• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ISPs defend plans for two-tier net

The Giant Noodle

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
7,332
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Northern Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The corporations that already have deep pockets dont give a rats ass about what is RIGHT. These are the people that roll back odometers in cars and then sell them!

ISPs have defended their right to operate a two-speed internet, at a key debate into the future of the web.
The debate was organised by the government, which is keen to see the principles of a free and equal net maintained.
ISPs are increasingly looking to prioritise some traffic on their networks and block some.
After the meeting the BBC called for the creation of a broadband content group to represent content providers.
It, along with content providers such as Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Skype, is growing increasingly concerned about how the issue of net neutrality is being dealt with.
Net neutrality - the principle that all net traffic should be treated equally - has been challenged in recent years as ISPs look to make a return on their increasingly expensive networks.
They argue that if content providers want to pay to get their traffic prioritised on the network, then they should be allowed to do so

CONTINUED: BBC News - ISPs defend plans for two-tier net
 
I suggest that someone with much more expertise in Computers than I have set up a massive protest circulated on the web and raise hell to keep things as they are.
 
The corporations that already have deep pockets dont give a rats ass about what is RIGHT. These are the people that roll back odometers in cars and then sell them!
Could you please provide a link to stories about corporations that are rolling back odometers? TIA.

.
 
This is disgusting. The proper solution to increasing consumer bandwidth needs is to lay down more cable and increase supply to meet demand. Of course, if you have a monopoly in an utterly corrupt system, you can simply charge more while delivering less and watch your profits increase.
 
I think it's hilarious that Google of all companies is concerned about possibly not being treated fairly considering that just last month they released a statement saying that they were going to start manipulating search results in order to lower the placing of content providers that Google deemed to be sub-standard, and considering that Google has for years allowed entities to purchase their way into higher placement in search results. Serves them right. I hope the UK really screws them on this one.
 
This is disgusting. The proper solution to increasing consumer bandwidth needs is to lay down more cable and increase supply to meet demand. Of course, if you have a monopoly in an utterly corrupt system, you can simply charge more while delivering less and watch your profits increase.

That UK/European ISPs want to do it is disgusting. It is odd that this comes out just after the regulator slammed the ISPs in the UK for not delivering even half of the speeds that they advertise and sell (on average).

In Denmark we tackled the old monopoly system by agreeing a very long "monopoly" for the old state owned phone company to maintain and expand the nations infrastructure, but that came with certain minimum demands. For one, every single home in the country had to be connected to the phone network if they so wished, even the small islands with only 1 person on them. On top of that the national grid was to be opened up for a reasonable price, to any company that wanted to establish it self as an ISP in the country. That meant with in short time Denmark went from 1 ISP and phone provider to many and now has some of the lowest prices and fastest speeds in the world.

So all it requires is politicians who do NOT listen to the industry and set down specific regulation to promote competition and access. Only competition will promote investment in infrastructure. We have seen this over and over and over again. The mobile network is a great example.

But have no fear I say.. because this goes against the EU wide policy on open access to the Internet. And one thing that the telecommunications industry does not have, is foot in the door with the EU since the EU forced the liberalisation of the whole industry almost 2 decades ago. Now the EU parliament might try something but it will be blocked by most countries ministers, even IF the UKs agree with the ISPs.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
The corporations that already have deep pockets dont give a rats ass about what is RIGHT. These are the people that roll back odometers in cars and then sell them!


Could you please provide a link to stories about corporations that are rolling back odometers? TIA.

.

Still Waiting. :waiting:
 
I think it's hilarious that Google of all companies is concerned about possibly not being treated fairly considering that just last month they released a statement saying that they were going to start manipulating search results in order to lower the placing of content providers that Google deemed to be sub-standard, and considering that Google has for years allowed entities to purchase their way into higher placement in search results. Serves them right. I hope the UK really screws them on this one.

Uhh, putting crappy websites farther down the list is the entire reason you use a search engine in the first place.

Anyway, net neutrality is an issue that really should cross party lines. It needs to be maintained for reasons too numerous to even list. I hope the Beck fans who were told net neutrality is a liberal plot to take over the internet funded by Soros have learned better since the last thread.

This is disgusting. The proper solution to increasing consumer bandwidth needs is to lay down more cable and increase supply to meet demand. Of course, if you have a monopoly in an utterly corrupt system, you can simply charge more while delivering less and watch your profits increase.

Especially given how the cable they're using now was paid for by taxpayers in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Uhh, putting crappy websites farther down the list is the entire reason you use a search engine in the first place.

I disagree. The word "crappy" is subjective, you can't have neutrality where subjective thought is concerned. Google makes their money by selling preferred treatment. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that, all I'm saying is that Google is being hypocritical when they make their money doing that but then complain when the same thing may be done to them.

As far as net neutrality is concerned, it sounds like a great idea but in practice I don't think it's a great thing. The problem is that there are sites out there that over the last two years have added a lot of functionality, primarily video. Anyone who's been to a news site recently knows what I'm talking about. Sites that jam up bandwidth posting videos should have to pay more, because they have significantly increased their bandwidth requirements and ISP's shouldn't have to be stuck supplying it without compensation.
 
I disagree. The word "crappy" is subjective, you can't have neutrality where subjective thought is concerned. Google makes their money by selling preferred treatment. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that, all I'm saying is that Google is being hypocritical when they make their money doing that but then complain when the same thing may be done to them.

As far as net neutrality is concerned, it sounds like a great idea but in practice I don't think it's a great thing. The problem is that there are sites out there that over the last two years have added a lot of functionality, primarily video. Anyone who's been to a news site recently knows what I'm talking about. Sites that jam up bandwidth posting videos should have to pay more, because they have significantly increased their bandwidth requirements and ISP's shouldn't have to be stuck supplying it without compensation.

The ISPs are being compensated - by the subscriber they are delivering that video to. Tacking on a surcharge to netflix is just going to end up on the consumer's bill anyway, using bandwidth that consumer has already paid for. Those cables, by the way, were paid for with your tax dollars.

Google isn't being hypocritical. It's their own website and the content of that website should be left to them, and whether or not to visit it should be left to you. Not an ISP.

The ISPs are trying to get permission to charge you again for something you've already paid for twice.

P.S. The ISPs are full of crap when they say the video streaming is hurting their profit margins.
 
Last edited:
The ISPs are trying to get permission to charge you again for something you've already paid for twice.

And they're going to succeed because corporations run congress now. The government may be initially against it but eventually they'll cave.

Making profit means more than regulatory principles these days, or hell, even the constitution itself.
 
This is @ Deuce. You win. I was going to quote your message and then respond, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it. I have no idea where to begin with you, you obviously have absolutely no clue how a network operates. I'm not trying to insult you, it's just that you've said so many things in this thread that show such ignorance of this issue that I have no idea what to say to you other than enjoy your Internet and when things go really wrong good luck getting your politician of choice to fix your technical issue. I'll be sure to steer clear of you in the forum from now on.
 
This is @ Deuce. You win. I was going to quote your message and then respond, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it. I have no idea where to begin with you, you obviously have absolutely no clue how a network operates. I'm not trying to insult you, it's just that you've said so many things in this thread that show such ignorance of this issue that I have no idea what to say to you other than enjoy your Internet and when things go really wrong good luck getting your politician of choice to fix your technical issue. I'll be sure to steer clear of you in the forum from now on.

Oh, so it's just a coincidence that when my ISP started throttling Netflix they started sending me advertisements for their own streaming video service?

Rate of transfer is what limits internet connections, not total volume. It does not cost them significantly more to provide you 5mb/sec for 1GB versus 100GB.

And it definitely does not cost them more to send me 100GB of Youtube instead of 100GB of Netflix
 
Last edited:
Slightly off topic, but not much.

My personal favorite "money for nothing" scam is "tethering" on smartphones.

Tethering is using your phone's data connection to provide internet access to your laptop or whatever. Most smartphones have this capability. ALL android phones released recently do this.

Only they don't. Unless you pay extra.

I just went through a nightmare with an OS update to my dell streak on at&t.
You see, most of the features that made me abandon my iphone were not functional with the OS version it was released with. (1.6, 1.5 was the original) Now, the r&d people who developed the phone used 2.0 to design it, and various demonstrations of features limited to the 2.0 release means it must work on the phone. Apparently, mkst wireless phone providers disable the tethering option before you buy the phone. On the open source Android platform, on devices designed to use this platform, it is virtually impossible to actually disable this feature. But they try, and in the course of doing so they radically delay os update releases, as well as creating issues with functionality overall.

Limiting tethering when everybody had unlimited data plans was annoying, but understandable.

When I got my new phone, I looked into adding the tethering option. I assumed that since new data plans are for a preset amount of data, that there must be some kind of value added. Faster speeds or priority or something.

Nope. Nada.

On at&t, 6 gigabytes of data is $20 for your phone. If you want to be able to tether it costs an additional $25/month. For the exact same 6 gigs of data.

$25 a month to unbreak the phone they broke in the first place, which has caused considerable annoyance and performance issues with their phones.

Frankly, I feel that if you charge me by the bit, I should be able to use those bits however I please.

The carrier's networks are totally unaffected by the device using the bandwidth, as long as you're selling bandwidth by the bit.

They just want to sell you data service for all your devices separately. Sell you wireless data cards for your laptop or whatever.

It's their business, but once again, their business is our problem. And I will never pay extra for nothing but a less functional phone. $300 a year for NOTHING, and the functionality issues are still there even if you pay. They are the result of the "switch" being pasted on in the first place.

Anyway, this relates to the thread as net neutrality is also all about money. That and controlling access to information.

Kinda the internet equivalent of the Citizens United decision. Apparently, they now intend to charge for objective information, by making it possible to limit "free" information by restricting access to areas of the webs where such info resides to those who pay extra for the privelege.

The whole "BP paying google to redirect searches about the spill to BP sites" thing sucks.

I never really expected simple truth to become a commodity. Missed that one completely.
 
So what's the big deal?

I am not sure if this is a troll post?


If not I will explain what could happen. Say your local ISP throttles all speeds to anyone not willing to purchase a "preferred content provider" package. They throttle these to 0.1 kb/s while preferred members remain at the current speeds. Anyone not willing to pay would be rendered useless. While this is an extreme example it gives an idea to the tactic. Its all about ISPs strong arming to acquire more money which is exactly what they plan to do.
 
I am not sure if this is a troll post?


If not I will explain what could happen. Say your local ISP throttles all speeds to anyone not willing to purchase a "preferred content provider" package. They throttle these to 0.1 kb/s while preferred members remain at the current speeds. Anyone not willing to pay would be rendered useless. While this is an extreme example it gives an idea to the tactic. Its all about ISPs strong arming to acquire more money which is exactly what they plan to do.

Do ISPs offer a justification for wanting to do this? Are they arguing for more efficient use of bandwidth or is there a public relations official going on record saying it's just for profit?
 
Back
Top Bottom