FCC to Introduce New Internet Regulations

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: rchiu

That's fine, I have no problem buying 512kpbs plan, 1mpbs plan....etc depending on what I need. The underlying issue is who is making the bandwidth decision. You or the ISP. With net neutrality, consumer pick and pay for the bandwidth they need. They need voice/video, they pay for it with a plan with big fat pipe. They can pay for a 512kpbs plan if they just wanna surf the net.

Without net neutrality, ISP makes the decision that all video/voice are to be slowed, and even if you pay for a big fat pipe, you're not really getting a big fat pipe, ISP get to decide for you what goes through that pipe and how fast.

Well this is the fallacy of "net neutrality" supporters. The fear of what "could" happen instead of what does. It's a fear tactic based on conjecture by people that don't understand how The Internet works.

There have been very few instances of what you're suggesting - purposefully slowing down thruput of competing services. 4-5 such instances have occurred and the FCC came down swiftly "you can't do that". And I agree with that whole heartedly. This kind of behavior does not agree with the 4 principles adopted by the FCC in like 2005 I think which they are about to make into law.

Net Neutrality proponents believe that all packets are created equal and they cannot be further from the truth. Applications depend on the delivery of your precious packets in a means that addresses the applications needs. Voice and video have very specific needs. If you prevent me from discriminating between application behavior when congestion occurs (and it always will occur), you prevent me from providing the needs of the application.

Net Neutrality supporters basically are scared into "ZOMG! They're gonna control my content by giving preference to their partners! Those evil providers!". No, no those evil people running and building the internet are not. When they tried in the few instances it actually happened the FCC, rightfully, stepped in.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: spidey07
Double Trouble - from a technical perspective it's extremely difficult to mark/set QoS parameters from networks outside of yours.

BULLSHIT

You sound like the fucking idiot President of Bellsouth in Louisiana that told me it was technically impossible to provide DSL service without voice.

You have no idea how BGP and AS's work do you. That was a statement.

you can get DSL without having to get phone service, if at&t can do it, so can others.

Yes, now you can thanks to ME

You're welcome

The FCC forced att to offer naked dsl after the merger with sbc. WTF are you smoking?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: rchiu

That's fine, I have no problem buying 512kpbs plan, 1mpbs plan....etc depending on what I need. The underlying issue is who is making the bandwidth decision. You or the ISP. With net neutrality, consumer pick and pay for the bandwidth they need. They need voice/video, they pay for it with a plan with big fat pipe. They can pay for a 512kpbs plan if they just wanna surf the net.

Without net neutrality, ISP makes the decision that all video/voice are to be slowed, and even if you pay for a big fat pipe, you're not really getting a big fat pipe, ISP get to decide for you what goes through that pipe and how fast.

Well this is the fallacy of "net neutrality" supporters. The fear of what "could" happen instead of what does. It's a fear tactic based on conjecture by people that don't understand how The Internet works.

There have been very few instances of what you're suggesting - purposefully slowing down thruput of competing services. 4-5 such instances have occurred and the FCC came down swiftly "you can't do that". And I agree with that whole heartedly. This kind of behavior does not agree with the 4 principles adopted by the FCC in like 2005 I think which they are about to make into law.

Net Neutrality proponents believe that all packets are created equal and they cannot be further from the truth. Applications depend on the delivery of your precious packets in a means that addresses the applications needs. Voice and video have very specific needs. If you prevent me from discriminating between application behavior when congestion occurs (and it always will occur), you prevent me from providing the needs of the application.

Net Neutrality supporters basically are scared into "ZOMG! They're gonna control my content by giving preference to their partners! Those evil providers!". No, no those evil people running and building the internet are not. When they tried in the few instances it actually happened the FCC, rightfully, stepped in.

Well there are many people with many different ideas about net neutrality. And for me, it's not about content control, it about the bandwidth I paid for and the bandwidth I get.

From your own link previously: Quote

Case in point: AT&T has repeatedly stumbled in its ability to provide 3G wireless capacity, thanks to the unexpected popularity of the iPhone. Those difficulties lend credence to AT&T?s (and Apple?s) reluctance to allow apps like Skype and Slingplayer unfettered access to the 3G network: If the network can barely keep up with ordinary demand, just imagine what would happen if we were all live-streaming the Emmy Awards over our iPhones at the same time.

----

Why is it that ISP like AT&T get to have their cake and eat it too? They got bunch of paying customers on iPhone that saturated their network. They have another bunch of paying customer who paid to use Skype and Slingplayer, within the bandwidth they paid for. So after AT&T got all the money from their paying customers, they all of the sudden get to decide the Skype and Slingplayer customers don't get to use the bandwidth they paid for? How is it AT&T get to sell the bandwidth they don't have and collect money for the service they cannot offer?

To me, ISP use this net neutrality thing to increase their leverage to control bandwidth and able to bypass the contract with their customers. That's just wrong. If FCC have been watching this and not allowing it, that's great. Hope that does not change in the near future.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: rchiu


Well there are many people with many different ideas about net neutrality. And for me, it's not about content control, it about the bandwidth I paid for and the bandwidth I get.

From your own link previously: Quote

Case in point: AT&T has repeatedly stumbled in its ability to provide 3G wireless capacity, thanks to the unexpected popularity of the iPhone. Those difficulties lend credence to AT&T?s (and Apple?s) reluctance to allow apps like Skype and Slingplayer unfettered access to the 3G network: If the network can barely keep up with ordinary demand, just imagine what would happen if we were all live-streaming the Emmy Awards over our iPhones at the same time.

----

Why is it that ISP like AT&T get to have their cake and eat it too? They got bunch of paying customers on iPhone that saturated their network. They have another bunch of paying customer who paid to use Skype and Slingplayer, within the bandwidth they paid for. So after AT&T got all the money from their paying customers, they all of the sudden get to decide the Skype and Slingplayer customers don't get to use the bandwidth they paid for? How is it AT&T get to sell the bandwidth they don't have and collect money for the service they cannot offer?

To me, ISP use this net neutrality thing to increase their leverage to control bandwidth and able to bypass the contract with their customers. That's just wrong. If FCC have been watching this and not allowing it, that's great. Hope that does not change in the near future.

All I can say is it's not some evil conspiracy, it's competition at work.

If you have grievances with the contract you agreed upon then take it to court. THAT is your right.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Oceandevi

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: spidey07
Double Trouble - from a technical perspective it's extremely difficult to mark/set QoS parameters from networks outside of yours.

BULLSHIT

You sound like the fucking idiot President of Bellsouth in Louisiana that told me it was technically impossible to provide DSL service without voice.

You have no idea how BGP and AS's work do you. That was a statement.

you can get DSL without having to get phone service, if at&t can do it, so can others.

Yes, now you can thanks to ME

You're welcome

The FCC forced att to offer naked dsl after the merger with sbc. WTF are you smoking?

Try learning.

Naked DSL was available long before that.

1-24-2003

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Great article that really gets to the matter. Also pay attention to the mentality of posters on the openinternet.gov site. They have no idea just how harmful treating all traffic the same (ie. best effort) really is to their own best interests. They want "fat dumb pipes" and hamper the progression of The Internet to a network capable of delivering voice, video and data.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter...cc-neutrality-mistake/

"Take away ISPs? ability to shape or restrict traffic, and you?ll see many carriers running into AT&T-like capacity problems. Their response will almost certainly be to make consumers pay for what they?re actually using. Want to BitTorrent all 6.7GB of the uncompressed Beatles catalog via 3G? Fine, but you?ll have to pay for the bandwidth you?re taking away from your neighbor."

Stevens that you?

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
If there was truly competition and I had a choice of any number of ISP's, I'd be fine with letting the market sort it out. However, since for many people there is essentially no real choice in terms of ISP, I don't see a problem with forcing the ISP to simply provide the pipe. Don't muck with deciding who's content I should be viewing, just provide the pipe -- just like a phone company.

THIS.

Anything else is a shameless travesty.

Someone else posted the following thoughts on Gizmodo, and I'm just attaching them here, for the sake of clarification:

"It's not about throttling your internet bandwidth (they [ISPs] probably want this too) but about the near future when Internet and TV is the same and they want to deny you the right to watch certain TV channels because their content suppliers (CBS, NBC, etc ) want you held captive by their monopolies. Imagine going from 200 channels to infinite channels. How much audience will ABC lose then??? That's right, a LOT!

[ISPs] simply try to stay in control of what you watch and how much you pay for it. In a net neutral world they will only be able to sell you the single connection, not the content. This makes a mess of their business model and pisses off their suppliers.

The will fight for total control every time... and we better make sure they don't win!"


Also, I endorse this view:

Originally posted by: rchiu
[...] The underlying issue is who is making the bandwidth decision. You or the ISP. With net neutrality, consumer pick and pay for the bandwidth they need. They need voice/video, they pay for it with a plan with big fat pipe. They can pay for a 512kpbs plan if they just wanna surf the net.

Without net neutrality, ISP makes the decision that all video/voice are to be slowed, and even if you pay for a big fat pipe, you're not really getting a big fat pipe, ISP get to decide for you what goes through that pipe and how fast.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
If there was truly competition and I had a choice of any number of ISP's, I'd be fine with letting the market sort it out. However, since for many people there is essentially no real choice in terms of ISP, I don't see a problem with forcing the ISP to simply provide the pipe. Don't muck with deciding who's content I should be viewing, just provide the pipe -- just like a phone company.

THIS.

Anything else is a shameless travesty.

Someone else posted the following thoughts on Gizmodo, and I'm just attaching them here, for the sake of clarification:

"It's not about throttling your internet bandwidth (they [ISPs] probably want this too) but about the near future when Internet and TV is the same and they want to deny you the right to watch certain TV channels because their content suppliers (CBS, NBC, etc ) want you held captive by their monopolies. Imagine going from 200 channels to infinite channels. How much audience will ABC lose then??? That's right, a LOT!

[ISPs] simply try to stay in control of what you watch and how much you pay for it. In a net neutral world they will only be able to sell you the single connection, not the content. This makes a mess of their business model and pisses off their suppliers.

The will fight for total control every time... and we better make sure they don't win!"

I say again, there have been one or two instances of this happening and the FCC stepped in immediately to stop it. It's not some big conspiracy by the evil corporations. You're falling for the bullshit fear mongering by internet tin foil hat wearing nutjobs.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
If there was truly competition and I had a choice of any number of ISP's, I'd be fine with letting the market sort it out. However, since for many people there is essentially no real choice in terms of ISP, I don't see a problem with forcing the ISP to simply provide the pipe. Don't muck with deciding who's content I should be viewing, just provide the pipe -- just like a phone company.

THIS.

Anything else is a shameless travesty.

Someone else posted the following thoughts on Gizmodo, and I'm just attaching them here, for the sake of clarification:

"It's not about throttling your internet bandwidth (they [ISPs] probably want this too) but about the near future when Internet and TV is the same and they want to deny you the right to watch certain TV channels because their content suppliers (CBS, NBC, etc ) want you held captive by their monopolies. Imagine going from 200 channels to infinite channels. How much audience will ABC lose then??? That's right, a LOT!

[ISPs] simply try to stay in control of what you watch and how much you pay for it. In a net neutral world they will only be able to sell you the single connection, not the content. This makes a mess of their business model and pisses off their suppliers.

The will fight for total control every time... and we better make sure they don't win!"

I say again, there have been one or two instances of this happening and the FCC stepped in immediately to stop it. It's not some big conspiracy by the evil corporations. You're falling for the bullshit fear mongering by internet tin foil hat wearing nutjobs.

I prefer my tinfoil-wearing nutjobs to your starry-eyed "market settles everything" approach advocates... especially since we've all seen how well this really "works" with the economy.

ISPs - just like telcos and cable TV companies - are virtual monopolies in most places in the U.S. and everywhere else... as long as an infrastructure is required for the service AND the number of available infratructure "slots" in which competing companies can create their own networks are very limited (how many times can you dig in a neighbourhood, to lay cables or pipes?), the "FREE MARKET" approach is just a myth.

Don't tell me that a proper government regulator should only restrain itself to a "reactive" policy, instead of being "proactive".

We all know that private companies are after one thing, and one thing only: PROFIT. To keep their shareholders happy. Not the consumers.

This is just like the healthcare debate. Man, I can't believe how thick some Americans can be...

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
If there was truly competition and I had a choice of any number of ISP's, I'd be fine with letting the market sort it out. However, since for many people there is essentially no real choice in terms of ISP, I don't see a problem with forcing the ISP to simply provide the pipe. Don't muck with deciding who's content I should be viewing, just provide the pipe -- just like a phone company.

THIS.

Anything else is a shameless travesty.

Someone else posted the following thoughts on Gizmodo, and I'm just attaching them here, for the sake of clarification:

"It's not about throttling your internet bandwidth (they [ISPs] probably want this too) but about the near future when Internet and TV is the same and they want to deny you the right to watch certain TV channels because their content suppliers (CBS, NBC, etc ) want you held captive by their monopolies. Imagine going from 200 channels to infinite channels. How much audience will ABC lose then??? That's right, a LOT!

[ISPs] simply try to stay in control of what you watch and how much you pay for it. In a net neutral world they will only be able to sell you the single connection, not the content. This makes a mess of their business model and pisses off their suppliers.

The will fight for total control every time... and we better make sure they don't win!"

I say again, there have been one or two instances of this happening and the FCC stepped in immediately to stop it. It's not some big conspiracy by the evil corporations. You're falling for the bullshit fear mongering by internet tin foil hat wearing nutjobs.

Then who's behind the fear mongering and bullshit to support net neutrality? We clearly know who benefits from no net neutrality and why, and thus why they would be against it. So who do you say is pushing for it? If it's going to stifle innovation and reduce the internet to best effort delivery who benefits from this? There is a driving force behind net neutrality and if it's not to prevent ISP's from mucking with your internet content then what is it?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian


Then who's behind the fear mongering and bullshit to support net neutrality? We clearly know who benefits from no net neutrality and why, and thus why they would be against it. So who do you say is pushing for it? If it's going to stifle innovation and reduce the internet to best effort delivery who benefits from this? There is a driving force behind net neutrality and if it's not to prevent ISP's from mucking with your internet content then what is it?

Conjecture, conspiracy theories and entitlement mentality of "they're messsing with my packets! outrage!". It's like the old farts bitching about the power company, but now it's people (that actually don't know how the internet works) bitching about the ISPs.

It's basically a scam based on fear of "the evil telcos are going to dictate what content you can watch or read, they're out to get you!".

Thankfully the FCC has people advising them on how the internet works and what we need to move the internet forward to provide quality voice, video and data on a single IP network. The big change is now the FCC is taking these principles to cellular wireless providers and that can only give one result - higher prices.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian


Then who's behind the fear mongering and bullshit to support net neutrality? We clearly know who benefits from no net neutrality and why, and thus why they would be against it. So who do you say is pushing for it? If it's going to stifle innovation and reduce the internet to best effort delivery who benefits from this? There is a driving force behind net neutrality and if it's not to prevent ISP's from mucking with your internet content then what is it?

Conjecture and entitlement mentality of "they're messsing with my packets! outrage!". It's like the old farts bitching about the power company, but now it's technology people (that actually don't know how the internet works) bitching about the ISPs.

So you're saying the bitching from a fringe movement of "internet tin foil hat wearing nutjobs" has enough power, money, and influence to trump cable and teleco's on this issue? Riiiiight.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

So you're saying the bitching from a fringe movement of "internet tin foil hat wearing nutjobs" has enough power, money, and influence to trump cable and teleco's on this issue? Riiiiight.

Well the content providers have their own lobbyists as well. They don't have to pay for the network/delivery system so of course they want to ride for free.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
If there was truly competition and I had a choice of any number of ISP's, I'd be fine with letting the market sort it out. However, since for many people there is essentially no real choice in terms of ISP, I don't see a problem with forcing the ISP to simply provide the pipe. Don't muck with deciding who's content I should be viewing, just provide the pipe -- just like a phone company.

THIS.

Anything else is a shameless travesty.

Someone else posted the following thoughts on Gizmodo, and I'm just attaching them here, for the sake of clarification:

"It's not about throttling your internet bandwidth (they [ISPs] probably want this too) but about the near future when Internet and TV is the same and they want to deny you the right to watch certain TV channels because their content suppliers (CBS, NBC, etc ) want you held captive by their monopolies. Imagine going from 200 channels to infinite channels. How much audience will ABC lose then??? That's right, a LOT!

[ISPs] simply try to stay in control of what you watch and how much you pay for it. In a net neutral world they will only be able to sell you the single connection, not the content. This makes a mess of their business model and pisses off their suppliers.

The will fight for total control every time... and we better make sure they don't win!"


Also, I endorse this view:

Originally posted by: rchiu
[...] The underlying issue is who is making the bandwidth decision. You or the ISP. With net neutrality, consumer pick and pay for the bandwidth they need. They need voice/video, they pay for it with a plan with big fat pipe. They can pay for a 512kpbs plan if they just wanna surf the net.

Without net neutrality, ISP makes the decision that all video/voice are to be slowed, and even if you pay for a big fat pipe, you're not really getting a big fat pipe, ISP get to decide for you what goes through that pipe and how fast.

Can you explain why traffic shaping and packet prioritization has a negative effect on the end user? Because I can certainly provide real life examples of the opposite.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

So you're saying the bitching from a fringe movement of "internet tin foil hat wearing nutjobs" has enough power, money, and influence to trump cable and teleco's on this issue? Riiiiight.

Well the content providers have their own lobbyists as well. They don't have to pay for the network/delivery system so of course they want to ride for free.

Ride for free? As opposed to the cable & teleco's charging them fees to get carried in the fast lane? Well there you go.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

So you're saying the bitching from a fringe movement of "internet tin foil hat wearing nutjobs" has enough power, money, and influence to trump cable and teleco's on this issue? Riiiiight.

Well the content providers have their own lobbyists as well. They don't have to pay for the network/delivery system so of course they want to ride for free.

Ride for free? As opposed to the cable & teleco's charging them fees to get carried in the fast lane? Well there you go.

You've been reading too much net neutrality conspiracy theories again. I can tell by the language.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

So you're saying the bitching from a fringe movement of "internet tin foil hat wearing nutjobs" has enough power, money, and influence to trump cable and teleco's on this issue? Riiiiight.

Well the content providers have their own lobbyists as well. They don't have to pay for the network/delivery system so of course they want to ride for free.

Ride for free? As opposed to the cable & teleco's charging them fees to get carried in the fast lane? Well there you go.

You've been reading too much net neutrality conspiracy theories again. I can tell by the language.

Yes, naked economic incentive turns into conspiracy theory when it's contrary to your position.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: her209
Do the ISP's other services (telephone/television) run over the same network as the data (high-speed Internet)? If so, do the ISP give higher priority to those services? Are pure VoIP companies like Skype, Vonage, etc., at a disadvantage?

Yes, yes, and no (but are venerable). It's more complicated than this, but net neutrality purists believe all traffic is equal. Which it isnt.

Say I started a new VoIP company. Do I have to sign agreements/contracts with the ISPs for my traffic to be treated equally as Vonage's, Skype's, or the ISP's?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: her209
Do the ISP's other services (telephone/television) run over the same network as the data (high-speed Internet)? If so, do the ISP give higher priority to those services? Are pure VoIP companies like Skype, Vonage, etc., at a disadvantage?

Yes, yes, and no (but are venerable). It's more complicated than this, but net neutrality purists believe all traffic is equal. Which it isnt.

Say I started a new VoIP company. Do I have to sign agreements/contracts with the ISPs for my traffic to be treated equally as Vonage's, Skype's, or the ISP's?

For voice, yes. Voice traffic is tagged higher priority. Technically, it is tagged under IEEE 802.1p class of service.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Oceandevi

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: spidey07
Double Trouble - from a technical perspective it's extremely difficult to mark/set QoS parameters from networks outside of yours.

BULLSHIT

You sound like the fucking idiot President of Bellsouth in Louisiana that told me it was technically impossible to provide DSL service without voice.

You have no idea how BGP and AS's work do you. That was a statement.

you can get DSL without having to get phone service, if at&t can do it, so can others.

Yes, now you can thanks to ME

You're welcome

The FCC forced att to offer naked dsl after the merger with sbc. WTF are you smoking?

Try learning.

Naked DSL was available long before that.

1-24-2003

You are daft. Naked would imply DSL without a landline. Your dumbass link does not even refer to this. Stop spamming your ego trip BS.

http://arstechnica.com/old/con...know-where-to-look.ars


read the article you pig headed moron.

 

[Modelworks]

If you really want to know why broadband is screwed in the USA watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...9IEQV4&feature=related