That is a pretty foolish picture to post considering it if is from the days when you needed a wire for ever thing you wanted to do.
In any event the problem with the people that want the Internet to become a utility is that they don't want to pay for that utility. Beyond that utilities have for a very long time offered preferential treatment to manage the loads on their systems. Off peak electrical metering comes to mind as one approach to managing network usage. How about the local water utility charging for high summertime water usage or having different rates for bulk users.
In the end it comes down to the same thing in every case , you have to have techniques available to you to manage your networks. That could be an electrical network, a bunch of pipes supplying water, the USPS, or access to a data network. Without such freedom to manage a system you end up with quality of service problems.
In a nut shell this is the problem I have with the net neutrality crowd, even if some of their demands come to pass, you would still need active management of the network. Active management includes throttling to prevent disruption of the service.
This throttling can be likened to restrictions on water usage that many communities out in place that prevent low water pressure. You need to be able to regulate to be able to support preferred users such as the fire department. In the case of the data networks that is effectively what they are trying to do, that is to make sure the preferred users have the bandwidth they need.
That might rub some the wrong way in the net neutrality community but you need to look at this from the perspective of two groups. One being the cable companies and the other being the majority of their customers. The cable companies are providing Internet access as an adjunct to their primary business which is selling entertainment. As such it is reasonable to expect them to remain focused on suppliers that provide such services thus deals with companies like Netflix.
On the flip side the vast majority of cable customers are using their service to consum the content offered up or in reality to vegetate in front of a TV. Even if they make use of the data services offered their primary interest is in "watching TV". For these users net neutrality means nothing to them and frankly could result in significant quality of service issues.
It still comes down to my impression that the majority of net neutrality freaks simply want access without the requirement to pay for that access.
All a long straw man argument. Neutrality means being neutral between all content providers not not passing on costs to customers who over use or abuse fair use. An ISP can, and they already do, throttle speeds at certain times, limit customer bandwidth, or have a cap per month. This would stop a 4k stream from Netflix unless you paid.
None of this violates net neutrality as any streaming site would be affected.
Okay... ...and? I don’t understand your point. That’s what happens now. What happens when regulation restricts buildouts?
Are you saying that people would be incapable of determining what restaurants are unsanitary on their own?
Sorry, I ran out of flerovium and my time machine’s on the fritz until I can get more. Stuff’s expensive, man. :rolleyes:
1) I dont agree that build outs would be affected
2) of course people can't. They aren't experts. Are you seriously opposed to any regulation whatsoever.
3) the "ask a slave" was rhetorical. However you wouldn't need a time machine to talk to one. Probably you wouldn't need a plane trip.
Ah, okay. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">What responsibility is it of yours to dictate how much of something is used by another? Who are you to determine what usage is fair?</span>
These limits are -- or can be -- imposed on the customer by the ISP. I had a cap in the UK once. That's not a violation of net neutrality because there is no preference for certain sites by the ISP.
so most of the "customer won't pay" arguments are spurious.
It is the "no throttling" line that concerns me as a long-time IP network engineer and former CTO for ISPs. I've written details about it here: http://bit.ly/NetNeutrality-ssh since there's complexity that is often missed.
Here is the primary issue: interactive and stream-sensitive data should have preference over bulk data (like email), especially in that high-contention last mile. Interactive video should be preferred over streaming video which should be preferred over email and file downloads. To forbid such "throttling" is to reduce effective performance unnecessarily.
My understanding is that that isn't what net neutrality is opposed to ( at least here in Europe). Neutrality is about where the content comes from, not what it is. If the ISP throttles all streams between 6pm-8pm so be it. If they throttle NetFlix or Apple TV streaming and benefit their own solution that's a big problem.
In any event the problem with the people that want the Internet to become a utility is that they don't want to pay for that utility.
Name a utility that citizens of the United States don't have to pay for simply because it's regulated by the government. Besides, weren't the deregulation of electric utilities supposed to lead to lower electric bills due to "competition" in the free market? That never happened. If anything, there's ample statistical evidence for those types of markets that private companies failed to deliver on their promises to paying customers. Plus, think of all the paying customers for internet connections in the U.S. that don't actually get anywhere near the upload/download speed that the company claims they'll get. I guess that's considered acceptable simply because those companies are turning a buck, right?
Are you saying that people would be incapable of determining what restaurants are unsanitary on their own?
Sanitary regulations for restaurants is not just about consumer safety. It's also about economic sanity. A higher level of consumer confidence will always lead to greater sales. It's a regulation that improves the market.
It is exactly what we need. Would you rather AT&T or Verizon control your service based upon how much money other conglomerates are willing to pay them?
Nobody is asking for anything for free. The consumer will still pay.
That isn't what I'm hearing. At the extremes the net neutrality people want free access which is asinine.
A government regulation is not the same as communism or state ownership.
Never said it was. However consider the stupidity of the desire here, people want to replace the management of network infrastructure by the owners/operators of that network with government regulation. The approach the government wants would give the same priority to an ftp download that a VoIP call might get. Do people really want choppy video calling or conferencing just so the local porn collector can get is equal share of the bandwidth available on a network? Seriously guys you don't want to be supporting net neutrality if that mean giving up on maintaining a high quality of service for those uses where it is needed.
Plenty of "private property rights" are regulated, in particular anything for sale is subject to regulation.
Last I new the poviders haven't offered to sell their infrastructure. Instead they sell a service which is the delivery of data to a customer. The net neutrality gang effectively wants to steal that infrastructure without compensation. What is sad here is that in the end the networks would still have to be managed (regulated) to make sure that the bandwidth available goes to the right services.
There are any number of regulations imposed in your iPhone for instance which is why it has to be certified .
No fooling.
That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. If the government follows through and confiscates these service providers even the government would have to institute throttling and other network management controls. They would have no choice in the matter because people would quickly become irrate over quality of service issues.
Simply put any non trivial netowrk needs management. Hell even the internal network at work is actively managed buy the network support people.
This is one more and one which any sane person should believe in.
I'm a very sane person and as such I have to speak up here. The net neutrality movement is stupidity at its grandest. Now don't take that to mean that I beleive the systems we have inplace at the moment are perfect as it is far from perfect. What I'm opposed to is the freeloader mentality of many supporting net neutrality and the idea that the government can better manage netowrk use than the companies actually managing the networks right now.
Especially Apple users or investors.
Any rational investor, be it in Apple or apples, would be appalled at some of the concepts that the net neutrality crowd wants to see implemented. The last thing this country needs is a welfare system for Internet users.
Are you saying that people would be incapable of determining what restaurants are unsanitary on their own?
Of course they're incapable. How do you know whether raw chicken has been left out unrefrigerated or whether someone used a knife on raw poultry and then used that same knife to cut your sandwich resulting in salmonella poisoning?
How would you know whether the refrigerator where the meat is stored is at the right temperature or whether the frozen food has freezer burn or whether the kitchen is infested with mice or not? Or whether grease from the range hood isn't dripping back into your food?
While there may be many health rules for restaurants that are overkill and unnecessary and some inspectors apply the rules inconsistently and drive the owners crazy, restaurant health inspections have kept thousands of people from getting sick and it has also without a doubt, saved some lives. I won't eat in a restaurant that doesn't have an "A" rating.
I take it you've never watched "Restaurant Impossible" or "Bar Rescue" among other such shows. What's remarkable is that these bar and restaurant owners have seen these shows, requested help and frequently STILL haven't cleaned the place up before the show arrives. While some of the "drama" on these shows may be instigated by producers, I don't think they come in and make the kitchen disgusting before they arrive to shoot.
All a long straw man argument. Neutrality means being neutral between all content providers not not passing on costs to customers who over use or abuse fair use.
First off you can't be neutral when it comes to network management. You can't orivide the same level of performance for interactive communications that might be acceptable for an ftp transfer. If you don't have a network that prefers interactive communications over just about anything else then you loose the ability to deliver a high level of performance to that service.
