AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Net Nutrality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Net Nutrality

post #1 of 7
10/19/06 at 4:53pm
Thread Starter 
I was about to post this in Poltical Outsider because it has been made into a political issue, but this really isn't a political issue; it is just an issue.

What do people here think about Net Nutrality and the way the cable and phone companies are trying to get rid of it? What do people think about how internet speeds in the US are extremly slow compared to services in Europe and Asia, which offer speeds at 100 mb/s for comporable prices ($40/month)?

I for one thing net nutrality is an issue for many reasons, but I'll let that come out in discussion.

I did think of one way of protesting the removal of net nutrality if it occurs:

Because certain sites can be slowed down to an extremly slow crawl based on the phone companies whim of that site, if certain sites are slowed down, you can create a small software to install on web directories of anybody who wishes to fight said unfair practices which checks the speed of certain sites that have been slowed down by the cable/phone companies and loads the site's pages depending on that speed. So if Google is slowed down because the phone/cable companies don't like Google, this software (which would ideally be all over the internet on most sites) would protest by blocking access to their own site displaying a message of protest. This way, even if Yahoo is in the "fast lane", what good does it do if all of the pages it searches for won't load.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 7
10/19/06 at 9:27pm
I'm not sure that there's actually the infrastructure in place to support widespead 100mbps internet bandwidth. Right now I'm wondering how that number is devised.

Anyway, I approve of any level of deregulation, but thanks to Eisenhower's one-track-minded highway system, the US is a tough nut to crack as far as providing efficient infrastructure of any sort. I don't really think there's much of a net cartel in the states.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #3 of 7
10/19/06 at 10:15pm
The United States is two and a half times the size of Western Europe. I imagine it's a fair bit more expensive to lay out cables here.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 7
10/20/06 at 7:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel

I'm not sure that there's actually the infrastructure in place to support widespead 100mbps internet bandwidth. Right now I'm wondering how that number is devised.

I think we may have enough in the main lines, but the "last mile" (where the majority of cable needs to be laid), the local companies are messing around. It didn't help that @home went titsup due to horrible mismanagement, either.

In the late 90's, companies like worldcom and global crossing told everbody that everyone was going to have gigabit by 2001. They were lying, of course, but they still layed an incredible amount of cable.

I'm wondering if the demand for gigabit broadband was higher and the local companies had completed the last mile if those companies could've stayed in business.

At any rate, we're not filled to capacity on the infastructure we already have. The big companies like SBC and AT&T (which own much of the main lines) are just pissed because they're not selling more bandwidth.
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #5 of 7
10/20/06 at 10:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

The United States is two and a half times the size of Western Europe. I imagine it's a fair bit more expensive to lay out cables here.

We already paid for it. The government, under the Clinton admin, gave the telecoms tremendous amounts of money (looking for an article to confirm the #, but i think in hundred millions or billions). They were supposed to give us really fast internet. They stole that money, and did not provide.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 7
10/20/06 at 2:50pm
Thread Starter 
The Phone/Cable companies made a promise with the states in the early 90's saying that if they got tax breaks, they would invest in building this infrastructure of fiber glass in cities (rather than using copper wire which is what has been used and is being used for DSL/Cable today). The phone companies got the tax breaks but did not fullfill their promise. Now they are trying to get their customers to pay for it and at the same time, allowing for political advantages. In large cities, there is no reason why such a high speed infrastructure could be laid. True you won't have it across the entire US because who cares about Whyoming? (jk). It's an important issue.

Anyways, my idea to fight net nutrality if it ever becomes a serious issue: websites can begin to reject access via certain ISPs who do not practice net nutrality. That way when AT&T users can only access 10% of all the pages because the rest refuse to load because AT&T (in this hypothetical situation) is not practicing net nutrality, users will want to switch from AT&T to a provided that offers complete service.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 7
10/24/06 at 11:34am
And given the high level off technical expertise on the issue in Congress as evidenced by
Senator Ted Stevens "Series of Tubes" speech, and what happens to your own personal Internet?

Who knows what of bill of goods the Telcos and Cable Co's are trying to pull as they deal with the loss of monoploy in the landline phone bizz, perhaps they see "The Internets" as the next great
revenue stream. Surley seems like they have the incentive to build "toll roads" and have the lobbying and political clout to deal with any mere public objections.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AppleOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Net Nutrality