• 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!

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

Deuce said:
Some people just have this blind idea that anything the government does is automatically bad. They think that government can only harm freedom, never enhance it.
Click to expand...

In the same way that some people have a blind idea that everything a corporation does is bad. :roll:
 
jmotivator said:
The alternative is to upgrade the entire system in order to accommodate NetFlix but then who should be charged for that other than NetFlix? Should the ISP charge all of its customers for the added infrastructure to accommodate NetFlix customers even if all of the ISP customers aren't NetFlix subscribers? By throttling NetFlix or charging a premium it passes the cost of the increased capacity to NetFlix and NetFlix customers who are really the people who should be paying for it.
Click to expand...

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 one I'm seeing on here has suggested that across the board throttling, or even throttling in SPECIFIC instances of network congestion, should be disallowed or IS disallowed under net neutrality provisions.

It's perfectly reasonable to throttle Netflix traffic at specific points where there is a clear and verifiable network congestion issue. That issue does not exist 100% of the time, nor did those specific instances magically vanish after Netflix started to shell out extra money to an ISP and magically saw their throttling go away.

If their network could handle it the day AFTER they extorted money out of Netflix then it could've handled it the day BEFORE as well. It's not likey they got paid and then immedietely significantly more infastructure got laid down.
 
jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am stuck in the same mindset. Once the government has control, the lobbyist machine will start up (well, it already has).
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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****.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :roll:
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

All data ISNT equal, in the same way that all Hamburgers arent equal, even though they are all made of the same atoms.
 
jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jonny5 said:
BUT, im not forced to deal with the telecoms. I AM forced to deal with the FCC. Govt leads to monopolies because of this.
Click to expand...

You are forced to deal with your telecom and they are already monopolies.
 
jonny5 said:
BUT, im not forced to deal with the telecoms. I AM forced to deal with the FCC. Govt leads to monopolies because of this.
Click to expand...

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?
 
jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jonny5 said:
All data ISNT equal, in the same way that all Hamburgers arent equal, even though they are all made of the same atoms.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
rathi said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

But they hate Net Neutrality for reasons other than the reasons people believe. Comcast leases internet bandwidth the same as NetFlix does. The reason that you find a lot of companies like NetFlix buying their internet directly from these big providers is because they build their data centers on top of these huge internet trunks and plug directly into it. Here in my neck of the woods in Northern VA there is a major junction of internet trunk lines in Ashburn, VA... a community that 20 years ago was more known as cow country. Now it houses dozens of huge data centers. Comcast just covers the "last mile" traffic between the big internet data center and the end user. Comcast, like NetFlix, buys its bandwidth from companies like Level 3, and Level 3 manages the peering between NetFlix and the Comcast end user.

With Net Neutrality Comcast has no way to properly charge back for their cost. They will need to just charge everyone more for their service because they couldn't charge NetFlix users specifically for the increased peer contract with Level 3. In that way Ted Cruz is correct. Just as Obamacare forces people to buy insurance that includes services they can't use, Net Neutrality ends up forcing ISPs to charge all customers for services that not all customers use.

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.
Click to expand...

No, I don't believe that. Most ISPs would be thrilled to sell you internet that didn't support NetFlix because they would have a high expectation that your actual usage would be well below what a NetFlix user would use.

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.
Click to expand...

NetFlix uses over a quarter of the entire internet bandwidth. What happens when the number grows to 30%, or more? Net Neutrality is an endorsement of a monopoly on bandwidth by the big data providers like NetFlix and Youtube. Look at it this way, if you follow Net Neutrality, then as you throttle all traffic equally then NetFlix will always have the lions share of the internet, and the start-ups will be stuck subdividing whatever remains. By allowing targeted throttling you can give more bandwidth to the little guys than you could with an across the board throttle.

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

Which I haven't been doing any more than the net neutrality side has been screaming "CORPORATIONS BAD!!"

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.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't clear. Imaginary clarity stems from the over simplification of the issue.

Please give me examples of the governments over regulation of the internet?
Click to expand...

What? Maybe you haven't been following this debate? The issue at hand is that Net Neutrality is the government stepping into a low regulation environment. By definition I have no examples of something the government is only proposing it will do.

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.
Click to expand...

No, again, especially the example currently in play regarding Comcast and NetFlix is not so cut and dry, as I have mentioned earlier.
 
Last edited:
rathi said:
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."
Click to expand...

ROFL! Love this post!
 
jmotivator said:
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?
Click to expand...

Comcast is the only ISP that had a significant drop in traffic followed by a massive increase timed perfectly with the payout. The other ISPs didn't have the massive uptake at the end.

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.
Click to expand...

What a joke. If there was a peering problem, it would have impacted all comcast traffic, not specifically netflix.

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.
Click to expand...

Comcast should pass peering costs to their customers. Netflix has zero obligation to pay "offsetting costs" or any other such bull****. Not to mention your entire scenario is a made up fantasy.

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.
Click to expand...

I'm a comcast customer. Netflix was specifically impacted while other traffic remained normal.
 
jmotivator said:
because they build their data centers on top of these huge internet trunks and plug directly into it. Here in my neck of the woods in Northern VA there is a major junction of internet trunk lines in Ashburn, VA... a community that 20 years ago was more known as cow country.
Click to expand...

And oh if only it was cow country still, my wife would be much happier living here ;) As it is it's the closest "non-northern virginia" area that I could put her in that was not an hour outside of civilization.

They will need to just charge everyone more for their service because they couldn't charge NetFlix users specifically for the increased peer contract with Level 3.
Click to expand...

And I would much rather have them raising costs on all those trying to get access, or level 3 finding out that they can't keep charging the Comcasts of the world the extra costs they want and stay in business...and having my internet connection work in a neutral fashion as it primarily has been...as opposed to those costs still generally coming back and hitting me in some fashion anyways AND screwing with my connection in ways that makes the market of what sites and services I use far less "free".

No, I don't believe that. Most ISPs would be thrilled to sell you internet that didn't support NetFlix because they would have a high expectation that your actual usage would be well below what a NetFlix user would use.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And I'm sure most ISP's would be happy to just not support Netflix at all, because it'd help their network capacity out and they wouldn't really have to worry much about losing customers, because in many cases those customers would have no, or EXTREMELY few, alternatives if they wanted internet access.

NetFlix uses over a quarter of the entire internet bandwidth. What happens when the number grows to 30%, or more? Net Neutrality is an endorsement of a monopoly on bandwidth by the big data providers like NetFlix and Youtube. Look at it this way, if you follow Net Neutrality, then as you throttle all traffic equally then NetFlix will always have the lions share of the internet, and the start-ups will be stuck subdividing whatever remains.
Click to expand...

Netflix and Youtube only have that monopoly because people are actually choosing to use their services. They're not getting those monopolies by falsely manufacturing it by simply paying big money to get it...they're getting it because people are USING it. Yes, a startup would have to compete with that in either case. However, in the case of net neutrality, they're fighting on an even playing field. If people start moving from NetFlix to [Random Streaming Movie/TV Service we'll call "X"], then Netflix's total claim on the bandwidth will end up dropping and the new services will start growing because of USAGE. However, under the other scenario, Netflix, via deals with the carriers, has a leg up on an uneven playing field because it's service is coming to you faster, giving you better quality video and less buffering, than service X making it harder for service X to compete. And even if server X manages to take away some of the usage base of Netflix, it's still stuck in the slow lane because it doesn't have the financial bucks to shell out for the "fast lane" like Netflix does. This artificially maintains Netflix's control on that ever increasing portion of internet usage as opposed to allowing actual end user usage to dictate that.

Which I haven't been doing any more than the net neutrality side has been screaming "CORPORATIONS BAD!!"
Click to expand...

I appreciated your most recent post I'm currently responding to actually giving a tangible way you think the government would cause an issue with net neutrality. But for the most part, prior to that, I had seen VERY little evidence from anyone complaining about the threats of the government "regulating" the internet of the government actually taking wrongful action regarding the internet or expressing their desire for such action.

Am I going "Corporations bad"? Yes. I've also in this thread and others been providing actual hard evidence of instances where corporations have done, or express a desire to do, things that are contradictory to net neutrality standards.

No, it isn't clear. Imaginary clarity stems from the over simplification of the issue.
Click to expand...

Yes. It is clear. When a telecom company that offers phone service outright blocks the leading VoIP service from its network that's a clear example of violating net neutrality principles. When a telecom company throttles it's users speeds and ability to use peer to peer services and lies to their customers about it at first, that's a clear example of violating net neutrlaity principles. When a telecom company hijacks a persons searches through google or bing or yahoo and instead routes it through their own search engine with their own sponsored ads on it, that's a clear example of violating net neutrality principles. When a telecom company allows their users to use their data to watch youtube, but doesn't allow them to use it to watch any other video service, that's a clear example of violating net neutrality principles. When a telecom company is actively talking about potentially implimenting a "fast lane" method of service, that's a clear example of a proposed desire to violate net neutrlaity principles. When a telecom company is filing appeals to give them the ability to throttle or stop traffic to sites and services for reasons other than significant network capacity issues, that's a clear desire to violate net neutrality principles. When a telecom outright blocks access to a particular website from it's useres, that's a clear example of a violation of net neutrality issues.

That's not "imaginary clarity". Those are rock solid, factual occurences that are clear examples of telecom companies violating, or advocating for their ability to violate, net neutrality principles. Those all happened for a whole variety of reasons, and you may even agree with some of their reasons for doing it, but that doesn't change the fact they are violations of those principles that people feel are important.

What? Maybe you haven't been following this debate? The issue at hand is that Net Neutrality is the government stepping into a low regulation environment. By definition I have no examples of something the government is only proposing it will do.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There's a FEAR the government may over step, but there's no evidence related to any previous actions they've done regarding the internet to suggest they WILL overstep. There's also FEAR that the telecoms will continue to go against net neutrality principles, but with them there is clear evidence of them doing such in the past and actions indicating they want to in the future.
 
Again, let me make it abundantly clear...

My overall preference would be that the government regulates the wires and fiber that make up the backbone of the internet. I'm fine with those entities largely staying a monopoly along with that regulation.

Meanwhile, the ISP market is extremely open and free with a relatively simple hurdle for entry, providing significant consumer choice and allowing that consumer choice to combat censorship.

However the problem with that statement is it's similar to saying...

We should just get marriage out of the government entirely

We should just deport every last illegal and pass an amendment getting rid of anchor babies

We should abolish the income tax

We should just ban all guns

We should just elect a 3rd party candidate into the Presidency

They all may sound great in theory to certain people, but those are things that are likely to never leave the "theory" stage. There's just no political will or realistic likelihood of such things happening, no matter how much "sense" they make to some people. Breaking up the ISP monopolies is one of those things. Great in theory, but unlikely. If you think they're hitting hard against net neutrality, just wait to see how hard they'd hit if you tried to bust their monopoly (or don't, because the politicians taking their cash will never let it get to that point).

I've got as much of a chance of ****ting out a rainbow with a pot of gold at the end as we do to see the government actually break up the ISP monopolies.

Which means we're then left with two bad choices. Trust that the Telecoms aren't going to do things in line with what they've already tried to do and argued in favor of....or trust the government to regulate it.

Both bad choices, but to me it's an option between something that is basically 100% likely happen badly and something that might happen badly (even if it may be a 99% chance of that being the case).

In other words, in the immortal words of Jim Carrey....so you're telling me there's a chance.
 
jmotivator said:
Which I haven't been doing any more than the net neutrality side has been screaming "CORPORATIONS BAD!!"
=
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Net neutrality advocates have a specific complaint about specific actions already taken by specific companies.

You have a vague theoretical possibility of some other, unspecified1 bad regulations appearing
 
Zyphlin said:
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?
Click to expand...

Thats the key, IF I WANT something. So the telecom is providing me with something I want. Whereas the FCC IS NOT, but yet they have people with guns to force me.
 
Zyphlin said:
And oh if only it was cow country still, my wife would be much happier living here ;) As it is it's the closest "non-northern virginia" area that I could put her in that was not an hour outside of civilization.
Click to expand...

It's funny as I drive around that area and see all the internet hubs I have worked and and realize the vast majority of people have no idea what those buildings are or why they appear where they do.


And I would much rather have them raising costs on all those trying to get access, or level 3 finding out that they can't keep charging the Comcasts of the world the extra costs they want and stay in business...and having my internet connection work in a neutral fashion as it primarily has been...as opposed to those costs still generally coming back and hitting me in some fashion anyways AND screwing with my connection in ways that makes the market of what sites and services I use far less "free".
Click to expand...

Well, the problem is that the infrastructure and bandwidth aren't growing with demand. This isn't purely for profits, it's a technical issue and a logistics issue. The reason the internet isn't the way it used to be is because it have far more people on it than there used to be. Think of it like Washington DC traffic. It's impossible to build roads fast enough to keep up with demand. QoS is a way of giving everyone access to the internet without pricing people off the internet.


Exactly. And I'm sure most ISP's would be happy to just not support Netflix at all, because it'd help their network capacity out and they wouldn't really have to worry much about losing customers, because in many cases those customers would have no, or EXTREMELY few, alternatives if they wanted internet access.
Click to expand...



Netflix and Youtube only have that monopoly because people are actually choosing to use their services. They're not getting those monopolies by falsely manufacturing it by simply paying big money to get it...they're getting it because people are USING it. Yes, a startup would have to compete with that in either case. However, in the case of net neutrality, they're fighting on an even playing field. If people start moving from NetFlix to [Random Streaming Movie/TV Service we'll call "X"], then Netflix's total claim on the bandwidth will end up dropping and the new services will start growing because of USAGE. However, under the other scenario, Netflix, via deals with the carriers, has a leg up on an uneven playing field because it's service is coming to you faster, giving you better quality video and less buffering, than service X making it harder for service X to compete. And even if server X manages to take away some of the usage base of Netflix, it's still stuck in the slow lane because it doesn't have the financial bucks to shell out for the "fast lane" like Netflix does. This artificially maintains Netflix's control on that ever increasing portion of internet usage as opposed to allowing actual end user usage to dictate that.
Click to expand...

Right, but see what happens when these providers end up out pacing the infrastructure. It's not like NetFlix can pay for 20% more bandwidth and suddenly it is there. So if NetApp demand goes up and Level 3 can't meet the NetApp demand then how it that any different than Comcast throttling NetFlix because they can't meet the demand?



I appreciated your most recent post I'm currently responding to actually giving a tangible way you think the government would cause an issue with net neutrality. But for the most part, prior to that, I had seen VERY little evidence from anyone complaining about the threats of the government "regulating" the internet of the government actually taking wrongful action regarding the internet or expressing their desire for such action.

Am I going "Corporations bad"? Yes. I've also in this thread and others been providing actual hard evidence of instances where corporations have done, or express a desire to do, things that are contradictory to net neutrality standards.
Click to expand...


Well, sure. Technology leaders like CISCO as well as ISPs like Comcast all oppose Net Neutrality.


Yes. It is clear. When a telecom company that offers phone service outright blocks the leading VoIP service from its network that's a clear example of violating net neutrality principles. When a telecom company throttles it's users speeds and ability to use peer to peer services and lies to their customers about it at first, that's a clear example of violating net neutrlaity principles. When a telecom company hijacks a persons searches through google or bing or yahoo and instead routes it through their own search engine with their own sponsored ads on it, that's a clear example of violating net neutrality principles. When a telecom company allows their users to use their data to watch youtube, but doesn't allow them to use it to watch any other video service, that's a clear example of violating net neutrality principles. When a telecom company is actively talking about potentially implimenting a "fast lane" method of service, that's a clear example of a proposed desire to violate net neutrlaity principles. When a telecom company is filing appeals to give them the ability to throttle or stop traffic to sites and services for reasons other than significant network capacity issues, that's a clear desire to violate net neutrality principles. When a telecom outright blocks access to a particular website from it's useres, that's a clear example of a violation of net neutrality issues.

That's not "imaginary clarity". Those are rock solid, factual occurences that are clear examples of telecom companies violating, or advocating for their ability to violate, net neutrality principles. Those all happened for a whole variety of reasons, and you may even agree with some of their reasons for doing it, but that doesn't change the fact they are violations of those principles that people feel are important.
Click to expand...

It is imagined clarity because each one of those issues you provide are not as simple as a one sentence blurb.

Here is a good article explaining the Netflix-Comcast dispute in clearer terms


Exactly. There's a FEAR the government may over step, but there's no evidence related to any previous actions they've done regarding the internet to suggest they WILL overstep. There's also FEAR that the telecoms will continue to go against net neutrality principles, but with them there is clear evidence of them doing such in the past and actions indicating they want to in the future.
Click to expand...


But again, you are assuming the Net Neutrality is a good thing, I am arguing that the simplistic nature of Net Neutrality is not capable of dealing with the complexity of the internet. It is like passing a law that says "you can't shoot people"... a nice though, but in practice when you start jailing people who shot in self defense, and soldiers when they get home from Afghanistan you start seeing that the simplistic law is doing more harm than good.
 
Zyphlin said:
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
Click to expand...

Except its not. Netflix is not Email is not Multiplayer gaming, even though its all tcip/ip packets. Some data is more valuable than others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom