Interestingly that depends upon which state you are in. In parts of NY the thruway looks like it was cluster bombed.
You do realize that the democrats have been in power for 8 years now. Further bombing can be an effective way to deal with religious zealots.
Regulation is control and this is only a stepping stone to the democrats desire to censor the Internet.
The only people demanding control are the local ISP monopolies. What they oppose is government regulations stopping their monopolistic control harming end users free and unfettered access to the Internet without bias.
I pay $x/mo for Y bandwidth, Netflix pays $/mo for Y bandwidth. It's as simple as that. Companies like Comcast are double-dipping by charging companies like Netflix more because users (like me) use it? Bullsh!t.
Actually that makes all the sense I the world because you don't have the deep pockets to pay for the bandwidth you use! In the end somebody has to pay for the bandwidth used and obviously you can't get the people with shallow pockets to do that.
I'm all for the government keeping their paws off of stuff. I don't trust them. However, in this very rare instance, I think this is a perfect example of why we need legislation for companies to NOT do that.
I think you are out of touch with reality. The nature of the economy is such that those with the means pay.
Sure, you'll complain that it will harm the industry more, but I flat-out don't believe that propaganda. It's certainly not hurting companies like Google from doing its own fiber service. I think its the industry being scared to death that the FTC will handcuff their gravy-train.
If the regulations leads to less competition, especially from outsiders like Google, then is that really what you want to see. In the end if a company like Google can't make money off the services they provide then we will see less competition, less investment and declining service levels. In Google sitatunga on I wouldn't be surprised if they see advertising as a primary income source but then I have to ask, do you really want all of your internet traffic to have Google advertisements plugged in?
I, the end-user should have access to any website I choose to visit on the bandwidth I am paying for.
Yep you currently do and frankly you may find yourself giving up that freedom. The alternative here is that companies start charging by the bit. This would be similar to being charged by the second for phone calls in the past. However your bandwidth doesn't imply that the site visited by you has the bandwidth, server capacity or whatever to deviled content to you that fast.
Netflix - and other popular services - are paying for their bandwidth too and folks like Comcast are saying "You want to reach our customers at the speeds you already paid for? Well, it will cost you extra now!" Flat out wrong.
That isn't what is being said. The idea here is to guarantee a certain amount of bandwidth I'm preference to other traffic. Frankly this is the only way to assure that a service can maintain acceptable performance at the customer end node.
I hate libtards just as much as the next... this is the one exception where government needs to get involved. The FTC just better not make it all political, and just do their job.
Honestly I don't think you understand this technology. The bits are sent serially through pipes with limited bandwidth. The level of traffic varies widely based on what is happening at the moment. As such the only way for services like Netflix to be assured that their bandwidth demands are meant minute by minute is for the telco to manage bandwidth favoring the people that payed for a certain level of service.
Think I'm nuts? I can remember a day when the latest Fedora release almost completely clogged Internet traffic locally.
Government regulation causes monopolies, not competition. That canard has been trotted out so often it is now mistaken as a permanent installment. It's a complete lie.
But nobody is going to get into a business in which the initial investment is astronomical to then get into a price war.
Actually that makes all the sense I the world because you don't have the deep pockets to pay for the bandwidth you use! In the end somebody has to pay for the bandwidth used and obviously you can't get the people with shallow pockets to do that.
I think you are out of touch with reality. The nature of the economy is such that those with the means pay.
If the regulations leads to less competition, especially from outsiders like Google, then is that really what you want to see. In the end if a company like Google can't make money off the services they provide then we will see less competition, less investment and declining service levels. In Google sitatunga on I wouldn't be surprised if they see advertising as a primary income source but then I have to ask, do you really want all of your internet traffic to have Google advertisements plugged in?
Yep you currently do and frankly you may find yourself giving up that freedom. The alternative here is that companies start charging by the bit. This would be similar to being charged by the second for phone calls in the past. However your bandwidth doesn't imply that the site visited by you has the bandwidth, server capacity or whatever to deviled content to you that fast.
That isn't what is being said. The idea here is to guarantee a certain amount of bandwidth I'm preference to other traffic. Frankly this is the only way to assure that a service can maintain acceptable performance at the customer end node.
Honestly I don't think you understand this technology. The bits are sent serially through pipes with limited bandwidth. The level of traffic varies widely based on what is happening at the moment. As such the only way for services like Netflix to be assured that their bandwidth demands are meant minute by minute is for the telco to manage bandwidth favoring the people that payed for a certain level of service.
Think I'm nuts? I can remember a day when the latest Fedora release almost completely clogged Internet traffic locally.
The other way of saying that Netflix can pay to send more bits to the user is that if they don't pay their service is compromised to be unusable by the end user even if he has paid both a premium for Netflix and for his fibre connection.
The people on the wrong side of the fence are those that believe their is infinite bandwidth available for the transmission of data. There isn't and frankly demand has been growing rapidly.
Basically the problem here is that the people demanding net neutrality are impenitent of the technical realities of managing these complex networks.
Not very shocking that Republican's are on the wrong side of an issue, again.
Your perspective here is based upon a lot of ignorance that I see on this subject. The "pipes" that implement the netwrork have fix bandwidths that often vary between different modes in the network. You can't give everybody the same priority else no one would be able to function. You allocate bandwidth according to the fibers ability to carry the data. Without priorities services like Netfliks wouldn't be as realizable as they are.
The interesting thing here is that we likely wouldn't even be having this discussion if it wasn't for streaming services. The bulk transfers these services imply and the quality of service required has had a real impact on the telcos. This demand on their systems is nothing like going to a web site to view a catalog, read a blog or whatever. The resource usage is massive and as a bulk user these companies should be responsible for that excess and guaranteed access.
The people on the wrong side of the fence are those that believe their is infinite bandwidth available for the transmission of data. There isn't and frankly demand has been growing rapidly.
Basically the problem here is that the people demanding net neutrality are impenitent of the technical realities of managing these complex networks.
Your perspective here is based upon a lot of ignorance that I see on this subject. The "pipes" that implement the netwrork have fix bandwidths that often vary between different modes in the network. You can't give everybody the same priority else no one would be able to function. You allocate bandwidth according to the fibers ability to carry the data. Without priorities services like Netfliks wouldn't be as realizable as they are.
The interesting thing here is that we likely wouldn't even be having this discussion if it wasn't for streaming services. The bulk transfers these services imply and the quality of service required has had a real impact on the telcos. This demand on their systems is nothing like going to a web site to view a catalog, read a blog or whatever. The resource usage is massive and as a bulk user these companies should be responsible for that excess and guaranteed access.
Netflix is paying for higher bandwidth. You argue as if they're paying for a consumer level internet connection.
The people on the wrong side of the fence are those that believe their is infinite bandwidth available for the transmission of data. There isn't and frankly demand has been growing rapidly.
Basically the problem here is that the people demanding net neutrality are impenitent of the technical realities of managing these complex networks.
Your perspective here is based upon a lot of ignorance that I see on this subject. The "pipes" that implement the netwrork have fix bandwidths that often vary between different modes in the network. You can't give everybody the same priority else no one would be able to function. You allocate bandwidth according to the fibers ability to carry the data. Without priorities services like Netfliks wouldn't be as realizable as they are.
The interesting thing here is that we likely wouldn't even be having this discussion if it wasn't for streaming services. The bulk transfers these services imply and the quality of service required has had a real impact on the telcos. This demand on their systems is nothing like going to a web site to view a catalog, read a blog or whatever. The resource usage is massive and as a bulk user these companies should be responsible for that excess and guaranteed access.
Are you a network engineer? No you're not. Where I live in a competitive environment more than one company has built fibre networks through the city, and cable operators also sell Internet. Speeds are 100Mb default. That's paid for by consumers paying more for fibre rather than copper wire connections. If you are happy with 1-10 Mb/s you can get that. Cheaper.
No reason to double charge the consumer and provider. You are basically rehashing republican talking points. You have no clue.
The government did a fine job with the interstates. And it bombs foreign people effectively but republicans kinda like that state power.
