Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: Google and Verizon DID do a deal for new internet 'first class' superhighway Read mo

  1. #41
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Google and Verizon DID do a deal for new internet 'first class' superhighway Rea

    The thing that pisses me off most about the net neutrality debate is that in other countries, they have speeds approaching 30mb/s or more while we are sitting here looking at ways to cannibalize our existing infrastructure to make "tiers" and other crap.

  2. #42
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Google and Verizon DID do a deal for new internet 'first class' superhighway Rea

    Then more specifically if you wish.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    Now if everything I stated above is accurate, the next questions I have are:
    1) Have there been widespread reports that ISP's have throttled particular applications or limited the connection speeds to particular websites, that didn't threaten quality of service (ie require excessive amounts of bandwidth), or pose a potential danger to them or their customers?
    In America, there have been reports of this happening P2P programs (and also affected Lotus Notes) with Comcast where in 2007 they tried to do it outside of their contractual limitations and then later adjusted it to fall within guidelines (1). They also were found throttling VOIP calls using competitor services but removing said throttling for their own calls (2)

    There's been accusation after some studies that AT&T, AOL, and Cablevision have also been doing this (3).

    That's constraining it to the U.S.

    Now, the issue here is your notion of "excessive" bandwidth. While Comcasts current throttling rules are based off "congested" areas only when a particular person is clearly contributing to said congestion, their previous throttling action (that points more to their actual desire) was a flat out across the board throttling.

    Additionally, throttling it based on "excessiveness" is in and of itself something people are having an issue with. I'm paying for a certain amount of speed on your network, HOW I use that speed is my choice. Indeed, what is the point of buying a 15Mbps Comcast XFinity connection if you're going to throttle my ability to utilize services that actually take advantage of said 25 Mbps speed.

    If someone is on a 5 Mbps connection they're not magically going to pull down 25 Mbps doing P2P. While I understand there's the potential for slow down due to congestion, that's on them and infastructure and plans. If there was going to be congestion they shouldn't have sold me a 15 Mbps package, but they did, so they shouldn't start telling me that I can't use that 15 Mbps to do Torrents, or games, or VOIP, or Netflix, or other heavy traffic activities because that's why I purchased that higher connection.

    2) Have there been widespread reports that ISP's have blocked access to legally operated public websites, that posed no danger (malicious content) to them or their customers?
    In Canada yes, as I had spoke of in a previous post. Also in the previous post, while not a website, AOL Time Warner was blocking access to emails mentioning something they didn't want.

    Of course, the issue why there's not really been reports of this happening yet is because in part network neutrality is the working model at this time. However one can look at the actions and comments by the Telecomms while also looking at the history of how other media changed as quasi-monopolies gained more and more control and power over it to see the logical direction it can go.

    This particular story is another indication of it and the way its going, with companies paying ISPs to give them a "higher" speed and thus more bandwidth, paving a way for a tiered internet where corporate backed sites have the majority of the bandwidth and ability to go to at broadband speeds while individuals will be regulated to the smallest sliver at the slowest speeds. It also is the first steps to a segregated internet where individual big sites are connected and tied to specific ISPs.

  3. #43
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,119
    Blog Entries
    20

    Re: Google and Verizon DID do a deal for new internet 'first class' superhighway Rea

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Then more specifically if you wish.



    In America, there have been reports of this happening P2P programs (and also affected Lotus Notes) with Comcast where in 2007 they tried to do it outside of their contractual limitations and then later adjusted it to fall within guidelines (1). They also were found throttling VOIP calls using competitor services but removing said throttling for their own calls (2)

    There's been accusation after some studies that AT&T, AOL, and Cablevision have also been doing this (3).

    That's constraining it to the U.S.

    Now, the issue here is your notion of "excessive" bandwidth. While Comcasts current throttling rules are based off "congested" areas only when a particular person is clearly contributing to said congestion, their previous throttling action (that points more to their actual desire) was a flat out across the board throttling.

    Additionally, throttling it based on "excessiveness" is in and of itself something people are having an issue with. I'm paying for a certain amount of speed on your network, HOW I use that speed is my choice. Indeed, what is the point of buying a 15Mbps Comcast XFinity connection if you're going to throttle my ability to utilize services that actually take advantage of said 25 Mbps speed.

    If someone is on a 5 Mbps connection they're not magically going to pull down 25 Mbps doing P2P. While I understand there's the potential for slow down due to congestion, that's on them and infastructure and plans. If there was going to be congestion they shouldn't have sold me a 15 Mbps package, but they did, so they shouldn't start telling me that I can't use that 15 Mbps to do Torrents, or games, or VOIP, or Netflix, or other heavy traffic activities because that's why I purchased that higher connection.
    You made some excellent points... Good Job.

    Based on what you said, I don't understand why cable ISP's don't market their internet service, similar to the way dsl providers do. I understand there is a significant difference between the two, most notably, that cable service shares bandwidth and dsl service does not. I have dsl, and I pay for specific upload and download speeds, and that is that. How I choose to use the bandwidth I paid for is irrelevant. Can't cable companies just offer a minimum upload and download speed package and be done with it? Or is there something on a more technical level I'm missing? It sure sounds to me like this is a case of ISP's over selling their bandwidth, which has been going on forever.


    In Canada yes, as I had spoke of in a previous post. Also in the previous post, while not a website, AOL Time Warner was blocking access to emails mentioning something they didn't want.

    Of course, the issue why there's not really been reports of this happening yet is because in part network neutrality is the working model at this time. However one can look at the actions and comments by the Telecomms while also looking at the history of how other media changed as quasi-monopolies gained more and more control and power over it to see the logical direction it can go.

    This particular story is another indication of it and the way its going, with companies paying ISPs to give them a "higher" speed and thus more bandwidth, paving a way for a tiered internet where corporate backed sites have the majority of the bandwidth and ability to go to at broadband speeds while individuals will be regulated to the smallest sliver at the slowest speeds. It also is the first steps to a segregated internet where individual big sites are connected and tied to specific ISPs.
    OK, you've convinced me that there needs to be some guidelines set forth to protect the consumer, as well as assure equal access for for everyone.

    When it comes to the ability for a mega website to be able to pay ISP's for more bandwidth or faster transfer speeds than everyone else, I don't have a problem with that, as long as it does not diminish the transfer speeds of websites that don't pay. The way I see it, ISP's should be able to make a buck anyway they can, as long as it doesn't infringe on the free flow of information, negatively effect the quality of service to the consumer, or diminish transfer rates of non-participating websites.

    As for the issue of a "tiered service", the way I understand it, that is an ISP charging various prices for various levels of service. In other words, you pay for the amount of bandwidth or speed you desire. I also don't have a problem with that, as long as it is fairly represented and the ISP doesn't impose restriction on free access.

    My major concern about net neutrality legislation, is the amount of power and control over the internet it will give to the federal government. I just don't want to see congress pass a law that takes an ISP's power to infringing on net neutrality, and passes that power over to the government. Because of what I've witnessed over the last year or two, I've lost almost all trust in the federal government. They have shown a complete disregard for the constitution, the rule of law, and the will of American people, and demonstrated that they are more interested in power, their political agendas, and gaining control over the American people, than they are in serving the people they were hired to represent.

    Anyway, thanks for the info and congratulations for being one of the rare few, that has ever presented an argument that ended up changing my stand on an issue.
    Last edited by Grim17; 08-12-10 at 03:10 PM.

  4. #44
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Google and Verizon DID do a deal for new internet 'first class' superhighway Rea

    Nice post Grim, a few things to think about.

    In regards to the difference speed. Initially the notion of setting a standard where companies can pay to get their sites "faster" access seems simple. However it does raise some questions. First, if that increased speed is possible, why is that bandwidth not being used and utilized as a general thing. More to the point, if you're able to provide increased speed for your users to access a particular site, that bandwidth has to be coming from somewhere...meaning its either taking away from other areas or the ISP already had that bandwidth and was simply restricting it until it found a way to use it to its advantage.

    The second thing to think about is how speeds change. Imagine back in the days of 56k if a company decided to tell yahoo that they'd sell them essentially the ability for their customers to access them over high speed networks, but every other site would be 56k as the max speed. Over time, this continued until you had two "tiers", sites that have a maximum speed of 56k and then the others at broadband.

    Apply that today. You have fiber being laid over more and more places and where 2Mbps was a nice speed when Broadband first started getting big its not unheard of for people to get 25Mbps plans now. Now rather than "limiting" other sites what if these companies simply say that certain sites will be able to be accessed at the full 25Mbps speed, others at 15Mbps, and all others are a 5Mbps. Over time, much like has happened in the broadband industry, the "base" price and service goes up bit by bit to where the "basic" is no longer 5Mbps but 10Mbps in regards to the package, but they only get that additional 5Mbps when they're going to the "approved" sites.

    This is the general fear of where this will eventually lead, to where Yahoo! Politics discussion board may connect you at a very fast speed where as debate politics only connects at a fraction of your maximum speed. Where downloading some patches for OpenOffice goes at a very slow rate but downloads for Microsoft Office would fly. Where playing a multiplayer game by an independent 3rd party shop may have you using only a fraction of your maximum speed but if you play something put out by EA THEN you get your max output that you're paying for. Creating a system where you're not really paying for your bandwidth, but paying for your maximum bandwidth to use on the things your ISP service decides is worthy of said bandwidth and everything else you're hampered.

    Additionally, that is kind of what people talk about when they're saying Tiers. Tiers as we know them now are things like:

    $39 a month for 5 Mbps down/1.5Mbps up.
    $49 a month for 10 Mbps down/2 Mbps up.
    $69 a month for 20 Mbps down / 5 Mbps up.

    The tiered thing that people are feeling that the telecomms want to go to would look more like:

    $39 a month for 5 Mbps down / 1.5 Mbps up.
    $49 a month for the basic 5 Mbps package plus up to 10 Mbps for one of our packages.
    $69 a month for the basic package plus up to 20 Mbps for one of our packages.
    +$10 for each additional packages.

    Sample Packages:
    1. Social Networking Package - Twitter, Myspace, Facebook, facebook games, piscara, flickr, linked in
    2. Web Video Package - Youtube, Google Video, Justin.TV, uTube, Daily Motion
    3. Entertainment Package - Netflix, Hulu, TMZ, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX
    4. Sports Package - ESPN, Fox Sports, Profootball talk, etc
    5. Games Pakage - Microsoft LIVE! titles, EA titles, Blizzard Titles.

    etc.

    Essentially teirs that don't necessarily give you more bandwidth, but ones that essentially limit your additional bandwidth only to the sites that they have deals with.

    The farther potential "doomsday" type of views is this is the potential for exclusivity based on the monopolistic nature of how the government has set up Telecomms to run. For example, lets say that rather than Youtube paying Cox money to make it go faster Cox instead offers to BUY youtube in exchange for Youtube being given the "higher" speeds only on their network and throttling itself for anyone connecting it from a different ISP. Then if you don't have Cox in your area, the potential to get Youtube at "high speeds" becomes non-existant because you have no access to Cox but they're the only one that has high speed youtube. So you then have fragmentation as each different ISP tries to get their "exclusive" type of video provider, ala, youtube at which case its in their interest to throttle youtube even further to be sure that their people are going to their provider. Creating an internet that is not global, but more defined within your particular ISP.

    This isn't even touching on the notion of offering packages that, rather than giving you bandwidth, simply allow you access to specific sites.

  5. #45
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Google and Verizon DID do a deal for new internet 'first class' superhighway Rea

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    The thing that pisses me off most about the net neutrality debate is that in other countries, they have speeds approaching 30mb/s or more while we are sitting here looking at ways to cannibalize our existing infrastructure to make "tiers" and other crap.
    They have download limits in a lot of other countries though.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #46
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Google and Verizon DID do a deal for new internet 'first class' superhighway Rea

    Seriously, this sounds a lot like modern cable packages, where you are forced to buy channels you don't want, to get 1 channel you do want.

    It's garbage.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #47
    Tavern Bartender
    Pussy Grabbin' Beaver
    Middleground's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada's Capital
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,450
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Google and Verizon DID do a deal for new internet 'first class' superhighway Rea

    If you get the chance, watch this great piece on Net Neutrality that Billy Moyers aired a few years ago on PBS. This is the first time that I took notice of the implications.

    Moyers on America . The Net @ Risk . Watch & Listen | PBS

    And, BTW, I wonder how it will affect this board once the changes take place. I suspect it won't be positive.
    “No men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in, because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it,” Trump said... “‘Is everyone OK’? You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody OK?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.”

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Google and Verizon DID do a deal for new internet 'first class' superhighway Rea

    Quote Originally Posted by Middleground View Post
    If you get the chance, watch this great piece on Net Neutrality that Billy Moyers aired a few years ago on PBS. This is the first time that I took notice of the implications.

    Moyers on America . The Net @ Risk . Watch & Listen | PBS

    And, BTW, I wonder how it will affect this board once the changes take place. I suspect it won't be positive.
    Like all other stupid deals that we get signed onto, or subtly forced into (re : bailout1, bailout2, Obamacare, etc), it will proceed slowly... at first you'll barely notice, so then 2-3 years down the road you'll barely notice the difference between the cable and internet. All independant media voices will gradually get squeezed out of the game.


    At this point, I really gotta ask, what happened to all the people 2-3 years ago that even the SUGGESTIOn of ending net neutrality would have been met with 'it'll never happen'?

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

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