Print 148 comment(s) - last by Lerianis.. on Oct 4 at 1:51 PM

Jedi Master... err... President Obama is fighting for net neutrality, while the Republicans are opposing him.  (Source: Win McNamee/Getty Images)
The battle over whether internet bandwidth will be neutral or relegated into internet "slow" and "fast" lanes is becoming heated

Internet service providers have long fantasized about charging content providers for the use of "fast" traffic lanes and punishing those who don't pay by relegating them to internet "slow" lanes.  Faced with overwhelming public disapproval of such a policy, and pressure from industry giants like Microsoft and Google, the ISPs backed down somewhat.  However, as some ISPs continue to plot the eventual deployment of such a plan, an equally heated debate is going on in government over whether legislation and/or rules should be put in place to guarantee that the net remains "neutral" and does not monetize content speeds.

On one side are the Democrats.  President Barack Obama is a strong supporter of net neutrality, arguing it's essential for the “little guy” web startups to have a chance against bigger players.  The Democrats have lobbyist backing, with Google, and others investing much to try to push through net neutrality legislation.  And the culmination of these efforts was FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's proposal of net neutrality rules yesterday. 

The new rules would restrict carriers from discriminating against content or applications (e.g. throttling P2P traffic) and also call for transparency as a means of ensuring these requirements are met.  Chairman Genachowski calls the measures "fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the internet."

Some ISPs oppose the measure for various reason.  Verizon and AT&T has long kept information on their data network a guarded secret, and the proposal would force them to air information on their traffic, which neither company wants.  Other companies like Comcast would be forced to abandon their secret P2P throttling techniques.  Others like Virgin want to charge for fast-lanes and are declaring net neutrality "a load of bollocks" as Virgin's CEO puts it.

AT&T encourages the adoption of the rules, but opposes their application to wireless networks.  Jim Cicconi, the company's top legal affairs man states, "AT&T has long supported the principle of an open Internet and has conducted its business accordingly.  We were also early supporters of the FCC's current four broadband principles and their case-by-case application to wired networks. To the extent that the chairman seeks to bolster the FCC's legal authority to enforce these principles, we would support him. We have also indicated publicly that, despite any compelling evidence of abuses that need correction, AT&T could also consider endorsing a fifth principle relating to actions that are unreasonably discriminatory and that cause material harm. Finally, we have never had concerns with disclosure or transparency regarding network management decisions so long as such requirements are reasonable.

"[But] we are concerned, however, that the FCC appears ready to extend the entire array of net neutrality requirements to what is perhaps the most competitive consumer market in America, wireless services," Cicconi continued.

While the ISPs have kept their criticism relatively quiet, Republican think tanks are more vocally opposing the measures.  The telecom industry's majority owners have funded many of these groups and has also funded lobbyists who are pushing the Republicans to block any attempt to put net neutrality in the books.

The Republicans have already launched an attack to try to kill the net neutrality.  Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has added language to a funding bill for the Interior Department that will block the FCC from gaining funds to regulate net neutrality.

The Republicans succeeded in killing similar net neutrality legislation in 2006 -- but at the time, they had a tight grip on the government that they do not have today.

At the end of the day, both the Republicans and Democrats are serving as the voices of greater powers in our nation's economy.  On the one side you have companies like Google (and their associated think tanks) that profit from democratization of the internet (which support the Democrats).  And on the other side you have the ISPs (and their associated think tanks) that support the creation of an internet oligarchy, with tiered levels of privilege and opportunity (supported by the Republicans) and only a select elite at the fast traffic tier.  Only time will tell which of these significant powers will triumph.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Fast/Slow "lanes"
By spwrozek on 9/22/2009 2:25:54 PM , Rating: 4
Can someone explain to me how they want to accomplish this and how it is any different from the 10Mbps ($100/month) connection we paid for in college between four guys and the 6Mbps ($45/month) my wife and I pay for now and the 1.5Mbps ($25/month) my dad pays for now? Is this not already paying for fast and slow lanes? Just looking for some clarity. Thanks.

RE: Fast/Slow "lanes"
By FITCamaro on 9/22/2009 2:38:34 PM , Rating: 5
ISPs want to assign priority tags basically to traffic. A site like Youtube have a lot of traffic so they want Google to pay them a fee to insure faster transmission of packets through their servers. Smaller sites like Dailytech who probably can't afford the costs to be on the "fast lane" will load slower.

This will effectively ruin any small or startup video hosting site as it will take more time for videos to load. And small, upcoming streaming sites will either have to heavily buffer their media or reduce the quality in order to need less bandwidth. Netflix will defintely have to pay for the faster lane to maintain quality of service. Which would likely lead to higher costs for users wanting to stream TV shows and movies. Same with Hulu.

RE: Fast/Slow "lanes"
By Bateluer on 9/22/2009 2:47:35 PM , Rating: 5
Same applies to any smaller business wanting to have an internet presence. I like to use the pizza example. You call your favorite local pizza joint down the street to order a pizza. Instead of having your call routed right to the pizza place, you get a recording from the phone company stating that you'll be connected to the local pizza place in a few minutes, possibly after a few advertisements, or they can connect you to Pizza Hut right away.

RE: Fast/Slow "lanes"
By spwrozek on 9/22/2009 3:19:44 PM , Rating: 4
Thanks for clearing that up guys.

RE: Fast/Slow "lanes"
By fake01 on 9/23/2009 11:15:29 AM , Rating: 1
A site like Youtube have a lot of traffic so they want Google to pay them a fee to insure faster transmission of packets through their servers

I'm slightly confused about this. I don't mean to sound stupid but I always assumed Google ran their own servers. You telling me they go through ISPs like everyone else?

RE: Fast/Slow "lanes"
By rrburton on 9/23/2009 12:40:02 PM , Rating: 4
For google to show up on your screen, google has to hand the traffic to someone who hands the traffic to someone ... ... who hands it to you. Neutrality is about the someones in between you and google.

RE: Fast/Slow "lanes"
By fake01 on 9/23/2009 8:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
But wouldn't Google already be paying a TON of money for their site(s) to be hosted?

What are they trying to do, drain money from the larger more popular sites? Kinda reminds me of the rich mans tax here in Australia, all exotic cars now cost a lot more to buy cause you have to pay extra in tax. Same goes for a lot of exotic things in Australia. I mean a Lamborghini costs like $700,000 here.

RE: Fast/Slow "lanes"
By Lerianis on 10/4/2009 1:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

You hit the nail on the head with the second question you asked..... that is EXACTLY what they are trying to do: get more money from the larger, more popular sites than they do now, which is WRONG and should not be allowed.

RE: Fast/Slow "lanes"
By spagnitz on 9/27/2009 7:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
They don't want you using the 6Mbps connection, that you are paying for, all day long on high bandwidth applications such as hulu etc, they claim that it's unfair to other users of the network to have a few people using most of the capacity. But I have to ask, why did you sell me a 6Mbps connection if you don't have the network capacity for me to use it as little or as often as I want?

RE: Fast/Slow "lanes"
By Lerianis on 10/4/2009 1:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
You hit the nail on the head with your comment. They SHOULD be able to offer the full speed they advertise 24/7/365.... or advertise using the REAL SPEED you can have 24/7/365.

This is a case of companies not wanting to upgrade their services, even though they are making 1000% profits OR MORE on their plans that they are selling people.

By rburnham on 9/23/2009 3:36:23 PM , Rating: 2
I love the picture of Obama with a lightsaber! Funny stuff.

RE: Bzzz...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Bzzz...
By alcalde on 9/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Bzzz...
By Alexvrb on 9/23/2009 11:42:38 PM , Rating: 3
Well it was a stupid thing to say, but its an obvious joke. Anyway, nobody would kill the President. Just look at who would inherit the throne!

RE: Bzzz...
By swampjelly on 9/24/2009 9:30:47 AM , Rating: 1
Agreed. I'm no fan of Obama, but comments like this are unacceptable.

RE: Bzzz...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/24/2009 10:41:17 AM , Rating: 4
lol that's funny. Nobody seemed to mind it when people, even elected officials, were saying the same thing about Bush. Hell they even made a movie about him being assasinated.

But yeah, death threat ? You are an idiot.

RE: Bzzz...
By HostileEffect on 9/24/2009 11:24:43 AM , Rating: 2
Even though his comment can be interpreted both ways, ex, Where is a good secret service member when you need one, He is an idiot and the SS *will* show up at your door depending on what you say and where.

RE: Bzzz...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/27/2009 9:36:26 AM , Rating: 2
By SS do you mean the Secret Service or the Schutzstaffel ?? It's getting hard to tell the difference these days...

RE: Bzzz...
By KLO on 10/2/2009 10:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
I think this is very illegal. Like a presdential threat. I bet big brother will be on your tail now!

shocking news
By puckalicious on 9/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: shocking news
By rcc on 9/23/2009 2:23:17 PM , Rating: 4
Democrat leadership no more want open competition, than you want herpes (presumably). What they want is for everyone to be the same... well, except for them.

RE: shocking news
By Alexvrb on 9/23/2009 11:49:32 PM , Rating: 3
Pretty much. It's like anything else... its easy to make the playing field level for "everyone", if it doesn't affect you.

RE: shocking news
By KLO on 10/2/2009 10:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
How could everyone be the same except for them. I don't see how that would even be possible. If everyone were the same then it would also include them. I think your just being paranoid.

By Chiisuchianu on 9/23/2009 12:15:53 PM , Rating: 3
Instead of fast lanes and slow lanes, these imbeciles should be forced to make internet speeds an acceptable level. Even third world countries have better speeds than the USA. This is very angering to me. The government gave them money years ago to speed everything up and they didn't do anything with it. Obama should force them to do so.

RE: Wow
By Richlet on 9/24/2009 12:28:15 AM , Rating: 2
Even third world countries have better speeds than the USA

Really?! Can you name one? Seriously, a *third world* country? I get your point that the US should be faster in broadband, but I don't know of any third world countries that have faster average broadband speed.

RE: Wow
By KLO on 10/2/2009 10:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
This is true, and on top of that most other countries use Linux which is open source. We idiots keep using Windows and keep getting viruses etc...Linux is after all the underlying language under all PCs...They also have user-friendly interfaces just like windows but it just slows down their processing speed. Other countries regardless of 3rd world or not are way ahead in technology. We are becoming the third or fourth world soon. And we're fat robots too.

Easy Fix for Net Neutrality
By Lerianis on 9/26/2009 1:52:53 AM , Rating: 2
1. Make it so that when infrastructure improvements are needed, that ALL companies in the area have to chip in to do them.
2. Have the infrastructure owned by a non-profit organization.
3. Make it illegal and punishable by SEVERE AND EXTREME fines to discriminate against any data going over the lines.
4. Make it illegal to have ANY bandwidth caps, except the PHYSICAL limit of lines. If companies cannot do their FULL BANDWIDTH for everyone at the same time.... make them tell what the REAL limit is when everyone is using the network at the same time.

These 4 things would make net neutrality a blessed reality in this country.

You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: You mean...
By Shig on 9/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 2:24:07 PM , Rating: 2
At least we have AT&T buying a lot of the Alltel towers from Verizon... That will help in the areas that weren't open to GSM before...

RE: You mean...
By MatthiasF on 9/22/2009 2:38:36 PM , Rating: 2
Cell towers can handle many formats, not just GSM or CDMA only. When a company like AT&T starts grabbing up cell towers, it just means those towers are more likely to have better GSM equipment and less likely to have CDMA. Or worse, provisioned by format which isn't illegal yet.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 2:42:47 PM , Rating: 4
Very true, but when you only have two carriers in the area, and both use CDMA, GSM customers usually have horrible service in the area. So for many rual areas, it will be a good thing to have a GSM player now instead of two CDMA's.

RE: You mean...
By MatthiasF on 9/22/2009 3:02:41 PM , Rating: 4
But wouldn't it be better for consumers if the cell towers were format agnostic completely?

Then no matter who owns the towers and what cell phone you own, you'll always get good reception if it's available no matter the format.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 3:06:25 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, it would.

I would say they could benefit from the same model that I have suggested for the ISPs.

Considering a majority of the world uses GSM, I would suggest that instead of CDMA as well.

RE: You mean...
By FITCamaro on 9/22/2009 3:39:03 PM , Rating: 3
So who's going to build these towers everyone can use? Certainly not companies. Because why build something you have to give away access to for free?

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 3:46:00 PM , Rating: 4
No one said you'd have to give access away for free FIT.

Taking from my idea for the ISPs I wrote further down in the article:

Say AT&T and Verizon want to put up 10 new towers in Lincoln Nebraska, they split the cost and put up the towers. Tmobile also wants to use that market, they come in and with their lease rate, part of the money goes to Verizon and AT&T to pay them back for putting in the towers.

Why would they want to build them? For more customers of course.

RE: You mean...
By ebakke on 9/22/2009 4:31:26 PM , Rating: 4
More realistically AT&T will think, "Nope, I'm not going to help out my competitor," and tell T-Mobile to build their own stinkin' towers.

RE: You mean...
By Lerianis on 9/26/2009 1:43:41 AM , Rating: 3
And that's why we need STRONG laws to make these companies lease access to 'their' towers, which usually are NOT their own but....... are paid for by PUBLIC MONEY!

RE: You mean...
By mcnabney on 9/22/2009 5:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody in this thread has any idea how wireless even works. The equipment that supports CDMA, GSM, 1xEVDO, HSDPA, and LTE are completely different sets of equipment and antennas. The quality and performance differs remarkably depending on how they are designed and maintained.
For example, Sprint and Verizon both use CDMA and EVDO. However, the network that Sprint has built has been judged to be grossly inferior to the Verizon network due to poor design, cost-cutting maintenance, little time and effort spent fine-tuning the coverage area, reliance on 3rd party networks, and failure to deploy backup systems and mobile/temporary 'towers' for events and disasters.
Because different providers manage their networks in a variety of ways there cannot be any 'sharing'.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 6:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
No, I do... Many also wrongly guess that since AT&T's 3G network is WCDMA, it is the same tech as Verizon's CDMA2000 tech.

CDMA is just the short, easy name for a channel access method, and not the real name of what Verizon and etc use.

RE: You mean...
By Master Kenobi on 9/22/2009 7:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
It's all a moot point. Verizon is pushing forward with the new LTE technology and AT&T has indicated they will follow shortly with the same tech.

RE: You mean...
By ChickenMcTest on 9/22/2009 2:23:14 PM , Rating: 5
I know what you mean. I want the Net to stay "neutral" as it currently is. However, I do not like the idea of the government forcing companies to maintain network neutrality.

Would it be better if the government was breaking up the larger cable providers in an effort to create more competition?

Unless I am completely mistaken, cable providers have a "natural monopoly" over their service area. It will take years for true competition to develop. In the short term I don't see a better solution than government intervention.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 2:27:22 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly, the best way to fix it, would be for the cable/fiber sold to a company that either charged the ISP on bandwidth or number of customers etc running over that line.

Remember how with dial-up we had all sorts of competition with who you would use? It was only limited by who wasn't long distance for you to call...

The same type of approach is needed here.

RE: You mean...
By ChickenMcTest on 9/22/2009 2:41:31 PM , Rating: 2
So you think we should allow any company to have access to the fiber which was put in place by your local cable company?

*as I understand it* There was a huge choice for local telephone based ISPs because the local Bell company (which was created when the government broke up AT&T) was legally required to give equal access to the phone line.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if a similar situation was implemented for cable based services. I don't even know if such a thing is possible.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 2:46:51 PM , Rating: 3
It would be a lot of work, but it would be possible.

If an ISP made improvements in their area or section of leased line, and another company wanted to use it. There would be a fixed % of the cost of the "improvements" that the newcomer would be required to pay in their lease. Which could either go to lower lease rate for the company who did the improvements, or as a payment to them.

Then the ISP's would be forced to compete with their hardware, and not their dominance of who has what cable/fiber line.

And I'm saying if the gov't wanted to help, they'd buy the lines from the companies and then put them all in trust of a non-profit organization.

RE: You mean...
By ChickenMcTest on 9/22/2009 2:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
Cool idea!

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 2:53:55 PM , Rating: 2
I think with this model, we would see some amazing advancements in both speed and price.

RE: You mean...
By mikefarinha on 9/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: You mean...
By MadMan007 on 9/22/2009 5:51:42 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe he lives in Lafayette Louisiana

RE: You mean...
By RjBass on 9/22/2009 7:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking North Kansas City Missouri

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 6:51:39 PM , Rating: 3
If you'd bothered to read what I wrote, this WOULDN'T be controlled by the gov't.

This would be controlled by the progress of many ISP's competing in the same market.

RE: You mean...
By ChickenMcTest on 9/22/2009 6:51:03 PM , Rating: 5
What world do you live in where he mentioned government ownership?

RE: You mean...
By MatthiasF on 9/22/2009 3:21:27 PM , Rating: 4
The line agreements you mention already exist today, forced in some regions and is a part of doing business as a telecom.

The government already subsidized a majority of the lines in the US already. They don't need to own the lines.

The lines were never the issue anyway. There are plenty of local contractors willing to install end lines and the executives at these companies already have expansion costs built into the price of service.

The issue is that with P2P networks more stress is being put at routers closer to consumers. In the majority of internet use, customers travel from point A to B for each transfer. This is easy to plan out a network infrastruction.

Suddenly with P2P, customers would travel to point A, C, D, E, F to get to point B, most of those points being other subscribers. This meant more of the routing stress was on the lower routers in their network, and if P2P continued it would force ISPs to upgrade their exterior routers when they feel (as do I) that it's not necessary.

The sudden cost of upgrades to routers (some of which are one per 1000 users) with price tags of $10k+ was what caused most ISPs to restrict P2P.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 3:26:30 PM , Rating: 2
I mention in my posts that the gov't wouldn't retain control over the lines, the non-profit organization they transfered all the control over the lines would have that. Thus helping eliminate any "political" interference of the net.

Yes, I understand about the P2P stress, and I actually don't have a problem with a provider limiting that traffic. It is their bandwidth and routers, so it is their choice in the matter. However, if they had more competition, I would suggest that there would be less limiting of that traffic, as some would advertise that they are P2P friendly and attrack more customers.

Also, allowing multiple ISPs to split/share the cost of the routers, would help in getting faster routers out to the far branches of the internet tree.

RE: You mean...
By FITCamaro on 9/22/2009 3:40:17 PM , Rating: 2
No I think anyone should be able to lay fiber in the ground, not just the local cable company. Right now that can't happen.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 3:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
The only problem with that is (and I do agree with you FIT) that so much of the cable is under city streets and the such now, that ripping up road to lay a new cable would be very costly and disruptive.

Not saying it shouldn't be allowed, but that it isn't the fix in its entirety we are looking for.

RE: You mean...
By FITCamaro on 9/22/2009 4:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
The cost is for the new company to deal with.

Also if you eliminate the mandated monopolies, you open up the possibility of new companies working out a leasing deal with the currently existing companies for use of their lines.

I'm not saying its a quick fix. It will take years, probably decades for new services to get come out and get big. But it'll happen. Unless of course the current companies keep people happy enough to not encourage the growth of new companies.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 4:10:03 PM , Rating: 2
Often the quickfix isn't the one that stands the test of time either.

I believe we are on the same page with this, as both of our ideas could certainly exist in the same market. None of mine forces ISPs to sell their lines, but rather is an incentive for them to do so.

RE: You mean...
By MatthiasF on 9/22/2009 10:36:51 PM , Rating: 3
This issue is mostly at the municipal level.

Counties and cities don't want to be burdened with tons of fiber installations, which cost time to their planning departments to keep the information on file, their inspectors to make sure the job is done to code and attorney general when damage is done to property.

It's easier to deal with one or two companies doing the installations and the Feds agreed when designing the 1996 communications act.

This is one of the reasons why so many municipal wireless networks are springing up. They realize that they can get around this burden by offering a wireless solution.

I really think 802.16 will be a big change for consumers. Since the relay equipment can be installed on power line, telephone or even light poles, it could make things a lot easier to roll out high speed internet.

RE: You mean...
By Ammohunt on 9/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: You mean...
By HinderedHindsight on 9/22/2009 5:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
First, these are government programs, not businesses that are trying to turn a profit. While the best projections show that the demand on these programs will outstrip the allocation of funds they are given now; calling them bankrupt gives a slightly different implication, as if they're meant to turn a profit. This just means in order to maintain the programs, we need to get the funding in line with the projected usage of these programs.

You could argue that the USPS should at least break even, but every time they mention an increase in the cost of stamps to keep up with the cost of delivering mail, people go up in arms. I don't like the increase in costs of any of my services, but I admit, this is what happens.

The point is, using the words "almost bankrupt" to describe these programs doesn't really provide the right perspective on them, and shows that you may not have the right perspective on what goal these programs have...

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 5:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
I was mentioning them in the fact that they cannot break-even, which is what they were designed to do. They were not designed to be tax money black holes.

RE: You mean...
By ChickenMcTest on 9/22/2009 5:33:48 PM , Rating: 2
The main problem is that life expectancy has increased from 60 years in 1937 (invention of social security) to like 77+ years today.

If provisions were added so that these plans only provided for people who lived beyond the average life expectancy they would be very much in the black.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 5:38:21 PM , Rating: 3, the main problem is that congress raided the SS piggy bank by treating it like general funds...

The money that you pay into social security, doesn't stay in a locked account just for you later, nor a pool designed only for SS money. THAT is the main problem.

RE: You mean...
By mikefarinha on 9/22/2009 5:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
Both issues are the problem and both issues are due to the fact that the government can't run anything efficiently.

Let me manage my own money for my later years. Let me choose what company to send letters with, and for the love of God let me choose what insurance & doctor I use!

RE: You mean...
By ChickenMcTest on 9/22/2009 6:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
I know and even worse the federal government usually does not report burrowing against social security as part of the defect.

RE: You mean...
By rudolphna on 9/22/2009 7:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
How is the DMV a failure?

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 9:37:44 PM , Rating: 2
When is the last time you had to do something at the DMV that didn't take forever?

RE: You mean...
By Omega215D on 9/22/2009 10:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
Here in NYC we have a couple of DMV offices that were quite speedy, especially the DMV Express in midtown Manhattan. Renewing my license took 10 minutes there and that was around Noon.

RE: You mean...
By wempa on 9/23/2009 4:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about NY, bu I used to live in NJ. The DMVs there were absolutely horrible until they were privatized. Doing simple things like renewing a license or registration would take forever. It's funny how it now takes 5-10 minutes for those same things. You gotta love the government's efficiency !

RE: You mean...
By MatthiasF on 9/22/2009 2:35:08 PM , Rating: 1
And would you have the ADSL option if Bell wasn't busted down to smaller companies? Guess we'll never know.

RE: You mean...
By onwisconsin on 9/22/2009 3:20:13 PM , Rating: 3
What about those who don't have a choice? Cable and DSL in the Milwaukee areas is about same: two large companies who offer crappy service and slower lines.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 3:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
Then if we turned the framework (cable/fiber) into all leased lines for the ISPs, it would be very easy for a new ISP to come in and compete in your area.

RE: You mean...
By FITCamaro on 9/22/2009 3:57:26 PM , Rating: 4
Ok now you're talking about seizing lines from private companies and then making them pay to lease them. And then you're relying on the government to upgrade the framework. Good luck with that.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 4:00:23 PM , Rating: 1
No, you haven't read it all again.

I'm talking about buying the lines from private companies and putting them into a non-profit organization to be leased to whatever ISP wants them.

Also, as I wrote elsewhere, the ISP's would be responsible for upgrading the framework, and the cost would end up being shared with whoever used that line with them based on a useage percentage.

RE: You mean...
By Steve1981 on 9/22/2009 5:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
I'm talking about buying the lines from private companies and putting them into a non-profit organization to be leased to whatever ISP wants them.

I would like to hear why you think that the various ISPs that own the lines now would be interested in selling at a price the government is willing to pay.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 5:10:55 PM , Rating: 2
Because in a down economy, where they are having more trouble pulling revenue from consumers due to late bills and such, getting a load of cash on the books would be a good thing. Plus, when leasing them back from a non-profit, it would allow them to split costs with other ISPs on improvements.

As a further teaser for them, talk tax breaks on the first 5 years of leasing, or improvements.

RE: You mean...
By ChickenMcTest on 9/22/2009 6:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
Really the lines would not be sold. The company would be split this is what was done with AT&T.

RE: You mean...
By ChickenMcTest on 9/22/2009 4:53:24 PM , Rating: 5
I specifically said during the short term, there is not a better solution.

If you think allowing a natural monopoly to run free for the 10+ years it will take for other players to enter the market is going to be healthy for the Internet, then I have some retail diamonds to sell you.

RE: You mean...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: You mean...
By KLO on 10/2/2009 10:15:26 PM , Rating: 2
They government should just cap the amount they charge for a certain amount of bandwidth. That would fix the problem i a jiffy and allow the small guy to be part of the competition. Right now ISPs are a monopoly so it needs to be nipped. More competition is good for the consumer. Neutrality is good for the consumer. We are already paying too much for sub standard speeds. We deserve better, our kids deserve better, its great for education but it stops the power of learning if it costs too much.

RE: You mean...
By FITCamaro on 9/22/2009 2:29:11 PM , Rating: 5
See here I'm actually for net neutrality but perhaps not as far as they want to go.

I don't think they should segregate traffic with fast and slow lanes. I think a data packet is a data packet is a data packet. What's it matter who it comes from? Why do I think this way? Because such fast and slow lanes would prevent the next Youtube from being able to become a reality without a bunch of money behind it. I think it will stifle innovation.

However I also do not think companies should have to give out info they don't want to (the Verizon/AT&T example). The ways their systems work are for them to know and no one else.

The only way I'd be ok with fast and slow lanes is if the mandated monopolies ISPs enjoy at the moment were done away with. This would allow true competition in the market. ISPs without such fast and slow lanes would spring up forcing others to not have them in order to compete.

Once again government is the problem though, not the solution. If true competition existed in the first place, ISPs likely wouldn't be able to do this due to competition not making it viable.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 2:35:23 PM , Rating: 1
FIT, have you ever heard of Cogent Communications? If not, look them up and especially an article about them and their founder in Forbes.

They are proof that a true "dumb pipe" ISP can grow, and become a player even in this market.

Personally, if ISPs want to provide me with a fast lane for $500 a month, and my neighbor a slow lane for $25 a month, I think that is good economics. Choice will win out in the end.

RE: You mean...
By FITCamaro on 9/22/2009 2:43:13 PM , Rating: 5
Ok but this isn't you choosing a fast or slow connection. This is them saying everyone by default is on the slow lane. If you want priority in the pipe, you pay us more. Adding a cost that isn't already there. Microsoft, Google, Hulu, Netflix, etc. Every heavily trafficked site with deals in downloading content of some kind will be hit by this. Including networks like Xbox Live.

That means higher service fees everywhere or slower download rates. This will stifle innovation on the internet. As I said, I'd be ok with it if ISPs actually had to compete. But they don't right now. Get rid of the mandated monopolies, then we'll talk.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: You mean...
By tdawg on 9/22/2009 2:56:28 PM , Rating: 3
How do you force ISPs to compete without some regulation pushing them in a desired direction? There is going to be some sort of federal regulation to get your idea started, otherwise there's no incentive for the ISPs to do anything differently. Why not charge the improvement costs and still throttle bandwidth based on lease rates? Seems like good business sense from an ISP point of view and nobody would be forcing them to do otherwise.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 3:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
Competition would force them to do otherwise.

It would be far easier for someone to startup a new ISP in an area, or anywhere really, as they wouldn't have to buy/burry lines to get started. Say Comcast has a whole city, and charges 50% over the lease rate. A startup, (call it company A) could come in, and charge only 45% over the lease rate. Customers then would have a cheaper option, that would have the same hardline data rates, and be only dependent on the ISPs hardware for speed.

Company A then would force Comcast to either upgrade their hardware for faster rates, or lower their prices.

RE: You mean...
By tdawg on 9/22/2009 10:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, so maybe I'm not understanding something, but what incentive does Comcast or Verizon have to allow a competitor to use their fiber optics? Didn't they pay to lay the infrastructure? If you remove all regulations on their business, why wouldn't they just monopolize the market?

You can't force competition without someone applying the pressure. In this case, that would be the government, one way or the other, right?

RE: You mean...
By FITCamaro on 9/22/2009 3:45:30 PM , Rating: 5
How do you force ISPs to compete without some regulation pushing them in a desired direction

Right now the government makes it so that they don't have to compete. Take that away and the market will take care of itself. Verizon is chomping at the bit to bring FiOS nationwide but it can't do it because of the mandated monopolies cable and phone companies have.

RE: You mean...
By Yawgm0th on 9/22/2009 6:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
Right now the government makes it so that they don't have to compete. Take that away and the market will take care of itself. Verizon is chomping at the bit to bring FiOS nationwide but it can't do it because of the mandated monopolies cable and phone companies have.
This is at least mostly true. The catch is the well-established ISPs wanted this. Verizon will push to make itself the fiber monopoly in every market it can just as DSL and Cable companies do the same. A little bit of lobbying goes a long way in a state legislature or even city council.

RE: You mean...
By ChickenMcTest on 9/22/2009 3:07:38 PM , Rating: 5
You know Hell is freezing over if I agree with FIT, lol.

RE: You mean...
By MatthiasF on 9/22/2009 2:45:07 PM , Rating: 2
Cogent wouldn't exist without telecom regulations, so I don't see how that's an example in your anti-regulation favor.

Net Neutrality is not about forcing ISPs to offer everyone the same amount of bandwidth, but not allowing them to limit the usage.

Imagine if you had a 3-phase electrical line into your house, and your neighbor only has a 2-phase. You're paying more, sure, but it's the same cost per kilowat hour between the two of you so the difference in cost is only the amount of usage.

Now imagine the electrical company told your neighbor he can't run his AC during the day so they had the power to sell to your 3-phase.

Why would they do that if the power costs the same to both of you?

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 2:52:07 PM , Rating: 2
Find another power company then. Thankfully, where I am at, I have a choice.

Yes, Net Neutrality has good intentions, but I believe the wrong approach, especially when the FCC has a history of creeping regulation. If you'd look above, you'd see my solution that would work better in the end, and not step on their rights to the degree Net Neutrality does.

Explain how Cogent wouldn't exist?

RE: You mean...
By MatthiasF on 9/22/2009 5:33:01 PM , Rating: 2

Cogent was founded in 1999.

These acts of regulation improved the competition and speed of the Internet nearly 20 fold in four years.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 5:41:43 PM , Rating: 3
Yet without the regulation as far as who put lines in the ground, and what they could do with them, where would we be without it?



RE: You mean...
By MatthiasF on 9/22/2009 9:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
The US government subsidized the construction of most of the copper phone infrastructure (later used as an early backbone for the Internet) and research into the technology behind it (defense grants).

So, the government played a big role in the Internet's creation. The bill I mentioned guaranteed new ISPs the right to use this investment. New ISPs offering faster rates for less money using updated equipment is what caused the quick rate of improvement.

As far as tossing out hypothetical numbers at how fast the Internet would be in this libertarian dimension you've created in your mind, I'd like to mention that the USA is keeping pace with the rest of the world with our current system, even against countries with nationalized telecoms.

The only thing holding us back is our geography. We're a nation of low population density, a third that of Europe and a fourth of Japan (comparing ONLY urban areas, if we compared total areas and just the continental US we'd be far lower). If everyone in the country crammed into Oregan or Missouri (comparing Europe and Japan respectively), I bet we'd have gigabit broadband by now, although I'm not sure why we'd need it.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 10:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
I said those hypothetical numbers simply because you shot hypothetical numbers at me. Not as a true number of what may be, even though we don't know.

I never said our current speeds were poor. I never said we sucked vs the rest of the world either. So please, read my comments indepth, and don't assume.

RE: You mean...
By MatthiasF on 9/23/2009 4:44:18 AM , Rating: 2
Mine weren't hypothetical. See, what I'm describing actually happened. Between 1995 and 2000, the total available bandwidth of the Internet increased nearly 20 times, most of it from investment by new companies like UUNET, Level 3 and Worldcom. Companies that couldn't exist without the 1996 telecom bill nor would get capital to do what they did without the guarantees given in the bill.

Reality > Fantasy

RE: You mean...
By JediJeb on 9/23/2009 5:48:58 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Without that government regulation, Cogent would never have been able to exist because AT&T would never have allowed them to use their lines to start their business. Just as before that when AT&T owned all the network for long distance phone calls. MCI, Sprint, Excell and others only came into existance( or actually grew, some existed) after the breakup of AT&T.

RE: You mean...
By ChickenMcTest on 9/22/2009 2:50:20 PM , Rating: 2
Even if today we ended the government given monopolies it would take years for other companies to lay their own infrastructure.

In Michigan there was a huge push to deregulate the cable market. Which will in the long run give more choice and better service to Michigan residents. However, currently the majority of residents still only have Comcast as a provider, and Comcast as raised rates every year with out offering better service.

In the short term I can't think of a better way to get Net Neutrality than through government imposed regulation.

RE: You mean...
By FITCamaro on 9/22/2009 3:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it doesn't happen overnight. Because those are huge projects. But that's just life. You don't have the government do something through regulation just because people are too impatient to wait for it to happen on its own.

There's always a cost when you try to artificially rush something.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 3:57:37 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, especially considering something as powerful and important as the internet. Extra caution should be used in any laws passed regarding what to do with regulations on ISPs, or traffic, as they will have far reaching concequences.

RE: You mean...
By ChickenMcTest on 9/22/2009 4:04:25 PM , Rating: 2
I guess your right.

Also the consumer dissatisfaction that would result would spur competitors on.

Also, once the FCC gets their teeth into something you are going to need the jaws of life to get them out of it.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 4:06:57 PM , Rating: 3
Also, once the FCC gets their teeth into something you are going to need the jaws of life to get them out of it.


RE: You mean...
By Yawgm0th on 9/22/2009 6:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think they should segregate traffic with fast and slow lanes. I think a data packet is a data packet is a data packet. What's it matter who it comes from?

RE: You mean...
By Parhel on 9/22/2009 2:30:42 PM , Rating: 5
I'm stepping out of character and siding with the Democrats on this one. If they don't have any rules, it gives the ISPs too much power and influence over other business sectors.

For example, if Comcast feels that companies like Netflix who offer streaming video are dipping into their on-demand rental profits, why not cap them? Competition isn't likely to win that war.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: You mean...
By tdawg on 9/22/2009 2:51:14 PM , Rating: 2
As long as there are viable alternatives available in every area. The problem is that there aren't true competitors in each market, but rather regional monopolies in the form of Comcast and Time Warner Cable.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 2:55:03 PM , Rating: 2
Read my solution in the above comments, and let me know what you think.

RE: You mean...
By tdawg on 9/22/2009 2:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
I actually responded further up in the conversation between you and Fit. I'm interested in your response.

RE: You mean...
By S3anister on 9/22/2009 2:32:23 PM , Rating: 5
By now i would hope that the majority of U.S. citizens such as myself realize that the U.S. is not purely Capitalist.

RE: You mean...
By Lerianis on 10/4/2009 1:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
And thank goodness it isn't, because 'pure capitalism' doesn't work well in the long or short run.

RE: You mean...
By MatthiasF on 9/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 2:36:55 PM , Rating: 4
Ma Bell wasn't an unregulated monopoly... Regulations were one of the things that allowed them to get that big, so check your history.

And no, I won't support something that in the end, eliminates choice.

RE: You mean...
By ChristopherO on 9/22/2009 3:15:04 PM , Rating: 3
True, and I can presently get my high-speed from about 5 ADSL providers, 1 cable provider, a couple satellite ones, and one fiber provider.

I don't like the idea about throttling traffic, but I don't really know if that's what they mean. I've only heard the "political" side of this argument, and not the technical one. If they were really selling QoS, that would be different. For example, if MSFT wanted to pay for higher priority, so that Live had a better experience, even if everyone else in your neighborhood was flooding the network with P2P, that makes some sense. However, if the ISP arbitrarily limited bandwidth for non-payers, that's a totally different ball of wax. No one has ever clarified this, and generally the Democrat party proposals always assumed the worst-case-scenario.

I'm sure the Speakeasys and Covads of this world would make a fortune if the big telcos implemented throttling rules. Although that might work out for the rest of us, because all the P2P users would jump onto their networks and free up tons of bandwidth for the rest of us still on a major network.

Honestly, it's one of those things which I don't think anyone can accurately know what happens until you have both throttled and non-throttled ISPs running side-by-side.

I'm all for reasonable restrictions like limiting P2P except from legit networks (Steam, etc). P2P does have a tremendous potential for legit distribution, but who is everyone kidding, at present >90% of the P2P traffic is probably illegal downloading. I'm mixed on this because I fundamentally don't like someone telling me what I can do, but the companies have a point that spam and P2P is digesting a huge amount of network capacity -- so I can understand their side that they hate spending money to upgrade a network for people that are illegally trading things.

If however ISPs actively started blocking VoIP, because it interfered with their service offerings, that would be a different matter. But in the grand scheme of things, personal VoIP isn't a bandwidth hog.

The good thing about copper to the home is that, even though a big telco laid it, you can still totally isolate it from their network and tie into a specific DSLAM. Problem with cable and fiber is that you're on a node with everyone else, so it's really impossible to do complete isolation from your peers, unless you VLAN everyone and limit the VLAN bandwidth. However this makes leasing bandwidth miserable since the cable/fiber owner still needs to manage the relationship, whereas the traffic of a local-loop is entirely someone else's responsibility.

RE: You mean...
By MatthiasF on 9/22/2009 10:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
No, AT&T convinced the government (feds and states) that a monopoly was the best option. They con'd regulations that gave them an advantage, trying to stop newcomers and making it easier for them to buy up competitors. After decades of no competition, technologicaly advances slowed, new ideas were squashed and costs to consumers never went down.

If not for the government tackling Ma Bell, we would not have the kind of technology we have today.

It was a valueable lesson learned for America, and by proxy the world. It set the tone for how governments treated new industries for half a decade.

RE: You mean...
By invidious on 9/22/2009 3:00:10 PM , Rating: 5
Individual ISPs did not invent the internet, they have no ownership of it or "right" get to regulate it. They are a service provider who provides a service that is so essential to the economy that it could arguably considered a basic utility. And our goverment absolutely has an obligation to ensure that utilities that affect the success of our economy are run fairly.

ISPs have been abusing their position by pillaging consumers for decades, now they want to start pillaging content providers as well. The only thing that currently keeps telecoms in check is competition with other telecoms. And if you look at areas of low competition you see trememdous abuse. Government regulation would keep telecoms universally in check. You propose the industry more competition but how do you suggest this can come in to place if the large mega telecoms are allowed to abuse their power?

And references to the government not running things right are stupid scare tactics. The government would not be running the internet, regulating is not the same as providing.

On this issue the opportunity correct a situation that has been broken for decades far outweighs my normal distaste for government control of private industry. Telecoms have proven that they can not be trusted to play fair on their own, they don't listen to slaps on the wrist so its time to get out the paddle.

/rant off

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 3:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
...and if you would have read above, you would see that I have a solution for the abuse the telecoms have been inflicting on everyone...

They aren't scare tactics, they are history. Would you buy a computer from a company who was known for failing in warranty support and using bad hardware?

RE: You mean...
By FITCamaro on 9/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 4:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
Well said.

Again, government gave them the power to abuse their position. What you speak of is regulation to manage regulation.

RE: You mean...
By MPE on 9/22/2009 3:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
" not the gov't who has never run anything right"

NASA - including going to the moon
Infrastructure - including the national highway system
USPS - was successful - just obsolete now

While I am not fan of the government either - the whole 'never ran anything right' is a myth. Government works well when it is basic national need. Any thing more than that they should not be involved.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 3:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
True, most of those were in the past... Do you really think NASA could get to the moon in 18 months like it did before?

USPS should have evolved to not become obsolete, as the last thing we need is another money drain in the gov't.

Military: For the most part, but much of what has made our military great, is the private aerospace companies that design our jets, bombs, weapons, armor, etc... NOT the gov't itself. Also, our use of private companies for supply defense and diplomat defense wasn't just because of a lack of manpower, but the private companies could do it for less money than having to plan a force from a battalion.

The infastructure was an amazing job, but we've seen what happens when states over extend themselves financially, and the roads fall apart quickly. Evident by the roads in California, and especially I-80. Imagine if they let that happen to the internet?

RE: You mean...
By antimatter3009 on 9/22/2009 4:35:39 PM , Rating: 2
None of this is really applicable, though, since we're talking regulations, not a takeover. It'd be one thing if they were proposing that the gov't shut down the ISPs and run it themselves, but we're just talking about some regulations to ensure the ISPs play fairly.

That said, I think competition would be the best medicine, but having real competition between ISPs would probably require even more gov't involvement. It's not just a question of deregulation, but also of ensuring that lines are easily accessible to new startups without the incredibly high startup cost that would be required now. In turn, this would require the gov't to either force ISPs to rent their lines at a fixed rate or to have the gov't or a gov't backed non-profit actually own the lines. Further, there would have to be something in place to force competition even in lower population areas that are already underserved.

As I said, I think competition is the better route in the long run, but it's also a more complicated and drastic option in terms of changes required. Due to this, the choice isn't so clear cut. In any case, I think some simple FCC regulations would still be a good idea, at least in the short term.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 4:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
...or to have the gov't or a gov't backed non-profit actually own the lines...

Exactly the method I have been mentioning above in the article.

