The point is not to prevent throttling, but to prevent source-dependent throttling.
Please clarify.
Come on - you know perfectly well what the issue is. The principle of net neutrality is that the ISPs and Tier 1 networks cannot discriminate traffic (different priority and speed) according to its source or content. Presumably, if, for example, as a customer you pay for a 100 Mb/s download connection, you would prefer that your ISP did not vary its actual allowed data rate to you according to the source, prioritizing those companies that were willing to pay them a premium. And we are not talking about the originating source upload connection speed, which clearly has tiered service levels, we are talking about Tier 1 transmission and the delivery ISP end of the pipe.
I couldn't disagree more.
I would welcome an ISP that prioritised traffic to iTunes at the expense of file sharing sites.
The point is not to prevent throttling, but to prevent source-dependent throttling.
Please clarify.
Come on - you know perfectly well what the issue is. The principle of net neutrality is that the ISPs and Tier 1 networks cannot discriminate traffic (different priority and speed) according to its source or content. Presumably, if, for example, as a customer you pay for a 100 Mb/s download connection, you would prefer that your ISP did not vary its actual allowed data rate to you according to the source, prioritizing those companies that were willing to pay them a premium. And we are not talking about the originating source upload connection speed, which clearly has tiered service levels, we are talking about Tier 1 transmission and the delivery ISP end of the pipe.
I couldn't disagree more.
I would welcome an ISP that prioritised traffic to iTunes at the expense of file sharing sites.
I'm sure you would, if you got to set the priorities. You don't however, so it's actually in your interest (and all other customers too) to prevent the ISPs from making those decisions.
No the Taxing and Spending Clause does, which contains the General Welfare Clause.
Here's a little snippet about Social Security, which is curiously similar in origin to what's happened with "Net Neutraility"...
The constitutional basis of the Social Security Act was uncertain. The basic problem is that under the "reserve clause" of the Constitution (the 10th Amendment) powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the States or the people. When the federal government seeks to expand its influence in new areas it must find some basis in the Constitution to justify its action. Obviously, the Constitution did not specifically mention the operation of a social insurance system as a power granted to the federal government! The Committee on Economic Security (CES) struggled with this and was unsure whether to claim the commerce clause or the broad power to levy taxes and expend funds to "provide for the general welfare," as the basis for the programs in the Act. Ultimately, the CES opted for the taxing power as the basis for the new program, and the Congress agreed, but how the courts would see this choice was very much an open question.
The power to apply taxes obviously exceeds the "general welfare" argument. There is no doubt that Net Neutrality will be funded as a tax, which will be demanded by the service providers, that is, the remaining service providers. There will be a period of consolidation and likely a new monopoly created out of this political idiocy. There will be yet another fee levied on the middle and upper class, guaranteed. Just like the ACA, just like Social Security, just like every massive government program, which eventually becomes a baked-in entitlement for the lazy and stupid class.
No the Taxing and Spending Clause does, which contains the General Welfare Clause.
Here's a little snippet about Social Security, which is curiously similar in origin to what's happened with "Net Neutraility"...
The constitutional basis of the Social Security Act was uncertain. The basic problem is that under the "reserve clause" of the Constitution (the 10th Amendment) powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the States or the people. When the federal government seeks to expand its influence in new areas it must find some basis in the Constitution to justify its action. Obviously, the Constitution did not specifically mention the operation of a social insurance system as a power granted to the federal government! The Committee on Economic Security (CES) struggled with this and was unsure whether to claim the commerce clause or the broad power to levy taxes and expend funds to "provide for the general welfare," as the basis for the programs in the Act. Ultimately, the CES opted for the taxing power as the basis for the new program, and the Congress agreed, but how the courts would see this choice was very much an open question.
The power to apply taxes obviously exceeds the "general welfare" argument. There is no doubt that Net Neutrality will be funded as a tax, which will be demanded by the service providers, that is, the remaining service providers. There will be a period of consolidation and likely a new monopoly created out of this political idiocy. There will be yet another fee levied on the middle and upper class, guaranteed. Just like the ACA, just like Social Security, just like every massive government program, which eventually becomes a baked-in entitlement for the lazy and stupid class.
Net Neutrality is just a set of proposed regulations to prevent traffic prioritization at the whim of the ISPs. How on earth are you managing to conflate that with "a massive government program" that requires funding by taxation or, for that matter, with anything at all to do with the Constitution?
Nice little irrelevant snippet, by the way, that, with depressing inevitability, is about as unrelated to Net Neutrality as one could get. But I'm sure everyone is relieved to know that you think that the SSA was constitutional.
Net Neutrality is just a set of proposed regulations to prevent traffic prioritization at the whim of the ISPs. How on earth are you managing to conflate that with "a massive government program" that requires funding by taxation or, for that matter, with anything at all to do with the Constitution?
Nice little irrelevant snippet, by the way, that, with depressing inevitability, is about as unrelated to Net Neutrality as one could get. But I'm sure everyone is relieved to know that you think that the SSA was constitutional.
Thank you. You communicated that much more succinctly than I could have done. I'm flabbergasted at the train of thought in his/her response.
Net Neutrality is just a set of proposed regulations to prevent traffic prioritization at the whim of the ISPs. How on earth are you managing to conflate that with "a massive government program" that requires funding by taxation or, for that matter, with anything at all to do with the Constitution?
Maybe he doesn't like the notion that all packets are treated equally:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all network packets are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Connection, Transfer and the pursuit of Acknowledgement."
Then you get packets coming into your domain where they don't belong, stealing bandwidth from other packets, demanding unearned privileges. Nothing comes for free and we just can't afford all those packets being treated equally. Cut packet funding and let them compete for the bandwidth and may the best packets win. If not, people will have to take matters into their own hands and build a bigger firewall to keep unwanted packets out.
Net Neutrality is just a set of proposed regulations to prevent traffic prioritization at the whim of the ISPs. How on earth are you managing to conflate that with "a massive government program" that requires funding by taxation or, for that matter, with anything at all to do with the Constitution?
Maybe he doesn't like the notion that all packets are treated equally:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all network packets are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Connection, Transfer and the pursuit of Acknowledgement."
Then you get packets coming into your domain where they don't belong, stealing bandwidth from other packets, demanding unearned privileges and not earning it. Nothing comes for free and we just can't afford all those packets being treated equally. Cut packet funding and let them compete for the bandwidth and may the best packets win. If not, people will have to take matters into their own hands and build a bigger firewall to keep unwanted packets out.
That is hilarious. Unfortunately, you have simultaneously ridiculed all manner of truths, deities and inalienable stuff that are held dear by the irrationals, and since freedom of speech does not extend to people who disagree with them, expect swift and brutal retaliation. Denial of service probably, or some shit like that.
That is hilarious. Unfortunately, you have simultaneously ridiculed all manner of truths, deities and inalienable stuff that are held dear by the irrationals, and since freedom of speech does not extend to people who disagree with them, expect swift and brutal retaliation. Denial of service probably, or some shit like that.
Pure nonsense and freedom of speech plays no part in this.
Pure nonsense and freedom of speech plays no part in this.
Freedom of speech comes into it because certain protocol packets can be throttled. The people behind MegaUpload and Bittorrent want to make P2P chat software to allow you to exchange messages without being spied on. If ISPs block or throttle those packets then they are suppressing your ability to say what you want without fear of retribution.
The more likely factor affected is free competition. Comcast owns part of Hulu. It's in their best interests to ensure that Hulu performs better than Netflix. There's nothing in the law that says they can't slow down Netflix traffic and promote Hulu traffic. Net Neutrality laws would be able to punish them for doing that. If everyone's speed drops as a result of net neutrality then people will move to another provider but the ISPs won't just sit idly by and lose customers, they will be forced into improving their infrastructure. They have tiered bandwidth anyway so they can say that lower packages aren't suitable for things like sustained 1080p or 4K streaming or online gaming. If you want low latency and higher sustained bandwidth then you have to take a particular package.
That is hilarious. Unfortunately, you have simultaneously ridiculed all manner of truths, deities and inalienable stuff that are held dear by the irrationals, and since freedom of speech does not extend to people who disagree with them, expect swift and brutal retaliation. Denial of service probably, or some shit like that.
Pure nonsense and freedom of speech plays no part in this.
Fascinating. Not only are you unable to distinguish Net Neutrality from the ACA, but you can't tell humor from argument, and apparently can't respond coherently to either.
Fascinating. Not only are you unable to distinguish Net Neutrality from the ACA, but you can't tell humor from argument, and apparently can't respond coherently to either.
