Thunderlips
Footballguy
I'm confused here....Obama wants Net Neutrality...which basically is a more free and open internet. Now...do Republicans not want that...or do they just not want the Federal Government to mandate that?
What you are failing to recognize is that carriers were using clandestine methods to limit, slow and otherwise interfere with speeds that were not in the terms of service at that time. The new regulation does not stop providers from limiting total bandwidth under new terms and also allows providers to give upgraded access (higher speeds) to those who are willing to pay for it. The regulation prevents providers from using an ever shifting notion of an acceptable amount of traffic and then penalize its customers for not complying with nonexistant rules. Also you asked when a provider had tried to have a content provider pay for delivery of services, Comcast did exactly that, source;Just because people didn't sue, or didn't sue successfully, doesn't mean that existing laws aren't/weren't working. In the one article, the guy they quoted specifically said he didn't sue because he didn't think he could afford the lawyers. I don't think the FCC should be stepping in for such a case.Back to "net neutrality", I just don't see how a carrier telling its customers how much data they can use under their terms of service has anything to do with net neutrality. Ditto for AT&T getting rid of "unlimited" wireless data plans; how does that have anything to do with net neutrality?Edited edit makes more sense and under standard contractual rules you are correct, though there were cases where this wasn't happening. In my above link pertaining to Comcast cutting off customers this was actively occurring back in the spring of 2007. Here is their service amendment, effective 01OCT2008, stating they are implementing a 250GB/month restriction. I had not seen any successful legal action regarding the cases that had occurred prior to the FCC taking action. SchlzmI edited my edit above to make it more clear what I was trying to say.My point with the whole "unlimited" thing was that we're still talking about a simple contract dispute. If the terms of use say X, don't complain if you don't abide by X and get in trouble for it. If the terms say that Y is allowed and the carrier cuts you off for doing Y, our existing laws and court system are more than capable of dealing with the matter.If I recall correctly the argument being put forth by the providers was that since the lines and bandwidth was their property they could do as they pleased with them, including traffic shaping, bandwidth throttling and disconnect and there was no recourse from the customer other than cut their losses and try to locate another provider which didn't impose the restrictions. Hence the FCC ruling to disallow providers from these actions unless specifically outlined in the originating service agreement.
ETA: Saw your edit and I have to disagree with your description. Not very neutral if you categorize every bit of traffic and treat it differently. That would be more like net discrimination.
Schlzm
Also as for Mr. McConnell, his claims are actually the exact opposite of what should happen moving forward here. Allowing an access monopoly to occur would do more harm to growth, innovation and development.SchlzmLevel 3 and Comcast have been at loggerheads ever since Level 3 inked at deal to serve as a delivery network for streaming video from Netflix. At that point, Comcast claimed the amount of traffic it accepted from Level 3 jumped to about five times the amount of data it sent to Level 3, making their “peering” relationship very one-sided. Comcast demanded ongoing “access fees” from Level 3, saying the terms of the fees were “no different” from fees it charges to other content delivery networks that send data to Comcast. Level 3 maintains that no other local access providers charge Level 3 those kinds of fees, and the fees are all about protecting Comcast’s own Xfinity and online video offering by charging a “price” for competitors to reach Comcast customers.
People(businesses) are complaining because internet service providers want to regulate how you reach their customers.So people are complaining because their internet service provider wants to regulate what internet it provides?
If only there were some thread with a discussion and links explaining the issue...So people are complaining because their internet service provider wants to regulate what internet it provides?
I guess this Net Neutrality thing is already ####### #### up. Now either answer my godamned questions Poindexter, point me in the direction I need to go or..... SHUUUSSSSSHHH!!!!!If only there were some thread with a discussion and links explaining the issue...So people are complaining because their internet service provider wants to regulate what internet it provides?
Except that no providers have done this.People(businesses) are complaining because internet service providers want to regulate how you reach their customers.So people are complaining because their internet service provider wants to regulate what internet it provides?
Comcast was trying it with Level3, it has been cited multiple times. Not to mention the heavy handed approaches it was taking with its customers when it came to high volumes of traffic. SchlzmExcept that no providers have done this.People(businesses) are complaining because internet service providers want to regulate how you reach their customers.So people are complaining because their internet service provider wants to regulate what internet it provides?
I've heard various allegations to that affect here and there, but I've never seen any proof of the above.What you are failing to recognize is that carriers were using clandestine methods to limit, slow and otherwise interfere with speeds that were not in the terms of service at that time.
