What is everyone's thoughts on Net Neutrality?

[dirk digler]

Being an IT geek this is an issue that I am intensely interested in and also this will affect each and every one of us. I will state I am unequivocally for Net Neutrality. I don't like the idea of back bone providers deciding which content I can receive and which content I can't based on who the content provider is or if they are a customer.

Thoughts?

[Direckshun]

For.

[dirk digler]

Oh and it appears Republicans and McCain specifically want to stop Net Neutrality which I quite haven't figured out why.

[Taco John]

*sigh*

More communism. These networks belong to the companies who have built their infrastructure. For the government to seize them is communistic.

[Taco John]

I'll say this, the idea behind net neutrality is a noble thought. But it's just misguided. The government should not seize these networks and halt developmental progress of them - regardless of the boogeyman scenario they are pushing as justification.

Why will any company want to develop the next public-facing technology when the government is going to seize it and make it difficult for you to innovate and operate?

[dirk digler]

*sigh*

More communism. These networks belong to the companies who have built their infrastructure. For the government to seize them is communistic.

The government isn't seizing anything. They are making rules to make sure that back bone providers don't discriminate against content providers.

For example having AT&T put Chiefsplanet or OrangeMane in the slow lane because they don't approve of the content or what we say on here

[dirk digler]

Here is Google's thoughts on Net Neutrality. They are in support of it btw

What kind of behavior is okay?
There are a lot of misconceptions about which market practices Google and other net neutrality advocates consider "discriminatory," and therefore should be subject to regulation by the FCC. There is widespread agreement among all parties that outright blocking, impairing, or degrading Internet traffic should not be tolerated. Beyond that, we also believe that broadband carriers should have the flexibility to engage in a whole host of activities, including:


Prioritizing all applications of a certain general type, such as streaming video;
Managing their networks to, for example, block certain traffic based on IP address in order to prevent harmful denial of service (DOS) attacks, viruses or worms;
Employing certain upgrades, such as the use of local caching or private network backbone links;
Providing managed IP services and proprietary content (like IPTV); and
Charging consumers extra to receive higher speed or performance capacity broadband service.

The key point here is that these activities do not rely on the carrier's unilateral control over the last-mile connections to consumers, and also do not involve discriminatory intent.

What isn't okay?
If all these different activities are acceptable in Google's view, what should the broadband carriers not be allowed to do? The answer is those last-mile activities that would discriminate against certain Internet applications or content with an anticompetitive intent. These would include:


Levying surcharges on content providers that are not their retail customers;
Prioritizing data packet delivery based on the ownership or affiliation (the who) of the content, or the source or destination (the what) of the content; or
Building a new "fast lane" online that consigns Internet content and applications to a relatively slow, bandwidth-starved portion of the broadband connection.

[Garcia Bronco]

I am against it. It could inhibit providers from running their business they way they want. Which isn't subject your approval. You have control over your dollars and can vote that way. If you don't like Comcast...don't sign up for their service. Don't give them money. further, if providers want to charge more money for certain kinds of content then it's their right to decide, not the governments.

[whatsmynameagain]

*sigh*

More communism. These networks belong to the companies who have built their infrastructure. For the government to seize them is communistic.

do you really think google would advocate communism?

if your not for it or too stupid to understand it then it must be the communisms, oh knoes!

nice take, go choke on a taco fuck face.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Taco John]

Let's see...

Government funding and restructuring the American Auto Industry. Check.
Government funding and restructuring the American Banking Industry. Check.
Government seizing control of the Internet. Under way.

At what point do you "nothing is communism" folks come around on this, and say "wow, we are getting increasingly communistic by the month?"

[Taco John]

The government isn't seizing anything. They are making rules to make sure that back bone providers don't discriminate against content providers.

For example having AT&T put Chiefsplanet or OrangeMane in the slow lane because they don't approve of the content or what we say on here

The government *is* seizing these networks. He who owns the network makes the rules.

If AT&T wanted to make an exclusive deal with The Orange Mane to make it exclusive to the AT&T network, it could be a great thing for my site because it would represent an injection of capital to operate that I wouldn't otherwise have. How many jobs would that create that currently don't exist?

These communistic measures eliminate an opportunity that could potentially exist.

[wild1]

I know nothing about this issue, but just based on principle, I generally don't want the government doing anything to regulate the internet.

Eventually they'll just want to control information, access, and use it to collect tax revenue. There is nothing in that for consumers.

[Taco John]

do you really think google would advocate communism?


Not as "communism." They're not calling this thing "Net Communism." They're calling it "Neutrality."

On the spectrum of Individualistic Capitalism and Collectivist Communism, which side of the line do you think Net Neutrality skews?

[Pittsie]

I know nothing about this issue, but just based on principle, I generally don't want the government doing anything to regulate the internet.

Eventually they'll just want to control information, access, and use it to collect tax revenue. There is nothing in that for consumers.

So, you're cool with corporations, specifically telecoms and cable companies, controlling your information flow?

[RINGLEADER]

How come all these liberal programs designed to get in between me and my insurance company or my Internet provider or [FILL IN THE BLANK] have names like "Net Neutrality". WTF is that? Wouldn't net neutrality be not having any interest in the Internet?

[HonestChieffan]

70 House dems wrote letters opposing FCC rules as well...makes me wonder what is buried in the rules

[wild1]

So, you're cool with corporations, specifically telecoms and cable companies, controlling your information flow?

If the issue is trusting private entities operating in a free market or trusting government, that's not something I will have to think too hard about.

[RINGLEADER]

So, you're cool with corporations, specifically telecoms and cable companies, controlling your information flow?

I prefer companies making decisions and being held accountable to their customers over government which is more and more becoming accountable to no one.

[dirk digler]

I am against it. It could inhibit providers from running their business they way they want. Which isn't subject your approval. You have control over your dollars and can vote that way. If you don't like Comcast...don't sign up for their service. Don't give them money. further, if providers want to charge more money for certain kinds of content then it's their right to decide, not the governments.

