Right. The point is Netflix has plenty of servers, and there's at least one location for them that's providing better service than L3 is, at least to just one customer. But right, this is L3's problem.

In any event, again, this is basic network (mis-)management issue, not a Net Neutrality issue.

It's still hard to tell what's going on here because both parties only seem interested in depicting the other as evil.

Level3 blames Verizon. There's some nasty stuff going on there if what they say is true. But none of it uniquely affects Netflix, it affects all Level3 customers. This is the kind of network management that the FCC has declined to intervene in.

They claimed that Verizon literally unplugged half the connections between two networks that are only half congested.

Presumably, if they added more links, the connection to that Netflix server (among other Level3 customers) would go up, but it couldn't do any better than double. (Bitrates might more than double now that there's no packet retransmissions, but it probably wouldn't increase an order of magnitude, which is what the VPN user claims.)

If a VPN really is faster, then Netflix clearly has access to unused capacity via other routes that they're not providing to customers. That is, the VPN is just doing the routing that Netflix isn't doing.

Either that, or the VPN customer is accessing the same Netflix server, which would make the VPN story is a lie, because VPN, of course, doesn't let you blast through network congestion.

Regardless, none of the accusations claim Net Neutrality violations.

What words are you talking about? I quoted directly from the FCC's rationale, and asked three questions and you answered zero of them.

And no, the FCC's only proper job is to allocate radio spectrum. Manipulation or regulation of speech is prohibited by the First Amendment.

I'm perfectly happy with OpenRC over here (I'm a Gentoo user, mostly). It has parallel startup, a fairly straightforward configuration, it's possible to run multiple instances of a daemon, and it works with Linux and BSD systems.

And most importantly, I can still run my own cron, syslog, and date systems.

How is Epoch different?

What problem is this solving, and how is Epoch uniquely solving those problems?

Crikey.
It's the shill in his natural habitat.
This particular specimen is drawn to government authority like an ignorant moth to a flame.
Note how he repeats the same myths even though he's been corrected several dozen times before.
Biologists are yet unsure whether this means his species is completely unable or willing to learn, or just that dedicated to his job.

See, I can do that too, and funny thing is, regardless of who uses this rhetorical device, it doesn't really answer the fundamental question much. Why can't the FCC do it's damn job?

The FCC specifically declined to intervene in this. From their published rationale:

As discussed, Internet traffic exchange agreements have historically been and will continue to be commercially negotiated. We do not believe that it is appropriate or necessary to subject arrangements for Internet traffic exchange (which are subsumed within broadband Internet access service) to the rules we adopt today.

Different example please?

I buy a 100Mbps connection from a local data center. Explain to me how that's different than "throttling."

If they're really getting less than their contract provides for, couldn't they just use the courts?

Why do you need the FCC?

What evidence do you have that Netflix video content is uniquely being throttled? That if I were to host my video website on L3, it wouldn't have the same connection issues?

Keep in mind Netflix is a majority of Internet traffics, so symmetric pipes are necessarily impossible.

If the FCC was really going to help, isn't that a failure of the premise of Title II regulations in the first place?

They're owned by Amazon now.

And before they were known as Twitch.tv, they were known as Justin.tv.

Treaties are only supposed to apply to the government, though. Things like military arms, conditions for extradition, taxes/tariffs, war, standards and practices by the government body (not private entities), ...

Generally when treaties cover things like trade and such, it doesn't apply to citizens until Congress (both houses) pass a law implementing it. And they're by no means obligated to.

Obviously a treaty can't cover everything. A treaty can't change the CO2 emissions of private individuals any more than it could set force of gravity ("we'll all commit to lowering the force of gravity by 0.4 percent over the next decade..." sure, it sounds silly, but stranger things have happened).

How this actually works out in practice, idk.

Which events specifically?

How does the FCC's rules stop this?

What were ISPs doing before the FCC that they're not doing now?

I know it's all popular to hate on the ISPs, but that doesn't mean we go to the government to pile on MORE layers of nastiness. I mean, the FCC can't identify any prior particular application of their own rules! The tl;dr summary of their findings is "A bunch of people came to us and expressed their concerns that sometime in the future, an ISP might start doing something nasty, so we're giving ourselves power over the Internet."

Bad memory: widescreen (2.40:1) 2k cinema is 2048x852

In my experience, it's because digital cinema projectors are measured in horizontal resolution; and a 2k projector is 2048x1080 pixels.

In digital cinema, resolutions are represented by the horizontal pixel count, usually 2K (2048×1080 or 2.2 megapixels) or 4K (4096×2160 or 8.8 megapixels).

Movies are shipped inside this frame; 1.85:1 is 1998x1080; 2.40:1 is 1920x800.

4k is double the above heights and widths, 8k is quadruple.

For general consumer TVs, they're always 16:9 so you get 1920x1080.

We might be arguing semantics here, but... I think so?

If I'm not allowed to modify a car or computer that I own, right.

If I can't sell a ticket with my name on it... well maybe I can technically sell it, but that wouldn't be of much use to the person buying it, unless they literally just want the piece of paper because it has my name on it. (And there's good reasons to put names on tickets... invitation-only or other events not open to the general public.)

But if someone actually slaps a lawsuit on me for selling the ticket, then... wat.

Sort of: Price discrimination is generally good; it's fully capitalistic practice and that's a good thing.

For instance, when an amusement park or movie theater charges less admission for children, it's because far fewer families would go there if it weren't for the price discrimination.

There's lots of price discrimination that comes about only as a result of the government, though. Plane tickets used to be transferrable, now they're not. 0.0001% because you might be a terrorist, 99.9999% because airlines ended up liking the protectionism.

Likewise for copyright, even though the Internet has no borders, the copyright model is still suck in this fantasyland where you can't put things on the Internet because that might make it available in a "bad" country.

If this is so great, easy, and cheap to put in (or next to) batteries, why isn't it in electronic devices instead? "Our wireless mouse lasts 8x longer than competitors!"

This also sounds like snake oil from a salesman who doesn't know about the law of conservation of energy:

“The time it takes for the battery voltage to drop by 0.1V is longer at lower voltages versus at higher voltages. That means that if a constant current was drawn from the battery, it would take the battery a lot longer to discharge from 1.2V to 1.1V than it would from 1.5V to 1.4V. This means that the extent to which the battery life is increased could be even higher.”

If the battery is serving a lower voltage, that means it must put out more current. So, they've either broken physics, or just no.

Not for all cases, no. Just some.