Page 14 of 24 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 233

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

  1. #131
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,925

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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



    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.



    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.



    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.
    I agree with most everything you say, with the sole exception of my bandwidth. I paid for that bandwidth. That I have a pipe of a certain capacity and ability. I pay very good money for that and extra to make sure that it does NOT go below my contracted threshold. You go to ANY country other than the US, and when you contract for service at a certain bandwidth, it will generally exceed the contracted bandwidth without having to pay extra to maintain throughput at those levels regardless. The fact that ISP's can advertise speeds that they routinely fail to deliver on in this country really pisses me off. Even with my very expensive guaranteed throughput I routinely get only 95% of the bandwidth I paid for, which quite frankly is bull****.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  2. #132
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,692

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    How very confusing. This seems like the rationale behind the cadillac tax in Obamacare that's popularly talked about right now, where instead of taxing plan holders they instead taxed insurance companies to say "See, we're being good and not taxing you" even though it only makes sense that the insurance company was going to hike their prices on everyone. So ISPs don't want to pay to upgrade their bandwidth to provide what they've been selling people, and they know their customers will get upset if they continue to hike their already high bills even higher (even though we'll all pay, because those ****ers have quasi-monopolies), so instead they'll just extort the company on the other end (naturally making that company pass it forward to their consumers).

    This is all confusing, because Ted Cruz told us all that Net Neutrality was Obamacare of the internet...yet it sure sounds like the current scheme by the Telecoms is right in line with how said bill got passed.

    Ahh, the glory of political blowhards.
    No, it means that "upping bandwidth" is not an easy an quick process and will never keep up with the growth in demand. You might as well say that Washington DC traffic congestion is because government doesn't want to build roads. So many people arguing Net Neutrality, including Ted Cruz, are functionally illiterate on the subject. Every fix is FAR easier said than done, and the current organic system of growth and demand mitigation is the worst system for the internet ... except for all the others.

    As I have stated a few times in this thread I am more than happy for the Government to play the role of anti-monopoly cop in the ISP market and let that competition drive what the end user product looks like, rather than the very large mallet approach of Net Neutrality that offers overly simplistic solutions to a very complex problem which invariably leads to even more very complex problems.

    And I would agree that this has a very Obamacare feel to it, but that Obamacare feel comes from the people that think that Net Neutrality will make the internet cheaper and and more friendly for the little guy. Net Neutrality IS being sold using simplistic language that doesn't address the real problems with Net Neutrality.

    Look at it this way, for an average NetFlix session there is is a down-stream connection made between your PC and the Netflix server, if NetFlix is throttled specifically, or the bandwidth is throttled equally on NetFlix and your internet connection it really doesn't matter. Net Neutrality is a zero sum game that simply adds new government control and regulation sold to the American people as a better quality NetFlix experience.
    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.

  3. #133
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,036

    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.
    BUT, im not forced to deal with the telecoms. I AM forced to deal with the FCC. Govt leads to monopolies because of this.

  4. #134
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,036

    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.

    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.
    All data ISNT equal, in the same way that all Hamburgers arent equal, even though they are all made of the same atoms.

  5. #135
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    No, it means that "upping bandwidth" is not an easy an quick process and will never keep up with the growth in demand. You might as well say that Washington DC traffic congestion is because government doesn't want to build roads. So many people arguing Net Neutrality, including Ted Cruz, are functionally illiterate on the subject. Every fix is FAR easier said than done, and the current organic system of growth and demand mitigation is the worst system for the internet ... except for all the others.
    Why do you think people will buy your bull****? The power of the internet means that you can trivially look up the prices and speed of broadband in other countries. They are better than the U.S. ISPs by a wide margin.

  6. #136
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    BUT, im not forced to deal with the telecoms. I AM forced to deal with the FCC. Govt leads to monopolies because of this.
    You are forced to deal with your telecom and they are already monopolies.

  7. #137
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    BUT, im not forced to deal with the telecoms. I AM forced to deal with the FCC. Govt leads to monopolies because of this.
    Actually, you are forced to deal with the telecoms if you want to have internet access. And the telecoms already ARE psuedo-monopolies as it stands. The current market is not a totally "free" market in and of itself.

    How would you be force to deal with the FCC but not forced to deal with a telecom? How exactly would you access the internet without dealing in some way, shape, or form with a telecom provider?

  8. #138
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    As I have stated a few times in this thread I am more than happy for the Government to play the role of anti-monopoly cop in the ISP market and let that competition drive what the end user product looks like, rather than the very large mallet approach of Net Neutrality that offers overly simplistic solutions to a very complex problem which invariably leads to even more very complex problems.
    I think here is where you and I generally vary.

    I actually agree with you that my prefered method would be to bust up the psuedo-monopolies that the telecoms have, and I'd go a step farther with stopping any subsidizing of their infastructure if they didn't subscribe to neutrality principles and go about enforcement in that fashion (carrot as opposed to stick type of thing).

    However, I don't see a shot in all hell of that happening. The telecoms dislike net neutrality, they HATE the idea of their monopolies being busted up. With the amount of politicians taking campaign funds from the telecoms I simply can not imagine in any way, shape, or form this happening.

    And with that off the table the choice is the best of two bad situations. You seem to want to put your trust in the telecoms, I prefer to put it in the government. In both cases I FULLY expect to get screwed...I just expect the screwing to happen a lot slower on the government side of things with more chances to stop it.

    Net Neutrality will make the internet cheaper and and more friendly for the little guy.
    I don't believe it will lower prices or keep it cheaper. I don't actually view this singularly as a financial issue, though I absolutely DO think that lack of neutrality will open the door to higher costs and more specifically, less bang for your buck.

    Now I absolutely DO think it'll be more friendly to the little guy, and I'd love for you to explain how a situation where majorly backed websites and services can pay for a faster connection while startups without such capital are forced with a slower means of delivering their serivce is somehow a more "friendly" situation than one now, where that people accessing that startups site/service would be doing so at the [relatively] same speeds that they'd be accessing the other guys.

    Screaming "Government Regulation bad!" over and over and over again actually doesn't prove or show anything.

    There are verifiable, factual, CLEAR indications of companies doing things that violate net neutrality standards and are similar to the type of things people fear they will continue to do if they aren't curtailed by regulation. I can actually give you clear examples.

    Please give me examples of the governments over regulation of the internet?

    Are both things operating a bit off a "boogey man" principle? Sure. The difference is one boogeyman has actually shown himself to be real, with the questionable part being how much bigger it's going to grow. The other one is simply a myth that may turn out true, but has little to no actual evidence that's been provided to show that it will.

  9. #139
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    All data ISNT equal, in the same way that all Hamburgers arent equal, even though they are all made of the same atoms.
    A quarter pound hamburger is a quarter pound hamburger whether or not you buy it from McDonalds or from Five Guys. However you slice it, it's 1/4th of a pound of hamburger.

    The quality may be different, the taste may be different, the look may be different, the grade or type of meat may be different...but a quarter pound is a quarter pound however you want to slice it.

    5 mb of a data is 5 mb of data, no matter how you slice it

  10. #140
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,692

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    Yeah that argument is totally convincing. Its just a coincidence that netflix traffic speed massively increased after paying comcast huge sums of money?

    The corporate propaganda behind net neutrality is absolutely pathetic in how lame it is. "yeah we didn't throttle neflix's traffic, but we are strongly against rules that would prevent us from throttling Netflix's traffic, even though we would never throttle anyone's traffic. We simply feel its important to make sure its 100% legal to extort money out of our competitors, but we would never actually do it. Its also unwarranted government interference, unlike the government interference that gave us billions in subsidies and exclusive monopolies with local government."
    Note that the Oatmeal graph (taken from the Washington Post by way of NetFlix) shows that Comcast traffic was declining for 4 other ISPs as well. Why was that? Was NetFlix in disputes with all 5 ISPs? No? Then what was happening?

    There is not really a direct connection between NetFlix and Comcast, only between Comcast and NetFlix customers. Companies like NetFlix buy their internet bandwidth from the core internet providers like Level 3 rather than from a reseller like Comcast. Comcast buys peering services from companies like Level 3 and level 3 acts as a bridge between the Comcast customer and the content provider's like NetFlix. When companies like Comcast enter into a a contract negotiation most of the peering maintenance can go stale, and you will often see drops in performance to the end users due to technical issues at the peering level.

    What likely happened in the Comcast dispute was that Comcast was in a peering contract phase with Level 3, and Level 3 was putting the screws to Comcast with higher peering fees, and Comcast was using what leverage it had to get some offsetting payment from NetFlix. This issue would not be solved by Net Neutrality as many want to believe. In this scenario Comcast would simply pass the increased peering cost to all Comcast customers rather than just all NetFlix customers.

    THe problem is that peering contract disputes and the QoS issues that arise from them would not fall under the prevue of Net Neutrality. I mean, all the gung-ho Net Neutrality folks here are quick to show the Internet throughput of NetFlix traffic to Comcast customers, but can someone show that there wasn't an overall drop in internet throughput for Comcast customers during that time? It's pretty essential to even start that conspiracy argument.
    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.

Page 14 of 24 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... 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
  •