• 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!

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

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

My net neutrality stance has always been the same pretty much...

My utlimately preference would be to remove the federal and state regulations onf ISP's that create quasi-monopolies where few, if any, real "choices" are available and said choices is contingent on simply which mega-corp's TYPE you want (IE cable, fiber, phone, or sat). Open it up to actual competition where the various ISP's can actually push into the location of other ones and force prices and openness that way.

The above is looking less and less likely to happen, let alone feasable, with every passing day. As such, the next best option is Net Neutrality legislated by the government.

To me it's essentially Competition > Net Neutrality > Nothing.

The problem is, the regulations preventing that have been in place for so long now that the various big corps have become so entrenched and have control of so much of the backbone that we've reached a point where the government and corporations have happily moved forward hand in hand to screw all of us with the corporations getting their quasi-monopoly and the governemnt creating a scenario where they can later go forward and go "oh, look at those big awful evil corporations, they're up to no good, you need to give us MORE authority!" We the American people have been screwed into a corner by BOTH of the groups in this, with the only difference being that the government has done a far better job of attempting to shine up the slop that's all over them while the corporations haven't.
 
Re: Google and Verizon DID do a deal for new internet 'first class' superhighway Rea

See? Sometimes corporations really ARE evil. :shrug: And sometimes, government really DOES have to step in to protect the interests of the public.

Not always, but sometimes.

The problem is the corporations were "Evil" by taking part and utilizing the horrendous situation the government ignorantly and stupidly set forth for them through their regulations that allowed for the quasi-monopolies to happen in the first place.

Its one giant evil "**** the American Public" reach around being perpetrated by the two.
 
Re: Google and Verizon DID do a deal for new internet 'first class' superhighway Rea

The problem is the corporations were "Evil" by taking part and utilizing the horrendous situation the government ignorantly and stupidly set forth for them through their regulations that allowed for the quasi-monopolies to happen in the first place.

Its one giant evil "**** the American Public" reach around being perpetrated by the two.

Well said. And, perhaps the feds will have to re-regulate the de-regulation.
 
Re: Google and Verizon DID do a deal for new internet 'first class' superhighway Rea

Wow, this one caught more debate then I first expected...

I do believe that this will create a dangerous precedent where these companies will turn the internet into an extension of cable tv where there's 500 channels but nothing on.

Also, they will probably arrange it so the top search terms are what the 'premium' clients offer, and then several pages down the line you have the 'regular' internet customers, blogs, etc... that on those networks will be given low priority service... or be denied because of 'excess demand at the moment' or 'this website hasn't been secured as premium'... whatever the semantics are, I find that once the ISP's gain control over the content of the information flowing through the pipes, censorship or stifling of debates will become inevitable.

This will be the beginning of the 'kinder gentler internet' with gatekeepers and identity checks when you sign on... then if you don't play by the rules then you will simply be relegated to the 'old' internet that will simply die off the radar.
 
Re: Google and Verizon DID do a deal for new internet 'first class' superhighway Rea

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

Let me see if I correctly understand some things about this issue, or if I'm barking up the wrong tree here. I encourage anyone who is knowledgeable on this subject, to please respond so I can gain a better understanding of this issue.

...

Weren't the initial reasons for proposing "net neutrality" laws, to ensure that ISP's wouldn't restrict access to legally operating websites based on their content (ie censorship), or based on a demand from an ISP for payment by the websites, to allow access to their customers?

Wasn't the dispute that brought this issue again to the forefront, based on one or more cable internet service providers throttling, or limiting, the bandwidth of certain applications, specifically P2P (Bit Torrent) file sharing applications?

If the statements above are correct, isn't the practice of throttling pretty much exclusive to ISP's that provide cable internet access? If so, isn't it done to insure quality of service for all their customers, because with cable connections, the available bandwidth has to be shared by all the customers they have in a particular area?

It is my understanding, that with ISP's that offer DSL or dial up service, throttling isn't necessary because each customer has their own separate connection, which allocates the amount of bandwidth based on what the customer pays for.

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

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?
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?

Grim, here's two posts concerning this issue that I made some time ago that basically speak to this. One, showing some examples of statements and actions that are a precurser to what's being suggested. Two, what people think is generally the end game in regards to where this all would be going.
 
Re: Google and Verizon DID do a deal for new internet 'first class' superhighway Rea

Actually, I trust history and the Telecomm's own words.

Look historically at what has happened with other mediums that were more easily accessible by the public on their inception and then became regulated by the corporations running them...TV, Radio, and the print media. All of them became less and less a place where the ideas and voices of the average people could be shared and more and more what was pushed on us by the corporations that ran them. And I have nothing against that, those things pretty much functioned in that way from very early on.

The internet, since its open inception, till this point, has grown because of the open access and easy ability to be used by ANYONE. You could have the most idiotic hobby known to man, make a website for it, throw it up, and there's a good chance because of the openness of the internet other people that share your strange idiotic hobby will actually find you and a community can form. It is an open forum of ideas unable to be mimicked in any form of communication save person to person. It is actually the best way for mass assembly of any kind by the populace due to the current size of the world and our country and the population spread within it.

To give you some examples that are either already being tried, or have actually been stated to show their intent:

The Washington Post said:
William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc.

This is the first step to a tiered system that will effectively remove the greatest ability of the internet, its neutrality that allows everyone a voice. Instead, the major corporations will be given incredibly high speeds while things created independently will go for a crawl. Who needs Debate Politics...we can all go to Y! Politics, monitored by Yahoo, moderated by Yahoo, set with Yahoo's rules and things.

Verizon's Ivan Seidenberg told the Wall Street Journal said:
We have to make sure they don't sit on our network and chew up our capacity. We need to pay for the pipe.

Now, never mind that the Telecomm companies are getting LARGE subsidies from the government to create those "pipes", money coming from...oh that's right...WE THE PEOPLE. But this is very much showing what they're thinking. If you're not on their network, or not accessing a site on their network, then you will have to pay more to do whatever it is you're doing. When that happens, other companies do it as well. This conglomerates things where everything is compartmentalized on their own mini-networks or you're paying unbelievably stupid amounts of money.

This is not people worried about some "Hypothetical" They are flat out telling us what it is they want to do.

To give you some other examples already attempted:

- In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.

- In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned EchoDitto -- an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

- Shaw, a major Canadian cable, internet, and telephone service company, intentionally downgrades the "quality and reliability" of competing Internet-phone services that their customers might choose -- driving customers to their own phone services not through better services, but by rigging the marketplace.

They not only want us to pay to use their network, but they then want to tell us what we can and can not do with that service we're paying for. The path their taking us down will destroy the two-way nature of the internet.

This isn't about "politicians". This isn't politicians pushing this movement, it is every day people coming together. This was something the politicians and Telecomms were trying to slide through quickly and quietly thinking no one would notice...and the people stood up and said "WTF, No!"

The digital "super highway" is a great analogy for it. The "Pipes" they "own" are fundamental to the digital transportation of all information in our country, it is why they are given amazing amounts of TAX PAYER MONEY to maintain, upgrade, and keep those "pipes" going. People do not have a problem with them mandating a price for a certain over all speed....its done now, that's fine, it makes sense. But when it starts getting to where they begin to segment the internet, that's where the problem is.
 
Re: Google and Verizon DID do a deal for new internet 'first class' superhighway Rea

Net Neutrality is absolutely necessary to keep the Internet as it is now and not where the Telecomm companies are trying to push it.

Net Neutrality is one of the few issues that actually IS Bi-Partisan.

Don't believe me?

Ask yourself what in the world would ever get MoveOn.Org AND the NRA to actually agree?

The one giant benefit to the Internet right now is its a completely open, user driven operation. Radio, Television, and even Print is primarily controlled by conglomerates with very little possibilities for the average person to put out anything on these mediums that will gain any traction. This is not the case with the internet...from personal websites, YouTube, MySpace, etc.

What the Telecomm companies want to do is be able to established a "tiered" internet system. What a tiered system will do is make speeds accessed to certain websites and services be based on what services their hosted on. This gives rise to the ability to weed out certain web sites, push others, and removes the personal freedom found on the internet. I'll give you some metaphors for what this would do.

Part of the problem with what the Telecomm's want is the fact that there is not many options for high speed networks. For the most part, you have at most one cable company to pick from and one phone company (Sometimes only one of either).

Now, with that in mind, lets say Cable TV worked like they want this to work. But lets say particular channels are hosted by the cable comapnies themselves. So lets say COX communications "hosts" ESPN, ComCast "Hosts" Cartoon Network, and Adelphia "hosts" Comedy Central.

Now lets say for the sake of this, amount of commercials = internet speed. So a fast internet would = no commercials, while 56k would be 5 minutes worth.

If you happen to be a Cox Customer, you'd be getting ESPN at blazing fast speeds of no commercials. However lets say ComCast realizes that Adult Swim is a big pull for them, so they severely slow anyone not on their network down when watching it. So you as a Cox Customer would be getting 5 minute's of commercials being shoved in your programming. Then, lets say that Adelphia wants to charge anyone trying to watch the programming on their network that isn't part of Adelphia, so they charge your cable company for accessing their station and thus its passed on to you, paying a bit per minute to watch Comedy Central.

Add on the fact that lets say Cox then decides that they want to push their OWN comedy channel, so they stop allowing access to Comedy Central so instead their new network gets the business. Thus they add in 5 minutes of commercials whenever you watch Comedy Central.

This is effectively what can happen without Net Neutrality.

It gives the Telecomms ability to regulate what sights can be seen, takes away the over all connectivity and freedom of the internet that has caused it to boom as it has, and begins to push it into a more corporate than open citizen enterprise.

The internet as we know it will not exist in a decade or more time if Net Neutrality is done away with and the Telecomm's hopes come to fruition. This is the kind of government regulation that IS supposed to happen, because the Telecomm's generally have a monopoly in the areas they they serve and have been getting government funding to expand their high speed networks for ages.
 
Re: Google and Verizon DID do a deal for new internet 'first class' superhighway Rea

Grim, here's two posts concerning this issue that I made some time ago that basically speak to this. One, showing some examples of statements and actions that are a precurser to what's being suggested. Two, what people think is generally the end game in regards to where this all would be going.

Where?

Even though you didn't answer most of my questions directly, you did take the time to post some very useful information. Your effort is appreciated.... Thanks.
 
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.
 
Re: Google and Verizon DID do a deal for new internet 'first class' superhighway Rea

Then more specifically if you wish.

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

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:
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.
 
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.

They have download limits in a lot of other countries though.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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'?
 
Back
Top Bottom