I find it bizarre that you find a vast distinction between the two. They are both government-created impositions on markets that are over regulated as it is. Both should be deregulated and REAL competition allowed to do its thing. Open up competition to all kinds of unexpected players and create new efficiencies instead of having the effect of shutting down smaller players, limiting options and stagnating investment. Wherever the hand of government interferes and attempts to control, consumers and taxpayers get the rotten end of the deal.
Fascinating. Not only are you unable to distinguish Net Neutrality from the ACA, but you can't tell humor from argument, and apparently can't respond coherently to either.
I find it bizarre that you find a vast distinction between the two. They are both government-created impositions on markets that are over regulated as it is. Both should be deregulated and REAL competition allowed to do its thing. Open up competition to all kinds of unexpected players and create new efficiencies instead of having the effect of shutting down smaller players, limiting options and stagnating investment. Wherever the hand of government interferes and attempts to control, consumers and taxpayers get the rotten end of the deal.
Oh - so now you do want to discuss this? OK. So - just to be clear - you are arguing that you see no problem with the situation where you purchase internet service from an ISP, typically defined by upload and download rates, but then the ISP deliberately and arbitrarily delivers data to you at lower rates, not because of network saturation, but based on the content and where it is coming from? Not because they can't deliver it faster, but because they want to extract money from the content providers, who are likely not even their customers and are already paying other ISPs or Tier 1 networks for their upload bandwidth. They are doing that, of course, because their sales model - sell far more bandwidth than actually exists in the hope that customers will not actually try to use it - has been under serious pressure from the increasing use of internet service for high-bandwidth, massive data uses, such as movie streaming.
In my view that's implicit breach of contract by the ISPs, and thus abuse of the free market, but the whole area is not adequately defined legally to prevent them from doing that at present. Are you not offended that they would do that, and do you not think that it is an appropriate area in which to codify a few regulations to prevent them from doing so?
The free market, in many industries today, is a shadow of Adam Smith's vision that requires competition between multiple, equivalent, unconnected businesses to drive the market to equilibrium. If the market becomes dominated by a few large players, and especially if they engage in cartel behavior, the new, small players have no chance to succeed, the equilibrium is destroyed, and the customer is screwed. The observation that this is often exactly what happens is what has led to the hybrid, regulated free market that exists in most developed countries. We are definitely at that stage in this business - the up front infrastructure costs are way too high for further deregulation to allow more competition. Instead, self-evidently, it is producing mergers and less competition. The limited regulation so far, such as requiring backbone networks to allow peer traffic on their networks, has helped, not hindered, in terms of choice.
Why do I see a vast distinction between Net Neutrality and the ACA? Firstly, because still this is simply about business, not social welfare, and so the equivalence with ACA fails immediately. There might be some comparison to draw if the intent were to mandate some level of internet service to all Americans, and create a Government-funded program to ensure that it happened. But it has absolutely nothing to do with that; there is no such intent and no Government-funded program being proposed here - it is just a few, carefully worded regulations that forbid what is, essentially, anti-competitive behavior by the ISPs.
It is a market regulation issue, and if you think that unregulated competition is a better way to fix this then please explain how? But on their own, terms such as "unexpected players" and "new efficiencies" are just meaningless platitudes.
Comments
I couldn't disagree more.
I would welcome an ISP that prioritised traffic to iTunes at the expense of file sharing sites.
I couldn't disagree more.
I would welcome an ISP that prioritised traffic to iTunes at the expense of file sharing sites.
The point is not to prevent throttling, but to prevent source-dependent throttling.
Please clarify.
Come on - you know perfectly well what the issue is. The principle of net neutrality is that the ISPs and Tier 1 networks cannot discriminate traffic (different priority and speed) according to its source or content. Presumably, if, for example, as a customer you pay for a 100 Mb/s download connection, you would prefer that your ISP did not vary its actual allowed data rate to you according to the source, prioritizing those companies that were willing to pay them a premium. And we are not talking about the originating source upload connection speed, which clearly has tiered service levels, we are talking about Tier 1 transmission and the delivery ISP end of the pipe.
I couldn't disagree more.
I would welcome an ISP that prioritised traffic to iTunes at the expense of file sharing sites.
I'm sure you would, if you got to set the priorities. You don't however, so it's actually in your interest (and all other customers too) to prevent the ISPs from making those decisions.
I couldn't disagree more.
I would welcome an ISP that prioritised traffic to iTunes at the expense of file sharing sites.
And you're against a free market and an advocate for low speeds for all.
And you're against a free market and an advocate for low speeds for all.
Net Neutrality ensures a free and fair market.
Great now the 'free market' people are out.
Which makes it all the more amazing that you still can’t comprehend that I wasn’t the one to make the assocation.
Yeah, sorry, already proved you wrong.
Which makes it all the more amazing that you still can’t comprehend that I wasn’t the one to make the assocation.
Yeah, sorry, already proved you wrong.
Just because you say you did doesn't make it so. It's pretty clear you're not capable of an honest debate.
No the Taxing and Spending Clause does, which contains the General Welfare Clause.
Here's a little snippet about Social Security, which is curiously similar in origin to what's happened with "Net Neutraility"...
The power to apply taxes obviously exceeds the "general welfare" argument. There is no doubt that Net Neutrality will be funded as a tax, which will be demanded by the service providers, that is, the remaining service providers. There will be a period of consolidation and likely a new monopoly created out of this political idiocy. There will be yet another fee levied on the middle and upper class, guaranteed. Just like the ACA, just like Social Security, just like every massive government program, which eventually becomes a baked-in entitlement for the lazy and stupid class.
No the Taxing and Spending Clause does, which contains the General Welfare Clause.
Here's a little snippet about Social Security, which is curiously similar in origin to what's happened with "Net Neutraility"...
The power to apply taxes obviously exceeds the "general welfare" argument. There is no doubt that Net Neutrality will be funded as a tax, which will be demanded by the service providers, that is, the remaining service providers. There will be a period of consolidation and likely a new monopoly created out of this political idiocy. There will be yet another fee levied on the middle and upper class, guaranteed. Just like the ACA, just like Social Security, just like every massive government program, which eventually becomes a baked-in entitlement for the lazy and stupid class.
Net Neutrality is just a set of proposed regulations to prevent traffic prioritization at the whim of the ISPs. How on earth are you managing to conflate that with "a massive government program" that requires funding by taxation or, for that matter, with anything at all to do with the Constitution?
Nice little irrelevant snippet, by the way, that, with depressing inevitability, is about as unrelated to Net Neutrality as one could get. But I'm sure everyone is relieved to know that you think that the SSA was constitutional.
Net Neutrality is just a set of proposed regulations to prevent traffic prioritization at the whim of the ISPs. How on earth are you managing to conflate that with "a massive government program" that requires funding by taxation or, for that matter, with anything at all to do with the Constitution?
Nice little irrelevant snippet, by the way, that, with depressing inevitability, is about as unrelated to Net Neutrality as one could get. But I'm sure everyone is relieved to know that you think that the SSA was constitutional.
Thank you. You communicated that much more succinctly than I could have done. I'm flabbergasted at the train of thought in his/her response.
Maybe he doesn't like the notion that all packets are treated equally:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all network packets are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Connection, Transfer and the pursuit of Acknowledgement."
Then you get packets coming into your domain where they don't belong, stealing bandwidth from other packets, demanding unearned privileges. Nothing comes for free and we just can't afford all those packets being treated equally. Cut packet funding and let them compete for the bandwidth and may the best packets win. If not, people will have to take matters into their own hands and build a bigger firewall to keep unwanted packets out.
Net Neutrality is just a set of proposed regulations to prevent traffic prioritization at the whim of the ISPs. How on earth are you managing to conflate that with "a massive government program" that requires funding by taxation or, for that matter, with anything at all to do with the Constitution?
Maybe he doesn't like the notion that all packets are treated equally:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all network packets are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Connection, Transfer and the pursuit of Acknowledgement."
Then you get packets coming into your domain where they don't belong, stealing bandwidth from other packets, demanding unearned privileges and not earning it. Nothing comes for free and we just can't afford all those packets being treated equally. Cut packet funding and let them compete for the bandwidth and may the best packets win. If not, people will have to take matters into their own hands and build a bigger firewall to keep unwanted packets out.
That is hilarious. Unfortunately, you have simultaneously ridiculed all manner of truths, deities and inalienable stuff that are held dear by the irrationals, and since freedom of speech does not extend to people who disagree with them, expect swift and brutal retaliation. Denial of service probably, or some shit like that.
Pure nonsense and freedom of speech plays no part in this.
Freedom of speech comes into it because certain protocol packets can be throttled. The people behind MegaUpload and Bittorrent want to make P2P chat software to allow you to exchange messages without being spied on. If ISPs block or throttle those packets then they are suppressing your ability to say what you want without fear of retribution.
The more likely factor affected is free competition. Comcast owns part of Hulu. It's in their best interests to ensure that Hulu performs better than Netflix. There's nothing in the law that says they can't slow down Netflix traffic and promote Hulu traffic. Net Neutrality laws would be able to punish them for doing that. If everyone's speed drops as a result of net neutrality then people will move to another provider but the ISPs won't just sit idly by and lose customers, they will be forced into improving their infrastructure. They have tiered bandwidth anyway so they can say that lower packages aren't suitable for things like sustained 1080p or 4K streaming or online gaming. If you want low latency and higher sustained bandwidth then you have to take a particular package.
Fascinating. Not only are you unable to distinguish Net Neutrality from the ACA, but you can't tell humor from argument, and apparently can't respond coherently to either.
I find it bizarre that you find a vast distinction between the two. They are both government-created impositions on markets that are over regulated as it is. Both should be deregulated and REAL competition allowed to do its thing. Open up competition to all kinds of unexpected players and create new efficiencies instead of having the effect of shutting down smaller players, limiting options and stagnating investment. Wherever the hand of government interferes and attempts to control, consumers and taxpayers get the rotten end of the deal.
Fascinating. Not only are you unable to distinguish Net Neutrality from the ACA, but you can't tell humor from argument, and apparently can't respond coherently to either.
I find it bizarre that you find a vast distinction between the two. They are both government-created impositions on markets that are over regulated as it is. Both should be deregulated and REAL competition allowed to do its thing. Open up competition to all kinds of unexpected players and create new efficiencies instead of having the effect of shutting down smaller players, limiting options and stagnating investment. Wherever the hand of government interferes and attempts to control, consumers and taxpayers get the rotten end of the deal.
Oh - so now you do want to discuss this? OK. So - just to be clear - you are arguing that you see no problem with the situation where you purchase internet service from an ISP, typically defined by upload and download rates, but then the ISP deliberately and arbitrarily delivers data to you at lower rates, not because of network saturation, but based on the content and where it is coming from? Not because they can't deliver it faster, but because they want to extract money from the content providers, who are likely not even their customers and are already paying other ISPs or Tier 1 networks for their upload bandwidth. They are doing that, of course, because their sales model - sell far more bandwidth than actually exists in the hope that customers will not actually try to use it - has been under serious pressure from the increasing use of internet service for high-bandwidth, massive data uses, such as movie streaming.
In my view that's implicit breach of contract by the ISPs, and thus abuse of the free market, but the whole area is not adequately defined legally to prevent them from doing that at present. Are you not offended that they would do that, and do you not think that it is an appropriate area in which to codify a few regulations to prevent them from doing so?
The free market, in many industries today, is a shadow of Adam Smith's vision that requires competition between multiple, equivalent, unconnected businesses to drive the market to equilibrium. If the market becomes dominated by a few large players, and especially if they engage in cartel behavior, the new, small players have no chance to succeed, the equilibrium is destroyed, and the customer is screwed. The observation that this is often exactly what happens is what has led to the hybrid, regulated free market that exists in most developed countries. We are definitely at that stage in this business - the up front infrastructure costs are way too high for further deregulation to allow more competition. Instead, self-evidently, it is producing mergers and less competition. The limited regulation so far, such as requiring backbone networks to allow peer traffic on their networks, has helped, not hindered, in terms of choice.
Why do I see a vast distinction between Net Neutrality and the ACA? Firstly, because still this is simply about business, not social welfare, and so the equivalence with ACA fails immediately. There might be some comparison to draw if the intent were to mandate some level of internet service to all Americans, and create a Government-funded program to ensure that it happened. But it has absolutely nothing to do with that; there is no such intent and no Government-funded program being proposed here - it is just a few, carefully worded regulations that forbid what is, essentially, anti-competitive behavior by the ISPs.
It is a market regulation issue, and if you think that unregulated competition is a better way to fix this then please explain how? But on their own, terms such as "unexpected players" and "new efficiencies" are just meaningless platitudes.
Just because you say you did doesn't make it so. It's pretty clear you're not capable of an honest debate.
Except I didn’t just say so. I proved so. Now shut up.