Page 7 of 24 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 233

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

  1. #61
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a Blue State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,733

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    They won't be the same.

    They won't "control" it in the way that you seem to be implying.
    lol. That one is is just way out there.
    We don't know how they will regulate the internet. It is still up for debate and they haven't ruled. Everything here is a what if.
    We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

  2. #62
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a Blue State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,733

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    That's not even remotely correct.

    Government regulation of the spectrum is quite extensive. It determines who can use what portions of the spectrum in what geographic areas. It ensures that signals overlap. It required TV broadcasters to ditch analog signals and switch to digital. It censors a great deal of the airwaves.

    All that net neutrality requires is that ISP's treat all traffic equally. It doesn't involve government divvying up bandwidth, or censoring language, or determining which ISP's can operate in which regions.



    It will help prevent a specific anti-competitive abuse by certain monopolistic ISP's / content providers. That's pretty much it.
    I don't think we can guarantee that. Government is known to take more power than it was given. Why wouldn't the government overreach with the internet?
    We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

  3. #63
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,930
    Blog Entries
    11

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    You're confusing quantity with content. No one is arguing that ISPs should have the ability to make you pay for bandwidth. Net Neutrality simply means that ISPs aren't allowed to tell you how to use that bandwidth. It's like a power company charging you more because you use a refrigerator they don't like.
    From what I've gathered from Obama's statement is that the regulations wouldn't speak to the rates that ISPs would charge for their service, but would cripple the ISPs ability to manage their network.

    Suppose for a moment that a new web based service or application is created and made available to the public. As is often the case with new software products or services the first instance is less than optimized, and let's suppose that it demands a high amount of network bandwidth. This would be to the detriment of all other users on this shared network. In this situation, the ISP should be fully justified in maintaining an acceptable performance level for all their other users by throttling that one application / service / product. As this throttling would impact the users of this application, it would force the creators of this application / service / product to go back and figure out how to make it less bandwidth demanding, and yet still deliver the user experience expected.

    My understanding is that the Net Neutrality regulation would prevent the ISP from managing their network by throttling that application / service / product, so all users on that shared network would receive an equally degraded performance, rather than just the abuser application / service / product.

    If a particular content provider wanted to take on the expense of running high speed network connections to the ISP's head end network, so that all the users that are drawing on that content have a better experience, what's the problem with that? A business invests, spends money, to improve their service to their customers.

    If there is a consistent pattern of exploitation from a particular source, say China, knocking on all the computers that are connected to an ISPs network, the ISP should have the ability to block all the traffic from that source in order to protect their customers, and themselves, from this exploit. Say, the exploit is turn the ISPs users PCs into zombies, spewing forth spam, and overloading the ISPs email servers delivering unwanted spam emails. Shouldn't the ISP be able to cut that off to protect themselves, and possibly their customers.

    It's called network management, guys. And I think the ISP should be allowed to do it. After all, IT IS THEIR network.

    If the IPS's users don't like how they manage their network, the users are free to churn off to another IPS that does different or better network management. Just have to look at the history of Comcast, where they over promised and under delivered, their users fled, until they adopted a different / better way of doing things.

    Since ISPs have to have a municipalities permission to enter that market, that is also recourse that disgruntled user's can avail themselves to in order to redress issues that can't be solved in any other way. This too has historical standing, as having been done before.
    the Fix-is-in Bureau of Investigation

  4. #64
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,930
    Blog Entries
    11

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue_State View Post
    Not sure where you got any of that from. I don't want regulation of the internet. I don't want ISPs controlling it either. I want it free.

    Was it a false statement when I said the country needs infrastructure upgrades in rural areas?
    I don't recall addressing that aspect of your post. How do you see that need being facilitated or prevented by Net Neutrality? I don't think that Net Neutrality is similar to the Rural Electrification Act.
    the Fix-is-in Bureau of Investigation

  5. #65
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,930
    Blog Entries
    11

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue_State View Post
    I don't think we can guarantee that. Government is known to take more power than it was given. Why wouldn't the government overreach with the internet?
    I think it's safe to say that it would most certainly try to. All the more reason for the government to keep it's hands off of the Internet. Once they got their fingers in the pot, they'll never get them back out.
    the Fix-is-in Bureau of Investigation

  6. #66
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:38 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,017

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue_State View Post
    I don't think we can guarantee that. Government is known to take more power than it was given. Why wouldn't the government overreach with the internet?
    Meaning what, you oppose any government interference, with any industry, regardless of the potential benefits, because it might overreach? That doesn't make any sense.

  7. #67
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post

    If the IPS's users don't like how they manage their network, the users are free to churn off to another IPS that does different or better network management. Just have to look at the history of Comcast, where they over promised and under delivered, their users fled, until they adopted a different / better way of doing things.

    .
    In many areas, there isn't any competition.

  8. #68
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:51 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

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

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    From what I've gathered from Obama's statement is that the regulations wouldn't speak to the rates that ISPs would charge for their service, but would cripple the ISPs ability to manage their network.

    Suppose for a moment that a new web based service or application is created and made available to the public. As is often the case with new software products or services the first instance is less than optimized, and let's suppose that it demands a high amount of network bandwidth. This would be to the detriment of all other users on this shared network. In this situation, the ISP should be fully justified in maintaining an acceptable performance level for all their other users by throttling that one application / service / product. As this throttling would impact the users of this application, it would force the creators of this application / service / product to go back and figure out how to make it less bandwidth demanding, and yet still deliver the user experience expected.

    My understanding is that the Net Neutrality regulation would prevent the ISP from managing their network by throttling that application / service / product, so all users on that shared network would receive an equally degraded performance, rather than just the abuser application / service / product.

    If a particular content provider wanted to take on the expense of running high speed network connections to the ISP's head end network, so that all the users that are drawing on that content have a better experience, what's the problem with that? A business invests, spends money, to improve their service to their customers.

    If there is a consistent pattern of exploitation from a particular source, say China, knocking on all the computers that are connected to an ISPs network, the ISP should have the ability to block all the traffic from that source in order to protect their customers, and themselves, from this exploit. Say, the exploit is turn the ISPs users PCs into zombies, spewing forth spam, and overloading the ISPs email servers delivering unwanted spam emails. Shouldn't the ISP be able to cut that off to protect themselves, and possibly their customers.

    It's called network management, guys. And I think the ISP should be allowed to do it. After all, IT IS THEIR network.

    If the IPS's users don't like how they manage their network, the users are free to churn off to another IPS that does different or better network management. Just have to look at the history of Comcast, where they over promised and under delivered, their users fled, until they adopted a different / better way of doing things.

    Since ISPs have to have a municipalities permission to enter that market, that is also recourse that disgruntled user's can avail themselves to in order to redress issues that can't be solved in any other way. This too has historical standing, as having been done before.
    I think there's a common misconception as to how the internet actually works. Your ISP doesn't own or run the internet. By definition, no entity does. The internet is essentially a collection networks connected across the world by high speed data lines. Each of these lines are owned/leased/operated by many different entities. But it doesn't matter. That's how the internet works. These tier 1 networks have agreed to route every other networks traffic without charging packet based fees. In turn, the other networks will route their traffic.

    To give you some idea, you can use a utility like traceroute or tracepath. Here's an online implementation:
    https://w3dt.net/tools/tracepath

    Enter an address and it'll show you the addresses of all of the computers you've gone through to connect to that site. You'll note that your ISP is typically only the first or second hop. Those are the lines in question.

    That first hop is what we're dealing with here. Any web based service is going to have to connect to the internet. They've already paid for the bandwidth to connect to the internet at large. If they use too much, then all of their customers will be affected.

    Net Neutrality is dealing with something completely different. What has been happening is that ISP's have been treating packets differently based on where they come from. If a content company is willing to pay them extra, then they will give those bits priority.. but only on the last hop from ISP to you. If a content company refuses, then those bits are delayed or blocked. Again, this has nothing to do with hosting. Those companies have already paid once to connect to the internet. This is an extra fee that those companies have to pay. It's pretty much extortion.
    Last edited by Mithros; 11-11-14 at 04:57 PM.

  9. #69
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    No one is giving away bandwidth. Net Neutrality means that ISPs are not allowed to place additional regulations on the bandwidth you pay for. If they sell you 54Mbs, then you get 54Mbs. You don't only get 54Mbs if you use their search engine or their movie service. If you request a packet of information from the internet, should your ISP be able to treat it differently because of what's inside of it? Do you want your ISP to be able to block a website because it says something critical about the ISP.

    Net Neutrality is not partisan in any way shape or form.
    Bull****. No ISP can give every user full bandwidth that they sell simultaneously. If the sell you 54 Mbs, then you get a share of their total. NFW every single user gets all 54 Mbs all at the same time.

    Further, relying upon the government or even wishing the government to do something is a weakness shows someone to be a selfish moron. If you and others want this "net neutrality" then start a company that offers it. Get all your buddies together, collect investments, and work at displacing the others. Otherwise, FOAD and burn in hell like a good socialist should.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  10. #70
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:38 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,017

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

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    From what I've gathered from Obama's statement is that the regulations wouldn't speak to the rates that ISPs would charge for their service, but would cripple the ISPs ability to manage their network.
    It won't cripple them, any more than telcos were "crippled" by operating as a common carrier.


    Suppose for a moment that a new web based service or application is created and made available to the public. As is often the case with new software products or services the first instance is less than optimized, and let's suppose that it demands a high amount of network bandwidth. This would be to the detriment of all other users on this shared network....
    So does that give the ISP the right to throttle this new service? Their users want it, and want it to be treated like any other service.

    What would have happened if Verizon throttled Facebook or Spotify or Pandora? Keep in mind one of the reasons why MySpace slid into obscurity was its performance issues; what would have happened if Facebook was slow, not because its server architecture sucked, but because Verizon throttled it? Would users be able to tell the difference between the two?

    What would happen if Spotify took off, and Verizon throttled it, and then launched its own streaming music service -- which it then guaranteed sufficient bandwidth and lower latency?


    My understanding is that the Net Neutrality regulation would prevent the ISP from managing their network by throttling that application / service / product, so all users on that shared network would receive an equally degraded performance, rather than just the abuser application / service / product.
    That's the claim made by the ISPs. Needless to say, not everyone is buying it. Especially when Comcast, Verizon and others post double-digit profit margins.

    It also leaves out the fact that numerous ISPs have products that compete with the services they could potentially throttle. Net neutrality helps rein in that conflict of interest.


    If there is a consistent pattern of exploitation from a particular source, say China, knocking on all the computers that are connected to an ISPs network, the ISP should have the ability to block all the traffic from that source in order to protect their customers, and themselves, from this exploit.
    I'm pretty sure ISPs will be able to retain the ability to defend themselves from abusers.

    What we don't want them to do is make Netflix incredibly slow, while prioritizing their own VOD.

    By the way, what do ISPs do now to tame malware traffic? Not much, as far as I can tell. I don't see any indication that they apply any sort of malware filtering whatsoever. That burden is on the end users.


    If the IPS's users don't like how they manage their network, the users are free to churn off to another IPS....
    Yeah, not so much. Most markets don't have a lot of competition or options for broadband. Again, there's about 16 big players in the US (and soon to be less, as these types of markets frequently consolidate). I live in an urban area, and I'd be surprised if there were more than 2 or 3 real options.


    Since ISPs have to have a municipalities permission to enter that market, that is also recourse that disgruntled user's can avail themselves to in order to redress issues that can't be solved in any other way.
    Meaning what? I can call the Mayor, and ask her to yank Comcast because Netflix is slow? lol

    The other option is... to have the FCC nip this conflict of interest in the bud, before it becomes a more serious issue.

Page 7 of 24 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •