This idea that any regulation is really off. Financial deregulation was at the core of the great recession. Most broadband internet markets are really monopolies at the last mile, so the implication that regulating a monopoly is trampling rights is just crazy. Anti-trust laws were written for good reason. The world your ilk is itching to return us to (Gilded Age, robber barons) was not very nice and didn't have a stable economy.
The issue of 'net neutrality' (I hate that term -- it's like the 'Patriot Act') is complex, and there are valid issue being raised from both sides. Obama has some valid points, and Wheeler has some valid points. (Even the cable companies do, but they're the ones I trust the least in the debate.)
For some posters here to revert to their usual, simple-minded left-wing/right-wing talking point crap is just plain idiotic.
It won't be long before this thread goes down the toilet.
I don't think the argument from the right is that the free market would do a better job. The argument is that having a fast Internet connection is nice, but it's not as important as upholding indvidual rights. In this case the private property rights of the people who own the cables.
Private property doesn't exist without the laws, judicial system, and enforcement of the government, so keep that in mind. It's not intended to be out of reach of government regulation or legal power. Many on the right like to talk about private property as if it's somehow independent of the government or the will of the people, but it's obviously not.
Could someone explain why any of the following points are not acceptable:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Obama issued a statement this week urging the FCC to keep the internet "open and free." In it, the president urged the commission to adopt the a series of net neutrality principles. In his letter to the FCC, Obama wrote about four key points. In his own words:
No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player -- not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP -- gets a fair shot at your business.
No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others -- through a process often called "throttling" -- [A]based on the type of service or your ISP's preferences.
Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs -- the so-called "last mile" -- is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
No paid prioritization. Simply put: [B] No service should be stuck in a "slow lane" because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet's growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.
For clarification:
[A]based on the type of service or your ISP's preferences.
My understanding or my preference is that an ISP cannot intentionally slow down your content speed that you have contracted for. You pay for higher speed and/or larger content, you get it.
[B] No service should be stuck in a "slow lane" because it does not pay a fee.
My take is that if a company is selling information/data/entertainment and is using ISP's to transport it, they should be paying a fee. Not any different than a company selling products and including free delivery versus another that charges extra for faster delivery. Either way, someone is paying for delivery. Some costs are buried and others upfront.
Furthermore, the concept of Net Neutrality is with an exception or two, controversial throughout the world. Virtually every country in the world has invested significantly in the necessary infrastructure to build the internet, whether it was/is through government grants, tax incentives, etc., all at the expense of the people. Most private investment has come about due to the success of those government actions; and most private investors, particularly initially, do so, because of them.
I guess my last question is why should the public not get a return on the investment like those of private investors? And perhaps use that return to reduce their taxes rather than ensure a faster and greater view on the necessary screens/monitors they can hardly afford in the first place.
I have for some years now thought that Apple should spend a good part of it's loot on building a global satellite network that could deliver a lot of ones and zeros, really quickly. Apple could bypass the vested interests and bottle necks of this world with a killer feature no one else could match.
[A]based on the type of service or your ISP's preferences.
My understanding or my preference is that an ISP cannot intentionally slow down your content speed that you have contracted for. You pay for higher speed and/or larger content, you get it.
[B] No service should be stuck in a "slow lane" because it does not pay a fee.
My take is that if a company is selling information/data/entertainment and is using ISP's to transport it, they should be paying a fee. Not any different than a company selling products and including free delivery versus another that charges extra for faster delivery. Either way, someone is paying for delivery. Some costs are buried and others upfront.
Furthermore, the concept of Net Neutrality is with an exception or two, controversial throughout the world. Virtually every country in the world has invested significantly in the necessary infrastructure to build the internet, whether it was/is through government grants, tax incentives, etc., all at the expense of the people. Most private investment has come about due to the success of those government actions; and most private investors, particularly initially, do so, because of them.
I guess my last question is why should the public not get a return on the investment like those of private investors? And perhaps use that return to reduce their taxes rather than ensure a faster and greater view on the necessary screens/monitors they can hardly afford in the first place.
I’ve found that, in many cases, less control–not more–leads to greater success.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Like a petulant toddler. Denied what it wants, it lashes out with its fists and voice and throws a tantrum until it is either appeased (wrong) or ignored (right).
It’s high time to put legal teeth behind the “of, by, and for” on which our republic is founded.
Well, the "petulant toddler" rings true, but you really seem to contradict yourself in advocating both "less control"
"put[ting] legal teeth".
In my experience, given the usual corporate 'character', failure to set rules and provide for effective enforcement
leads to rapaciousness which the general public is otherwise defenseless in the face of.
The problem here is penetration of the defense mechanism (the FCC)
by the entities it's meant to regulate (in the form of Wheeler)...
I have for some years now thought that Apple should spend a good part of it's loot on building a global satellite network that could deliver a lot of ones and zeros, really quickly. Apple could bypass the vested interests and bottle necks of this world with a killer feature no one else could match.
So it's pretty much a mafia style protection racket. "You pay us money or your stuff might not get sent so quick".
Imagine if USPS started offering a higher charge for postage saying "if you go for the higher charge, there's more chance it'll turn up and we won't kick your parcel all over the depot".
1) ALREADY PRIORITIZING INTERNET PACKETS - How do you think VOIP works? Voice gets prioritized over just about everything else.
impossible but simple solution
the 'infrastructure' ie utility poles, conduits, etc... need to be opened to any ISP to use/rent at normal/fair terms.
I'm paying two fee's on my electric bill 1) electricity 2) infrastructure - I can purchase my electricity from any provider but must pay the monopoly utility to maintain and fix (storms) the poles.
my local government has to get out of the way and license any company to provide ISP. (of course they will not because they like the status quo)
Notice where Google Fiber goes - it goes where it is easy to use existing infrastructure to get that last mile run to the building.
Someone (probably needs an act of congress) needs to allow new ISP's to use existing infrastructure at fair terms and get local/county/state laws that imped competition off the books!
No doubt Net Neutrality is important but to suggest that Obama's proposed government regulation of the Internet as a utility is appallingly partisan and will certainly result in much higher costs for the consumers and/or slower service for all. Not to mention, the US government (and others nation states) will continue to abuse their power to illegally spy and invade our privacy; giving them regulatory control will only enhance their capabilities to do so.
Just imagine if Verizon made its subscribers pay a surcharge -- on top of what they are already paying for a 3G/4G data connection -- for the ability to download movies from iTunes at the same speed as from Redbox Instant Movies.
Just imagine if Verizon made its subscribers pay a surcharge -- on top of what they are already paying for a 3G/4G data connection -- for the ability to download movies from iTunes at the same speed as from Redbox Instant Movies.
Well, net neutrality adds a 15.6% tax to Internet services, so unless you like even more taxes, I suggest you don't worry about that. Because Redbox Instant no longer exists, in case you'd hadn't noticed. :rolleyes:
Sony just announced they are going to role out Sony Vue which is Cable TV over IP
They have signed up most of the major content providers. I see this as providing competition to my local cable TV providers which consist of ATT Uverse and TWC. In fact I can envision TWC, Comcast, Cox and other providers setting up similar IP systems to increase their subscriber base without acquiring new cable companies. But this will never happen if TWC slows down Sony's data so that it becomes unusable which they did to Netflix somewhat. If I pay for 20 mbs I should get that data regardless of who is providing it to me. It seems to me that I am already paying for it so I don't see why Comcast, Verizon, TWC are charging Netflix for something I am already paying them for in the first place other than the obvious money grab of because they can.
1) ALREADY PRIORITIZING INTERNET PACKETS - [SIZE=18px]How do you think VOIP works?[/SIZE] Voice gets prioritized over just about everything else.
impossible but simple solution
the 'infrastructure' ie utility poles, conduits, etc... need to be opened to any ISP to use/rent at normal/fair terms.
I'm paying two fee's on my electric bill 1) electricity 2) infrastructure - I can purchase my electricity from any provider but must pay the monopoly utility to maintain and fix (storms) the poles.
my local government has to get out of the way and license any company to provide ISP. (of course they will not because they like the status quo)
Notice where Google Fiber goes - it goes where it is easy to use existing infrastructure to get that last mile run to the building.
Someone (probably needs an act of congress) needs to allow new ISP's to use existing infrastructure at fair terms and get local/county/state laws that imped competition off the books!
Just imagine if Verizon made its subscribers pay a surcharge -- on top of what they are already paying for a 3G/4G data connection -- for the ability to download movies from iTunes at the same speed as from Redbox Instant Movies.
If you're wondering why your Redbox Instant movie has been buffering for over a month here's why.
The categorization of Comcast vs. Netflix is false and has nothing to do with Net Neutrality anyway. It is untrue to say that Comcast (and other ISP's) throttled Netflix until they paid up. In 2013, Netflix switched from a CDN provider (Akamai) and decided instead to be their own CDN and peer directly with a backbone provider called Cogent, to deliver video bits to Comcast and other ISPs. They did this because Cogent offered them a cheap deal. Unfortunately for Netflix, you get what you pay for -- Cogent's links were saturated with so much traffic that they were not able to handle the growing demand for Netflix, particularly with their new high-bandwidth HD streams. That is why speeds to many customers dropped. Most graphs show 5 of the 8 biggest national ISPs had concurrent bandwdith drops for Netflix upon switching to Cogent. So, how to fix this? By agreeing to peer directly with Comcast and other ISPs, and cut Cogent out of the middle, Netflix was able to deliver bits faster to their customers than they were before because they bypassed the congested links that were in the paths of their customers. That congestion was entirely on Netflix and Cogent, and had nothing to do with ISP's. And while Netflix is paying ISP's for service delivery now, they are no longer paying Cogent, and the prices to the ISP's are comparable. Meaning it does not cost Netflix anymore to peer directly with an ISP and provide better service for their customers. Cogent is no longer paying ISPs for these bits either in their peering agreement, since they are no longer flowing through. So all around, the only loser was Cogent, who was simply cut out of the path of the customer, because their offering sucked. No one is making any more money or paying anymore to anyone. Free market at its finest, no fast lanes, and nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Read more at http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/06/netflix-isp-newdata.html
I see some comments on here that are very inflammatory, one person tries to calmly state their views and someone else rails on them. Tallest skil was actually the calmest one here.
I'm gonna try to talk about this calmly. So, I usually prefer net neutrality, but after seeing all of the comments I wonder about a few scenarios. Imagine if net neutrality goes through, and everyone gets the same treatment, and then Netflix is so happy about it that they decide to start streaming 8k? People across the nation start consuming it and Netflix accounts for 90% if Internet usage and the whole country/worlds Internet starts to slow down.
Essentially Netflix doesn't create content or worry about delivery, they are very much a middle man. If they just sit back and let the Internet companies increase their speed and capacity, they'll make more money.
As I write this, I still lean towards net neutrality - no fast lanes, no fees for anyone including Netflix - because it's bit Netflixs fault if the people choose to use their service. If people want to use the Internet to watch movies, let them. The cable companies may need to put a cap on the end user, but then at least the end user can decide what they're paying for, and someone who doesn't need the data won't pay for it, as opposed to the cable company deciding behind closed doors with arbitrary companies you may not be in need of. What if you don't realize that Kerry's video service payed for fast service and you never use them? That's money you'll never make use of, that will slow down the services you like. Get rid of fees for the behind the scenes companies, get rid of fast lanes, that's the best way to let the user decide how they want to use their Internet.
Comments
Exactly.
For some posters here to revert to their usual, simple-minded left-wing/right-wing talking point crap is just plain idiotic.
It won't be long before this thread goes down the toilet.
I’ve found that, in many cases, less control–not more–leads to greater success.
Go live in Somalia, I hear your ideology works well there.
I don't think the argument from the right is that the free market would do a better job. The argument is that having a fast Internet connection is nice, but it's not as important as upholding indvidual rights. In this case the private property rights of the people who own the cables.
Private property doesn't exist without the laws, judicial system, and enforcement of the government, so keep that in mind. It's not intended to be out of reach of government regulation or legal power. Many on the right like to talk about private property as if it's somehow independent of the government or the will of the people, but it's obviously not.
Could someone explain why any of the following points are not acceptable:
Obama issued a statement this week urging the FCC to keep the internet "open and free." In it, the president urged the commission to adopt the a series of net neutrality principles. In his letter to the FCC, Obama wrote about four key points. In his own words:
For clarification:
[A] based on the type of service or your ISP's preferences.