This is regulation. Not control. We've had regulation for centuries.
Let me get this straight: you're using the crumbling roads in America (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/10/new-report-says-many-rural-roads-are-in-poor-condition/12416359/) and U.S. bombings that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people (considered "collateral damage") as your defense of government's further intervention into what is a more restricted and less open market than it was before they got involved in the latest step? Great points.
I think you may have missed his: (i) point; (ii) sarcasm.
Spend enough money, and you can get people to vote against their own interests
Instead of spewing non sense take a few engineering courses instead of liberal arts and basket weaving. Net neutrality is evil and will work against the people demanding it.
Wealth plus dishonesty is powerful indeed!
I've seen nothing from the other side of the fence that indicates honesty nor a technical understanding of what is being discussed. All I see is pie in the sky non sense about nothing really.
Throw in some emotional buzzwords, and you can control your supporters without requiring them to even think
Seriously do you really put much thought into your comments? The telcos have been managing their networks for years without anybody noticing because the nature of network traffic at the time meant that nobody noticed network congestion. That isn't the case when you have dozens of streaming services transferring huge amounts of data to the point that they are a major fraction of all traffics over these networks. As such these operations should be paying for that bandwidth.
Frankly I'm not sure why people think this is strange. It is no different than any other user of a public facility, commercial vehicles, trucks and the like pay significant taxes to drive on the roads due to the high usage and wear they cause. Realistically the streaming services are no different in that they cause an excess burden on the net.
We need to get back to congress making the laws of the land not decrees by an ignorant president.
You can accuse Obama of a lot of things, but 'ignorance' is not one of them.
Compared to Bush and his lackeys, and most especially today's Congress, the guy's an Einstein. (But that may not be, in an absolute sense, saying all that much given how far down the low end of the scale goes).
MVNOs, and CLECs are the same if Apple had to sell iPhones at a loss to another company, and then that company sold them at a profit. The telecoms were forced to accept that in the spirit of competition.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "in the spirit of competition," but your Apple analogy is dumb.
Instead of spewing non sense take a few engineering courses instead of liberal arts and basket weaving. Net neutrality is evil and will work against the people demanding it.
I've seen nothing from the other side of the fence that indicates honesty nor a technical understanding of what is being discussed. All I see is pie in the sky non sense about nothing really.
Seriously do you really put much thought into your comments? The telcos have been managing their networks for years without anybody noticing because the nature of network traffic at the time meant that nobody noticed network congestion. That isn't the case when you have dozens of streaming services transferring huge amounts of data to the point that they are a major fraction of all traffics over these networks. As such these operations should be paying for that bandwidth.
Frankly I'm not sure why people think this is strange. It is no different than any other user of a public facility, commercial vehicles, trucks and the like pay significant taxes to drive on the roads due to the high usage and wear they cause. Realistically the streaming services are no different in that they cause an excess burden on the net.
All the major tech firms are in favor of Neutrality. So you're saying you know better than all the engineers at Apple, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft.. etc. combined. Good luck with that. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
The interstates were a good idea, badly maintained now but wonders in their day. And clearly I am not pro war but most republicans are.
Again you do realize which party has been in power for the last few years don't you? Beyond that neither party is pro war, the problem is sometime you don't have much of a choice. Further any rational person should be able to see what a president reluctant to aggressively use military force has resulted in.
The ISPs act as local monopolies.
True! Normally that is the direct result of local governments not being open to competition preferring cozy deals that see them taking a cut. It is foolish to put all blame on the companies involved here. If you want change here you need to demand that your communties support competition.
They want to strangle your internet for commercial reasons.
This is complete bullshit! They are trying to maintain the networks in such a way that the services most people want get through. If anything they are trying to keep the net open and functional.
Treating them as common carriers gives the consumer the power.
No it doesn't. In fact the rational response would be to make the consumers responsible for a good portion of the bandwidth they use. In a nut shell this will be bad news if it becomes the law of the country.
nonsense -- the courts are the check to the executive branch. the courts have been used in this very issue.
The responsibility for the creation of laws in this country reside with the legislative branches of government not the courts and certainly not with the executive branch. Trying to twist laws writing at a different time for different technologies to support an executive branch pie in the sky policy is at best sleazy and at worst illegal. I'm leaning toward illegal because it undermines the whole intent of the constitution and the partitioning of powers that it lays out.
You mean when I recently visited DC, Hong Kong, China, NY, Britain, Mississippi, California, and Guatemala, among other places, and where the roads were all roughly comparable to the cherished wonders that are the American interstates? There is nothing too terribly special about our roads, except for the one fact that we are hijacking funding meant for other things in order to keep them from being a wreck (aka government's M.O.).
Having traveled a bit I know exactly what you are saying. Sadly the quality of the interstates vary widely from state to state but in many cases the roads are far worst than what is seen in many places outside the U.S.
The interstates were a good idea, badly maintained now but wonders in their day. And clearly I am not pro war but most republicans are.
Again you do realize which party has been in power for the last few years don't you? Beyond that neither party is pro war, the problem is sometime you don't have much of a choice. Further any rational person should be able to see what a president reluctant to aggressively use military force has resulted in.
Quote:
The ISPs act as local monopolies.
True! Normally that is the direct result of local governments not being open to competition preferring cozy deals that see them taking a cut. It is foolish to put all blame on the companies involved here. If you want change here you need to demand that your communties support competition.
Quote:
They want to strangle your internet for commercial reasons.
This is complete bullshit! They are trying to maintain the networks in such a way that the services most people want get through. If anything they are trying to keep the net open and functional.
Quote:
Treating them as common carriers gives the consumer the power.
No it doesn't. In fact the rational response would be to make the consumers responsible for a good portion of the bandwidth they use. In a nut shell this will be bad news if it becomes the law of the country.
Your post is so full of bullshit, that I find it somewhat laughable you accuse others of it.
1) I have no idea what the lack of "aggressiveness" to use military force has resulted in. Perhaps you can elucidate, instead spouting off silly political talking point? I do know what the aggressive use of military force by the previous admin resulted in: a fractured, violent Middle East, expanded Al Qaida, the creation of ISIS, and a resurgent Iran.
2) You say "If you want change here you need to demand that your communities support competition." That is completely vacuous. This story is Exibit A as to why (hint: politicians can be easily bought off). Moreover, if you admit they're monopolies, all other economic arguments you're making subsequently amount to a hill of beans.
3) Absent regulation, a monopolist has no incentive to make sure that "services most people want get through." What the heck do you mean by that anyway? What do you know about "services most people want"? What do you mean by "get through"? Dial up also "got through"....
4) See sentence 4 in point #2 above. Moreover, you have zero arguments for why it will be "bad news." You're just asserting that with the equivalent of stoping your foot.
Have you gradutated from grade school yet! The responsibility for the creation of laws in this country reside with the legislative branches of government not the courts and certainly not with the executive branch. Trying to twist laws writing at a different time for different technologies to support an executive branch pie in the sky policy is at best sleazy and at worst illegal. I'm leaning toward illegal because it undermines the whole intent of the constitution and the partitioning of powers that it lays out.
Instead of insulting people, you should tell us why courts are unimportant. (Indeed, it's ironic, since that's exactly what ATT and Comcast are planning on).
Also, you'll be well-served if you looked up the difference between "law" and "regulation."
Comments
The only people demanding control are the local ISP monopolies. What they oppose is government regulations stopping their monopolistic control harming end users free and unfettered access to the Internet without bias.
Please keep up.
Honestly I don't think you understand this technology. The bits are sent serially through pipes with limited bandwidth. The level of traffic varies widely based on what is happening at the moment. As such the only way for services like Netflix to be assured that their bandwidth demands are meant minute by minute is for the telco to manage bandwidth favoring the people that payed for a certain level of service.
Think I'm nuts? I can remember a day when the latest Fedora release almost completely clogged Internet traffic locally.
But nobody is going to get into a business in which the initial investment is astronomical to then get into a price war.
Think I'm nuts?
Yes
The other way of saying that Netflix can pay to send more bits to the user is that if they don't pay their service is compromised to be unusable by the end user even if he has paid both a premium for Netflix and for his fibre connection.
The people on the wrong side of the fence are those that believe their is infinite bandwidth available for the transmission of data. There isn't and frankly demand has been growing rapidly.
Basically the problem here is that the people demanding net neutrality are impenitent of the technical realities of managing these complex networks.
Your perspective here is based upon a lot of ignorance that I see on this subject. The "pipes" that implement the netwrork have fix bandwidths that often vary between different modes in the network. You can't give everybody the same priority else no one would be able to function. You allocate bandwidth according to the fibers ability to carry the data. Without priorities services like Netfliks wouldn't be as realizable as they are.
The interesting thing here is that we likely wouldn't even be having this discussion if it wasn't for streaming services. The bulk transfers these services imply and the quality of service required has had a real impact on the telcos. This demand on their systems is nothing like going to a web site to view a catalog, read a blog or whatever. The resource usage is massive and as a bulk user these companies should be responsible for that excess and guaranteed access.
Wrong!
The people on the wrong side of the fence are those that believe their is infinite bandwidth available for the transmission of data. There isn't and frankly demand has been growing rapidly.
Basically the problem here is that the people demanding net neutrality are impenitent of the technical realities of managing these complex networks.
Your perspective here is based upon a lot of ignorance that I see on this subject. The "pipes" that implement the netwrork have fix bandwidths that often vary between different modes in the network. You can't give everybody the same priority else no one would be able to function. You allocate bandwidth according to the fibers ability to carry the data. Without priorities services like Netfliks wouldn't be as realizable as they are.
The interesting thing here is that we likely wouldn't even be having this discussion if it wasn't for streaming services. The bulk transfers these services imply and the quality of service required has had a real impact on the telcos. This demand on their systems is nothing like going to a web site to view a catalog, read a blog or whatever. The resource usage is massive and as a bulk user these companies should be responsible for that excess and guaranteed access.
Netflix is paying for higher bandwidth. You argue as if they're paying for a consumer level internet connection.
Are you a network engineer? No you're not. Where I live in a competitive environment more than one company has built fibre networks through the city, and cable operators also sell Internet. Speeds are 100Mb default. That's paid for by consumers paying more for fibre rather than copper wire connections. If you are happy with 1-10 Mb/s you can get that. Cheaper.
No reason to double charge the consumer and provider. You are basically rehashing republican talking points. You have no clue.
The government did a fine job with the interstates. And it bombs foreign people effectively but republicans kinda like that state power.
This is regulation. Not control. We've had regulation for centuries.
Let me get this straight: you're using the crumbling roads in America (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/10/new-report-says-many-rural-roads-are-in-poor-condition/12416359/) and U.S. bombings that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people (considered "collateral damage") as your defense of government's further intervention into what is a more restricted and less open market than it was before they got involved in the latest step? Great points.
I think you may have missed his: (i) point; (ii) sarcasm.
At least, the way I read it.
Seriously do you really put much thought into your comments? The telcos have been managing their networks for years without anybody noticing because the nature of network traffic at the time meant that nobody noticed network congestion. That isn't the case when you have dozens of streaming services transferring huge amounts of data to the point that they are a major fraction of all traffics over these networks. As such these operations should be paying for that bandwidth.
Frankly I'm not sure why people think this is strange. It is no different than any other user of a public facility, commercial vehicles, trucks and the like pay significant taxes to drive on the roads due to the high usage and wear they cause. Realistically the streaming services are no different in that they cause an excess burden on the net.
We need to get back to congress making the laws of the land not decrees by an ignorant president.
You can accuse Obama of a lot of things, but 'ignorance' is not one of them.
Compared to Bush and his lackeys, and most especially today's Congress, the guy's an Einstein. (But that may not be, in an absolute sense, saying all that much given how far down the low end of the scale goes).
MVNOs, and CLECs are the same if Apple had to sell iPhones at a loss to another company, and then that company sold them at a profit. The telecoms were forced to accept that in the spirit of competition.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "in the spirit of competition," but your Apple analogy is dumb.
Instead of spewing non sense take a few engineering courses instead of liberal arts and basket weaving. Net neutrality is evil and will work against the people demanding it.
I've seen nothing from the other side of the fence that indicates honesty nor a technical understanding of what is being discussed. All I see is pie in the sky non sense about nothing really.
Seriously do you really put much thought into your comments? The telcos have been managing their networks for years without anybody noticing because the nature of network traffic at the time meant that nobody noticed network congestion. That isn't the case when you have dozens of streaming services transferring huge amounts of data to the point that they are a major fraction of all traffics over these networks. As such these operations should be paying for that bandwidth.
Frankly I'm not sure why people think this is strange. It is no different than any other user of a public facility, commercial vehicles, trucks and the like pay significant taxes to drive on the roads due to the high usage and wear they cause. Realistically the streaming services are no different in that they cause an excess burden on the net.
All the major tech firms are in favor of Neutrality. So you're saying you know better than all the engineers at Apple, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft.. etc. combined. Good luck with that.
No it doesn't. In fact the rational response would be to make the consumers responsible for a good portion of the bandwidth they use. In a nut shell this will be bad news if it becomes the law of the country.
I wonder how much money was "donated" by the cellular companies to these politicians to get this issue on the table.
The responsibility for the creation of laws in this country reside with the legislative branches of government not the courts and certainly not with the executive branch. Trying to twist laws writing at a different time for different technologies to support an executive branch pie in the sky policy is at best sleazy and at worst illegal. I'm leaning toward illegal because it undermines the whole intent of the constitution and the partitioning of powers that it lays out.
The interstates were a good idea, badly maintained now but wonders in their day. And clearly I am not pro war but most republicans are.
Again you do realize which party has been in power for the last few years don't you? Beyond that neither party is pro war, the problem is sometime you don't have much of a choice. Further any rational person should be able to see what a president reluctant to aggressively use military force has resulted in.
True! Normally that is the direct result of local governments not being open to competition preferring cozy deals that see them taking a cut. It is foolish to put all blame on the companies involved here. If you want change here you need to demand that your communties support competition.
This is complete bullshit! They are trying to maintain the networks in such a way that the services most people want get through. If anything they are trying to keep the net open and functional.
No it doesn't. In fact the rational response would be to make the consumers responsible for a good portion of the bandwidth they use. In a nut shell this will be bad news if it becomes the law of the country.
Your post is so full of bullshit, that I find it somewhat laughable you accuse others of it.
1) I have no idea what the lack of "aggressiveness" to use military force has resulted in. Perhaps you can elucidate, instead spouting off silly political talking point? I do know what the aggressive use of military force by the previous admin resulted in: a fractured, violent Middle East, expanded Al Qaida, the creation of ISIS, and a resurgent Iran.
2) You say "If you want change here you need to demand that your communities support competition." That is completely vacuous. This story is Exibit A as to why (hint: politicians can be easily bought off). Moreover, if you admit they're monopolies, all other economic arguments you're making subsequently amount to a hill of beans.
3) Absent regulation, a monopolist has no incentive to make sure that "services most people want get through." What the heck do you mean by that anyway? What do you know about "services most people want"? What do you mean by "get through"? Dial up also "got through"....
4) See sentence 4 in point #2 above. Moreover, you have zero arguments for why it will be "bad news." You're just asserting that with the equivalent of stoping your foot.
Man, it's like the Republicans are on the wrong side of anything positive.
Have you gradutated from grade school yet! The responsibility for the creation of laws in this country reside with the legislative branches of government not the courts and certainly not with the executive branch. Trying to twist laws writing at a different time for different technologies to support an executive branch pie in the sky policy is at best sleazy and at worst illegal. I'm leaning toward illegal because it undermines the whole intent of the constitution and the partitioning of powers that it lays out.
Instead of insulting people, you should tell us why courts are unimportant. (Indeed, it's ironic, since that's exactly what ATT and Comcast are planning on).
Also, you'll be well-served if you looked up the difference between "law" and "regulation."