The second tier down is with content providers streaming data to customers. Again they need a high level of priority to deliver the high quality that customers expect of a streaming service. By definition a streaming service has to be treated differently than a service providing the latest fedora release as a download.
An ISP can, and they already do, throttle speeds at certain times, limit customer bandwidth, or have a cap per month. This would stop a 4k stream from Netflix unless you paid.
So why do you have a problem with Netflix paying for the bandwidth? You seem to be highly conflicted in your statements in this post. Netflix needs lots of bandwidth and apparently is willing to pay for it, their service needs a hire priority on the net to work well so why shouldn't they get that for the money they have paid?
None of this violates net neutrality as any streaming site would be affected.
Of course they would be impacted. You can't build what you can't pay for. This is what excessive regulation would lead too.
2) of course people can't. They aren't experts. Are you seriously opposed to any regulation whatsoever.
That is the most asinine statement I've ever seen. More restaurants have failed due to people not returning then have been closed up due to regulation. Beyond that sanitation isn't something that is unknown to a good part of the population.
3) the "ask a slave" was rhetorical. However you wouldn't need a time machine to talk to one. Probably you wouldn't need a plane trip.
I'm not sure how you can manage to work that phrase into this conversation
In any event I see the number one problem with the net neutrality pipe dream is that even if it came to pass and the government stole all of that infrastructure they would still have to manage the netowrk. There is simply no way to get around that. The question then becomes would the quality of service for the important network functions go up or go down. I'm willing to bet that the quality of service would suck so bad that people would demand heavy throttling of the abusive users.
Why would I (an internet provider) spend massive amounts of capital, fleshing out infrastructure, when content providers (like netflix), can clog the network with massive amounts of bandwidth and not have to pay extra for their heavy use..
But Netflix isn't clogging the network by randomly sending video... Broadband customers...who are paying for service... are clogging the networks with Netflix.
If I am paying for a broadband I should be able to download everything at the same speed at least as far as my provider goes.
this isn't about government control.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">it's about government doing the bidding of corporations, knowing that on its own, </span>
the citizens of this country would never allow to happen.
Actually no it is about making sure that heavy users of a companies infrastructure pay for that usage.
Comments
Okay... ...and? I don’t understand your point. That’s what happens now. What happens when regulation restricts buildouts?
Are you saying that people would be incapable of determining what restaurants are unsanitary on their own?
Sorry, I ran out of flerovium and my time machine’s on the fritz until I can get more. Stuff’s expensive, man.
All a long straw man argument. Neutrality means being neutral between all content providers not not passing on costs to customers who over use or abuse fair use. An ISP can, and they already do, throttle speeds at certain times, limit customer bandwidth, or have a cap per month. This would stop a 4k stream from Netflix unless you paid.
None of this violates net neutrality as any streaming site would be affected.
Ah, okay. What responsibility is it of yours to dictate how much of something is used by another? Who are you to determine what usage is fair?
1) I dont agree that build outs would be affected
2) of course people can't. They aren't experts. Are you seriously opposed to any regulation whatsoever.
3) the "ask a slave" was rhetorical. However you wouldn't need a time machine to talk to one. Probably you wouldn't need a plane trip.
These limits are -- or can be -- imposed on the customer by the ISP. I had a cap in the UK once. That's not a violation of net neutrality because there is no preference for certain sites by the ISP.
so most of the "customer won't pay" arguments are spurious.
My understanding is that that isn't what net neutrality is opposed to ( at least here in Europe). Neutrality is about where the content comes from, not what it is. If the ISP throttles all streams between 6pm-8pm so be it. If they throttle NetFlix or Apple TV streaming and benefit their own solution that's a big problem.
Is that all you can do? Just swing from one extreme to the other?
this isn't about government control.
it's about government doing the bidding of corporations, knowing that on its own, the citizens of this country would never allow to happen.