My understanding or my preference is that an ISP cannot intentionally slow down your content speed that you have contracted for. You pay for higher speed and/or larger content, you get it.
[B] No service should be stuck in a "slow lane" because it does not pay a fee.
My take is that if a company is selling information/data/entertainment and is using ISP's to transport it, they should be paying a fee. Not any different than a company selling products and including free delivery versus another that charges extra for faster delivery. Either way, someone is paying for delivery. Some costs are buried and others upfront.
Furthermore, the concept of Net Neutrality is with an exception or two, controversial throughout the world. Virtually every country in the world has invested significantly in the necessary infrastructure to build the internet, whether it was/is through government grants, tax incentives, etc., all at the expense of the people. Most private investment has come about due to the success of those government actions; and most private investors, particularly initially, do so, because of them.
I guess my last question is why should the public not get a return on the investment like those of private investors? And perhaps use that return to reduce their taxes rather than ensure a faster and greater view on the necessary screens/monitors they can hardly afford in the first place.
I have for some years now thought that Apple should spend a good part of it's loot on building a global satellite network that could deliver a lot of ones and zeros, really quickly. Apple could bypass the vested interests and bottle necks of this world with a killer feature no one else could match.
For clarification:
[A] based on the type of service or your ISP's preferences.
My understanding or my preference is that an ISP cannot intentionally slow down your content speed that you have contracted for. You pay for higher speed and/or larger content, you get it.
[B] No service should be stuck in a "slow lane" because it does not pay a fee.
My take is that if a company is selling information/data/entertainment and is using ISP's to transport it, they should be paying a fee. Not any different than a company selling products and including free delivery versus another that charges extra for faster delivery. Either way, someone is paying for delivery. Some costs are buried and others upfront.
Furthermore, the concept of Net Neutrality is with an exception or two, controversial throughout the world. Virtually every country in the world has invested significantly in the necessary infrastructure to build the internet, whether it was/is through government grants, tax incentives, etc., all at the expense of the people. Most private investment has come about due to the success of those government actions; and most private investors, particularly initially, do so, because of them.
I guess my last question is why should the public not get a return on the investment like those of private investors? And perhaps use that return to reduce their taxes rather than ensure a faster and greater view on the necessary screens/monitors they can hardly afford in the first place.
Given B, why should anyone pay for A?
I’ve found that, in many cases, less control–not more–leads to greater success.
Like a petulant toddler. Denied what it wants, it lashes out with its fists and voice and throws a tantrum until it is either appeased (wrong) or ignored (right).
It’s high time to put legal teeth behind the “of, by, and for” on which our republic is founded.
Well, the "petulant toddler" rings true, but you really seem to contradict yourself in advocating both "less control"
"put[ting] legal teeth".
In my experience, given the usual corporate 'character', failure to set rules and provide for effective enforcement
leads to rapaciousness which the general public is otherwise defenseless in the face of.
The problem here is penetration of the defense mechanism (the FCC)
by the entities it's meant to regulate (in the form of Wheeler)...
the ol' fox in the chicken coop problem.
(cue the neocon s**t-storm)
Too much latency.
So it's pretty much a mafia style protection racket. "You pay us money or your stuff might not get sent so quick".
Imagine if USPS started offering a higher charge for postage saying "if you go for the higher charge, there's more chance it'll turn up and we won't kick your parcel all over the depot".
?Blackmailing companies isn't the best plan.
1) ALREADY PRIORITIZING INTERNET PACKETS - How do you think VOIP works? Voice gets prioritized over just about everything else.
impossible but simple solution
the 'infrastructure' ie utility poles, conduits, etc... need to be opened to any ISP to use/rent at normal/fair terms.
I'm paying two fee's on my electric bill 1) electricity 2) infrastructure - I can purchase my electricity from any provider but must pay the monopoly utility to maintain and fix (storms) the poles.
my local government has to get out of the way and license any company to provide ISP. (of course they will not because they like the status quo)
Notice where Google Fiber goes - it goes where it is easy to use existing infrastructure to get that last mile run to the building.
Someone (probably needs an act of congress) needs to allow new ISP's to use existing infrastructure at fair terms and get local/county/state laws that imped competition off the books!
Just imagine if Verizon made its subscribers pay a surcharge -- on top of what they are already paying for a 3G/4G data connection -- for the ability to download movies from iTunes at the same speed as from Redbox Instant Movies.
Well, net neutrality adds a 15.6% tax to Internet services, so unless you like even more taxes, I suggest you don't worry about that. Because Redbox Instant no longer exists, in case you'd hadn't noticed. :rolleyes:
Too much latency.
Doesn't matter so much for the large volume data I am thinking about.
Sony just announced they are going to role out Sony Vue which is Cable TV over IP
They have signed up most of the major content providers. I see this as providing competition to my local cable TV providers which consist of ATT Uverse and TWC. In fact I can envision TWC, Comcast, Cox and other providers setting up similar IP systems to increase their subscriber base without acquiring new cable companies. But this will never happen if TWC slows down Sony's data so that it becomes unusable which they did to Netflix somewhat. If I pay for 20 mbs I should get that data regardless of who is providing it to me. It seems to me that I am already paying for it so I don't see why Comcast, Verizon, TWC are charging Netflix for something I am already paying them for in the first place other than the obvious money grab of because they can.
So you want to go back to this?
If you're wondering why your Redbox Instant movie has been buffering for over a month here's why.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/04/us-usa-verizoncomms-redbox-idUSKCN0HT0NV20141004
The categorization of Comcast vs. Netflix is false and has nothing to do with Net Neutrality anyway. It is untrue to say that Comcast (and other ISP's) throttled Netflix until they paid up. In 2013, Netflix switched from a CDN provider (Akamai) and decided instead to be their own CDN and peer directly with a backbone provider called Cogent, to deliver video bits to Comcast and other ISPs. They did this because Cogent offered them a cheap deal. Unfortunately for Netflix, you get what you pay for -- Cogent's links were saturated with so much traffic that they were not able to handle the growing demand for Netflix, particularly with their new high-bandwidth HD streams. That is why speeds to many customers dropped. Most graphs show 5 of the 8 biggest national ISPs had concurrent bandwdith drops for Netflix upon switching to Cogent. So, how to fix this? By agreeing to peer directly with Comcast and other ISPs, and cut Cogent out of the middle, Netflix was able to deliver bits faster to their customers than they were before because they bypassed the congested links that were in the paths of their customers. That congestion was entirely on Netflix and Cogent, and had nothing to do with ISP's. And while Netflix is paying ISP's for service delivery now, they are no longer paying Cogent, and the prices to the ISP's are comparable. Meaning it does not cost Netflix anymore to peer directly with an ISP and provide better service for their customers. Cogent is no longer paying ISPs for these bits either in their peering agreement, since they are no longer flowing through. So all around, the only loser was Cogent, who was simply cut out of the path of the customer, because their offering sucked. No one is making any more money or paying anymore to anyone. Free market at its finest, no fast lanes, and nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Read more at http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/06/netflix-isp-newdata.html
I'm gonna try to talk about this calmly. So, I usually prefer net neutrality, but after seeing all of the comments I wonder about a few scenarios. Imagine if net neutrality goes through, and everyone gets the same treatment, and then Netflix is so happy about it that they decide to start streaming 8k? People across the nation start consuming it and Netflix accounts for 90% if Internet usage and the whole country/worlds Internet starts to slow down.
Essentially Netflix doesn't create content or worry about delivery, they are very much a middle man. If they just sit back and let the Internet companies increase their speed and capacity, they'll make more money.
As I write this, I still lean towards net neutrality - no fast lanes, no fees for anyone including Netflix - because it's bit Netflixs fault if the people choose to use their service. If people want to use the Internet to watch movies, let them. The cable companies may need to put a cap on the end user, but then at least the end user can decide what they're paying for, and someone who doesn't need the data won't pay for it, as opposed to the cable company deciding behind closed doors with arbitrary companies you may not be in need of. What if you don't realize that Kerry's video service payed for fast service and you never use them? That's money you'll never make use of, that will slow down the services you like. Get rid of fees for the behind the scenes companies, get rid of fast lanes, that's the best way to let the user decide how they want to use their Internet.