I already have the highest bandwith for Spectrum and still lag when playing call of duty.  Can I get my money back?

Lag has nothing to do with badwith and everything to do with ping, bad pings are caused by distance.

Have you seen all the "unlimited" plans by the wireless carriers? It's the same way, you have a grandfathered plan you're Ok but eventually they'll get the majority of people to change contracts that allow throttling, cap video resolution, music quality, etc.

Your home Internet will be the same way, you'll have to pay more if you want what you have now.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

They can still do that even with net neutrality.

I already have the highest bandwith for Spectrum and still lag when playing call of duty.  Can I get my money back?

If you run the online SpeedTest from Ookla, you'll see several things.  You'll see the latency (how long it takes a network packet to travel between points), the average bandwidth speed measured in MegaBits Per Second for both upload and download directions, and the minimum & maximum speeds for upload/download speeds.

When it comes to gaming, the disparity between upload and download speeds is what's most important.  Cable modems use Coaxial Cable to deliver the TV/Internet signal.  There's a solid wire and a bunch of shielding.  Being able to generate duplex (simultaneous 2-way) communications to the modem over a single conductor was a feat in itself.  Then with new compression algorithms and hardware, they've greatly exceeded the 10Mbps theoretical speed of what was "thin net" bandwidth speeds.

For the longest time, the download speeds were ever-increasing, but the upload speed was constrained at 10Mbps.  Not too long ago, the upload speed doubled to 20Mbps.  Depending on the service provider and the modem you use, compression can get up to 1GB download speeds, but here on Oahu, 300Mbps is Spectrum's max.  Those download speeds are possible because of compression and decompression of the data as it's transmitted from the local RoadRunner routers to the home.

Speeds are limited to the fastest link in a path to/from the client/server.  So, if you're connecting to a server in New York, and the path to Hawaii is being routed through a slower than 300Mbps segment, you won't be able to get full speed between that server and your PC.  Tests to the local RoadRunner router will show 300Mbps+, but that's just the closest segment to your home.  You can select test servers on Ookla in the area you are seeing sluggishness from to see whether the problem is the server or the wide area network.

There are other factors affecting speed.  One is the pattern of Internet use of your neighbors.  Bandwidth is redirected on routers as demand increases and decreases.  If demand of your neighborhood increases suddenly at 6PM, you will see sluggish response times until (if) the routers compensate for the load.

Back to gaming.  When you shoot a player, there is a 2-part packet exchange:  you send a kill packet, and he receives that kill packet.  If your download speeds are way faster than your upload speeds, as is the case with all cable modems, you'll be DOWNLOADING his kill packets long before he ever receives your uploaded kill packets.  The solution for a laggy connection is a balanced connection.  Many gamers like DSL better and pay for the extra speeds to be balanced, making the game fairer.  Some players who like to win at all cost will use an unbalanced line so they have faster uploads than downloads, basically the reverse of a cable connection, slowing down the virtual bullets for incoming attacks and speeding up outgoing.

Bottom line:  cable internet is "laggy" for gamers at all speed levels.  I've seen many gamers create "Cable Modem Only" rooms to make the game fair.  Otherwise a DSL player just wipes the floor with everyone else.

Google is a huge proponent of Net Neutrality. Rumor is they wrote the regulation. However, Google is not effected at all by the Net Neutrailty regulations. So they can still do what they want and to whom they want. It gives them all leeway they want to stifle competitors. Here is a great article explaining how Net Neutrality government regulation really effects the Internet:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24004/everything-you-need-know-about-why-net-neutrality-harry-khachatrian

The talking points for Net Neutrality are aimed at scaring the unknowing and those who don't understand how the Internet is truly implemented. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with Neutrality at all. It is a way for Google and other large Internet companies to have a huge advantage over their smaller competition. Which is why neutrality is a lie of the left and proponents of this government regulation.

The facts are this, in the approximate 20 years of Internet prior to 2015 when this government regulation was implemented by the Marxist Obama, not one company or website was throttled by any ISP due solely to competitive reasons. Not one company that has the ability to throttle any website they feel like has ever done it. And they certainly don't give a flying crap about a small peanuts site such as this site. Nor do they care about small peanuts like the end users. Net Neutrality is designed to give Google a huge advantage over their competitors and all of us should be more worried about lack of competition than the lies of the left. JMHO

Not much is going to change with net neutrality gone.  We've been doing fine prior to it.  Blood is not going to run through the streets and the earth will not implode.

Trump is fulfilling his pledge to cut regulations and exceeding expectations.  This is one of them.

If you run the online SpeedTest from Ookla, you'll see several things.  You'll see the latency (how long it takes a network packet to travel between points), the average bandwidth speed measured in MegaBits Per Second for both upload and download directions, and the minimum & maximum speeds for upload/download speeds.

When it comes to gaming, the disparity between upload and download speeds is what's most important.  Cable modems use Coaxial Cable to deliver the TV/Internet signal.  There's a solid wire and a bunch of shielding.  Being able to generate duplex (simultaneous 2-way) communications to the modem over a single conductor was a feat in itself.  Then with new compression algorithms and hardware, they've greatly exceeded the 10Mbps theoretical speed of what was "thin net" bandwidth speeds.

For the longest time, the download speeds were ever-increasing, but the upload speed was constrained at 10Mbps.  Not too long ago, the upload speed doubled to 20Mbps.  Depending on the service provider and the modem you use, compression can get up to 1GB download speeds, but here on Oahu, 300Mbps is Spectrum's max.  Those download speeds are possible because of compression and decompression of the data as it's transmitted from the local RoadRunner routers to the home.

Speeds are limited to the fastest link in a path to/from the client/server.  So, if you're connecting to a server in New York, and the path to Hawaii is being routed through a slower than 300Mbps segment, you won't be able to get full speed between that server and your PC.  Tests to the local RoadRunner router will show 300Mbps+, but that's just the closest segment to your home.  You can select test servers on Ookla in the area you are seeing sluggishness from to see whether the problem is the server or the wide area network.

There are other factors affecting speed.  One is the pattern of Internet use of your neighbors.  Bandwidth is redirected on routers as demand increases and decreases.  If demand of your neighborhood increases suddenly at 6PM, you will see sluggish response times until (if) the routers compensate for the load.

Back to gaming.  When you shoot a player, there is a 2-part packet exchange:  you send a kill packet, and he receives that kill packet.  If your download speeds are way faster than your upload speeds, as is the case with all cable modems, you'll be DOWNLOADING his kill packets long before he ever receives your uploaded kill packets.  The solution for a laggy connection is a balanced connection.  Many gamers like DSL better and pay for the extra speeds to be balanced, making the game fairer.  Some players who like to win at all cost will use an unbalanced line so they have faster uploads than downloads, basically the reverse of a cable connection, slowing down the virtual bullets for incoming attacks and speeding up outgoing.

Bottom line:  cable internet is "laggy" for gamers at all speed levels.  I've seen many gamers create "Cable Modem Only" rooms to make the game fair.  Otherwise a DSL player just wipes the floor with everyone else.

Flapp, this is a pretty good explanation of how the system here works. You put a lot of time into this.

What I can suggest if you have the funds is to get business class Internet which usually has a balanced upload/download connection. Or at the very least, it has a much higher upload speed than your standard Internet connection. While I don't know the specifics of Spectrum's business class connection I am sure it will help with the latency and upload speeds that sometimes plagues gamers. I know when I was running my own server at home I had to pay for business class in order to provide good download speeds to my customers.

BTW, when I ran my own server at home it was attacked mercilessly by hackers. They actually took up a lot of my bandwidth at times running their password brute force attacks and other things.

Flapp, this is a pretty good explanation of how the system here works. You put a lot of time into this.

What I can suggest if you have the funds is to get business class Internet which usually has a balanced upload/download connection. Or at the very least, it has a much higher upload speed than your standard Internet connection. While I don't know the specifics of Spectrum's business class connection I am sure it will help with the latency and upload speeds that sometimes plagues gamers. I know when I was running my own server at home I had to pay for business class in order to provide good download speeds to my customers.

BTW, when I ran my own server at home it was attacked mercilessly by hackers. They actually took up a lot of my bandwidth at times running their password brute force attacks and other things.

Yeah, for my servers running Linux, I set up scripts to run nightly that "scraped" IP addresses from my security logs, identified which ones were not US-based, and added them to the "block list" for my firewall.  The vast majority of foreign IPs where Chinese, followed by German, French and Russian.  Lots also came through African countries like Nigeria.

Sometimes when the internet seems slow, I try the speedtest and get the standard 330mbps to Honolulu. I then try a mainland server and get about half, probably because some asshole shark is chewing on the cable lines. Right now, I'm getting 100mbps but I blame my neighbors for watching too much porn at home. I hated my mom's DSL (too slow and laggy)  since that's all she could get and never tried it at home myself.

Since WW2, Presidents have always gone back and forth with regulation/deregulation. Obama regulates the banking industry, Reagan deregulates the airline industry, etc. The only discrepancy I can think of is when Nixon signed the OSHA and EPA bills. The GOP is all about cutting taxes and deregulation. The Dems are all about discretionary spending and regulations. It's the balance in the Force. (Yes, going to see it tonight.) Eventually the Dems will get into power and enact new regulations, and then the GOP again, and then the Dems, etc. Thanks to our (failing?) government system, I'm not too worried.

The internet looks at censorship as a roadblock and tries to get around it. Chairman Pai says that net deregulation will lead to innovation, I suppose like a new Apple or Microsoft. That's highly unlikely since it's all been done before. What's more likely is that someone will innovate a new internet like the darkweb but less seedy and disgusting (unless you're an Alabama politician). This will bankrupt the current internet giants, their corporate stocks will crash, and the world will be a better place.

If you want to know what the future innovations will be, take a look at all of the mundane time sucks that occur in our lives. In the past, washing dishes taking too long... dishwashers. Too long to cook dinner... microwaves. Newspapers and magazines too cumbersome... fake news. The biggest time suck I can see today is the daily commute to work. In 20 years, the new internet and driverless cars will eliminate most of this. Someday, our robot overlords will lead us to a brighter tomorrow and no one will notice or care.

If you want to know what the future innovations will be, take a look at all of the mundane time sucks that occur in our lives. In the past, washing dishes taking too long... dishwashers. Too long to cook dinner... microwaves. Newspapers and magazines too cumbersome... fake news. The biggest time suck I can see today is the daily commute to work. In 20 years, the new internet and driverless cars will eliminate most of this. Someday, our robot overlords will lead us to a brighter tomorrow and no one will notice or care.

That's how progress is supposed to work, but if you take a closer look it's not working at all. Half the country is below the poverty line and dishwasher sales (along with other consumerfabulous wonders) are collecting dust on the shelves. Our economy is in the toilet, but people who aren't out on the street yet can pretend everything's okay thanks to deficit spending, overpriced healthcare, and all sorts of financial shenanigans/speculative bubbles.

The reason people haven't risen up to take back runaway government is because radio and television are owned by five huge corporations and most of what gets broadcast are self-serving lies. Back in their day radio and TV were celebrated as wonder technologies that would restore democracy, but the same thing that happened to them is what's happening to the internet now. Hijacked by corporate interests.

Now they have us right where they want us, fighting each other in some b.s. culture war so we can't see that Google's tepid stance against neutrality was just for show so that they didn't instantly loose market share for supporting such an unpopular policy. This policy is a big win for them. They can afford to take over as much bandwidth as they need to control information and crush competition. It will be like radio and tv now. Crappy programming and lame advertisements, except those who can still afford it at that point will be much more likely to get their identity stolen if they use it for anything serious like banking.

And as far as building a new internet that will compete? Good luck with finding someone to foot the bill for all the cables, power, and server space. There are easier ways to get money from people without being so industrious, like bribing regulators and setting up new monopolies.

That's the point of innovation and net deregulation. This allows someone to think of something new that bypasses the existing infrastructure. Look at Bitcoin. Someone figured out how to bypass the banking infrastructure and government oversight. How much is it up to these days? Sure it's a bubble that's about to pop but it is a wonder.

Or another way to look at it is this, it’s like a toll road .

Drive at 60MPH on the regular freeway or pay $10 a month and drive on the express freeway at $70 but that freeway only goes to one destination unlike the regular freeway which goes everywhere

Not the best comparison. Under net neutrality, an internet provider could always charge the end user more for more speed. The issue with net neutrality is that content providers can now be limited, charged extra, and essentially killed.

Additionally with a freeway that has an express road you can always take street roads. With the internet, many if not most, areas have no other internet options. It severely limits the ability of consumers from affecting internet providers and it also severely limits the capability of other companies to compete. This is why electricity and water companies are regulated as utilities.

What happens if an internet provider decides to charge more for data from republican content providers?

Google very strongly supports Net Neutrality:

https://www.google.com/takeaction/

They have from the very beginning and are still staunch proponents for this government regulation.

Based on information from their own website it appears they will not have to abide by the Net Neutrality regulation because of how they connect to the Internet.

https://peering.google.com/#/infrastructure

So why would Google support a regulation that adversely effects their competition but not them? Only one logical conclusion is to squash their competition.

So why would Google support a regulation that adversely effects their competition but not them? Only one logical conclusion is to squash their competition.

For the same reason people who pay no income tax are for higher taxes & against tax cuts.   

Not the best comparison. Under net neutrality, an internet provider could always charge the end user more for more speed. The issue with net neutrality is that content providers can now be limited, charged extra, and essentially killed.

Additionally with a freeway that has an express road you can always take street roads. With the internet, many if not most, areas have no other internet options. It severely limits the ability of consumers from affecting internet providers and it also severely limits the capability of other companies to compete. This is why electricity and water companies are regulated as utilities.

What happens if an internet provider decides to charge more for data from republican content providers?

no.

Your implication is that they can slow down traffic and that's not true, you pay for XXX speed and that's what you get. If you want certain aspects/websites to go faster then you pay more.

Your either falling for left wing properganda or trolling,

no.

Your implication is that they can slow down traffic and that's not true, you pay for XXX speed and that's what you get. If you want certain aspects/websites to go faster then you pay more.

Your either falling for left wing properganda or trolling,

Please feed your quails and not the troll. I enjoyed your farm thread.

Just heard reports of Hawaii legislators working on legislation to ensure net neutrality for Hawaii. I recall Kaniala Ing’s name. I’d like to see how they are going to work that out.

no.

Your implication is that they can slow down traffic and that's not true, you pay for XXX speed and that's what you get. If you want certain aspects/websites to go faster then you pay more.

Your either falling for left wing properganda or trolling,

Neither. Again, I am not talking about the end user, I am talking about a content provider, a website. You paying more to get good speed is irrelevant if what you want is blocked or specifically slowed by an internet provider.

It seems you don't fully understand the history of this issue. Here is one of the actual specific issues that really brought this to light. Comcast, an internet provider, is also part owner of Hulu which is a direct competitor with Netflix. Comcast could then slow down the signal from Netflix instead prioritizing videos from Hulu. So use a little imagination and see how an internet provider could "slow" access to things they don't like. What if they "slowed" access pro second amendment websites? Besides, this issue doesn't just boil down to speed but any form of access so effectively the question of net neutrality could even cover whether a website is just completely banned instead of just being slowed.

And yes, an internet provider does have the capability of slowing down traffic.

Neither. Again, I am not talking about the end user, I am talking about a content provider, a website. You paying more to get good speed is irrelevant if what you want is blocked or specifically slowed by an internet provider.

It seems you don't fully understand the history of this issue. Here is one of the actual specific issues that really brought this to light. Comcast, an internet provider, is also part owner of Hulu which is a direct competitor with Netflix. Comcast could then slow down the signal from Netflix instead prioritizing videos from Hulu. So use a little imagination and see how an internet provider could "slow" access to things they don't like. What if they "slowed" access pro second amendment websites? Besides, this issue doesn't just boil down to speed but any form of access so effectively the question of net neutrality could even cover whether a website is just completely banned instead of just being slowed.

And yes, an internet provider does have the capability of slowing down traffic.

Please cite examples you know of where either incoming, outgoing or both ISPs have decreased network speeds for specific websites in the past.  They must have done this prior to Net Neutrality, or else the fear would be unfounded.

Please include links for your source material.  Otherwise, as a career IT professional, I call total BS on your claims above.

ISPs will block entire sites if they decide the content of a site is illegal or against their terns of use policy.  Other than that, they can't legally instigate random or selective interference of services.  There is a customer either at the server ISP or client ISP.  Neither of those will be on solid legal footing if they don't deliver the level of service the customer has paid for.

01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01110111 01100001 01110011 01110100 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01110100 01101001 01101101 01100101 00100000 01000110 01010000

45 45 46 20 64 6f 6e 74 20 75 6e 64 65 72 73 74 61 6e 64 20 74 68 65 20 6e 65 74