Personally I like the Internet the way it is now. If telecoms have their way they will start charging websites such as Amazon or restricting sites such as Amazon because they aren't paying customers which will in effect put alot of these companies out of business and or restrict access to them.

Second in alot of small towns across this country you only have 1 maybe 2 choices at the most for Internet providers so their isn't like you have a choice if you want broadband in some cases.

[BY1401]

I don't even know what Net Neutrality is.

[whatsmynameagain]

Let's see...

Government funding and restructuring the American Auto Industry. Check.
Government funding and restructuring the American Banking Industry. Check.
Government seizing control of the Internet. Under way.

At what point do you "nothing is communism" folks come around on this, and say "wow, we are getting increasingly communistic by the month?"

i believe all of the above needed regulation. without it they fail, the whole country fails, and we pay either way. if the automakers can get their shit straight now(unlikely i know) this will be extremely beneficial. i dont see it as communism....
Posted via Mobile Device

[BigRedChief]

These communistic measures eliminate an opportunity that could potentially exist.Why is everything communism to you thesedays?

[Taco John]

So, you're cool with corporations, specifically telecoms and cable companies, controlling your information flow?

Sure I am. I have DirecTV. I've chosen it over Comcast for the reason that they have an exclusive deal with the NFL for the Sunday Ticket.

Should the government intervene to eliminate this advantage?

[dirk digler]

The government *is* seizing these networks. He who owns the network makes the rules.

If AT&T wanted to make an exclusive deal with The Orange Mane to make it exclusive to the AT&T network, it could be a great thing for my site because it would represent an injection of capital to operate that I wouldn't otherwise have. How many jobs would that create that currently don't exist?

These communistic measures eliminate an opportunity that could potentially exist.

Did the FCC seize TV or radio? No they didn't. They just made rules to say what is appropriate and what is not appropriate or what frequencies radio stations can broadcast at. That is the FCC's job and that is all they are doing here.

Comcast got busted earlier this year or late last year and got fined for restricting bandwidth to peer to peer networking. There is more to come if this doesn't pass.

[wild1]

I prefer companies making decisions and being held accountable to their customers over government which is more and more becoming accountable to no one.

I agree with that.

There's nothing wrong with the internet today. Government can only make it worse.

[Taco John]

Why is everything communism to you thesedays?


Because I understand the economic spectrum better than most people. Sorry, if I sound like a broken record sometimes. But communism is communism, even if it's uncomfortable to call it that.

[Reaper16]

Second in alot of small towns across this country you only have 1 maybe 2 choices at the most for Internet providers so their isn't like you have a choice if you want broadband in some cases.
That's an important point.

[Taco John]

i believe all of the above needed regulation. without it they fail, the whole country fails, and we pay either way. if the automakers can get their shit straight now(unlikely i know) this will be extremely beneficial. i dont see it as communism....
Posted via Mobile Device

It doesn't matter what you see it as. It matters what it is.

You just stated here "I believe we needed communism to solve these issues, I just don't want to call it that."

Your desire not to call it what it is doesn't negate it.

[dirk digler]

I agree with that.

There's nothing wrong with the internet today.

I agree that is why it is important to keep it that way. If the telecom's have their way if won't be that way for long.

[BigRedChief]

The government already has the capability to sieze all major telecom carriers, block or allow traffic, if they choose to do so. This is only about what will be legal.

[HonestChieffan]

Nothing wrong if you have access. Millions cannot get beyond dial up

[dirk digler]

I don't even know what Net Neutrality is.

All traffic is created equally

At its simplest network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.

[Taco John]

All traffic is created equally

ROFL

I love how some of you glom onto the slogans, yet fancy yourselves independent free thinkers.

"All traffic is created equally" Bwahahaha! *wiping my eyes*

[wild1]

I agree that is why it is important to keep it that way. If the telecom's have their way if won't be that way for long.

I don't see any big scary boogeyman here, except the government. Tell me how the big bad telecoms are going to do something to me that I can't counteract by taking my business elsewhere?

[dirk digler]

ROFL

I love how some of you glom onto the slogans, yet fancy yourselves independent free thinkers.

"All traffic is created equally" Bwahahaha! *wiping my eyes*

:spock:

That is the way it is now. You think it is ok for telecoms to restrict bandwidth to certain sites because of content? That is borderline censorship.

[wild1]

ROFL

I love how some of you glom onto the slogans, yet fancy yourselves independent free thinkers.

"All traffic is created equally" Bwahahaha! *wiping my eyes*

Yes, I love how they create that association between their desire to regulate the internet to unalienable rights.

Basically, you don't believe in equality or freedom, unless you agree with us, and support our efforts laying the groundwork for internet taxation.

[dirk digler]

I don't see any big scary boogeyman here, except the government. Tell me how the big bad telecoms are going to do something to me that I can't counteract by taking my business elsewhere?

As I stated before in many towns across this country they only have 1 or maybe 2 broadband providers so there isn't alot of choice.

[wild1]

:spock:

That is the way it is now. You think it is ok for telecoms to restrict bandwidth to certain sites because of content? That is borderline censorship.

Censorship? :spock: ROFL

[HonestChieffan]

:spock:

That is the way it is now. You think it is ok for telecoms to restrict bandwidth to certain sites because of content? That is borderline censorship.

I know zero from bandwidth. Is that a fuction of the capasity?

[whatsmynameagain]

I agree with that.

There's nothing wrong with the internet today. Government can only make it worse.

using your uninformed opinion to make a definitive statement, cute.

the dumber you get the dumber you are......
Posted via Mobile Device

[wild1]

As I stated before in many towns across this country they only have 1 or maybe 2 broadband providers so there isn't alot of choice.

There choices between cable and land-based telephone/DSL/etc in almost every area. In addition, you could use satellite TV and get broadband delivered through there. You can also use cellular providers and there will be more options in the future including general wifi in some areas. Even if I only have two choices, that's two more than the government gives me, and those two are accountable to me.

It doesn't wash. They don't care about you or your internet traffic.

Government wants to do this so they can do the very things you want them to prevent. They want the power to regulate content, regulate access, and levy taxes.

[dirk digler]

Censorship? :spock: ROFL

For example say AT&T doesn't like the content on Drudge Report they could block it. AT&T has about 20% market share on internet service.

[whatsmynameagain]

Sure I am. I have DirecTV. I've chosen it over Comcast for the reason that they have an exclusive deal with the NFL for the Sunday Ticket.

Should the government intervene to eliminate this advantage?

other providers can have that package if they pay the nfl for access. apples and oranges...
Posted via Mobile Device

[Inspector]

I don't understand why we would want our employees getting involved in what business does. They probably should focus on memorizing the constitution and all the stuff that entails. That would be like me letting the guy who mows my yard decide what TV shows I can watch or something. (That might not be a good analogy though...)

Seems like the free market would guide what businesses do. Not the people we hire for govt work.

And, as always, this is just my opinion.

[Taco John]

:spock:

That is the way it is now. You think it is ok for telecoms to restrict bandwidth to certain sites because of content? That is borderline censorship.

This is what you seriously think that net neutrality is about? You believe that the owners of these networks are threatening censorship, and the government needs to come to our rescue to save us from them?

[wild1]

For example say AT&T doesn't like the content on Drudge Report they could block it. AT&T has about 20% market share on internet service.

ROFL right.

They wouldn't do that because the market would punish them. And if I were a subscriber, I'd go elsewhere.

Government, on the other hand, could decide that Drudge spreads dangerous propaganda, and it's "not a news organization", and that they need to block it in the interest of public safety, to prevent the spread of hate and dangerous radicalism, to stop domestic terrorism, or any other reason they dream up. Then some liberal bureaucrat flicks his pen, and everyone blocks it, and I have no recourse at all.

I know which one I think is better. I'm surprised you dont.

[HonestChieffan]

For example say AT&T doesn't like the content on Drudge Report they could block it. AT&T has about 20% market share on internet service.

and why would they do that if it means customers leave?

[Taco John]

other providers can have that package if they pay the nfl for access. apples and oranges...
Posted via Mobile Device



No they can't. The NFL makes the agreement exclusive to DirectTV. And I reward DirectTV with a subscription to their service.

[dirk digler]

I know zero from bandwidth. Is that a fuction of the capasity?

Basically. You purchase a plan that can get up to 1.5mbs\sec you are allotted that much on their network. It is not guaranteed though.

[dirk digler]

There choices between cable and land-based telephone/DSL/etc in almost every area. In addition, you could use satellite TV and get broadband delivered through there. You can also use cellular providers and there will be more options in the future including general wifi in some areas. Even if I only have two choices, that's two more than the government gives me, and those two are accountable to me.

It doesn't wash. They don't care about you or your internet traffic.

Government wants to do this so they can do the very things you want them to prevent. They want the power to regulate content, regulate access, and levy taxes.

I am the network administrator for our company I deal with purchasing network services. We have offices in 35 rural MO towns and about 15-20 of our offices only have 1 choice. It is getting better a few years ago 95% of our offices only had 1 choice. Satellite is to cost prohibitive for consumers and business and in small rural towns you don't get fast cell service it is slower than dial-up.

[morphius]

I'm more for than against. I don't want to see the broadband companies controlling the content on the internet, nor do I want them to stifle innovation, like being able to down load movies legally. Making it so that a download could take 5 days from a competitor seems a bit anti-competitive IMHO. I also don't want them being able to say, hey Chiefsplanet, you are creating a decent amount of traffic on our Network so you need to pay us, and since we don't make enough money they could just essentially kill us off.

I just haven't heard anything that compells me to believe the opposition to it. I mean if you really don't like it, well, then build your own version of the Internet that you can control the way you want and sell that, and feel free to try to compete...

[Garcia Bronco]

Personally I like the Internet the way it is now. If telecoms have their way they will start charging websites such as Amazon or restricting sites such as Amazon because they aren't paying customers which will in effect put alot of these companies out of business and or restrict access to them.

Second in alot of small towns across this country you only have 1 maybe 2 choices at the most for Internet providers so their isn't like you have a choice if you want broadband in some cases.

That's not the provider's problem. This is just another example of the entitlement crowd thinking they are owed something. Same with the small towns. If your town only has 2 providers and you don't like them...get a 3rd...or STFU.

[HonestChieffan]

Basically. You purchase a plan that can get up to 1.5mbs\sec you are allotted that much on their network. It is not guaranteed though.

So they may ban sites that use huge bandwidth cause its a limiting facor for the provider?

[HonestChieffan]

I am the network administrator for our company I deal with purchasing network services. We have offices in 35 rural MO towns and about 15-20 of our offices only have 1 choice. It is getting better a few years ago 95% of our offices only had 1 choice. Satellite is to cost prohibitive for consumers and business and in small rural towns you don't get fast cell service it is slower than dial-up.


And Rural areas still cannot get high speed in many areas

[Garcia Bronco]

This is what you seriously think that net neutrality is about? You believe that the owners of these networks are threatening censorship, and the government needs to come to our rescue to save us from them?

Seriously. Using his Amazon example...if people want to use Amazon and they can't through AT&T...what do you think happens? AT&T loses the business. In fact I would bet right now that providers actually dedicate more bandwidth to places like Amazon because of thier net presence.

[RINGLEADER]

i believe all of the above needed regulation. without it they fail, the whole country fails, and we pay either way. if the automakers can get their shit straight now(unlikely i know) this will be extremely beneficial. i dont see it as communism....
Posted via Mobile Device

And I suppose you have no problem with the government borrowing our money to give back to us to encourage purchases of automobiles from companies the government owns?

[RINGLEADER]

I agree with that.

There's nothing wrong with the internet today. Government can only make it worse.

Once they control it they can limit what goes through it, tax it, or generally muck it up as they do with everything else because of a politician's need to do what will get them elected trumps what makes sense.

[RINGLEADER]

All traffic is created equally

Huh?

According to who?

[RINGLEADER]

For example say AT&T doesn't like the content on Drudge Report they could block it. AT&T has about 20% market share on internet service.

And if they did that a lot of people would move to a service that didn't block it.

Just went through this in the magazine industry.

[DJ's left nut]

That's an important point.

Not really.

You've chosen to live in a small town w/ limited access to broadband - that's your right but you also live with the consequences.

When I want fresh seafood here in Mid-Mo, I'm pretty much SOL whereas somebody living in Houston isn't. That's simply something I'm going to have to deal with by virtue of where I live.

Boo hoo for the people that want unlimited broadband options in rural Missouruh. None of us get everything we want, everytime we want it.

Increased government intervention on the basis of practical realities is hardly "an important point" it's just more whining by people looking to rationalize a policy because their Messiah is championing it.

[dirk digler]

ROFL right.

They wouldn't do that because the market would punish them. And if I were a subscriber, I'd go elsewhere.

Government, on the other hand, could decide that Drudge spreads dangerous propaganda, and it's "not a news organization", and that they need to block it in the interest of public safety, to prevent the spread of hate and dangerous radicalism, to stop domestic terrorism, or any other reason they dream up. Then some liberal bureaucrat flicks his pen, and everyone blocks it, and I have no recourse at all.

I know which one I think is better. I'm surprised you dont.

and why would they do that if it means customers leave?

This is what you seriously think that net neutrality is about? You believe that the owners of these networks are threatening censorship, and the government needs to come to our rescue to save us from them?

I will give you guys a real live example that is going to happen if it doesn't pass.

Hulu is the best example of this. Hulu is a website where you can watch TV shows and movies online. Internet providers can go to Hulu and say pay us a rate because our users are using your site and taking up to much bandwidth. If they don't pay the rate they will get put in the restricted bandwidth range effectively cutting them off.

Many people have predicted they will be the first casualty of no net neutrality. Why? Because alot of internet providers such as Comcast don't like that they are losing cable subscribers to Hulu because they can watch all their shows for free.

[dirk digler]

I'm more for than against. I don't want to see the broadband companies controlling the content on the internet, nor do I want them to stifle innovation, like being able to down load movies legally. Making it so that a download could take 5 days from a competitor seems a bit anti-competitive IMHO. I also don't want them being able to say, hey Chiefsplanet, you are creating a decent amount of traffic on our Network so you need to pay us, and since we don't make enough money they could just essentially kill us off.

I just haven't heard anything that compells me to believe the opposition to it. I mean if you really don't like it, well, then build your own version of the Internet that you can control the way you want and sell that, and feel free to try to compete...

Exactly right morphius.

[Fishpicker]

net neutrality is a trojan horse. I don't trust the government to do anything, much less to take over and regulate (what seems like) the last bastion of uncensored free speech. A duo-tier-web would be an enormous step backwards.

[RINGLEADER]

I will give you guys a real live example that is going to happen if it doesn't pass.

Hulu is the best example of this. Hulu is a website where you can watch TV shows and movies online. Internet providers can go to Hulu and say pay us a rate because our users are using your site and taking up to much bandwidth. If they don't pay the rate they will get put in the restricted bandwidth range effectively cutting them off.

Many people have predicted they will be the first casualty of no net neutrality. Why? Because alot of internet providers such as Comcast don't like that they are losing cable subscribers to Hulu because they can watch all their shows for free.

So why is the government getting involved again?

[DJ's left nut]

I mean if you really don't like it, well, then build your own version of the Internet that you can control the way you want and sell that, and feel free to try to compete...

Until the government comes in and starts regulating you to death as well.

At what point are some of you folks willing to pull the 'chute on this?

Even if you're okay with this (and I honestly don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion either way), doesn't the increased government regulation on our channels of communication make you uneasy, especially in light of some pretty gestapo-esque attempts to silent dissent thus far?

I want it stopped now. I'm tired of a non-responsive government continuing to gobble up power. While this may only be a penny in the grand scheme of things, they'll just put it in the jar with all the rest of the 'loose change' they've been slowly siphoning away from the people.

If net neutrality must be a martyr, so be it. I'm going to oppose any additional intrustion into private enterprise by our federal government.

[dirk digler]

So why is the government getting involved again?

To keep the above scenario from happening. Do you think the FCC's rules on TV and radio are bad?

[HonestChieffan]

I will give you guys a real live example that is going to happen if it doesn't pass.

Hulu is the best example of this. Hulu is a website where you can watch TV shows and movies online. Internet providers can go to Hulu and say pay us a rate because our users are using your site and taking up to much bandwidth. If they don't pay the rate they will get put in the restricted bandwidth range effectively cutting them off.

Many people have predicted they will be the first casualty of no net neutrality. Why? Because alot of internet providers such as Comcast don't like that they are losing cable subscribers to Hulu because they can watch all their shows for free.


Im confused. Hula is free to allow or not what they want since its their business. If the TY shows want to be there, then they have to pay.

[Fishpicker]

I will give you guys a real live example that is going to happen if it doesn't pass.

Hulu is the best example of this. Hulu is a website where you can watch TV shows and movies online. Internet providers can go to Hulu and say pay us a rate because our users are using your site and taking up to much bandwidth. If they don't pay the rate they will get put in the restricted bandwidth range effectively cutting them off.

Many people have predicted they will be the first casualty of no net neutrality. Why? Because alot of internet providers such as Comcast don't like that they are losing cable subscribers to Hulu because they can watch all their shows for free.

if that is the way Comcast looks at the situation, then they have a very warped perspective. Every customer that watches Hulu is a customer that is retained by an ISP.

[Taco John]

I will give you guys a real live example that is going to happen if it doesn't pass.

Hulu is the best example of this. Hulu is a website where you can watch TV shows and movies online. Internet providers can go to Hulu and say pay us a rate because our users are using your site and taking up to much bandwidth. If they don't pay the rate they will get put in the restricted bandwidth range effectively cutting them off.

Many people have predicted they will be the first casualty of no net neutrality. Why? Because alot of internet providers such as Comcast don't like that they are losing cable subscribers to Hulu because they can watch all their shows for free.


So leave Comcast.

[Taco John]

net neutrality is a trojan horse.


Just as we're finding out that the bail-outs were a trojan horse.

[dirk digler]

Im confused. Hula is free to allow or not what they want since its their business. If the TY shows want to be there, then they have to pay.

Nope. Hulu is owned by NBC, News Corp and Disney.

[mlyonsd]

I smell Fairness Doctrine down the road.

[wild1]

Not really.

You've chosen to live in a small town w/ limited access to broadband - that's your right but you also live with the consequences.

When I want fresh seafood here in Mid-Mo, I'm pretty much SOL whereas somebody living in Houston isn't. That's simply something I'm going to have to deal with by virtue of where I live.

Boo hoo for the people that want unlimited broadband options in rural Missouruh. None of us get everything we want, everytime we want it.

Increased government intervention on the basis of practical realities is hardly "an important point" it's just more whining by people looking to rationalize a policy because their Messiah is championing it.

Waaaaaah I want everything now and I want government to give it to me now... it's censorship if they don't.

[Reaper16]

Not really.

You've chosen to live in a small town w/ limited access to broadband - that's your right but you also live with the consequences.

When I want fresh seafood here in Mid-Mo, I'm pretty much SOL whereas somebody living in Houston isn't. That's simply something I'm going to have to deal with by virtue of where I live.

Boo hoo for the people that want unlimited broadband options in rural Missouruh. None of us get everything we want, everytime we want it.

Increased government intervention on the basis of practical realities is hardly "an important point" it's just more whining by people looking to rationalize a policy because their Messiah is championing it.
My gut reaction to this post was to imagine you being killed by an explosion.

[whatsmynameagain]

Not really.

You've chosen to live in a small town w/ limited access to broadband - that's your right but you also live with the consequences.

When I want fresh seafood here in Mid-Mo, I'm pretty much SOL whereas somebody living in Houston isn't. That's simply something I'm going to have to deal with by virtue of where I live.

Boo hoo for the people that want unlimited broadband options in rural Missouruh. None of us get everything we want, everytime we want it.

Increased government intervention on the basis of practical realities is hardly "an important point" it's just more whining by people looking to rationalize a policy because their Messiah is championing it.

you can pay extra to have that food overnighted to you.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Fishpicker]

you can pay extra to have that food overnighted to you.
Posted via Mobile Device

jet-fresh-fish is the way to go

[Garcia Bronco]

you can pay extra to have that food overnighted to you.
Posted via Mobile Device

It's not the same.

[DJ's left nut]

Nope. Hulu is owned by NBC, News Corp and Disney.

So NBC will need to bring this up in its next contract discussion with comcast.

There is a market mechanism for everything but you fellas feel inclined to control it with a ham-handed, borderline retarded, federal mechanism.

Repeat after me - "The Federal Government has !@#$ed up everything it has ever had meaningful involvement in."

Seriously, how anyone can be in favor of more government is just a mystery to me.

[wild1]

I will give you guys a real live example that is going to happen if it doesn't pass.

Hulu is the best example of this. Hulu is a website where you can watch TV shows and movies online. Internet providers can go to Hulu and say pay us a rate because our users are using your site and taking up to much bandwidth. If they don't pay the rate they will get put in the restricted bandwidth range effectively cutting them off.

Many people have predicted they will be the first casualty of no net neutrality. Why? Because alot of internet providers such as Comcast don't like that they are losing cable subscribers to Hulu because they can watch all their shows for free.

I don't care. Comcast is my provider, and they throttle people's traffic who are massive users of bandwidth.

I have no problem with Comcast load-balancing, so that the acne-encrusted geek next door in his parents' basement doesn't chew up all the bandwidth downloading HD movies all day. I WANT them to load balance so that I can still get decent service.

If you happen to be an acne encrusted geek who downloads HD movies all day, buy a higher level of service. They have several tiers available.

That's a business looking out for its customers - the whole customer base, not just the 1%ers.

And if you don't like it, then leave Comcast.

[HonestChieffan]

Nope. Hulu is owned by NBC, News Corp and Disney.

So what

[dirk digler]

if that is the way Comcast looks at the situation, then they have a very warped perspective. Every customer that watches Hulu is a customer that is retained by an ISP.

That is exactly their perspective. They aren't the only ones I know Time Warner and Charter feel the same way.

[Pittsie]

Seriously. Using his Amazon example...if people want to use Amazon and they can't through AT&T...what do you think happens? AT&T loses the business. In fact I would bet right now that providers actually dedicate more bandwidth to places like Amazon because of thier net presence.

Or, the far more likely scenario is that the consumer would go buy their copy of Fallout 3 GOTY at Buy.com, or whomever, and pay an additional $1. They're not going to go throught the hassle of buying a new wireless router and switching to cable internet.

[Pittsie]

I don't care. Comcast is my provider, and they throttle people's traffic who are massive users of bandwidth.

I have no problem with Comcast load-balancing, so that the acne-encrusted geek next door in his parents' basement doesn't chew up all the bandwidth downloading HD movies all day. I WANT them to load balance so that I can still get decent service.

If you happen to be an acne encrusted geek who downloads HD movies all day, buy a higher level of service. They have several tiers available.

That's a business looking out for its customers - the whole customer base, not just the 1%ers.

And if you don't like it, then leave Comcast.

Throttling down a heavy-user's bandwidth is a completely different issue that throttling down all users access to certain sites. But if you'd like to throw it in to confuse the rabble, by all means go ahead.

[DJ's left nut]

you can pay extra to have that food overnighted to you.
Posted via Mobile Device

Tried it. Had a bunch of crawfish sent in once. Lost 1/2 of them and the other 1/2 just weren't as good.

But the point remains. People in LA can drive to Vegas on the weekend, I cannot. It takes people in Denver as much effort to go skiing as it takes me to get to work. People in NYC have access to nearly anything imagineable....and pay double my mortgage for an 800 square ft apartment.

There are tradeoffs to everything. So people in Rural Missouri don't get unlimited broadband choice. Wah. It's pretty damn sad that we've reached a point where this is the kind of thing we view as inequitable.

We've come a long way from 1960, that's for damn sure. From "Brown v. Board of Education" to some backwoods banjo strummer being pissed off because it takes her too long to download her "stories".

Get over it already, Jesus. The government is not your wetnurse, sometimes you're just going to have to learn to deal with disappointment.

[Garcia Bronco]

I will give you guys a real live example that is going to happen if it doesn't pass.

Hulu is the best example of this. Hulu is a website where you can watch TV shows and movies online. Internet providers can go to Hulu and say pay us a rate because our users are using your site and taking up to much bandwidth. If they don't pay the rate they will get put in the restricted bandwidth range effectively cutting them off.

Many people have predicted they will be the first casualty of no net neutrality. Why? Because alot of internet providers such as Comcast don't like that they are losing cable subscribers to Hulu because they can watch all their shows for free.

That's Hulu's problem. Not a providers problem

[Pittsie]

My gut reaction to this post was to imagine you being killed by an explosion.

DJ's kind of a douche. Most of my neg rep is from the usual suspects (googlegoogle, Pete), but he hit me for incorrect legal analysis. JFC.

[wild1]

Tried it. Had a bunch of crawfish sent in once. Lost 1/2 of them and the other 1/2 just weren't as good.

But the point remains. People in LA can drive to Vegas on the weekend, I cannot. It takes people in Denver as much effort to go skiing as it takes me to get to work. People in NYC have access to nearly anything imagineable....and pay double my mortgage for an 800 square ft apartment.

There are tradeoffs to everything. So people in Rural Missouri don't get unlimited broadband choice. Wah. It's pretty damn sad that we've reached a point where this is the kind of thing we view as inequitable.

We've come a long way from 1960, that's for damn sure. From "Brown v. Board of Education" to some backwoods banjo strummer being pissed off because it takes her too long to download her "stories".

Get over it already, Jesus. The government is not your wetnurse, sometimes you're just going to have to learn to deal with disappointment.

Welcome to the 21st century. Most people just see something, then they want it, and then they want the government to pass a law to give it to them. That's the universe of their thinking.

Then they go around doling out meaningless slogans like "all traffic is created equal!" or "yes we can!"

[Pittsie]

So why is the government getting involved again?

To maintain the status quo, in which people choose where to go on the web based on content and not bandwidth.

[Taco John]

Tried it. Had a bunch of crawfish sent in once. Lost 1/2 of them and the other 1/2 just weren't as good.


That's because the other half were scared as shit.

[Taco John]

To maintain the status quo, in which people choose where to go on the web based on content and not bandwidth.


"To maintain the status quo."


Ladies and gentlemen - I give you what passes these days for progressivism. Whether it's bailouts, industry, jobs, you name it. The progressive agenda is to legislate the status quo and entrench it further.

If you haven't caught on yet, "progressivism" isn't all that "progressive."

[dirk digler]

I don't care. Comcast is my provider, and they throttle people's traffic who are massive users of bandwidth.

I have no problem with Comcast load-balancing, so that the acne-encrusted geek next door in his parents' basement doesn't chew up all the bandwidth downloading HD movies all day. I WANT them to load balance so that I can still get decent service.

If you happen to be an acne encrusted geek who downloads HD movies all day, buy a higher level of service. They have several tiers available.

That's a business looking out for its customers - the whole customer base, not just the 1%ers.

And if you don't like it, then leave Comcast.

You are not understanding. You purchase the internet package that you want it is throttled to what you purchased. We all agree that is fine.

What Comcast will do now is go to Hulu or Amazon or whoever and say we are going to charge you a rate if you don't pay said rate we are restricting bandwidth to your site.

Another example would be say a internet provider signs up Barnes and Noble so all the traffic to their website is on the fast lane and to any other online book store it goes in the shit hole lane.

So what

I don't think Hulu pays for any of their content because it is provided by their owners Disney, Fox and NBC.

Could be wrong on that.

[dirk digler]

Throttling down a heavy-user's bandwidth is a completely different issue that throttling down all users access to certain sites. But if you'd like to throw it in to confuse the rabble, by all means go ahead.

Yep.

[Taco John]

You are not understanding. You purchase the internet package that you want it is throttled to what you purchased. We all agree that is fine.

What Comcast will do now is go to Hulu or Amazon or whoever and say we are going to charge you a rate if you don't pay said rate we are restricting bandwidth to your site.

Another example would be say a internet provider signs up Barnes and Noble so all the traffic to their website is on the fast lane and to any other online book store it goes in the shit hole lane.


You're still marvelling at the trojan horse. Comcast would lose a quarter of their customer base overnight if they tried to restrict sites. The free market would make adjustments, and then it would innovate to get around them. This innovation is what your communism mutes. By legislating the status quo, you legislate away problems that people encounter and react to, and ultimately innovate around. The cost of communism is opportunity to really progress - not just linger in the status quo.

[DJ's left nut]

DJ is kind of a douche. Most of my neg rep is from the usual suspects (googlegoogle, Pete), but he hit me for incorrect legal analysis. JFC.

You're holding a grudge over 2 year old neg rep and I'm the douche?

Hell, I don't even remember what you're talking about, but I see you neg repped me in an unrelated thread around that time.

I gotta assume you were being a haughty prick about something. I've issued very little neg rep (10ish), most of it for being a troll or holier than thou.

Hmmm...wonder where you'd have fallen...

[Mr. Flopnuts]

I am against it. It could inhibit providers from running their business they way they want. Which isn't subject your approval. You have control over your dollars and can vote that way. If you don't like Comcast...don't sign up for their service. Don't give them money. further, if providers want to charge more money for certain kinds of content then it's their right to decide, not the governments.

Which is absolutely fine if you eliminate all regulation in the industry and open it up for full and equal competition.

[wild1]

You're still marvelling at the trojan horse. Comcast would lose a quarter of their customer base overnight if they tried to restrict sites. The free market would make adjustments, and then it would innovate to get around them. This innovation is what your communism mutes. By legislating the status quo, you legislate away problems that people encounter and react to, and ultimately innovate around. The cost of communism is opportunity to really progress - not just linger in the status quo.

If Comcast restricted sites I want to use, I'd just switch providers.

[Taco John]

If Comcast restricted sites I want to use, I'd just switch providers.

Yeah, but that would be really inconvenient. Government should protect you against such inconveniences!

[dirk digler]

You're still marvelling at the trojan horse. Comcast would lose a quarter of their customer base overnight if they tried to restrict sites. The free market would make adjustments, and then it would innovate to get around them. This innovation is what your communism mutes. By legislating the status quo, you legislate away problems that people encounter and react to, and ultimately innovate around. The cost of communism is opportunity to really progress - not just linger in the status quo.

That doesn't pass the laugh test. Most people wouldn't even be smart enough to notice it. Comcast got busted limiting traffic a year ago and hasn't lost 1% of their customers because of it.

If you don't innovation to be muted than we need to keep the Internet the way it is now. Otherwise the ISP's are going to be deciding which content you receive and which you don't.

[alanm]

Tell the government to keep it's grubby filthy mitts off my internet!!:cuss::cuss:

[wild1]

Most people wouldn't even be smart enough to notice it. Comcast got busted limiting traffic a year ago and hasn't lost 1% of their customers because of it.

So what's the problem then?

[alanm]

Yeah, but that would be really inconvenient. Government should protect you against such inconveniences!Oh I'm reasonably certain that one of the dirty little secrets will be that government will dictate who you're service providers will be. :shake:

[DJ's left nut]

That doesn't pass the laugh test. Most people wouldn't even be smart enough to notice it. Comcast got busted limiting traffic a year ago and hasn't lost 1% of their customers because of it.

If you don't innovation to be muted than we need to keep the Internet the way it is now. Otherwise the ISP's are going to be deciding which content you receive and which you don't.

So your argument is that the government needs to intervene in order to stop something so heinous that most people wouldn't even be smart enough to notice it?

Seriously, I have to mow my grass way too damn often. Can we start some government task force to figure out I can go about mowing my lawn less frequently?

There simply is no limit to how mundane you fellas tend to view government obstruction is there? Don't like something - pass a law.

Just a bizarre worldview.

[Garcia Bronco]

To maintain the status quo, in which people choose where to go on the web based on content and not bandwidth.

Bandwidth is finite. It's not infinite. If Hulu for example takes up too much bandwidth for the provider, then the provider should be under no obilgation to service them. What Hulu can do is actually augment it's code to enable better compression. Since they don't write any of tha code they they need to get their flash vendor to make the code better. Which of course costs money. Either way it's not the responsibility of the provider.

[Garcia Bronco]

Which is absolutely fine if you eliminate all regulation in the industry and open it up for full and equal competition.

agreed.

[dirk digler]

So what's the problem then?

When I mean they wouldn't be smart about it I mean they wouldn't automatically think Oh my ISP is restricting access to this site they would just think oh the Internet is slow today so I will come back to this video some other time. But the problem is for that website it will be slow all the time.

The thing is I am all for tiered service. If you are a heavy Internet user then have a plan for me that I can purchase to get more bandwidth. But don't restrict or slow down sites because they are popular or because they don't pay you.

[Pittsie]

You're holding a grudge over 2 year old neg rep and I'm the douche?

Hell, I don't even remember what you're talking about, but I see you neg repped me in an unrelated thread around that time.

I gotta assume you were being a haughty prick about something. I've issued very little neg rep (10ish), most of it for being a troll or holier than thou.

Hmmm...wonder where you'd have fallen...

Hold a grudge over stupid, arbitrary neg rep from someone who should be smart enough to know better, absolutely. I'm not going to repost the thread, but it was neither.

[Fishpicker]

Bandwidth is finite. It's not infinite. If Hulu for example takes up too much bandwidth for the provider, then the provider should be under no obilgation to service them. What Hulu can do is actually augment it's code to enable better compression. Since they don't write any of tha code they they need to get their flash vendor to make the code better. Which of course costs money. Either way it's not the responsibility of the provider.

correct, they are not obligated to provide all that bandwidth. not to the the traffic-heavy site and not to the customer. they are only obligated to to provide the committed info rate (C.I.R.) that is specified in every contract. Government just isn't needed in this situation unless they (Comcast) doesn't meet the C.I.R.

[DJ's left nut]

Government just isn't needed in this situation...

BLASPHEMER!!!!!!

[Taco John]

That doesn't pass the laugh test. Most people wouldn't even be smart enough to notice it.


Then what's the problem here?

[dirk digler]

Bandwidth is finite. It's not infinite. If Hulu for example takes up too much bandwidth for the provider, then the provider should be under no obilgation to service them. What Hulu can do is actually augment it's code to enable better compression. Since they don't write any of tha code they they need to get their flash vendor to make the code better. Which of course costs money. Either way it's not the responsibility of the provider.

GB you are correct bandwidth is finite but you act like Hulu doesn't pay for their bandwidth. They do just like ChiefsPlanet pays for bandwidth for us to access this site. What would happen is that a 3rd party ISP would come in and ask for more or just cap the bandwidth because that site is a competitor.

