Page 12 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 233

Thread: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

  1. #111
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,697

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    The government might over reach beyond requiring that telecoms treat all data neutrally, and begin to interfere with the free exchange of the internet.

    HOWEVER...

    The telecoms WILL over reach, as they've done so in the past and taken stances in the present to suggest they have continue to have a desire to do such.

    I'll take the chance with the government over the near certainty with the telecom psuedo-monopolies.
    The government ALWAYS overreaches. This isn't a "maybe" scenario.

    I see the future innovation of the internet under government regulation being a lot like the innovation within Ma Bell in the 1970s, non-existent. Forcing all ISPs into providing the same service eliminates competition, and without competition there is no innovation.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  2. #112
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    The government ALWAYS overreaches. This isn't a "maybe" scenario.

    I see the future innovation of the internet under government regulation being a lot like the innovation within Ma Bell in the 1970s, non-existent. Forcing all ISPs into providing the same service eliminates competition, and without competition there is no innovation.
    Nothing is requiring them to to provide the same service. Nothing is suggesting that AT&T must lay fiber to offer similar service to FiOS. Nothing is saying that you can't put caps on how much data you offer to your customers or if you want to have fully disclosed lower "peak" time decreases on all traffic, or anything of the sort.

    It's simply forcing ISPs to treat all data equally. That if I'm paying for 10mb per second download speeds than I can use that 10mb per second to view a website or read an email or watch a movie or make a VoIP call or play a game, and I can use whatever websites, email programs, video services, communication services, or games that I want when doing that. There's all KINDS of different ways companies can differentiate their services while still remaining neutral as it comes to data.

  3. #113
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,697

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Nothing is requiring them to to provide the same service. Nothing is suggesting that AT&T must lay fiber to offer similar service to FiOS. Nothing is saying that you can't put caps on how much data you offer to your customers or if you want to have fully disclosed lower "peak" time decreases on all traffic, or anything of the sort.
    But that has a huge effect on how the back end of the internet actually works. When you pay for 10mb connection to the internet you are not licensed 10mb of bandwidth full on all the time. This is because the internet hub is generally over provisioned and can not support all users of that hub using all of their data all of the time. Your bandwidth is "thin provisioned" to allow you the 10mb when you need it, on the assumption that when you aren't using it the bandwidth goes to someone else.

    The shared bandwidth gives the functional illusion to full time full bandwidth because the ISP shifts resources on the fly and plays a constant game of load balancing to ensure people get enough of their contracted bandwidth to meet their demand.

    But the bandwidth illusion plays out for all customers of the ISP, both data consumers and data providers. The internet is generally over-licensed and control by complex QoS systems that ensure the best provisioning per customer of internet resources. Net Neutrality would essentially kill QoS and require one of two alternatives for dealing with peak traffic:

    1) Over provisioning - building far more bandwidth into the system than is needed on-average so that peak needs are met or

    2) Cap per-month data usage. Many of the "faster-cheaper" providers overseas, as well as wireless providers in the US, use this approach.

    Many who work on the internet for a living would prefer to continue with the QoS model over the higher cost of over-provisioning and the headache of per-month data caps.

    It's simply forcing ISPs to treat all data equally.
    But they can't, not as currently configured. It would require guaranteeing all ISP customers the contracted bandwidth which the ISPs can't provide. This is all in the EULAs nobody ever reads.

    That if I'm paying for 10mb per second download speeds than I can use that 10mb per second to view a website or read an email or watch a movie or make a VoIP call or play a game, and I can use whatever websites, email programs, video services, communication services, or games that I want when doing that.
    As stated, the contracted 10mb bandwidth is not an average, but a peak throughput. The ISP charges you based on less than half that amount of average throughput. Some providers will also sell the "boost" packages that are a little clearer where they "boost" is actually the cap on your bandwidth while the sold bandwidth is the average.

    There's all KINDS of different ways companies can differentiate their services while still remaining neutral as it comes to data.
    But not when it comes to bandwidth.they have to be able to manage data types and QoS in order to provide the on demand bandwidth that customers expect.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  4. #114
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:28 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,020

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    It's picking winners.
    While that can definitely be an outcome of some government regulations, NN doesn't actually do that. It doesn't guarantee that a business will be a success, doesn't contract a specific vendor for government services, doesn't subsidize the outbound traffic for a company like Netflix, doesn't tell ISPs to actually block anyone.

    What it does is recognize that many large ISPs have a conflict of interest. On one hand, ISPs are in the business of delivering Internet to users; at the same time, they also provide competing services. If the market picks the winners, then the ISPs are going to put their thumb on the scales, which is unfair and doesn't give consumers a free choice.


    The problem is that in the end the ISPs will maintain net neutrality by simply charging the end user more for internet access.
    No, that won't solve the issue. If Comcast launches its own social networking service and decides to slow down Facebook, that isn't resolved by Comcast charging its end-users even more for broadband.


    This is a common way our government tries to fool the American people into granting Government control.
    Uh huh. So again, show us how the FCC now dominates all TV broadcasts, since they've had 80 years to do so.

    Also keep in mind that no one in government has actually wanted to enact Net Neutrality. The courts ruled against it, the FCC certainly hasn't been pushing for it, Congress is split, Obama didn't say anything until last week. It hardly looks to me like "The Government" is doing anything unified, let alone fooling people into giving it more control....

  5. #115
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    But that has a huge effect on how the back end of the internet actually works. When you pay for 10mb connection to the internet you are not licensed 10mb of bandwidth full on all the time. This is because the internet hub is generally over provisioned and can not support all users of that hub using all of their data all of the time. Your bandwidth is "thin provisioned" to allow you the 10mb when you need it, on the assumption that when you aren't using it the bandwidth goes to someone else.
    Yes, it's assumed I'm not using that 10 mb all the time.

    But when I AM using that 10 mb, the impact on the network is of little difference if I'm using it to watch Netflix instead of watching Verizon's (now defunct) RedBox Instant service or if I'm playing a game that uses my entire bandwidth or I'm streaming music while reading a flash heavy site.

    When I'm using 10 mb I'm using 10 mbs, regardless of HOW I'm using it

    1) Over provisioning - building far more bandwidth into the system than is needed on-average so that peak needs are met or

    2) Cap per-month data usage. Many of the "faster-cheaper" providers overseas, as well as wireless providers in the US, use this approach.
    Meaning they absolutely have options OTHER than refusing to treat each packet of data as equal or slowing/shutting down/hijacking competing services to instead filter people to their own.

    Many who work on the internet for a living would prefer to continue with the QoS model over the higher cost of over-provisioning and the headache of per-month data caps.
    And many disagree, but nice appeal to authority. Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Yahoo, multiple social media sites, Ebay, and I can go on are all entites that work on the internet for a living and are in favor of net neutrality. The only sector within the tech industry where there is significant support AGAINST the notion of net neutrality is in the telecoms, IE the entites that have shown again and again a desire to not treat all data equally, to block or hamper things they don't like on their network, to hijack and disallow competing services to ones they offer, etc. IE the only sector in tech that is primarily against net neutrality are the one sector that is largely poised to expand their profit margins with it being defunct.

    As stated, the contracted 10mb bandwidth is not an average, but a peak throughput.
    Right. NO WHERE am I suggesting you should always get your 10 mb. Indeed, you'll note my earlier posts, I specifically mentioned the ability to decrease bandwidth during peak times. The issue I'm putting forth, and generally put forth, regarding net neutrlaity isn't a suggestion that the peak usage rates that you're paying for must ALWAYS be attainable...but rather, that whatever amount of usage you are able to get at a given time should be able to be used in whatever manner possible.

    If you need to throttle my 10 MB max down to 2 MB during peak times, fine...understandable. But that throttling should be applying to EVERYTHING, and it needs to be for a legitimate network stability reason. What's NOT okay however is throttling my speed based on what I want to use it for. What's not okay is throttling my ability to watch videos on netflix, but not throttling it when viewing it on Red Box instant for example.

    When I'm at my peak bandwidth, I should be able to use that bandwidth however I want...movies, games, sites, video chat, whatever.

    When I'm at my lowest bandwidth, I should be able to use that bandwidth however I want...movies, games, sites, video chat, whatever.

    What shouldn't be happening is that I have "peak bandwidth" when I'm searching certain websites or sending emails, but throttled low bandwidth when I'm watching movies or playing games. What shouldn't be happening is when I'm wanting to search with google I get low bandwidth, but if I use an ISPs own ad-laden search engine I get full bandwidth...something, given past practices by telecoms, is reasonable to suggest would happen should net neutrality fail as a concept.

    There is a difference between limiting your maximum speeds in general, and throttling specific services and sites up or down. One is still treating all data neutrally...the other is not.

  6. #116
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    But that has a huge effect on how the back end of the internet actually works. When you pay for 10mb connection to the internet you are not licensed 10mb of bandwidth full on all the time. This is because the internet hub is generally over provisioned and can not support all users of that hub using all of their data all of the time. Your bandwidth is "thin provisioned" to allow you the 10mb when you need it, on the assumption that when you aren't using it the bandwidth goes to someone else.
    Which is still allowable under net neutrality.

    The only difference is that the ISP can't slow down 1.5mb/sec of Netflix in the exact scenario in which they'd allow 1.5mb/sec of Youtube.

    1.5mb/sec of Youtube and 1.5mb/sec of Netflix have the same impact on network capacity. They should be treated the same.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #117
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    The government ALWAYS overreaches. This isn't a "maybe" scenario.
    Government overreaching with one regulation is not an argument against another, perfectly valid regulation.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #118
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,697

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Which is still allowable under net neutrality.

    The only difference is that the ISP can't slow down 1.5mb/sec of Netflix in the exact scenario in which they'd allow 1.5mb/sec of Youtube.

    1.5mb/sec of Youtube and 1.5mb/sec of Netflix have the same impact on network capacity. They should be treated the same.
    No, it isn't the same. Unless Youtube and NetFlix flow through the same trunk and follow the same path, and have the same burst characteristics then it isn't the same internet footprint. Just because the net Neutrality defenders need to simplify how the internet works to support their argument doesn't mean the internet is simple.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  9. #119
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    No, it isn't the same. Unless Youtube and NetFlix flow through the same trunk and follow the same path, and have the same burst characteristics then it isn't the same internet footprint. Just because the net Neutrality defenders need to simplify how the internet works to support their argument doesn't mean the internet is simple.
    Nitpicking. Tell me you think this is why Comcast was making Netflix unwatchable.

    Not to mention you're still wrong. If the different routing really was causing network problems, net neutrality allows for throttling in that situation. Next goalpost.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  10. #120
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,032

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    For those who are still not embracing the concept of Net Neutrality - this writeup covers it pretty darned well

    Dear Senator Ted Cruz, I'm going to explain to you how Net Neutrality ACTUALLY works - The Oatmeal


    If you don't want your ISP deciding you can access their sites faster than other sites.... net neutrality is key.

    If you want big business to control how you access sites, then be against net neutrality.

    Up until recently, the internet was set up with net neutrality. Worked pretty good. Let's keep it.

Page 12 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •