22nd. try to hide as much as possible under the holiday weekend. --- Boom! That's right, this is all happening! You cannot change the channel now! Act now! Venchmen are standing by for your orders! <cite>Medussa posted [p:891146597] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dustin1280 posted...</cite> <quote>Just telling you what I know, but I am very worried that comcast's stance might change on this at some point...</quote> my guess is December 22nd. try to hide as much as possible under the holiday weekend.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dat_Cracka_Jax 11/27/17 1:50:20 PM #10:	They're not throttling or blocking anything like everyone was screaming would happen, so who cares? --- http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/8131/flame201010170949481638.jpg http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/5517/cateyes.gif Rams: 7-9 <cite>Dat_Cracka_Jax posted [p:891146654] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote>They're not throttling or blocking anything like everyone was screaming would happen, so who cares?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 11/27/17 1:52:33 PM #11:	Dat_Cracka_Jax posted... They're not throttling or blocking anything like everyone was screaming would happen, so who cares? They aren't throttling or blocking anything yet. Netflix had to pay Comcast in 2014 to get them to stop throttling their traffic. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:891146746] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...</cite> <quote>They're not throttling or blocking anything like everyone was screaming would happen, so who cares?</quote> They aren't throttling or blocking anything yet. Netflix had to pay Comcast in 2014 to get them to stop throttling their traffic.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dustin1280 11/27/17 1:53:52 PM #12:	CableZL posted... Dat_Cracka_Jax posted... They're not throttling or blocking anything like everyone was screaming would happen, so who cares? They aren't throttling or blocking anything yet. Netflix had to pay Comcast in 2014 to get them to stop throttling their traffic. Incidentally we actually have a partnership with netflix now, it's built into the X1 boxes... --- RIP: Canuklehead, Karma: 1369 // RIP: Gen_Lee_Enfield, Karma: 1731 // RIP: Orlando of the Axe, Karma: 1642 --They delivered! <cite>Dustin1280 posted [p:891146798] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...</cite> <quote>They're not throttling or blocking anything like everyone was screaming would happen, so who cares?</quote> They aren't throttling or blocking anything yet. Netflix had to pay Comcast in 2014 to get them to stop throttling their traffic.</quote> Incidentally we actually have a partnership with netflix now, it's built into the X1 boxes...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GeneralZhao 11/27/17 1:54:51 PM #13:	This is where some idiots are gonna chime in "the free market will fix itself". We're talking about internet service providers. There is no market. Not a competitive one at least or not one that is easy entry. --- https://imgur.com/a/f52rH <cite>GeneralZhao posted [p:891146855] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote>This is where some idiots are gonna chime in "the free market will fix itself". We're talking about internet service providers. There is no market. Not a competitive one at least or not one that is easy entry.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 11/27/17 1:56:28 PM #14:	Antifar posted... "anti-competitive paid prioritization." It's not really anti-competitive if Hulu, Amazon, Google, and Netflix (and everyone else) are all allowed to bribe comcast. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:891146936] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>"anti-competitive paid prioritization."</quote> It's not really anti-competitive if Hulu, Amazon, Google, and Netflix (and everyone else) are all allowed to bribe comcast.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dustin1280 11/27/17 1:57:16 PM #15:	GeneralZhao posted... This is where some idiots are gonna chime in "the free market will fix itself". We're talking about internet service providers. There is no market. Not a competitive one at least or not one that is easy entry. The giants don't technically have a monopoly. But they have all worked strategically to stay out of each others footprint. Usually you CAN'T get comcast if you can get something like Charter... But actual competitive pricing is almost nonexistent because the small companies can't really compete with the giants. Comcast isn't cheap by any means, but you would be hard-pressed to find options that can compete with them speed-wise. Things like google fiber are one of the exceptions... --- RIP: Canuklehead, Karma: 1369 // RIP: Gen_Lee_Enfield, Karma: 1731 // RIP: Orlando of the Axe, Karma: 1642 --They delivered! <cite>Dustin1280 posted [p:891146984] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>GeneralZhao posted...</cite> <quote>This is where some idiots are gonna chime in "the free market will fix itself". We're talking about internet service providers. There is no market. Not a competitive one at least or not one that is easy entry.</quote> The giants don't technically have a monopoly. But they have all worked strategically to stay out of each others footprint. Usually you CAN'T get comcast if you can get something like Charter... But actual competitive pricing is almost nonexistent because the small companies can't really compete with the giants. Comcast isn't cheap by any means, but you would be hard-pressed to find options that can compete with them speed-wise. Things like google fiber are one of the exceptions...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 11/27/17 1:59:13 PM #16:	Dustin1280 posted... GeneralZhao posted... This is where some idiots are gonna chime in "the free market will fix itself". We're talking about internet service providers. There is no market. Not a competitive one at least or not one that is easy entry. The giants don't technically have a monopoly. But they have all worked strategically to stay out of each others footprint. Usually you CAN'T get comcast if you can get something like Charter... But actual competitive pricing is almost nonexistent because the small companies can't really compete with the giants. If anything, the not-quite-collusion and the local monopolies it's established on copper and fiber, will finally get Wi-Max off the ground. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:891147092] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dustin1280 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GeneralZhao posted...</cite> <quote>This is where some idiots are gonna chime in "the free market will fix itself". We're talking about internet service providers. There is no market. Not a competitive one at least or not one that is easy entry.</quote> The giants don't technically have a monopoly. But they have all worked strategically to stay out of each others footprint. Usually you CAN'T get comcast if you can get something like Charter... But actual competitive pricing is almost nonexistent because the small companies can't really compete with the giants.</quote> If anything, the not-quite-collusion and the local monopolies it's established on copper and fiber, will finally get Wi-Max off the ground.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DragonGirlYuki 11/27/17 2:03:22 PM #17:	The thing is fast lanes already exist. The ISPs offer different tiers of speed. You want more speed then you need to pay for a better package. --- ~Yuki~ <cite>DragonGirlYuki posted [p:891147303] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote>The thing is fast lanes already exist. The ISPs offer different tiers of speed. You want more speed then you need to pay for a better package.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
southcoast09 11/27/17 2:04:34 PM #18:	Comcast's mission statement is, "regardless of the circumstances, we will find a way to charge our customers as much as possible." Data caps = dlc --- Stand for the anthem or sit for the game! <cite>southcoast09 posted [p:891147363] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote>Comcast's mission statement is, "regardless of the circumstances, we will find a way to charge our customers as much as possible." Data caps = dlc</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Giant_Aspirin 11/27/17 2:07:01 PM #19:	DragonGirlYuki posted... The thing is fast lanes already exist. The ISPs offer different tiers of speed. You want more speed then you need to pay for a better package. not quite, hat's just referring to download/bandwidth limits, which you can visualize as the 'size of your pipe'. 'prioritization' is different and it means the ISP would literally favor the traffic (packets) of companies who give them money. Comcast owns 'routers' that are akin to traffic lights at intersections. What they want to do would be to create a 'lane' that allows those high-paying customers to literally go before other customers at the traffic light. So they literally stop everyone else at the intersection to let this 'high priority' person though. it's a very different situation than what you described. --- Now Playing: South Park: FbW (PC), Cuphead (PC) *(~);} - Get out the pans, don't just stand there dreamin' - {;(~)* <cite>Giant_Aspirin posted [p:891147502] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>DragonGirlYuki posted...</cite> <quote>The thing is fast lanes already exist. The ISPs offer different tiers of speed. You want more speed then you need to pay for a better package.</quote> not quite, hat's just referring to download/bandwidth limits, which you can visualize as the 'size of your pipe'. 'prioritization' is different and it means the ISP would literally favor the traffic (packets) of companies who give them money. Comcast owns 'routers' that are akin to traffic lights at intersections. What they want to do would be to create a 'lane' that allows those high-paying customers to literally go before other customers at the traffic light. So they literally stop everyone else at the intersection to let this 'high priority' person though. it's a very different situation than what you described.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dustin1280 11/27/17 2:08:27 PM #20:	DragonGirlYuki posted... The thing is fast lanes already exist. The ISPs offer different tiers of speed. You want more speed then you need to pay for a better package. Internet Speed is not the same thing as fast lanes though, it's 100% justified to tier internet speed to customers based on their preference. Fast lanes are not justified in any way and are the worst thing comcast could do. Comcast has been taking huge steps to fix the "customer experience" focusing on better customer service than the past. "Fast Lanes" would be counterproductive to that goal. Unfortunately that doesn't mean it wont happen. But currently there are no plans for it and I'm hoping it doesn't change. I can say pretty confidently that comcast probably won't be the first ones to start making fast lanes though. The goal would not to be the first and as such get massive backlash to a reputation that we are already trying to fix, it would be to pull a "but they are, we are just matching the market." --- RIP: Canuklehead, Karma: 1369 // RIP: Gen_Lee_Enfield, Karma: 1731 // RIP: Orlando of the Axe, Karma: 1642 --They delivered! <cite>Dustin1280 posted [p:891147571] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>DragonGirlYuki posted...</cite> <quote>The thing is fast lanes already exist. The ISPs offer different tiers of speed. You want more speed then you need to pay for a better package.</quote> Internet Speed is not the same thing as fast lanes though, it's 100% justified to tier internet speed to customers based on their preference. Fast lanes are not justified in any way and are the worst thing comcast could do. Comcast has been taking huge steps to fix the "customer experience" focusing on better customer service than the past. "Fast Lanes" would be counterproductive to that goal. Unfortunately that doesn't mean it wont happen. But currently there are no plans for it and I'm hoping it doesn't change. I can say pretty confidently that comcast probably won't be the first ones to start making fast lanes though. The goal would not to be the first and as such get massive backlash to a reputation that we are already trying to fix, it would be to pull a "but they are, we are just matching the market."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#21	Post #21 was unavailable or deleted.
Questionmarktarius 11/27/17 2:14:18 PM #22:	Dustin1280 posted... Fast lanes are not justified in any way Yes, they are. http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/20/netflix-boasts-37-share-of-internet-traffic-in-north-america-compared-with-3-for-apples-itunes When Netflix is chewing up 37% of the traffic, it congests the lines for everyone else, especially anything that needs real-time priority, such as VOIP or any given UDP application. The part I don't understand though, is how extorting Netflix to pay for a 'fast lane' would help any more than just simple traffic-shaping. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:891147874] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dustin1280 posted...</cite> <quote>Fast lanes are not justified in any way</quote> Yes, they are. http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/20/netflix-boasts-37-share-of-internet-traffic-in-north-america-compared-with-3-for-apples-itunes When Netflix is chewing up 37% of the traffic, it congests the lines for everyone else, especially anything that needs real-time priority, such as VOIP or any given UDP application. The part I don't understand though, is how extorting Netflix to pay for a 'fast lane' would help any more than just simple traffic-shaping.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mikablu 11/27/17 2:16:26 PM #23:	Questionmarktarius posted... The part I don't understand though, is how extorting Netflix to pay for a 'fast lane' would help any more than just simple traffic-shaping. Comcast gets more money using one way rather than the other. <cite>Mikablu posted [p:891147972] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote>The part I don't understand though, is how extorting Netflix to pay for a 'fast lane' would help any more than just simple traffic-shaping.</quote> Comcast gets more money using one way rather than the other.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 11/27/17 2:16:38 PM #24:	Spooking posted... Netflix and YouTube use up more internet, so they should pay more. They shouldn't pay more than they agreed to per their peering agreement contracts. The problem here is ISPs overselling their network capacity and then trying to gain more profit by introducing data caps and throttling. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:891147982] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>Spooking posted...</cite> <quote>Netflix and YouTube use up more internet, so they should pay more.</quote> They shouldn't pay more than they agreed to per their peering agreement contracts. The problem here is ISPs overselling their network capacity and then trying to gain more profit by introducing data caps and throttling.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Giant_Aspirin 11/27/17 2:18:04 PM #25:	Questionmarktarius posted... When Netflix is chewing up 37% of the traffic, it congests the lines for everyone else, especially anything that needs real-time priority, such as VOIP or any given UDP application. isn't streaming done with UDP? <_< --- Now Playing: South Park: FbW (PC), Cuphead (PC) *(~);} - Get out the pans, don't just stand there dreamin' - {;(~)* <cite>Giant_Aspirin posted [p:891148068] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote>When Netflix is chewing up 37% of the traffic, it congests the lines for everyone else, especially anything that needs real-time priority, such as VOIP or any given UDP application.</quote> isn't streaming done with UDP? <_<</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LightHawKnight 11/27/17 2:18:42 PM #26:	GeneralZhao posted... This is where some idiots are gonna chime in "the free market will fix itself". We're talking about internet service providers. There is no market. Not a competitive one at least or not one that is easy entry. I hate that line. Have those people never bought internet before? You are lucky to have 2 super shit options to choose between. Most people have one shit option. --- The Official Odin of the Shin Megami Tensei IV board. "You know how confusing the whole good-evil concept is for me." <cite>LightHawKnight posted [p:891148106] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>GeneralZhao posted...</cite> <quote>This is where some idiots are gonna chime in "the free market will fix itself". We're talking about internet service providers. There is no market. Not a competitive one at least or not one that is easy entry.</quote> I hate that line. Have those people never bought internet before? You are lucky to have 2 super shit options to choose between. Most people have one shit option.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 11/27/17 2:18:51 PM #27:	CableZL posted... The problem here is ISPs overselling their network capacity and then trying to gain more profit by introducing data caps and throttling. Strange how nobody seemed to realize that the ability to download a few terabytes in a few hours meant that people would actually do it. LightHawKnight posted... I hate that line. Have those people never bought internet before? You are lucky to have 2 super shit options to choose between. Most people have one shit option. Blame City Hall, and the concept of Municipal Franchise. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:891148112] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>The problem here is ISPs overselling their network capacity and then trying to gain more profit by introducing data caps and throttling.</quote> Strange how nobody seemed to realize that the ability to download a few terabytes in a few hours meant that people would actually do it. <cite>LightHawKnight posted...</cite> <quote>I hate that line. Have those people never bought internet before? You are lucky to have 2 super shit options to choose between. Most people have one shit option.</quote> Blame City Hall, and the concept of Municipal Franchise.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 11/27/17 2:19:00 PM #28:	Questionmarktarius posted... Dustin1280 posted... Fast lanes are not justified in any way Yes, they are. http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/20/netflix-boasts-37-share-of-internet-traffic-in-north-america-compared-with-3-for-apples-itunes When Netflix is chewing up 37% of the traffic, it congests the lines for everyone else, especially anything that needs real-time priority, such as VOIP or any given UDP application. The part I don't understand though, is how extorting Netflix to pay for a 'fast lane' would help any more than just simple traffic-shaping. Nothing gets priority in public internet traffic --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:891148121] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dustin1280 posted...</cite> <quote>Fast lanes are not justified in any way</quote> Yes, they are. http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/20/netflix-boasts-37-share-of-internet-traffic-in-north-america-compared-with-3-for-apples-itunes When Netflix is chewing up 37% of the traffic, it congests the lines for everyone else, especially anything that needs real-time priority, such as VOIP or any given UDP application. The part I don't understand though, is how extorting Netflix to pay for a 'fast lane' would help any more than just simple traffic-shaping.</quote> Nothing gets priority in public internet traffic</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 11/27/17 2:20:46 PM #29:	CableZL posted... Nothing gets priority in public internet traffic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_of_service <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:891148229] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>Nothing gets priority in public internet traffic</quote> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_of_service</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 11/27/17 2:23:00 PM #30:	Questionmarktarius posted... CableZL posted... Nothing gets priority in public internet traffic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_of_service ToS/DSCP/QoS/etc. tags aren't respected in the public internet realm. If you have an MPLS network, you can definitely have the provider prioritize whatever traffic you want. However, over public internet, everything is treated equally. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:891148392] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>Nothing gets priority in public internet traffic</quote> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_of_service</quote> ToS/DSCP/QoS/etc. tags aren't respected in the public internet realm. If you have an MPLS network, you can definitely have the provider prioritize whatever traffic you want. However, over public internet, everything is treated equally.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#31	Post #31 was unavailable or deleted.
Deadpool_18 11/27/17 2:25:22 PM #32:	Dustin1280 posted... I work for Comcast, as of right now they have no plans for fast lanes of any sort. Not sure if that will change, i certainly hope it doesn't. Ayyy my mom is the GM over a certain branch in the southeast. --- We're whalers on the moon, we carry a harpoon, but there ain't no whales, so we tell tall tales, and sing our whaling tune. <cite>Deadpool_18 posted [p:891148529] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dustin1280 posted...</cite> <quote>I work for Comcast, as of right now they have no plans for fast lanes of any sort. Not sure if that will change, i certainly hope it doesn't.</quote> Ayyy my mom is the GM over a certain branch in the southeast.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 11/27/17 2:28:12 PM #33:	CableZL posted... Questionmarktarius posted... CableZL posted... Nothing gets priority in public internet traffic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_of_service ToS/DSCP/QoS/etc. tags aren't respected in the public internet realm. If you have an MPLS network, you can definitely have the provider prioritize whatever traffic you want. However, over public internet, everything is treated equally. Maybe if they were, VOIP and facetime clones would have been viable decades ago. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:891148679] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>Nothing gets priority in public internet traffic</quote> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_of_service</quote> ToS/DSCP/QoS/etc. tags aren't respected in the public internet realm. If you have an MPLS network, you can definitely have the provider prioritize whatever traffic you want. However, over public internet, everything is treated equally.</quote> Maybe if they were, VOIP and facetime clones would have been viable decades ago.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 11/27/17 2:29:17 PM #34:	CableZL posted... Questionmarktarius posted... CableZL posted... Nothing gets priority in public internet traffic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_of_service ToS/DSCP/QoS/etc. tags aren't respected in the public internet realm. If you have an MPLS network, you can definitely have the provider prioritize whatever traffic you want. However, over public internet, everything is treated equally. To further explain about this... With public internet traffic, your traffic commonly goes from your internal network to your provider to another provider to the destination Internal > ISP > Another ISP > Destination Having any kind of traffic prioritized in public internet would require not only your ISP to respect the tagged traffic and treat it the way you want, but every other ISP they peer with respect the tagged traffic and treat it the way you want. That's not gonna happen. Conversely, with MPLS networks, you typically have a single provider providing end to end access between endpoints. So you can just have them treat certain kinds of traffic certain ways using DSCP/QoS/ToS tags and it will be respected end to end. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:891148746] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>Nothing gets priority in public internet traffic</quote> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_of_service</quote> ToS/DSCP/QoS/etc. tags aren't respected in the public internet realm. If you have an MPLS network, you can definitely have the provider prioritize whatever traffic you want. However, over public internet, everything is treated equally.</quote> To further explain about this... With public internet traffic, your traffic commonly goes from your internal network to your provider to another provider to the destination Internal > ISP > Another ISP > Destination Having any kind of traffic prioritized in public internet would require not only your ISP to respect the tagged traffic and treat it the way you want, but every other ISP they peer with respect the tagged traffic and treat it the way you want. That's not gonna happen. Conversely, with MPLS networks, you typically have a single provider providing end to end access between endpoints. So you can just have them treat certain kinds of traffic certain ways using DSCP/QoS/ToS tags and it will be respected end to end.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#35	Post #35 was unavailable or deleted.
Questionmarktarius 11/27/17 2:31:29 PM #36:	CableZL posted... To further explain about this... With public internet traffic, your traffic commonly goes from your internal network to your provider to another provider to the destination Internal > ISP > Another ISP > Destination Having any kind of traffic prioritized in public internet would require not only your ISP to respect the tagged traffic and treat it the way you want, but every other ISP they peer with respect the tagged traffic and treat it the way you want. That's not gonna happen. Conversely, with MPLS networks, you typically have a single provider providing end to end access between endpoints. So you can just have them treat certain kinds of traffic certain ways using DSCP/QoS/ToS tags and it will be respected end to end. I'm going to, uh, back off of this now, due to being badly out-nerded here. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:891148887] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>To further explain about this... With public internet traffic, your traffic commonly goes from your internal network to your provider to another provider to the destination Internal > ISP > Another ISP > Destination Having any kind of traffic prioritized in public internet would require not only your ISP to respect the tagged traffic and treat it the way you want, but every other ISP they peer with respect the tagged traffic and treat it the way you want. That's not gonna happen. Conversely, with MPLS networks, you typically have a single provider providing end to end access between endpoints. So you can just have them treat certain kinds of traffic certain ways using DSCP/QoS/ToS tags and it will be respected end to end.</quote> I'm going to, uh, back off of this now, due to being badly out-nerded here.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 11/27/17 2:50:53 PM #37:	Like on this Traceroute to GameFAQs.com from my job: Tracing route to gamefaqs.com [64.30.228.84] over a maximum of 30 hops: !!! Internal Network Hops !!! 1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 10.5.36.1 2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 10.5.0.4 !!! Traffic then goes into the public internet realm !!! 3 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms [ Public IP Removed Intentionally ] 4 6 ms <1 ms <1 ms [ Public IP Removed Intentionally ] 5 1 ms 2 ms 7 ms [ Public IP Removed Intentionally ] !!! This is now a few hops into Spectrum's (formerly Time Warner Cable / Roadrunner) network !!! 6 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms [ Public IP Removed Intentionally ] 7 15 ms 14 ms 14 ms agg22.hstqtxl301r.texas.rr.com [24.175.41.48] 8 10 ms 14 ms 14 ms ge-2-1-0.a0.sea90.tbone.rr.com [66.109.1.218] 9 18 ms 14 ms 15 ms bu-ether12.dllstx976iw-bcr00.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.39] 10 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 0.ae0.pr1.dfw10.tbone.rr.com [107.14.17.232] !!! AS6453 = Tata Communications. Spectrum hands the traffic off to them. !!! 11 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms ix-ae-23-0.tcore2.dt8-dallas.as6453.net [66.110.57.97] 12 39 ms 39 ms 40 ms if-ae-2-2.tcore1.dt8-dallas.as6453.net [66.110.56.5] 13 40 ms 39 ms 44 ms if-ae-37-3.tcore1.aeq-ashburn.as6453.net [66.198.154.68] 14 39 ms 39 ms 39 ms if-ae-2-2.tcore2.aeq-ashburn.as6453.net [216.6.87.1] 15 39 ms 41 ms 39 ms 216.6.87.54 !!! Then the traffic moves into the Akamai Technologies network !!! 16 39 ms 39 ms 39 ms a209-200-144-202.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [209.200.144.202] 17 110 ms 105 ms 122 ms a209-200-144-205.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [209.200.144.205] 18 66 ms 66 ms 67 ms a209-200-160-232.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [209.200.160.232] 19 68 ms 68 ms 68 ms ae2-0.io-phx2-ex8216-1.cnet.com [64.30.227.58] !!! Then we hit CBS Interactive's network !!! 20 78 ms 78 ms 78 ms reth0-1141.fw3.phx2.cbsig.net [216.239.123.169] !!! And then finally, GameFAQs.com, or at least one of the virtual IPs for GameFAQs.com !!! 21 78 ms 78 ms 78 ms gamefaqs-www-vip1.phx2.cbsig.net [64.30.228.84] --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:891149882] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote>Like on this Traceroute to GameFAQs.com from my job: Tracing route to gamefaqs.com [64.30.228.84] over a maximum of 30 hops: !!! Internal Network Hops !!! 1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 10.5.36.1 2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 10.5.0.4 !!! Traffic then goes into the public internet realm !!! 3 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms [ Public IP Removed Intentionally ] 4 6 ms <1 ms <1 ms [ Public IP Removed Intentionally ] 5 1 ms 2 ms 7 ms [ Public IP Removed Intentionally ] !!! This is now a few hops into Spectrum's (formerly Time Warner Cable / Roadrunner) network !!! 6 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms [ Public IP Removed Intentionally ] 7 15 ms 14 ms 14 ms agg22.hstqtxl301r.texas.rr.com [24.175.41.48] 8 10 ms 14 ms 14 ms ge-2-1-0.a0.sea90.tbone.rr.com [66.109.1.218] 9 18 ms 14 ms 15 ms bu-ether12.dllstx976iw-bcr00.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.39] 10 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 0.ae0.pr1.dfw10.tbone.rr.com [107.14.17.232] !!! AS6453 = Tata Communications. Spectrum hands the traffic off to them. !!! 11 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms ix-ae-23-0.tcore2.dt8-dallas.as6453.net [66.110.57.97] 12 39 ms 39 ms 40 ms if-ae-2-2.tcore1.dt8-dallas.as6453.net [66.110.56.5] 13 40 ms 39 ms 44 ms if-ae-37-3.tcore1.aeq-ashburn.as6453.net [66.198.154.68] 14 39 ms 39 ms 39 ms if-ae-2-2.tcore2.aeq-ashburn.as6453.net [216.6.87.1] 15 39 ms 41 ms 39 ms 216.6.87.54 !!! Then the traffic moves into the Akamai Technologies network !!! 16 39 ms 39 ms 39 ms a209-200-144-202.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [209.200.144.202] 17 110 ms 105 ms 122 ms a209-200-144-205.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [209.200.144.205] 18 66 ms 66 ms 67 ms a209-200-160-232.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [209.200.160.232] 19 68 ms 68 ms 68 ms ae2-0.io-phx2-ex8216-1.cnet.com [64.30.227.58] !!! Then we hit CBS Interactive's network !!! 20 78 ms 78 ms 78 ms reth0-1141.fw3.phx2.cbsig.net [216.239.123.169] !!! And then finally, GameFAQs.com, or at least one of the virtual IPs for GameFAQs.com !!! 21 78 ms 78 ms 78 ms gamefaqs-www-vip1.phx2.cbsig.net [64.30.228.84]</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bover_87 11/27/17 3:04:14 PM #38:	^ while your knowledge is certainly impressive, I don't understand what argument you want to make --- I...I shall consume. Consume...consume everything. ~ [FFRK] rcr6 - Chosen Traveler/Shout/Army of One <cite>bover_87 posted [p:891150552] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote>^ while your knowledge is certainly impressive, I don't understand what argument you want to make</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 11/27/17 3:04:58 PM #39:	bover_87 posted... ^ while your knowledge is certainly impressive, I don't understand what argument you want to make It's not really an argument. Just further explaining why ToS/DSCP tags aren't respected over public internet. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:891150588] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>bover_87 posted...</cite> <quote>^ while your knowledge is certainly impressive, I don't understand what argument you want to make</quote> It's not really an argument. Just further explaining why ToS/DSCP tags aren't respected over public internet.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bover_87 11/27/17 3:07:08 PM #40:	I see. Though, I doubt it would be hard for ISPs to know which packets belong to which service and end user. --- I...I shall consume. Consume...consume everything. ~ [FFRK] rcr6 - Chosen Traveler/Shout/Army of One <cite>bover_87 posted [p:891150714] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote>I see. Though, I doubt it would be hard for ISPs to know which packets belong to which service and end user.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 11/27/17 3:08:02 PM #41:	bover_87 posted... I see. Though, I doubt it would be hard for ISPs to know which packets belong to which service and end user. The whole point of the TCP/IP protocol is that they do. It's just the TOS headers that get routinely ignored. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:891150755] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>bover_87 posted...</cite> <quote>I see. Though, I doubt it would be hard for ISPs to know which packets belong to which service and end user.</quote> The whole point of the TCP/IP protocol is that they do. It's just the TOS headers that get routinely ignored.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 11/27/17 3:09:29 PM #42:	bover_87 posted... I see. Though, I doubt it would be hard for ISPs to know which packets belong to which service and end user. It would require way more coordination between ISPs than they are willing to do. Also, there are too many public internet users to truly prioritize person A's traffic properly. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:891150836] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>bover_87 posted...</cite> <quote>I see. Though, I doubt it would be hard for ISPs to know which packets belong to which service and end user.</quote> It would require way more coordination between ISPs than they are willing to do. Also, there are too many public internet users to truly prioritize person A's traffic properly.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 11/27/17 3:13:10 PM #43:	CableZL posted... bover_87 posted... I see. Though, I doubt it would be hard for ISPs to know which packets belong to which service and end user. It would require way more coordination between ISPs than they are willing to do. Also, there are too many public internet users to truly prioritize person A's traffic properly. Because, the inevitability would be that everything gets tagged precedence 5. Everything. Probably in the form of "increase your internet speed!" malware. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:891151061] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>bover_87 posted...</cite> <quote>I see. Though, I doubt it would be hard for ISPs to know which packets belong to which service and end user.</quote> It would require way more coordination between ISPs than they are willing to do. Also, there are too many public internet users to truly prioritize person A's traffic properly.</quote> Because, the inevitability would be that everything gets tagged precedence 5. Everything. Probably in the form of "increase your internet speed!" malware.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
s0nicfan 11/27/17 3:14:49 PM #44:	"Guys, we're not throttling traffic. We're just going to slow EVERYTHING down and offer fast lanes for the stuff we would have otherwise throttled!" --- "History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz <cite>s0nicfan posted [p:891151157] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote>"Guys, we're not throttling traffic. We're just going to slow EVERYTHING down and offer fast lanes for the stuff we would have otherwise throttled!"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bover_87 11/27/17 3:15:58 PM #45:	CableZL posted... bover_87 posted... I see. Though, I doubt it would be hard for ISPs to know which packets belong to which service and end user. It would require way more coordination between ISPs than they are willing to do. Also, there are too many public internet users to truly prioritize person A's traffic properly. If they know that the packets originate from, say, Netflix, they could be assigned to tiers based solely on origination/destination, not even paying attention to ToS tags. Obviously they won't get every video (in this case) site ever, but I don't think most internet users are saavy enough to use mirrors and the like and they could very easily pin down YouTube and Netflix. --- I...I shall consume. Consume...consume everything. ~ [FFRK] rcr6 - Chosen Traveler/Shout/Army of One <cite>bover_87 posted [p:891151227] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>bover_87 posted...</cite> <quote>I see. Though, I doubt it would be hard for ISPs to know which packets belong to which service and end user.</quote> It would require way more coordination between ISPs than they are willing to do. Also, there are too many public internet users to truly prioritize person A's traffic properly.</quote> If they know that the packets originate from, say, Netflix, they could be assigned to tiers based solely on origination/destination, not even paying attention to ToS tags. Obviously they won't get every video (in this case) site ever, but I don't think most internet users are saavy enough to use mirrors and the like and they could very easily pin down YouTube and Netflix.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
treewojima 11/27/17 3:16:06 PM #46:	It's not feasible to implement fair QoS at an Internet level. What will happen instead is priority will go to those who are willing or able to pay more regardless of content. <cite>treewojima posted [p:891151234] in Comcast hi... [t:76036293]...</cite> <quote>It's not feasible to implement fair QoS at an Internet level. What will happen instead is priority will go to those who are willing or able to pay more regardless of content.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#47	Post #47 was unavailable or deleted.
Topic List	Page List: 1

Current Events > Comcast hints at plan for paid fast lanes after net neutrality repeal (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Comcast hints at plan for paid fast lanes after net neutrality repeal