Name a utility that citizens of the United States don't have to pay for simply because it's regulated by the government. Besides, weren't the deregulation of electric utilities supposed to lead to lower electric bills due to "competition" in the free market? That never happened. If anything, there's ample statistical evidence for those types of markets that private companies failed to deliver on their promises to paying customers. Plus, think of all the paying customers for internet connections in the U.S. that don't actually get anywhere near the upload/download speed that the company claims they'll get. I guess that's considered acceptable simply because those companies are turning a buck, right?
Are you saying that people would be incapable of determining what restaurants are unsanitary on their own?
Sanitary regulations for restaurants is not just about consumer safety. It's also about economic sanity. A higher level of consumer confidence will always lead to greater sales. It's a regulation that improves the market.
Ah, more government control. Just what we need.
It is exactly what we need. Would you rather AT&T or Verizon control your service based upon how much money other conglomerates are willing to pay them?
That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. If the government follows through and confiscates these service providers even the government would have to institute throttling and other network management controls. They would have no choice in the matter because people would quickly become irrate over quality of service issues.
Simply put any non trivial netowrk needs management. Hell even the internal network at work is actively managed buy the network support people. I'm a very sane person and as such I have to speak up here. The net neutrality movement is stupidity at its grandest. Now don't take that to mean that I beleive the systems we have inplace at the moment are perfect as it is far from perfect. What I'm opposed to is the freeloader mentality of many supporting net neutrality and the idea that the government can better manage netowrk use than the companies actually managing the networks right now. Any rational investor, be it in Apple or apples, would be appalled at some of the concepts that the net neutrality crowd wants to see implemented. The last thing this country needs is a welfare system for Internet users.
And if we the taxpayers need, just buy their darn fiber lines and let them just be ISPs.
Are you saying that people would be incapable of determining what restaurants are unsanitary on their own?
Of course they're incapable. How do you know whether raw chicken has been left out unrefrigerated or whether someone used a knife on raw poultry and then used that same knife to cut your sandwich resulting in salmonella poisoning?
How would you know whether the refrigerator where the meat is stored is at the right temperature or whether the frozen food has freezer burn or whether the kitchen is infested with mice or not? Or whether grease from the range hood isn't dripping back into your food?
While there may be many health rules for restaurants that are overkill and unnecessary and some inspectors apply the rules inconsistently and drive the owners crazy, restaurant health inspections have kept thousands of people from getting sick and it has also without a doubt, saved some lives. I won't eat in a restaurant that doesn't have an "A" rating.
I take it you've never watched "Restaurant Impossible" or "Bar Rescue" among other such shows. What's remarkable is that these bar and restaurant owners have seen these shows, requested help and frequently STILL haven't cleaned the place up before the show arrives. While some of the "drama" on these shows may be instigated by producers, I don't think they come in and make the kitchen disgusting before they arrive to shoot.
The second tier down is with content providers streaming data to customers. Again they need a high level of priority to deliver the high quality that customers expect of a streaming service. By definition a streaming service has to be treated differently than a service providing the latest fedora release as a download. So why do you have a problem with Netflix paying for the bandwidth? You seem to be highly conflicted in your statements in this post. Netflix needs lots of bandwidth and apparently is willing to pay for it, their service needs a hire priority on the net to work well so why shouldn't they get that for the money they have paid?
You really need to re read what you have posted.
All I need to know to be apposed!
All terms this administration abuses, how can it effectively regulate someone else?
I'm not sure how you can manage to work that phrase into this conversation
In any event I see the number one problem with the net neutrality pipe dream is that even if it came to pass and the government stole all of that infrastructure they would still have to manage the netowrk. There is simply no way to get around that. The question then becomes would the quality of service for the important network functions go up or go down. I'm willing to bet that the quality of service would suck so bad that people would demand heavy throttling of the abusive users.
But Netflix isn't clogging the network by randomly sending video... Broadband customers...who are paying for service... are clogging the networks with Netflix.
If I am paying for a broadband I should be able to download everything at the same speed at least as far as my provider goes.