[Pittsie]

Bandwidth is finite. It's not infinite. If Hulu for example takes up too much bandwidth for the provider, then the provider should be under no obilgation to service them. What Hulu can do is actually augment it's code to enable better compression. Since they don't write any of tha code they they need to get their flash vendor to make the code better. Which of course costs money. Either way it's not the responsibility of the provider.

Isn't Hulu already under some incentive to compress their video due to the costs of maintaining servers. Not saying it's equivalent to the infrastructure cost of providing bandwidth, but they're under similar economic pressures.

[wild1]

When I mean they wouldn't be smart about it I mean they wouldn't automatically think Oh my ISP is restricting access to this site they would just think oh the Internet is slow today so I will come back to this video some other time. But the problem is for that website it will be slow all the time.

I don't live in the KC market, and I can't see the Chiefs games.

I don't think this is a "TV neutrality" issue and that the government should mandate that Comcast and the NFL are required to give it to me, because all football games are created equal.

If I don't like it I can switch to Direct TV, I can listen online to the radio, I can walk to the bar down on the corner, I can watch the games I am shown, or I can move.

[dirk digler]

correct, they are not obligated to provide all that bandwidth. not to the the traffic-heavy site and not to the customer. they are only obligated to to provide the committed info rate (C.I.R.) that is specified in every contract. Government just isn't needed in this situation unless they (Comcast) doesn't meet the C.I.R.

Edit: C.I.R's are guaranteed for business and frame relay networks.

Home users aren't guaranteed the speed they purchase only up to

[Garcia Bronco]

GB you are correct bandwidth is finite but you act like Hulu doesn't pay for their bandwidth. They do just like ChiefsPlanet pays for bandwidth for us to access this site. What would happen is that a 3rd party ISP would come in and ask for more or just cap the bandwidth because that site is a competitor.

Yes they are paying...and that used bandwidth is subject to a price tag. Lets say they pay 4k a month for a 25meg pipe....that's what we are talking about here. If they max that out then whomever is within their rights to charge more. If said traffic is bogging down the ISP then they are within their rights to restrict the amount of bandwidth dedicated to that connection. Don't act like these businesses are without choices.

[wild1]

Yes they are paying...and that used bandwidth is subject to a price tag. Lets say they pay 4k a month for a 25meg pipe....that's what we are talking about here. If they max that out then whomever is within their rights to charge more. If said traffic is bogging down the ISP then they are within their rights to restrict the amount of bandwidth dedicated to that connection. Don't act like these businesses are without choices.

They're all just negotiated contracts. The terms are whatever they wrote into the document.

[Garcia Bronco]

Isn't Hulu already under some incentive to compress their video due to the costs of maintaining servers. Not saying it's equivalent to the infrastructure cost of providing bandwidth, but they're under similar economic pressures.

If they are smart and want to grow their business it should be a chief concern from and application and hardware perspective.

[Garcia Bronco]

They're all just negotiated contracts. The terms are whatever they wrote into the document.

Exactly

[Garcia Bronco]

correct, they are not obligated to provide all that bandwidth. not to the the traffic-heavy site and not to the customer. they are only obligated to to provide the committed info rate (C.I.R.) that is specified in every contract. Government just isn't needed in this situation unless they (Comcast) doesn't meet the C.I.R.

and then that's for the courts to handle.

[dirk digler]

Yes they are paying...and that used bandwidth is subject to a price tag. Lets say they pay 4k a month for a 25meg pipe....that's what we are talking about here. If they max that out then whomever is within their rights to charge more. If said traffic is bogging down the ISP then they are within their rights to restrict the amount of bandwidth dedicated to that connection. Don't act like these businesses are without choices.

Right now this is what the debate is about is whether or not they do have that choice. The FCC slapped Comcast last year for restricting bandwidth to torrent sites and got busted. Comcast is appealing saying the FCC didn't have the right to do that so here comes Net Neutrality.

[Pittsie]

Yes they are paying...and that used bandwidth is subject to a price tag. Lets say they pay 4k a month for a 25meg pipe....that's what we are talking about here. If they max that out then whomever is within their rights to charge more. If said traffic is bogging down the ISP then they are within their rights to restrict the amount of bandwidth dedicated to that connection. Don't act like these businesses are without choices.

They pay their provider for the 25 meg pipeline, not for the pipeline on the user's end, right?

That's the current system as I understand it. Having Hulu pay AT&T directly would be a whole new arrangement.

[HonestChieffan]

This would appear at this point to be a tempest in a teapot.

[dirk digler]

They pay their provider for the 25 meg pipeline, not for the pipeline on the user's end, right?

That's the current system as I understand it. Having Hulu pay AT&T directly would be a whole new arrangement.

yep

[morphius]

Yeah, but that would be really inconvenient. Government should protect you against such inconveniences!
Well, like I said, if Comcast doesn't like the way the internet is being run, as the internet has always had a lot of gov't rules in place for the telco's who provide access and control the backbone, then let them build out their own network.

[Garcia Bronco]

Right now this is what the debate is about is whether or not they do have that choice. The FCC slapped Comcast last year for restricting bandwidth to torrent sites and got busted. Comcast is appealing saying the FCC didn't have the right to do that so here comes Net Neutrality.

comcast is correct. The FCC doesn't have the right. In fact the FCC is completely agaisn the law...but that's another topic.

[Garcia Bronco]

They pay their provider for the 25 meg pipeline, not for the pipeline on the user's end, right?

That's the current system as I understand it. Having Hulu pay AT&T directly would be a whole new arrangement.

The user pays for their access and Hulu pays for there's.

[Brock]

comcast is correct. The FCC doesn't have the right. In fact the FCC is completely agaisn the law...but that's another topic.

That's correct, the FCC really has no constitutional foundation to do the things they do.