net neutrality

[Chef]

thoughts on net neutrality's approval today?

yet another non-elected regulatory body passing laws.

[teej]

Thankfully it appears that Congress won't approve it. It looks nice at first glance, but it's not nearly strong enough. I understand the ISP's hate Netflix & such because they use bandwidth and then some, but it doesn't need to be an a la carte thing like they want, and the mobile internet needs the same protections. Piss poor bill, but ironically the opponents of neutrality are going to keep it from ruining the idea.

[Chef]

my biggest fear is that like all government regulations this is just the start, a way to get their foot in the door. it starts with something that seems like a good idea but, in time will lead to content regulation. you can bet on that. look at how fast the dictators around the world are lining up to promote this. there is no need to regulate it as they are anyway. if companies start to limit content etc, customers will leave. money talks and some company will enter the market with a unlimited content business model. it happened with cell phones ie unlimited minutes, free cell to cell, no contracts etc.

[Ghost Kat]

Is this in anyway going to stop me from watching internet porn?

[Chef]

Is this in anyway going to stop me from watching internet porn?

yes it might. but, you will probably go blind from your viewing activities before it is fully censored

[GoBobs]

It is about not allowing internet providers giving preferential treatment to companies that pay more. It is a good thing because it will help keep the internet a level playing field for everyone. Imagine if when you went to a big company site to buy something it when really fast but when you went to web sites not as well funded like say a local town library it was really slow like dial up.

This kind of came up because Comcast an internet service provider was trying to charge an extra fee for customers using Netflix via the net. Comcast is also Cable TV provider so it is doubly in there interest to charge an extra fee to Netflix users. They lose a cable TV subscriber because he gets Netflix, plus the guy starts using a ton of bandwith because he is watching all his TV via the net increasing the costs for Comcast. If they increase his bill they can make up the money plus they increase the cost of their competition Netflix in the TV segment. This bill says they can't do that. It would be bad if it were a slippery slope to lots of other government regulation that was expensive or caused other problems. Not everything step in a given direction is a slippery slope however and I do believe there needs to be some regulation on the web.

Some knowledge for example is dangerous in the wrong hands and should not be easily accessible by the wrong people. If someone invented an easy way to build a powerful bomb or weapon of mass destruction it would be important to keep that secret from anyone who might kill innocent people to further political or ideological views. That would be an example of information that could be harmful to the collective people. The Wikileaks information seems to be more embarrassing to the government then harmful to the people but it shows how hard it can be to control information on the web.

It also violates some principles of basic fairness to make public conversations that go on in private. I think any leaders of any nations around the world would be embarrassed if all there private meetings and conversations were made public. Just because these people have a great responsibility doesn't make them that different then the rest of us.

[Chef]

It is about not allowing internet providers giving preferential treatment to companies that pay more. It is a good thing because it will help keep the internet a level playing field for everyone. Imagine if when you went to a big company site to buy something it when really fast but when you went to web sites not as well funded like say a local town library it was really slow like dial up.

This kind of came up because Comcast an internet service provider was trying to charge an extra fee for customers using Netflix via the net. Comcast is also Cable TV provider so it is doubly in there interest to charge an extra fee to Netflix users. They lose a cable TV subscriber because he gets Netflix, plus the guy starts using a ton of bandwith because he is watching all his TV via the net increasing the costs for Comcast. If they increase his bill they can make up the money plus they increase the cost of their competition Netflix in the TV segment. This bill says they can't do that. It would be bad if it were a slippery slope to lots of other government regulation that was expensive or caused other problems. Not everything step in a given direction is a slippery slope however and I do believe there needs to be some regulation on the web.

Some knowledge for example is dangerous in the wrong hands and should not be easily accessible by the wrong people. If someone invented an easy way to build a powerful bomb or weapon of mass destruction it would be important to keep that secret from anyone who might kill innocent people to further political or ideological views. That would be an example of information that could be harmful to the collective people. The Wikileaks information seems to be more embarrassing to the government then harmful to the people but it shows how hard it can be to control information on the web.

It also violates some principles of basic fairness to make public conversations that go on in private. I think any leaders of any nations around the world would be embarrassed if all there private meetings and conversations were made public. Just because these people have a great responsibility doesn't make them that different then the rest of us.



devils advocate. if enough people switch to 100% tv via internet it chews up so much bandwidth that it slows everyone to a crawl. if i want cable for tv and internet for internet/gaming why shouldn't my internet be cheaper. i am not using as much. as a company trying to profit this only makes sense as a business model to 1. maximize profit and 2. insure customer satisfication. and this bill does let them do this, it prevents them from slowing speeds from one site to the next. they can still increase costs to non-package customers or even go on a per-mb basis like a cell phone.

let the market/people's money regulate. if comcast or twc decides to regulate speeds to websites that don't pay them fees etc, people will get pissed. another company (think straight talk or trac phone) comes out with a "all speeds the same" unlimited package and everyone switches. the big company stands to lose a ton of money because of operating costs, infrastructure costs etc. this is an excuse for gov't to begin regulating the internet.

"Some knowledge for example is dangerous in the wrong hands and should not be easily accessible by the wrong people. If someone invented an easy way to build a powerful bomb or weapon of mass destruction it would be important to keep that secret from anyone who might kill innocent people to further political or ideological views. That would be an example of information that could be harmful to the collective people. The Wikileaks information seems to be more embarrassing to the government then harmful to the people but it shows how hard it can be to control information on the web."

free speech is free speech. having the government decide what is dangerous and not dangerous as for the suitability of "free speech" is very very slippery and goes against the 1st amendment. what's to stop them from saying political speech in opposition to the party in power in dangerous. there is a reason that every despot is already regulating/censoring the internet access to its citizens and/or lining up behind the UN's push for "net neutrality/regulation"

[Dunk]

If you want to keep things the same then you'd want some kind of regulation for that which will require gov't action. Otherwise, providers will begin tiering access. Profit is made on the content side. Service providers already double-dip (you pay for hosting and access). Additionally, there is already a tax in place designed for them to fund access to harder to reach locations. Also, they could just continue to role out higher bandwidth technologies or develop the ones we already have (convert ADSL to ADSL2+, for example and charge a higher price for that bandwidth).

[Chef]

If you want to keep things the same then you'd want some kind of regulation for that which will require gov't action. Otherwise, providers will begin tiering access. Profit is made on the content side. Service providers already double-dip (you pay for hosting and access). Additionally, there is already a tax in place designed for them to fund access to harder to reach locations. Also, they could just continue to role out higher bandwidth technologies or develop the ones we already have (convert ADSL to ADSL2+, for example and charge a higher price for that bandwidth).

any tech updates, research or conversions take capital. if you prevent them from making money on it, there is no motivation to improve. just keep it the same and keep making money. people are using the excuse of not wanting to pay full price for a service to allow the government to potential impact the last truly free venue for ideas to be expressed. if the prices get too high for improved technologies customers not needing that tech will simply pay less for less product.

[Dunk]

any tech updates, research or conversions take capital. if you prevent them from making money on it, there is no motivation to improve. just keep it the same and keep making money. people are using the excuse of not wanting to pay full price for a service to allow the government to potential impact the last truly free venue for ideas to be expressed. if the prices get too high for improved technologies customers not needing that tech will simply pay less for less product.

there's a couple of things that can justify it. One, they believe the market will pay for faster performing services. Or it reduces operating costs to implement. A DSLAM can only service so many homes at a certain bandwidth and eventually has to be replaced (it has about a 5 to 7 year lifecycle). That's the device copper lines connect to at the phone company's central office to provide DSL service. That can be replaced, for example, by newer technology that can support higher speed (generating more revenue -- you pay more for 10Mb service than 5Mb service) and instead of 400 homes per DSLAM you can connect 600. So basically you need 2/3rds the amount during the refresh.

I've worked for several service providers (if you're in Cabarrus or Iredell counties, I've designed and priced your Internet service as of a couple years ago). If they say that they'll be run out of business, they're being dishonest. They're just looking for new revenue streams. By jumping on this 'free market' bandwagon it's an excuse to start charging for access to certain content to generate more cash.

[Chef]

there's a couple of things that can justify it. One, they believe the market will pay for faster performing services. Or it reduces operating costs to implement. A DSLAM can only service so many homes at a certain bandwidth and eventually has to be replaced (it has about a 5 to 7 year lifecycle). That's the device copper lines connect to at the phone company's central office to provide DSL service. That can be replaced, for example, by newer technology that can support higher speed (generating more revenue -- you pay more for 10Mb service than 5Mb service) and instead of 400 homes per DSLAM you can connect 600. So basically you need 2/3rds the amount during the refresh.

I've worked for several service providers (if you're in Cabarrus or Iredell counties, I've designed and priced your Internet service as of a couple years ago). If they say that they'll be run out of business, they're being dishonest. They're just looking for new revenue streams. By jumping on this 'free market' bandwagon it's an excuse to start charging for access to certain content to generate more cash.

wow, this is french to me. you obviously have alot of experience with it. my main point (and pretty much any argument i ever have) is that government regulation/intervention always starts out as "necessary" (usually that is debatable) and ends up being much more than was originally planned or promised. income tax started at 1% and were promised to never ever get higher than 3% or else the people would revolt. i am sure that some companies would over charge but like with everything else people would choose to get their internet elsewhere.

[SWedd523]

Here's a great illustration on the topic:



http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/7ymLE8/www.theopeninter.net/

[BlockParty]

Here's a great illustration on the topic:



http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/7ymLE8/www.theopeninter.net/

Thanks Swedd...even the Knicks fans should understand that illustration

[Dunk]

I want everybody to keep their hands off, too. But what's happening is that service providers are now blocking certain types of traffic and content because it uses a lot of bandwidth (like bit torrent) and also because they want the application provider (say a video streamer like Hulu) to pay them money to pass the traffic through. Or at least not slow it down. There's no regulation in place that says they can't do that.

That service providers like Time Warner or Windstream in this area will go broke is a complete myth as I talked about in my other post.

[Chef]

I want everybody to keep their hands off, too. But what's happening is that service providers are now blocking certain types of traffic and content because it uses a lot of bandwidth (like bit torrent) and also because they want the application provider (say a video streamer like Hulu) to pay them money to pass the traffic through. Or at least not slow it down. There's no regulation in place that says they can't do that.

That service providers like Time Warner or Windstream in this area will go broke is a complete myth as I talked about in my other post.

it seems to me it is the same argument as cable a'la carte. i wish i could select the channels i want to watch and pay for each. i have 200+ channels and regularly watch about 15. why can't the internet work this way. if i have cable and never stream over the internet, don't play video games and use the internet for reading, emailing etc why can't i just pay for that. i would love to have cable speed internet for 9.00 per month instead of 40. if you want all that other stuff so you don't have to have cable then why not pay more for it?

[GoBobs]

In general the internet/cable tv providers seem to have the sweetest deal going. People hardly pay anything for the content they view on the internet but we pay a ton of money for internet access and cable tv. These corporations seem to have little or no competition. Most people probably pay between 100-150 per month for internet and cable tv. There is no way comcast isn't making money hand over fist in my area. I think congress should investigate all these isps for price fixing.