My worry with the current direction of the White House is a slow takeover of the ISPs, as their FCC "czar" has mentioned his desire to do this in writings before. Giving them more of a grasp on it with heavy regulations isn't in the best interest of the nation.

So yes, my examples aren't 100% applicable, but they do have a relation.

RE: You mean...
By antimatter3009 on 9/22/2009 9:37:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I've seen you and many others put forward the idea of gov't line ownership. In fact, I think it's a good idea. However, you don't seem to think the gov't can even handle regulations, so why do you think that the gov't owning the lines is actually a better solution? I mean, that's significantly more and more direct involvement and responsibility than a few net neutrality regulations. Don't you think they'll screw it up?

Also, the FCC and various other agencies have been regulating things for ages without taking them over. Why do you think this is going to be different? Do you really, honestly believe that Obama's goal is to have government ownership of the internet? Aren't your fears just a bit unfounded?

I don't mean to insult you, but I'm really starting to think that the whole socialism thing has been yelled so many times so loudly that people are losing touch with reality. People seem to be taking anything Obama or any Democrat does and contriving some scenario where those actions lead to full on socialism, then trumpeting it as if it were the obvious truth. I'm really at a loss to see where this reasoning is coming from.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 9:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
If you'd bother to read my posts, I've said many times now that the gov't would not own the lines. They would be be owned by a non-profit, private organization.

FCC hasn't gotten to big and they won't grab for the internet?

So my views aren't unfounded. And it is always better safe than sorry.

RE: You mean...
By antimatter3009 on 9/22/2009 10:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
I don't really see the difference between gov't ownership and a non-profit as being that great. Either way, the gov't would end up with a lot more control. Also, there's the bit about the transfer itself which necessarily involves the gov't forcing the ISPs to sell their lines.

Also, the article you linked is just speculation. The FCC reprimanded Comcast for throttling certain traffic so you have a Bush appointee who voted against the reprimand speculating that "a new administration" (presumably Obama) might try to take over the internet through a fairness doctrine of some sort. That's quite a logical leap and, in fact, is the same speculation we're seeing here, but it's still just that: speculation. Nothing more.

And I'm not trying to belittle your concerns. They're certainly valid and I would side with you in opposing gov't regulation of internet content of almost any form, but I don't see the logic that connects net neutrality regulations to the kind of control none of us want to see.

RE: You mean...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/23/2009 12:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
Military NASA - including going to the moon Infrastructure - including the national highway system USPS - was successful - just obsolete now

Yes except all of those are things the government is SUPPOSED to be responsible for and provide.

Where government starts screwing up the works is when they keep putting their fingers in pies they shouldn't be. Like private industry, commerce, etc etc.

RE: You mean...
By TSS on 9/22/2009 3:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
ISP's don't make products, they provide a service. It's still called an Internet Service Provider.

yes of course they make products but it's related to the service of internet. not the creation or editing of internet itself.

I think it's time to start the discussion wether or not a connection to the internet should be an (constitutional) right. After all, if we look into history, the scarcity of information was used as a powerfull tool by the elite to control the masses. The internet completly kills this tool off.

If it were such a right, government intervention to protect that right would only be natural (isn't that what the government was supposed to be for? to protect it's citizen's rights?). As limiting your connection to the internet (in this case, speed of certain applications) would go against such a right.

if you argue the rights of the ISP's are beeing taken away, one must first ask what rights do the ISP's have, and are those the right rights to begin with?

However i do know what current governments consider "protecting" so i'm not sure the time is right yet for such an transition.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 3:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
I would believe that much like radio or newspaper, the internet would fall under the 1st Amendment of Free Speech.

Now, just like a newspaper can tell a writer what they can or cannot write for that newspaper, I believe ISP's should be able to say what runs through their servers/routers by their customers. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to use the service, and can find another that doesn't have that limitation or filter.

RE: You mean...
By Looey on 9/22/2009 7:19:29 PM , Rating: 2
Connection to the internet a constitutional right? You have to be kidding or joking. Do you need this right so you can text as you're going down the road or download a movie? Or maybe you want to go to a social site. The internet is not necessary to live a happy and productive life. I think many people need to get off their butts, get outside and lose some weight. Have you seen the statistics regarding young people who are obese. Go meet people for real instead of from behind a keyboard. Food, clothing and shelter are necessary but not the internet.

Google is behind most of the "Net Neutrality" talks. Google helped Obama get elected and have him in their back pocket. They don't want anyone to get in their way. They want all of the ISP users to subsidize their business. Why should I have to pay for bandwidth Google eats up? Google is making billions in profits so why don't they subsidize the ISPs instead of the ISPs charging their users more just to maintain their advertised speeds?

RE: You mean...
By TSS on 9/22/2009 11:49:49 PM , Rating: 2
how is it people are still considering the internet not social?

The people i'm on ventrillo with at this very second don't think so. And they are americans, while i'm europian. pre-internet, that wasn't possible or very expensive.

not to mention i go over to my friends house once a week, and where both fine with that. But when we both played WoW, i saw and talked to him every single day. Not to mention we'd share and relive those moments on the day i came over, which was quite alot of fun. My contact with him now is still the same, i just see him alot less.

And let's go back to pre-internet times. I got internet when i was 13 (nigh a decade ago now). by that time i was already bullied my entire elementairy school period and was starting to get the brunt of my high school bullying.

2 years later i dropped from highschool because my peers pretty much had driven me to suicide. But the people i ment online accepted me because my intellect counted for much more then just my emotions. Not to mention helped me when i needed to talk to somebody. Instead of just using that information later to hurt me more.

Oh. And i sit 12 hours behind a screen a day and i'm skinny as hell. Wonder how i do it? I just don't stuff my face with donuts every half a second.

Or maybe it has to do with the fact that the last time i went to McDonalds my gut froze up for 3 days so i'm staying the heck away from there.

just because people use internet in a bad way doesn't mean it's the single most powerfull tool every created to escape oppression. Of any kind. and i'd be willing to spend billions and consider recieving spam a duty to protect that tool.

Oh and it does make stuff more productive. Or do you want to continue this discussion by long-distance phone? (your paying).

RE: You mean...
By tmouse on 9/23/2009 8:44:45 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, posting to DT is social, but certainly NOT productive. I wish I had a penny for all of the crap "me too" and "one more idea" e-mails I get when 1 phone call would have cleared up the whole matter in a fraction of the time. The net in many ways is as much of a time sink as a boon to productivity. The exception is overseas communications. How many people e-mail someone instead of turning around and ask the person, more than you think. Add in all of the u-tube viewing and many small business are probably less productive than ever. Now there are simple methods to avoid this; but they do require some degree of tech savvy that the vast majority of small to mid-sized businesses simply lack. Your case is more extreme than normal, and relaying on the net for the majority of one's social interactions in not the best thing. While I do feel everyone should have the right to freely speak one's mind, I do not think any singular method of communication is a "right".

RE: You mean...
By JediJeb on 9/23/2009 6:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
The right to socialize on the internet maybe, but to consider it as something the government has to provide, that is not what I would consider a right.

People today confuse rights with priviledges with wants. Freedom is a right that should be insured. As the US Constitution says, the Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are what it upholds.

Life: The government should not be in the business to decide who lives and who dies. The possible exception there is the Death Penalty for crimes commited against the Rights of others. ( killing someone takes away their Right to Life).

Liberty: The government should not interfer with the citizens Freedom. Again with the exception of where a person commits a crime against the Freedom or Liberty of another citizen.

Pursuit of Happiness: The government should not prevent you from living a good life. This though does not mean the government can not regulate things like drugs, alcohol, ect which if misused can cause someone to violate another person's right to the Pursuit of Happiness.

Traffic laws, regulations on theft, and many things like that are used to insure the most rights for the greatest number of citizens.

Driving a car, owning a home, working in a job, having internet, ect these are Privileges. Privileges are earned, not given. The above rights ensure that you can have these privileges, but they do not provide them for you. You have to work to keep a job, you work to earn money to buy a car, or a house, or to pay for the internet. You can not pay for Rights, but you must pay for or earn privileges.

You have the Right to learn, but going to school is a privilege. In lower grades it is paid for by the government but you must behave or it can be taken away. At university level you pay for the privilege to learn in one way or another.

To address you post about being able to talk to other countries over the internet. You have the Right to talk to them, but the Privilege of using the internet to do so. Someone has to pay for the operation of the internet. If it is the government that pays then what has happened is through taxes I have been called upon to pay for your ability to use the internet, while it may be good for you, it would be taking away from me to do so. What makes so many people believe that this is the proper way to do thing is that no-one these day believes in personal responsibility, they want the government to be responsible for every thing in their lives from food, housing, entertainment, to health care, retirement, and much more. Classic Grasshopper and Ant story, one lives life with no concern for the future, the other looks forward and plans for making it through the hard winter ahead. Government should only be there to keep the way clear for us to provide for ourselves.

RE: You mean...
By KLO on 10/2/2009 10:30:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think internet should be available for education, research, emergencies, and other alltruistic things that I do belive are human rights. Since everything is monopolized these days many people do not have access to the ability to learn because they cannot afford a phone, cable, or internet. Its similar to a resource say water. Water too is owned and we pay for it but one day we all use it up out ignorance. We do need it and I believe its a human right to have access to it lest we die. Just as many people are risking in Australia right now. Therefore when the government comes in and helps control how its used its a benefit for all. We don't use too much just whats necessary but we will always have it. And in the end its good because people are stupid. They think its for socializing but thats not all its for. Many people don't own phones so they don't have a life-line. Its ridiculous. This has to change or there has to be a non-profit underground ISP provider that can challenge the competition.

RE: You mean...
By Yawgm0th on 9/22/2009 6:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
The Republicans are pushing for ISPs to have control over their own product
The product that State, County, Municipal, and even the Federal government have executively and/or legislatively given them monopolies and duopolies for all across the country. If the government can say that they don't have to seriously compete with each other, why can't it have control over the product that it has given them?

We need more competition in the ISP sector, not more regulation.
Actually, I agree to an extent. The problem is not regulation, though, it's that the government gives ISPs (and utility companies...) a mandate not to compete. They don't even get to compete in most markets. But the government didn't do that on it's own for fun. ISPs have always fought (read: lobbied) hard for the government to mandate their monopolies and virtual cartels.

RE: You mean...
By SiliconAddict on 9/22/2009 7:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
aebiv shut your f'ing incompident mouth. Its about putting standards in place so businesses can't fook over the average user. I'm sick as hell of idiots coming onto the scene screaming AHHH government! DOOM! Dereg is what got us into this damn mess to begin with, with 30+ years of Republican deregulation of Fannie and Freddie.

What we need are rules on not shaping bandwidth to cater to their own wares while telling others (Say MS's XBOX Live network, Vonage, etc) to take a hike. Tell me how the hell the market will settle this when MS nor Vonage have their own network to complete with. Oh that's right. Republicans think it will "just happen". Because god knows the feds keeping their hands out of the wireless industry has caused prices to drop to unimaginably low rates....not.

you people live in some sort of dream world where market competition is as reliable as gravity. Clue: it doesn't.

RE: You mean...
By aebiv on 9/22/09, Rating: 0
What gives them the right?
By c4v3man on 9/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: What gives them the right?
By ChickenMcTest on 9/22/2009 6:43:03 PM , Rating: 2
How exactly does this criticize Republicans?

RE: What gives them the right?
By aebiv on 9/22/2009 7:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
Read the last paragraph, that is a very poor choice of words for defining what the Republicans are doing.

By Ammohunt on 9/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: Sigh.
By cmdrdredd on 9/22/2009 4:53:36 PM , Rating: 4
The problem to me is that the ISPs should be prevented from limiting you at all. You should always get full access to what you pay for. In other words, if you pay for the 8Mbps from Comcast they should give you 8Mbps from any site and any download no matter what, period.

The government idea of opening up the networks of various companies and exposing their traffic is alarming in a small way. It is an invasion of privacy to the business handling said traffic. Protection of their customer's privacy is important too. I agree with FITCamero mostly here, open up the internet to neutrality but do not compromise privacy to do it.

RE: Sigh.
By cmdrdredd on 9/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: Sigh.
By MatthiasF on 9/22/2009 10:24:43 PM , Rating: 3
I think they rated you down because YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!

Politics aside, you're just dumb.

RE: Sigh.
By jmurbank on 9/23/2009 1:53:12 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. ISP should never throttle based on content or protocol. Customers expect what they pay for. If customers pay for 9 Mbps, they should always get 9 Mbps given that the other side is uploading at that bandwidth. Though it would be nice to not have any gimmicks like PowerBoost and have a real connection that has low latency and high throughput which means stop the marketing tactics that do not deliver.

The article says nothing about companies network being open or being vulnerable. The article states that throttling can not be used no more.

RE: Sigh.
By 0ldman on 9/23/2009 3:11:46 AM , Rating: 1
Fine. If the customer wants full speed rather than a shared pipe, they have to pay for it.

Where I am, its still $1700 for a 10Mb MetroE. If I have 10 1Mb customers, thats $170 per customer to cover the bandwidth expenses alone and guarantee them 100% speed 100% of the time. That does not cover the cost of the parts, replacement, paying employees or making a dime for myself while managing this network 18 hours a day.

What you are describing is Committed Data Rate, which costs through the nose. What ISP's sell is "up to" rates. You can get "up to" 6Mb. On my network, the users can get full speed 90% of the time as, on average, 1 out of ten people are online at any time. This is also with QoS keeping P2P traffic running at a lower priority, not a lower speed. P2P gets full speed as long as it doesn't impact the performance of web traffic, VoIP, etc.

Bottom line, if you expect a dedicated 9Mb pipe for your 9Mb connection, be prepared to pay for it, because I guarantee, your ISP is paying more for their connection than you are. If they're worth anything, they oversell it and buy more bandwidth once performance starts to drop, but they're still sharing the expense over hundreds of customers, rather than expecting 10 people to equally share the cost and guaranteed speeds of the backbone.

"This is from the It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki