That's your example? A single test done by Verizon against slowing down ALL video streams (read the Update at the bottom of the story)- which wasn't specific to Netflix and therefore consistent to all traffic and not a violation of NN? If that's what you can find you're helping me prove my point.
And that's one story from over a year ago. Shouldn't there be quite a few of these from after NN was repealed? You won't find one. Because a) there are other rules against throttling and favortism and b) the social media outcry would be WAY more bad publicity than just keeping things even.
Thanks Wiyosaya for finding a good example of a seemingly NN case that's actually extortion (from the article) and therefore already illegal.
I expect he would be under investigation. Not that he's done anything illegal. But we stopped investigating crimes a while ago - now we investigate people to look for a crime so we can remove them from office and throw them in jail. Gross violation of rights, but when the person is disliked by the loudest part of the population it's allowed to happen.
Where did I say anything about it applying only to netflix? I didn't, nice try at a scarecrow argument though. Throttling video across the board is, obviously, still throttling. They are targeting a specific use and slowing it down. It's the exact same as throttling P2P traffic. Here's the wiki on it
"In 2007,
Comcast was caught interfering with peer-to-peer traffic. Specifically, it falsified packets of data that fooled users and their peer-to-peer programs into thinking they were transferring files.
[20] Comcast initially denied that it interfered with its subscribers' uploads, but later admitted it.
[21] The FCC held a hearing and concluded that Comcast violated the principles of the Internet Policy Statement because Comcast's "discriminatory and arbitrary practice unduly squelched the dynamic benefits of an open and accessible Internet and did not constitute reasonable network management."
[22] The FCC also provided clear guidelines to any ISP wishing to engage in reasonable network management. The FCC suggested ways that Comcast could have achieved its goal of stopping network congestion, including capping the average user's capacity and charging the most aggressive users overage (going over a maximum) fees, throttling back the connections of all high capacity users, or negotiating directly with the application providers and developing new technologies.
[23]
However, in 2008,
Comcast amended their Acceptable Usage Policy and placed a specific 250 GB monthly cap. Comcast has also announced a new bandwidth-throttling plan. The scheme includes a two-class system of "priority-best-effort" and "best-effort" where "sustained use of 70% of your up or downstream throughput triggers the BE state, at which point you'll find your traffic priority lowered until your usage drops to 50% of your provisioned upstream or downstream bandwidth for "a period of approximately 15 minutes". A throttled Comcast user being placed in a BE state "may or may not result in the user's traffic being delayed or, in extreme cases, dropped before PBE traffic is dropped". Comcast explained to the FCC that "If there is no congestion, packets from a user in a BE state should have little trouble getting on the bus when they arrive at the bus stop. If, on the other hand, there is congestion in a particular instance, the bus may become filled by packets in a PBE state before any BE packets can get on. In that situation, the BE packets would have to wait for the next bus that is not filled by PBE packets".
[24]
US cell phone ISP's have also increasingly resorted to bandwidth throttling in their networks.
Verizon and
AT&T even applied such throttling to data plans advertised as "unlimited", resulting in pushback from the FCC and the FTC respectively.
[25]"
and this
https://www.cabletv.com/blog/your-objective-guide-to-internet-throttling/
And the many many reports of throttling going on on the charter / dslreport forums. You could be at it all day.
You won't find one. Because a) there are other rules against throttling and favortism and b) the social media outcry would be WAY more bad publicity than just keeping things even.
Oh yeah? Let's see a link to the rules that outlaw throttling and favoritism. Lets see ya grasp those straws.
I expect he would be under investigation. Not that he's done anything illegal. But we stopped investigating crimes a while ago - now we investigate people to look for a crime so we can remove them from office and throw them in jail. Gross violation of rights, but when the person is disliked by the loudest part of the population it's allowed to happen.
Exactly, just like Benghazi. Took them fours year to find nothing. But hey, I support investigations in general and will take any opportunity to assess potential misdeeds. I support our right to find the truth, just like I support the Mueller probe as well. I'd appreciate it if you spent less time dividing Americans (assuming you aren't Russian) and support the proper judicial process regardless of your innate bias.