This is exactly my point. A peering dispute has nothing to do with net neutrality. Providers have agreements regarding how much data they can send in one direction (e.g. from Level3 to Comcast) versus the other (e.g. from Comcast to Level3), and whether/how much one provider will pay the other for the privilege. Level3 got a new customer (great for them), but this impacted their peering agreement with Comcast. Comcast is simply asking Level3 to pay more for their peering agreement now that they're pushing more traffic in that direction. Comcast isn't penalizing the traffic because it's Netflix traffic or because it's streaming video. They're asking for more because it's more traffic. Again, that has nothing to do with net neutrality.If Comcast said that they'd allow non-Netflix traffic at the regular rate, but only allow the Netflix traffic at the higher rate, then you'd have a point, but that's not what happened.Also you asked when a provider had tried to have a content provider pay for delivery of services, Comcast did exactly that, source;
Level 3 and Comcast have been at loggerheads ever since Level 3 inked at deal to serve as a delivery network for streaming video from Netflix. At that point, Comcast claimed the amount of traffic it accepted from Level 3 jumped to about five times the amount of data it sent to Level 3, making their “peering” relationship very one-sided. Comcast demanded ongoing “access fees” from Level 3, saying the terms of the fees were “no different” from fees it charges to other content delivery networks that send data to Comcast. Level 3 maintains that no other local access providers charge Level 3 those kinds of fees, and the fees are all about protecting Comcast’s own Xfinity and online video offering by charging a “price” for competitors to reach Comcast customers.
Peering disputes are NOT related to net neutrality. This has been pointed out multiple times. The current Comcast/Level3 dispute has NOTHING to do with net neutrality.Comcast was trying it with Level3, it has been cited multiple times. Not to mention the heavy handed approaches it was taking with its customers when it came to high volumes of traffic. SchlzmExcept that no providers have done this.People(businesses) are complaining because internet service providers want to regulate how you reach their customers.So people are complaining because their internet service provider wants to regulate what internet it provides?
There's protection from that now. These companies have not put anything like that into place. If they did, then a consumer can go to a different company for a more competitive rate. If it was found that all the companies were colluding to keep the prices artificially high, there's a thing called the Antitrust Law to prevent companies from doing just that. This FCC powerplay doesn't help anything that isn't already covered under current laws. All it does is set precedent for the FCC to meddle in internet regulation at a later point in time because they already have.It's a protection of access to markets - if there is no "neutrality" then the internet providers(Comcast, Verizion, etc) can dictate the market and cost to access to their users - in many cases/markets they have a near monopoly on broadband access. Those with more money will be able to pay for that access - new companies that are start ups(the old jobs engine argument - small companies add more jobs right?) will not be able to do this.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/11/comcast-sued-ov/http://consumerist.com/2009/12/comcast-set...ng-lawsuit.htmlI've heard various allegations to that affect here and there, but I've never seen any proof of the above.What you are failing to recognize is that carriers were using clandestine methods to limit, slow and otherwise interfere with speeds that were not in the terms of service at that time.
I guess this just goes back to a disagreement on what net neutrality means/stands for. Also before you jump back to the argument about existing legal lanes existing, the FCC is preventing this activity from happening against those persons who could not prove or afford to litigate. But hey let's all just run around screaming that the feds are coming to take away our internets because Al Gore is angry that global warming isn't getting anywhere so he's taking his tubes and going home. SchlzmAlso you asked when a provider had tried to have a content provider pay for delivery of services, Comcast did exactly that, source;
This is exactly my point. A peering dispute has nothing to do with net neutrality. Providers have agreements regarding how much data they can send in one direction (e.g. from Level3 to Comcast) versus the other (e.g. from Comcast to Level3), and whether/how much one provider will pay the other for the privilege. Level3 got a new customer (great for them), but this impacted their peering agreement with Comcast. Comcast is simply asking Level3 to pay more for their peering agreement now that they're pushing more traffic in that direction. Comcast isn't penalizing the traffic because it's Netflix traffic or because it's streaming video. They're asking for more because it's more traffic. Again, that has nothing to do with net neutrality.If Comcast said that they'd allow non-Netflix traffic at the regular rate, but only allow the Netflix traffic at the higher rate, then you'd have a point, but that's not what happened.Level 3 and Comcast have been at loggerheads ever since Level 3 inked at deal to serve as a delivery network for streaming video from Netflix. At that point, Comcast claimed the amount of traffic it accepted from Level 3 jumped to about five times the amount of data it sent to Level 3, making their “peering” relationship very one-sided. Comcast demanded ongoing “access fees” from Level 3, saying the terms of the fees were “no different” from fees it charges to other content delivery networks that send data to Comcast. Level 3 maintains that no other local access providers charge Level 3 those kinds of fees, and the fees are all about protecting Comcast’s own Xfinity and online video offering by charging a “price” for competitors to reach Comcast customers.
Competitive rate? How many individual broadband networks do you think there are in your city?There's protection from that now. These companies have not put anything like that into place. If they did, then a consumer can go to a different company for a more competitive rate. If it was found that all the companies were colluding to keep the prices artificially high, there's a thing called the Antitrust Law to prevent companies from doing just that. This FCC powerplay doesn't help anything that isn't already covered under current laws. All it does is set precedent for the FCC to meddle in internet regulation at a later point in time because they already have.It's a protection of access to markets - if there is no "neutrality" then the internet providers(Comcast, Verizion, etc) can dictate the market and cost to access to their users - in many cases/markets they have a near monopoly on broadband access. Those with more money will be able to pay for that access - new companies that are start ups(the old jobs engine argument - small companies add more jobs right?) will not be able to do this.
Not seeing your angle here.Competitive rate? How many individual broadband networks do you think there are in your city?There's protection from that now. These companies have not put anything like that into place. If they did, then a consumer can go to a different company for a more competitive rate. If it was found that all the companies were colluding to keep the prices artificially high, there's a thing called the Antitrust Law to prevent companies from doing just that. This FCC powerplay doesn't help anything that isn't already covered under current laws. All it does is set precedent for the FCC to meddle in internet regulation at a later point in time because they already have.It's a protection of access to markets - if there is no "neutrality" then the internet providers(Comcast, Verizion, etc) can dictate the market and cost to access to their users - in many cases/markets they have a near monopoly on broadband access. Those with more money will be able to pay for that access - new companies that are start ups(the old jobs engine argument - small companies add more jobs right?) will not be able to do this.
But in many places they can't - you have only one provider - many of these providers were given monopoly access to right of ways to allow them to get big and keep out competition as a provider. The providers are trying to put this into place and have been reluctant to complete this model - Chairman Powell of the FCC was wrestling with this for years in the Bush administration and so many companies have been holding off on putting it into place. The Level 3 issues cited are just the tip of the iceberg on what these providers want to do. The Internet was created by the government and as stated before access to the "last mile" was highly regulated by Federal and Local governments all the way back to the Bell companies and ATT - so they have been meddling in this since pretty much Alexander Graham Bell. The Comcasts and Verizons love this because all they will have to do is sit in the middle and count the cash.There's protection from that now. These companies have not put anything like that into place. If they did, then a consumer can go to a different company for a more competitive rate. If it was found that all the companies were colluding to keep the prices artificially high, there's a thing called the Antitrust Law to prevent companies from doing just that. This FCC powerplay doesn't help anything that isn't already covered under current laws. All it does is set precedent for the FCC to meddle in internet regulation at a later point in time because they already have.It's a protection of access to markets - if there is no "neutrality" then the internet providers(Comcast, Verizion, etc) can dictate the market and cost to access to their users - in many cases/markets they have a near monopoly on broadband access. Those with more money will be able to pay for that access - new companies that are start ups(the old jobs engine argument - small companies add more jobs right?) will not be able to do this.
This should help him understand a little better. I picked the city/state at random.SchlzmBut in many places they can't - you have only one provider - many of these providers were given monopoly access to right of ways to allow them to get big and keep out competition as a provider. The providers are trying to put this into place and have been reluctant to complete this model - Chairman Powell of the FCC was wrestling with this for years in the Bush administration and so many companies have been holding off on putting it into place. The Level 3 issues cited are just the tip of the iceberg on what these providers want to do. The Internet was created by the government and as stated before access to the "last mile" was highly regulated by Federal and Local governments all the way back to the Bell companies and ATT - so they have been meddling in this since pretty much Alexander Graham Bell. The Comcasts and Verizons love this because all they will have to do is sit in the middle and count the cash.There's protection from that now. These companies have not put anything like that into place. If they did, then a consumer can go to a different company for a more competitive rate. If it was found that all the companies were colluding to keep the prices artificially high, there's a thing called the Antitrust Law to prevent companies from doing just that. This FCC powerplay doesn't help anything that isn't already covered under current laws. All it does is set precedent for the FCC to meddle in internet regulation at a later point in time because they already have.It's a protection of access to markets - if there is no "neutrality" then the internet providers(Comcast, Verizion, etc) can dictate the market and cost to access to their users - in many cases/markets they have a near monopoly on broadband access. Those with more money will be able to pay for that access - new companies that are start ups(the old jobs engine argument - small companies add more jobs right?) will not be able to do this.
We could have a porn-free internet before you know it.So, how does this affect me being able to download rather large movies...?
FixedThe Senate likely kills this early next year anyway. Neither side The campaign contributors don't really approves of the FCC taking this step and they don't need Obama to rescind it.
This is absolutely what it's NOT about. If Comcast were to block access to sites (or even slow it) customers would switch en masse to alternative providers. I've lived in my house for 12 years and today I get speeds 6x what I got when I moved in and my monthly charge hasn't budged and I can access whatever I want. So, I'm not seeing a big need for the government to step in and regulate the Internet. This rule-making has been pushed by content providers in an economic dispute with the network providers. The network providers want to charge providers that create disproportionate network demand. Net Neutrality will limit that ability, therefore, the cost of network upgrades will be borne by the consumer or they won't be made. This was marketed as keeping the Internet "free and open", but the Internet has been a huge success story in the past decade plus and it will be interesting to see how that changes now that the government has stepped in to regulate it.Abraham said:It's a big deal. NN prohibits providers and he government from regulating web content. Without it, Comcast (for example) could decide they want to block all porn to their customers....or all news sites with a liberal perspective...or all Muslim religious discussion boards....or Christian discussion boards, etc.
I'm sorry, I just don't understand how asking anyone (be it individual customer, carrier, ISP, or corporate customer) to pay more for more bandwidth or traffic relates to net neutrality. When did the country decide that all internet subscriptions must be unlimited at a flat rate?Why shouldn't AT&T Wireless be able to charge you $20 a month for 2GB of data, $30/month for 4GB, and $50/month for 10GB?I guess this just goes back to a disagreement on what net neutrality means/stands for. Also before you jump back to the argument about existing legal lanes existing, the FCC is preventing this activity from happening against those persons who could not prove or afford to litigate. But hey let's all just run around screaming that the feds are coming to take away our internets because Al Gore is angry that global warming isn't getting anywhere so he's taking his tubes and going home. SchlzmThis is exactly my point. A peering dispute has nothing to do with net neutrality. Providers have agreements regarding how much data they can send in one direction (e.g. from Level3 to Comcast) versus the other (e.g. from Comcast to Level3), and whether/how much one provider will pay the other for the privilege. Level3 got a new customer (great for them), but this impacted their peering agreement with Comcast. Comcast is simply asking Level3 to pay more for their peering agreement now that they're pushing more traffic in that direction. Comcast isn't penalizing the traffic because it's Netflix traffic or because it's streaming video. They're asking for more because it's more traffic. Again, that has nothing to do with net neutrality.If Comcast said that they'd allow non-Netflix traffic at the regular rate, but only allow the Netflix traffic at the higher rate, then you'd have a point, but that's not what happened.Also you asked when a provider had tried to have a content provider pay for delivery of services, Comcast did exactly that, source;
Level 3 and Comcast have been at loggerheads ever since Level 3 inked at deal to serve as a delivery network for streaming video from Netflix. At that point, Comcast claimed the amount of traffic it accepted from Level 3 jumped to about five times the amount of data it sent to Level 3, making their “peering” relationship very one-sided. Comcast demanded ongoing “access fees” from Level 3, saying the terms of the fees were “no different” from fees it charges to other content delivery networks that send data to Comcast. Level 3 maintains that no other local access providers charge Level 3 those kinds of fees, and the fees are all about protecting Comcast’s own Xfinity and online video offering by charging a “price” for competitors to reach Comcast customers.
ETA: Where net neutrality started for the partisan hawks.
Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin
Well maybe you should go back and re-read everything about what this ruling actually does and what I have written because you are now arguing a point that was never made. Or just playing ISP and shift the lines of the argument like shifting what is considered too much internetting.SchlzmI'm sorry, I just don't understand how asking anyone (be it individual customer, carrier, ISP, or corporate customer) to pay more for more bandwidth or traffic relates to net neutrality. When did the country decide that all internet subscriptions must be unlimited at a flat rate?Why shouldn't AT&T Wireless be able to charge you $20 a month for 2GB of data, $30/month for 4GB, and $50/month for 10GB?I guess this just goes back to a disagreement on what net neutrality means/stands for. Also before you jump back to the argument about existing legal lanes existing, the FCC is preventing this activity from happening against those persons who could not prove or afford to litigate. But hey let's all just run around screaming that the feds are coming to take away our internets because Al Gore is angry that global warming isn't getting anywhere so he's taking his tubes and going home. SchlzmThis is exactly my point. A peering dispute has nothing to do with net neutrality. Providers have agreements regarding how much data they can send in one direction (e.g. from Level3 to Comcast) versus the other (e.g. from Comcast to Level3), and whether/how much one provider will pay the other for the privilege. Level3 got a new customer (great for them), but this impacted their peering agreement with Comcast. Comcast is simply asking Level3 to pay more for their peering agreement now that they're pushing more traffic in that direction. Comcast isn't penalizing the traffic because it's Netflix traffic or because it's streaming video. They're asking for more because it's more traffic. Again, that has nothing to do with net neutrality.If Comcast said that they'd allow non-Netflix traffic at the regular rate, but only allow the Netflix traffic at the higher rate, then you'd have a point, but that's not what happened.Also you asked when a provider had tried to have a content provider pay for delivery of services, Comcast did exactly that, source;
Level 3 and Comcast have been at loggerheads ever since Level 3 inked at deal to serve as a delivery network for streaming video from Netflix. At that point, Comcast claimed the amount of traffic it accepted from Level 3 jumped to about five times the amount of data it sent to Level 3, making their “peering” relationship very one-sided. Comcast demanded ongoing “access fees” from Level 3, saying the terms of the fees were “no different” from fees it charges to other content delivery networks that send data to Comcast. Level 3 maintains that no other local access providers charge Level 3 those kinds of fees, and the fees are all about protecting Comcast’s own Xfinity and online video offering by charging a “price” for competitors to reach Comcast customers.
ETA: Where net neutrality started for the partisan hawks.
Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin
Why should Comcast have to accept Level3 pushing five times as much traffic to Comcast as Comcast pushes to Level3 without compensation?
Hell, for that matter, since it's apparently been decided that all internet subscriptions must be flat rate and unlimited, who says $39.99 a month for cable internet is the right price? Maybe the government should mandate it be no more than $25.
Again, if you want to discuss types of traffic or source of traffic, then we can discuss what rules the FCC (or anyone else) should be able to make. But charging more for more bandwidth? I can't see any way that it relates to "net neutrality".
I wouldn't like it if the Conservatives did that!We could have a porn-free internet before you know it.So, how does this affect me being able to download rather large movies...?
What alternate providers? Comcast and the other ISPs are not just network providers they're also content providers. If I want to watch a movie I can pay Comcast $4.99 for each movie or pay $7.99 a month to Netflix to stream as many movies and TV shows as I want. (At least that's what their web site says, I don't use it). Doesn't it seem likely to you that Comcast would like regulations that would allow them to degrade Netflix so much that nobody would use it? Then they could get more people to pay their outrageous prices.This is absolutely what it's NOT about. If Comcast were to block access to sites (or even slow it) customers would switch en masse to alternative providers. I've lived in my house for 12 years and today I get speeds 6x what I got when I moved in and my monthly charge hasn't budged and I can access whatever I want. So, I'm not seeing a big need for the government to step in and regulate the Internet. This rule-making has been pushed by content providers in an economic dispute with the network providers. The network providers want to charge providers that create disproportionate network demand. Net Neutrality will limit that ability, therefore, the cost of network upgrades will be borne by the consumer or they won't be made. This was marketed as keeping the Internet "free and open", but the Internet has been a huge success story in the past decade plus and it will be interesting to see how that changes now that the government has stepped in to regulate it.Abraham said:It's a big deal. NN prohibits providers and he government from regulating web content. Without it, Comcast (for example) could decide they want to block all porn to their customers....or all news sites with a liberal perspective...or all Muslim religious discussion boards....or Christian discussion boards, etc.
Aren't you the one that has repeatedly claimed that the Level3/Comcast dispute is a perfect example of why we need net neutrality?Well maybe you should go back and re-read everything about what this ruling actually does and what I have written because you are now arguing a point that was never made. Or just playing ISP and shift the lines of the argument like shifting what is considered too much internetting.Schlzm
I cited it as part of the reasonas to why the ruling was drafted. Now pleased explain how that means the FCC is mandating costs for service providers (truth found in the ruling), how this means that provides haven't been hindering customers (multiple occassions noted which you have started ignoring) or any of the other made up reasons as to how the ruling is supposedly going to destroy or limit content delivered among other things (Sen. McConnell)?SchlzmAren't you the one that has repeatedly claimed that the Level3/Comcast dispute is a perfect example of why we need net neutrality?Well maybe you should go back and re-read everything about what this ruling actually does and what I have written because you are now arguing a point that was never made. Or just playing ISP and shift the lines of the argument like shifting what is considered too much internetting.Schlzm
Check my link a few posts up noting the prior chairman, it's really what got the ball rolling.Schlzmmaybe someone can explain why the fcc all of a sudden needs to interfere with the internet?
I pity you, schlzm. You just take things at face value and accept what is handed to you. They say that they are keeping the internet "free and open" by enacting new regulations to do so. The internet is already free and open. How will this make it more so? You say its to stop hypothetically situations where telecoms will close the internet that havent occured yet. Yet the only examples you provide are, as Conway stated, contract disputes between 2 individual, PRIVATE parties. You refuse to see how this simple action of "protecting the free and openness of the internet," something no one would think of as a bad thing on its face is just the first step in the door to regulating the whole thing. They could care less about how free or open the internet is. They want to get in and start telling companies how much bandwidth is a "fair" amount so that they have a precedent to tell companies what is "appropriate" content later on.I cited it as part of the reasonas to why the ruling was drafted. Now pleased explain how that means the FCC is mandating costs for service providers (truth found in the ruling), how this means that provides haven't been hindering customers (multiple occassions noted which you have started ignoring) or any of the other made up reasons as to how the ruling is supposedly going to destroy or limit content delivered among other things (Sen. McConnell)?SchlzmAren't you the one that has repeatedly claimed that the Level3/Comcast dispute is a perfect example of why we need net neutrality?Well maybe you should go back and re-read everything about what this ruling actually does and what I have written because you are now arguing a point that was never made. Or just playing ISP and shift the lines of the argument like shifting what is considered too much internetting.Schlzm
the problem is the FCC doesn't have authority over the internet. They will get run over by congress and then if this "net neutrality" thing is so important in keeping companies like Comcast in line, then all you need to do is pass a simple law that says it is illegal to limit any traffic on public or private broadband systems. congress can regulate the internet. At least the people will have a chance to be heard before laws and regulations are put in place, if the FCC just decides one day they have power and the next day they can regulate as they see fit without oversight then i have a problem, a big problem with that.Check my link a few posts up noting the prior chairman, it's really what got the ball rolling.Schlzmmaybe someone can explain why the fcc all of a sudden needs to interfere with the internet?
Well written but otherwise nothing more than a semi-eloquent attempt at a personal attack, which is weak at best considering my positions on other, and significantly more relevant, legislation. So pity away all you want gb.SchlzmI pity you, schlzm. You just take things at face value and accept what is handed to you. They say that they are keeping the internet "free and open" by enacting new regulations to do so. The internet is already free and open. How will this make it more so? You say its to stop hypothetically situations where telecoms will close the internet that havent occured yet. Yet the only examples you provide are, as Conway stated, contract disputes between 2 individual, PRIVATE parties. You refuse to see how this simple action of "protecting the free and openness of the internet," something no one would think of as a bad thing on its face is just the first step in the door to regulating the whole thing. They could care less about how free or open the internet is. They want to get in and start telling companies how much bandwidth is a "fair" amount so that they have a precedent to tell companies what is "appropriate" content later on.I cited it as part of the reasonas to why the ruling was drafted. Now pleased explain how that means the FCC is mandating costs for service providers (truth found in the ruling), how this means that provides haven't been hindering customers (multiple occassions noted which you have started ignoring) or any of the other made up reasons as to how the ruling is supposedly going to destroy or limit content delivered among other things (Sen. McConnell)?SchlzmAren't you the one that has repeatedly claimed that the Level3/Comcast dispute is a perfect example of why we need net neutrality?Well maybe you should go back and re-read everything about what this ruling actually does and what I have written because you are now arguing a point that was never made. Or just playing ISP and shift the lines of the argument like shifting what is considered too much internetting.Schlzm
I am more than willing for this to be addressed in Congress and a better piece of legislation drafted that provides a clear cut ruling that provides maximum protections for the consumer and corporations without inhibiting available product or otherwise damage the industry. That would provide a better outcme overall and the FCC could be credited with getting this off the ground.Schlzmthe problem is the FCC doesn't have authority over the internet. They will get run over by congress and then if this "net neutrality" thing is so important in keeping companies like Comcast in line, then all you need to do is pass a simple law that says it is illegal to limit any traffic on public or private broadband systems. congress can regulate the internet. At least the people will have a chance to be heard before laws and regulations are put in place, if the FCC just decides one day they have power and the next day they can regulate as they see fit without oversight then i have a problem, a big problem with that.Check my link a few posts up noting the prior chairman, it's really what got the ball rolling.Schlzmmaybe someone can explain why the fcc all of a sudden needs to interfere with the internet?
Wait a minute - we are going to pass a law after Comcast make money hand over fist and after they pay off Congress - to take away their ability to print money. Call me skeptical - horse will already be out the barn.the problem is the FCC doesn't have authority over the internet. They will get run over by congress and then if this "net neutrality" thing is so important in keeping companies like Comcast in line, then all you need to do is pass a simple law that says it is illegal to limit any traffic on public or private broadband systems. congress can regulate the internet. At least the people will have a chance to be heard before laws and regulations are put in place, if the FCC just decides one day they have power and the next day they can regulate as they see fit without oversight then i have a problem, a big problem with that.Check my link a few posts up noting the prior chairman, it's really what got the ball rolling.Schlzmmaybe someone can explain why the fcc all of a sudden needs to interfere with the internet?
So you're skeptical about passing a law where its actually voted upon but have no problems with arbitray rulings from a government entity that contains no elected officials?Wait a minute - we are going to pass a law after Comcast make money hand over fist and after they pay off Congress - to take away their ability to print money. Call me skeptical - horse will already be out the barn.the problem is the FCC doesn't have authority over the internet. They will get run over by congress and then if this "net neutrality" thing is so important in keeping companies like Comcast in line, then all you need to do is pass a simple law that says it is illegal to limit any traffic on public or private broadband systems. congress can regulate the internet. At least the people will have a chance to be heard before laws and regulations are put in place, if the FCC just decides one day they have power and the next day they can regulate as they see fit without oversight then i have a problem, a big problem with that.Check my link a few posts up noting the prior chairman, it's really what got the ball rolling.Schlzmmaybe someone can explain why the fcc all of a sudden needs to interfere with the internet?
Show me how much those guys on the FCC panel took from the various companies and industry "research" groups - the reports I'm seeing are the carriers don't like it and others don't think it went far enough - sounds like no one is happy. Seems to me they did the job right.So you're skeptical about passing a law where its actually voted upon but have no problems with arbitray rulings from a government entity that contains no elected officials?Wait a minute - we are going to pass a law after Comcast make money hand over fist and after they pay off Congress - to take away their ability to print money. Call me skeptical - horse will already be out the barn.the problem is the FCC doesn't have authority over the internet. They will get run over by congress and then if this "net neutrality" thing is so important in keeping companies like Comcast in line, then all you need to do is pass a simple law that says it is illegal to limit any traffic on public or private broadband systems. congress can regulate the internet. At least the people will have a chance to be heard before laws and regulations are put in place, if the FCC just decides one day they have power and the next day they can regulate as they see fit without oversight then i have a problem, a big problem with that.Check my link a few posts up noting the prior chairman, it's really what got the ball rolling.Schlzmmaybe someone can explain why the fcc all of a sudden needs to interfere with the internet?
Any government agency can regulate anything they want now, without Congressional approval or oversight. All they need to say is "We know what's best for you", and the sheeple roll over for it.maybe someone can explain why the fcc all of a sudden needs to interfere with the internet?
This is my feeling on it, pretty good middle ground for a fairly mild resolution.SchlzmShow me how much those guys on the FCC panel took from the various companies and industry "research" groups - the reports I'm seeing are the carriers don't like it and others don't think it went far enough - sounds like no one is happy. Seems to me they did the job right.So you're skeptical about passing a law where its actually voted upon but have no problems with arbitray rulings from a government entity that contains no elected officials?Wait a minute - we are going to pass a law after Comcast make money hand over fist and after they pay off Congress - to take away their ability to print money. Call me skeptical - horse will already be out the barn.the problem is the FCC doesn't have authority over the internet. They will get run over by congress and then if this "net neutrality" thing is so important in keeping companies like Comcast in line, then all you need to do is pass a simple law that says it is illegal to limit any traffic on public or private broadband systems. congress can regulate the internet. At least the people will have a chance to be heard before laws and regulations are put in place, if the FCC just decides one day they have power and the next day they can regulate as they see fit without oversight then i have a problem, a big problem with that.Check my link a few posts up noting the prior chairman, it's really what got the ball rolling.
Schlzm
Right, I'll just cancel my Comcast broadband internet and get the Other broadband internet company instead. What's that? There isn't another broadband company that provides internet via the cable lines to my place? I can't call someone to install that? Oh, right. I'm sure in some places, people don't have cable lines and rely on satellite. Or DSL. Neither of which are as fast or reliable.There's protection from that now. These companies have not put anything like that into place. If they did, then a consumer can go to a different company for a more competitive rate. If it was found that all the companies were colluding to keep the prices artificially high, there's a thing called the Antitrust Law to prevent companies from doing just that. This FCC powerplay doesn't help anything that isn't already covered under current laws. All it does is set precedent for the FCC to meddle in internet regulation at a later point in time because they already have.It's a protection of access to markets - if there is no "neutrality" then the internet providers(Comcast, Verizion, etc) can dictate the market and cost to access to their users - in many cases/markets they have a near monopoly on broadband access. Those with more money will be able to pay for that access - new companies that are start ups(the old jobs engine argument - small companies add more jobs right?) will not be able to do this.
Do you think Comcast or other large companies will act in the best interests of the citizens of the United States? I'm not saying they'll screw over the citizens outright, but anytime a company uses monopolistic practices to decrease competition, the consumer loses out.I don't fully understand thew argument either way, but I don't trust the government enough to believe they are acting in our best interests.
Is Comcast a monopoly?Do you think Comcast or other large companies will act in the best interests of the citizens of the United States? I'm not saying they'll screw over the citizens outright, but anytime a company uses monopolistic practices to decrease competition, the consumer loses out.I don't fully understand thew argument either way, but I don't trust the government enough to believe they are acting in our best interests.
So you buy into the idea that a problem, that has yet to manifest itself, is going to threaten the internet. So we must police it before it exists. Sounds like the government is the right entity for the job. Government: If you think the problems we cause are bad, wait until you see our solutions.Right, I'll just cancel my Comcast broadband internet and get the Other broadband internet company instead. What's that? There isn't another broadband company that provides internet via the cable lines to my place? I can't call someone to install that? Oh, right. I'm sure in some places, people don't have cable lines and rely on satellite. Or DSL. Neither of which are as fast or reliable.There's protection from that now. These companies have not put anything like that into place. If they did, then a consumer can go to a different company for a more competitive rate. If it was found that all the companies were colluding to keep the prices artificially high, there's a thing called the Antitrust Law to prevent companies from doing just that. This FCC powerplay doesn't help anything that isn't already covered under current laws. All it does is set precedent for the FCC to meddle in internet regulation at a later point in time because they already have.It's a protection of access to markets - if there is no "neutrality" then the internet providers(Comcast, Verizion, etc) can dictate the market and cost to access to their users - in many cases/markets they have a near monopoly on broadband access. Those with more money will be able to pay for that access - new companies that are start ups(the old jobs engine argument - small companies add more jobs right?) will not be able to do this.
In all seriousness, your attitude that companies will do the right thing because they don't want to lose business is a bunch of baloney. Just ask those fellas on Wall Street that Greenspan was sure would regulate themselves without the need for government interference.
For broadband in some markets - yesIs Comcast a monopoly?Do you think Comcast or other large companies will act in the best interests of the citizens of the United States? I'm not saying they'll screw over the citizens outright, but anytime a company uses monopolistic practices to decrease competition, the consumer loses out.I don't fully understand thew argument either way, but I don't trust the government enough to believe they are acting in our best interests.
I'm gonna shoot my neighbor's dog, then kick his wife in the shin. Neither will be happy, sounds like that's a job well done.Show me how much those guys on the FCC panel took from the various companies and industry "research" groups - the reports I'm seeing are the carriers don't like it and others don't think it went far enough - sounds like no one is happy. Seems to me they did the job right.
We should switch back to a pay-per-usage model. $1/gb downloaded or whatever. Then split the revenue among the media providers: NBC, ESPN, YouTube, etc. If they offered to let us stream anything we wanted in exchange... any movie we want, any TV show we want, live sports events, whatever... it'd be a great deal. An end to piracy, an end to copyright controls, an end to Viacom et al. pulling remixes from Youtube, and a rational way to build an internet economy.Last thing before I go to bed: I'm with Rich Conway in that network providers should be able to charge for bandwidth if they so choose. I don't see it as being all that different from the power company charging you by how much electricity you use. However, it's got to be clearly stated.
And thats what it all comes down to. If Congress passes a law that dictates this, theres not much we can say about it except to vote out the politicians we disagree with in the next election. If the FCC arbitrarily decrees that it has the authority to do these things, there is NOTHNG we the people can do about it.tommyboy said:i guess you could compare the broadband industry to the railroad industry. there's about 5 major carriers left in the US, BNSF, UP, CN, CSXT and the NS are largest and each has mini monopolies in certain areas of the country yet they crossover in several major hubs as well. The theory is they would compete for business but since there's only 5 of them and they pretty much all know what each other is charging for freight hauls there's a defacto monopoly in place on hauling freight around the US. Congress has deregulated rail, and here we are today. You the consumer are paying for record railroad profits the last several years because they have no reason to compete. Is this good for us? i doubt it. Everything you buy is now more expensive simply because it costs more to move stuff.
I can see the same thing the broadband industry.
so on the one hand I'm for some regulation, mainly to force these companies to have to compete because in a robust capitalist society the free open market will determine the proper rates for goods and service in normal conditions. However what we have in the US is a few companies colluding to obstruct competition to protect margins and shareholder returns. I'm all for eliminating through congress the ability to obstruct competition, i'm all against the FCC making a powerplay to assign itself authority to make law.
Here's a grand summary of where I am with this. I'm not ignoring anything, just short on time.As a general rule, I'm against unnecessary government regulation. Further, I feel the burden of proof is on the government to show that any particular regulation/authority is necessary, rather than the other way around. That is, I shouldn't have to show why government shouldn't do something; government should have to show why it is necessary that they should do something. I don't think anyone has shown why this is necessary yet.The Comcast/Level3 thing is totally irrelevant to me, so anyone pointing to that isn't showing why government needs to step in. Ditto for AT&T, Comcast, or any other provider limiting consumers to certain amounts of GB per month. In most places, there are multiple options for internet access. True, there may only be one "cable internet" provider, but there are other options (e.g. DSL, satellite, etc.). The argument that "those aren't as good as cable" is a bad one. That's like arguing that Pepsi isn't as good as Coke, and therefore, government should be able to regulate how much Coke can charge because they have a monopoly on Coke. More to the point, even if there are locations where there is only one option, I think any regulation should come in the form of government regulating the local monopoly (e.g. making sure the local monopoly isn't using their monopoly status to overcharge its customers), not "regulating the internet federally".To date, the only instance that anyone has offered in this thread that comes close to a net neutrality argument is the BitTorrent thing, and from what I read in the articles posted, even those allegations were iffy.Back to the FCC, my issue with them doing anything in this area is one of the slippery slope principle. Once they've asserted their ability to regulate in this area and it goes unchallenged, I think it's a short step for them to go the next step and tell the carriers that they must block/deprioritize/report certain sites (e.g. gambling, drugs, etc.).Schlzm said:I cited it as part of the reasonas to why the ruling was drafted. Now pleased explain how that means the FCC is mandating costs for service providers (truth found in the ruling), how this means that provides haven't been hindering customers (multiple occassions noted which you have started ignoring) or any of the other made up reasons as to how the ruling is supposedly going to destroy or limit content delivered among other things (Sen. McConnell)?SchlzmRich Conway said:Aren't you the one that has repeatedly claimed that the Level3/Comcast dispute is a perfect example of why we need net neutrality?Schlzm said:Well maybe you should go back and re-read everything about what this ruling actually does and what I have written because you are now arguing a point that was never made. Or just playing ISP and shift the lines of the argument like shifting what is considered too much internetting.Schlzm