Discussion in 'Internet and Technology' started by Maddox, Jun 12, 2018.
Read about what is being said:
>>> CLICK HERE <<<
If it allows additional income AND that additional income is placed back into expanding the network then what is the issue? Is not that "caring" about the rights of those under-privileged citizens in areas under served by ISP providers in allowing them access to, or better access to, high speed internet?
All this does is make folks possibly have to pay more to get higher speed access (streaming). If those funds do go back into infrastructure improvements/expansion what is the issue? Again, if it is rolled back in (and I'm not saying it will be or won't be) then isn't that good for the people?
It's no different than a toll-road or the TEXpress roads in the Dallas, TX area. You pay extra to get somewhere faster, you pay extra to get data faster.
You can over-regulate a business to death as easily as not regulate it enough.
First up, this should be taken as a warning sign against the independent site owners, i.e. US.
The fundamental problem that net neutrality tries to fix is that it's not about the consumers paying extra (though no doubt the providers will charge for that) - but it's about the site providers. FB, Netflix etc can afford to pay the higher prices and will do so, and the rest of us who can't afford to pay the extra will become second class citizens in yet another way.
As for the funds going back to the infrastructure improvements? You *honestly* think big businesses will do that as opposed to, say, bigger bonuses all round?
What would concern me is it appears all the safeguards that are designed to protect customers have been tossed away. If what I'm reading is correct prepare to say hello to blocking, throttling, paid prioritization, hidden surcharges, congestion, packet loss, high latency with no redress except to bail by paying an early termination fee.
The two side in this debate (well, no longer a debate) are so far apart it's actually impossible to tell fact from fiction.
I thought this statement which is being attributed to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai was a little worrying...
The thing about it is... let's see where it goes. You see the words "possibly", "may", "theoretically", "less than optimistic", "could" being bandied about. Nobody yet knows for sure how this will wash out. I feel reasonably certain that if the ISP's do start abusing it you would see changes being made at the state levels if not at the national one as the argument in favor of doing it will have been refuted.
And the ultimate solution is actually quit simple. Vote the "right" congress critters in and then they can totally take it out of the FCC's hands via legislative processes. And actually this would be a much better process than the way net neutrality was done (the weakness of which is apparent now).
As Farhad Manjoo mentioned in his article at the NYT
He further argued the point that by the time Obama handed down the rules governing net neutrality that the internet of today (net neutrality period) had strayed from the 2000's when upstarts ruled it.
But you also have to remember, a lot of the hue & cry is from the same faction that was in the "Trump will never be President", "Trump will kill the economy", "Trump will <fill in the blank>" segment of the US.
Here is a classic example of this, and to top it off he throws in the use of the ever present race card with NO proof that this will happen (referred to frequently as being a member of the CLB (Chicken Little Brigade).
I've always been of the belief of giving someone enough rope. Eventually they will hang themselves with it. Give the ISP's and those in "control" enough and the public will agree to their lynching.
It's going to be interesting that's for sure.
Actually it's pretty accurate. The end user doesn't care about packet loss unless it interferes with their use of the internet. Most of them do not even know what packet loss entails or the typical cause(s) of it. All they care about is "can I use XXXXX or YYYYY to do this without it not working.
As far as the tech aspect goes, I look at it like I did back in the BBS days. You had async modems, then you had the synchronous modems (Hayes Optima and the USR V.32/V.32bis) as far as hardware went - then you progressed in the transfer protocols Xmodem, Ymodem, Zmodem, Bimodem which each brought successive improvements to the table. Even if throttling occurs, it may open up doors for similar advancements for the internet.
I'd be more concerned about the AT&T/Time Warner merger that just got approved.
I'm going down to the Ferrari dealership to demand they give me a supercar for the price of an econobox. Don't stifle automobile neutrality!
Maybe they’ll sell you a straw passenger to go with your Ferrari.
Well what you get is the following a Ferrari body with a Lada engine, if you want more speed you will need to pay extra.
It’s more like that you can have the Ferrari but only drive it at 20mph everywhere unless you pay for the extra licence to drive at 40mph. And if you want to drive at the speed limit, that’ll cost you more.
Cool, I'll just set it in my driveway and look like the kewl kidz.
Airlines: you pay more for better, bigger seats with more leg room, better food, and more service attention
Concert tickets: you pay more for better seating
Sports games: you pay more for better seating
Highways: the practice of adding high occupancy and toll lanes has helped to improve traffic, time of travel, etc.
Internet: suspected spam has been subject to "unfair" blocking, throttling through greylisting, etc. DDOS attacks are not treated equally and blocked. Some bits are more important than others, such as pace-maker data, a medical video versus a video of someone's cat, etc. Paying more for better delivery has been a foundation of services for a long time and consumers benefit: paying a CDN to deliver your content for example. Companies needing better guarantees of delivery have paid for T3 and similar services over basic business broadband connections. With web hosting, you pay more for more bandwidth.
I don't think you're understanding how this works.
You're saying that you pay more for more bandwidth - but that's not the argument about net neutrality. If you send more data, yes, that makes sense - but that's not what NN was about protecting.
NN was always about protecting the consumer from being screwed over - and business in the process. On the consumer side, it was about protecting people from being ripped off by cable companies - 'you want Google, Facebook and YouTube, that'll be $x... oh, you want Vimeo too? That'll be an extra $y per month' - note that it isn't about bandwidth, it's about getting as much money out of you as is feasible for them before you look at other services. Just like cable TV, bundling different channels in ways where you want the package for all the family (i.e. 3 or 4 channels out of each of the different categories), you'll be paying the highest amounts.
On the business end, it's about protecting site owners - you know, people like us. It's still more like the traffic analogy I mentioned earlier: the road is already there, the road already carries traffic at 55mph, but you're stuck at 20mph because you didn't buy the upgrade. It's not the same thing - it's one thing to have the same baseline as everyone else and be able to buy better for those occasions you need it - but this is now going to guarantee that everyone's baseline goes down except for the big sites, unfairly limiting what the small innovators are doing.
This is about protecting the likes of Facebook - from upstarts that might possibly disrupt anything.
Think of it in terms of your water supply. Of course you should pay for what you use but no matter what you pay it should meet minimum standards and not be full of contaminants.
Don't you just love analogies
Spare me. I fully understand how this works. I've been at this since dialing into connected universities in 80s, writing software/firmware for modem companies, network tools for "lunchbox" computers, and so on. I also know leftist NN scare tactics.
That customer who eats up half the bandwidth in the neighborhood with torrent downloads, his neighbors shouldn't subsidize it. The Internet giant like Netflix eating up about 30-40% of an IPS's bandwidth... fine, they ought to pay for their higher ISP interconnect costs.
The ISP is all ready getting paid by the customer that watches Netflix and Netflix pays for the bandwidth that its using. What you want is that hosting companies and ISP’s can dubble charge for the same item.
If you keep insisting that it is about bandwidth then, no, you're not understanding.
Pst Netflix Google and amazon don't pay for bandwidth to get data to you.
They figured long ago it was cheaper to roll a fiber connection from their data centres direct to isp's in something called peering. This is highly agreeable for both the big companies and isp's because they no longer have to pay middle men to move packets....
Netnutrality is a bad deal if the world was honest. Where VoIP was prioritised and less time critical protocols like email went unprioritised.
But because companies make the most money from what they have they will figure ways to separate you from your money...
If you keep believing I only think it's about bandwidth then, yes, you're misjudging me. I know its about more. The regulations covered bandwidth, priority, rural and "underserved" access, etc.