Look at it this way: Your landlord owns your apartment, but he can't come in in the middle of the night and inspect things. Additionally he can't tell you that if you would like for your friend shawn to come over and watch the game that you have to pay him $50. Under your logic he would be justified in doing so.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
House rejects Net neutrality rules
Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Look at it this way: Your landlord owns your apartment, but he can't come in in the middle of the night and inspect things. Additionally he can't tell you that if you would like for your friend shawn to come over and watch the game that you have to pay him $50. Under your logic he would be justified in doing so.
I agree, in a purely market based system, government intervention would be a bad idea, however they've already set up the monopolies, so market forces will NOT determine goods/services produced and their prices. That is why we need Net Neutrality. The best solution would be to open the market.
All right...figured it's time for a history lesson. And some thoughts on where the telecom situation in this country is headed.
Bend over, little consumer, and pull your pants down.
I would pay special attention to the cost per mb table comparing the average pricing with the average Korean and Japanese pricing levels.
I would also read what he has to say about a service being offered in Korea right now. We're talking 90% market penetration, incredibly full-featured, growing e-commerce industry, in a completely new market, generated by creating a very innovative service. The catch? It requires some decent bandwidth to run, and required bandwidth before someone could come up with it.
THAT is the future of broadband. Not tiering. And it didn't happen in the US.
So, when I can point to a solid example of how innovation in another country is directly tied to having a better broadband network than the US, how can you still keep throwing around *unsubstantiated* statements on the future of the internet? You claim to have read and signed peering agreements, but you had to go do some reading to figure out network neutrality? Somehow, that doesn't ring true.
Dave.
Bend over, little consumer, and pull your pants down.
I would pay special attention to the cost per mb table comparing the average pricing with the average Korean and Japanese pricing levels.
I would also read what he has to say about a service being offered in Korea right now. We're talking 90% market penetration, incredibly full-featured, growing e-commerce industry, in a completely new market, generated by creating a very innovative service. The catch? It requires some decent bandwidth to run, and required bandwidth before someone could come up with it.
THAT is the future of broadband. Not tiering. And it didn't happen in the US.
So, when I can point to a solid example of how innovation in another country is directly tied to having a better broadband network than the US, how can you still keep throwing around *unsubstantiated* statements on the future of the internet? You claim to have read and signed peering agreements, but you had to go do some reading to figure out network neutrality? Somehow, that doesn't ring true.
Dave.
There isn't normally anything I've seen about losing a prefix(s) or having a certain destination unreachable. The agreements are more around each party protecting their own assets and ensuring both parties agree on what is to be exchanged and how.
ISP A doesn't care the ISP B has a routing problem. ISP A has other peers by which to reach that destination.
But really, what does peering have to do with this?
We are talking about whether a provider can prefer some traffic over others.
dchakrab,
I can't stop laughing at that link so it's a little hard to respond to it. You'll need a tinfoil hat just to type in the address it is so bad.
ISP A doesn't care the ISP B has a routing problem. ISP A has other peers by which to reach that destination.
But really, what does peering have to do with this?
We are talking about whether a provider can prefer some traffic over others.
dchakrab,
I can't stop laughing at that link so it's a little hard to respond to it. You'll need a tinfoil hat just to type in the address it is so bad.
miketheidiot
Lifer
not when they have been given a government regulated monoploy.
I still don't buy it. It still sounds like hypothetical non-sense.
No provider is stupid enough to pull the kind of stuff that is being thrown around (OMG! I can't get to google!). I know one of the carrier execs put his foot in his mouth, but if they did that they wouldn't have customers for very long. There are a ton of good ISPs that would be glad to take your money and provide service (I'm talking about the actual content provider)
And I still say this is entirely over stopping quality of service, which I think is a bad thing. The FCC is doing their part and has sufficient guidelines in place.
As for the peering, that is between the ISPs. And normally it is worded so there isn't any cause for concern about holding anything back or blocking/slowing conversations. Both parties are simply exchanging routes/prefixes.
Just think about it. What benefit would ISP A stand to gain by low service marking of ISP Bs traffic?
1) ISP B gets ticked, probably pulls out his copy of the peering agreement and speaks with ISP A
2) ISP A says tough cookie
3) ISP B pulls out, ISP A loses a valuable peer, customers get ticked = both parties lose
Does this make any more sense on why a provider wouldn't do this? True peering means there isn't any money exchanging hands, it is done simply to benefit both parties and they sure don't want to tick each other off because it hurts both of them.
No provider is stupid enough to pull the kind of stuff that is being thrown around (OMG! I can't get to google!). I know one of the carrier execs put his foot in his mouth, but if they did that they wouldn't have customers for very long. There are a ton of good ISPs that would be glad to take your money and provide service (I'm talking about the actual content provider)
And I still say this is entirely over stopping quality of service, which I think is a bad thing. The FCC is doing their part and has sufficient guidelines in place.
As for the peering, that is between the ISPs. And normally it is worded so there isn't any cause for concern about holding anything back or blocking/slowing conversations. Both parties are simply exchanging routes/prefixes.
Just think about it. What benefit would ISP A stand to gain by low service marking of ISP Bs traffic?
1) ISP B gets ticked, probably pulls out his copy of the peering agreement and speaks with ISP A
2) ISP A says tough cookie
3) ISP B pulls out, ISP A loses a valuable peer, customers get ticked = both parties lose
Does this make any more sense on why a provider wouldn't do this? True peering means there isn't any money exchanging hands, it is done simply to benefit both parties and they sure don't want to tick each other off because it hurts both of them.
blahblah99
Platinum Member
That's true for the big players, but not the small fries. A big player can gobble up the small fries without losing much and their customers would simply switch over to another ISP due to the inapparent reason for the lack of service.
That is only a tangental question.
The real question is what part of the internet do you think should be a premium service ?
And there's more to it than restricting access to some parts of the internet, unless you pay a premium. Even more threatening is, what part of internet content do you want controlled by Disney ? By Fox Media ? Because they won't just charge you for it, they will also decide what you want to see. Just like cable tv.
Restriction and censorship are more important than the peering issue. You persist in trying to make this about the technology. This is about business, not tech. While ISP one may maintain links with ISP two, that doesn't mean they can't slow or eliminate access to competitors in favor of one paying "preferred" customer.
Every search engine would be forced to bid if SBC required it, because *only* the winning bidder would be allowed to provide search services to consumer. This would kill Google's adwords, search, and everything else overnight. And since SBC already owns Yahoo, it's pretty clear which search engine they're going to give preference to.
Similarly, you've avoided answering my questions so far. Do you feel SBC should be allowed to block all access to internet sites criticizing Bobby Rush, because he's their boy in IL? This is the power you're giving them. Do you deny that this is the power you're giving them? Or are you planning to continue hiding behind your many years of experience reading and writing peering agreements in ignorance of the network neutrality concept?
Dave.
Every search engine would be forced to bid if SBC required it, because *only* the winning bidder would be allowed to provide search services to consumer. This would kill Google's adwords, search, and everything else overnight. And since SBC already owns Yahoo, it's pretty clear which search engine they're going to give preference to.
Similarly, you've avoided answering my questions so far. Do you feel SBC should be allowed to block all access to internet sites criticizing Bobby Rush, because he's their boy in IL? This is the power you're giving them. Do you deny that this is the power you're giving them? Or are you planning to continue hiding behind your many years of experience reading and writing peering agreements in ignorance of the network neutrality concept?
Dave.
I'm not hiding. There is no beneficial reason, nor any ISP that would do what you are proposing. It would kill their business.
Because I'll clue you in again...
There are other ISPs out there that won't do that and everybody would switch. Ya know we've been operating like this for years. Please, please, please learn how the Internet works. I am begging you.
It's common to have more than one provider supplying end connectivity to the host and even the client. End networks are most certainly connected to multiple ISPs.
You assume that there is competition.
If SBC decides to kill Google in favor of Yahoo, the entire south side of Chicago will have no alternative ISP. Comcast doesn't go there. RCN doesn't go there. There are no other providers. Speakeasy DSL / Covad are too far away.
Concrete example, in a major urban environment (third largest city in the US). I believe Comcast has arrived in Hyde Park, but that's about it. If you live further south, there are simply no options other than SBC DSL.
So explain to me who all of these users are going to switch to...?
The problem that people have been complaining about forever is monopoly pricing on behalf of the telcos. This is a problem precisely because there are *no* alternative providers for a very large part of the United States, especially in rural areas.
Dave.
If SBC decides to kill Google in favor of Yahoo, the entire south side of Chicago will have no alternative ISP. Comcast doesn't go there. RCN doesn't go there. There are no other providers. Speakeasy DSL / Covad are too far away.
Concrete example, in a major urban environment (third largest city in the US). I believe Comcast has arrived in Hyde Park, but that's about it. If you live further south, there are simply no options other than SBC DSL.
So explain to me who all of these users are going to switch to...?
The problem that people have been complaining about forever is monopoly pricing on behalf of the telcos. This is a problem precisely because there are *no* alternative providers for a very large part of the United States, especially in rural areas.
Dave.
dchrab,
man, I can't explain this too you any further. You just don't understand.
Monopoly? Open up your own broadband service if RCN does that. You would take all of their business overnight. And don't tell me that you can't, you can and there have been numerous provisions to make sure that you can. Just because you don't have the economies of scale of a larger company doesn't mean you can't - nor does that mean they have a monopoly.
Fact ramains - these hypothetical "can't get to portions of the net" that is being spread around is just gosh danged ridiculous.
I hate to throw personal attacks around, but your ignorance deserves it. You have no freakin' clue what you are talking about. I've asked time and time again for examples of what you are proposing - yet there are none.
I've asked how doing such an action could benefit the provider in question.
yet there are none.
do people honestly believe that a broadband provider would cut off access to a certain site or degrade their service???????????????????? Do you people not read the terms of your agreement? You signed it. Don't like it? Get another service or build your own.
How would this be a good idea for a provider? Please explain that. Examples of such activity? none.
man, I can't explain this too you any further. You just don't understand.
Monopoly? Open up your own broadband service if RCN does that. You would take all of their business overnight. And don't tell me that you can't, you can and there have been numerous provisions to make sure that you can. Just because you don't have the economies of scale of a larger company doesn't mean you can't - nor does that mean they have a monopoly.
Fact ramains - these hypothetical "can't get to portions of the net" that is being spread around is just gosh danged ridiculous.
I hate to throw personal attacks around, but your ignorance deserves it. You have no freakin' clue what you are talking about. I've asked time and time again for examples of what you are proposing - yet there are none.
I've asked how doing such an action could benefit the provider in question.
yet there are none.
do people honestly believe that a broadband provider would cut off access to a certain site or degrade their service???????????????????? Do you people not read the terms of your agreement? You signed it. Don't like it? Get another service or build your own.
How would this be a good idea for a provider? Please explain that. Examples of such activity? none.
Cerb
Elite Member
* In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
* In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute.
* Shaw, a big Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers in order to "enhance" competing Internet telephone services.
* In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com ? an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#threat
I don't understand? Apparently, neither do the founders of Ebay, Amazon, or Craigslist. Do you honestly think that figures who have that much background in this industry (and armies of researchers) are worried about nothing? I'm in good company. But of course, your experience reading and signing peering agreements must sure outweigh their experience with the internet.
If I sound like I'm smiling at you, it's because I am. High school economics: In a monopoly situation, market forces have very little effect on product. There is no incentive to innovate, or to compete price-wise, because there is no competition. I knew this when I was 14.
If it was easy to start an ISP, there would be more ISPs. In many states, it is even illegal for a *municipality* to run an ISP, or to offer community / muni wifi, because the Bells claim that this is unfair competition and interferes with their state-mandated monopoly. The Bells have received tax breaks, incentives, and other public funds to build a network that isn't, as far as I know, even close to what was promised. Are you contesting this? Because even the Bells don't contest this...they make excuses for it.
How could such an action benefit the provider in question? You claim to not have seen a single suggestion of how this could benefit the provider? Try reading posts other than yours for a change. If SBC forces users to use Yahoo over Google, then they benefit because they own Yahoo. If they gain the right to charge Google extra fees for delivering search services over their networks, they gain monetarily. If they gain the right to influence content to further their political agenda, they put sock puppets like Bobby Rush in office, who can continue to champion legislation on their behalf (like this act). Rush's biggest campaign contributors are telcos, including $1m spent on his pet nonprofit in Englewood. Need more examples to prove they'd have something to gain?
It is *not* an argument against monopoly standing to say "but they could start their own companies". A monopoly is defined as controling a certain percentage of market share. Not "SBC doesn't have a monopoly because citizens could run their own ISPs" ...if the economic model allowed individuals to run their own ISPs, there would be no need for a government mandated monopoly in the first place. If I don't like my power company, I can't start my own.
And backhaul doesn't come from the sky. Or it might, but then I'd be paying a satellite provider. Either way, building an ISP in my backyard overnight is simply not an option.
Get over yourself, buddy. There are a lot of techies here. More importantly, there are several people on this forum who seem to understand basic economics, business principles, or telecom history. You don't. Either take the time to read the material or stop acting like your techie experience gives you an understanding of telecom law. For someone who didn't know what network neutrality was when this debate started, you've certainly become quite the overnight expert.
Dave.
If I sound like I'm smiling at you, it's because I am. High school economics: In a monopoly situation, market forces have very little effect on product. There is no incentive to innovate, or to compete price-wise, because there is no competition. I knew this when I was 14.
If it was easy to start an ISP, there would be more ISPs. In many states, it is even illegal for a *municipality* to run an ISP, or to offer community / muni wifi, because the Bells claim that this is unfair competition and interferes with their state-mandated monopoly. The Bells have received tax breaks, incentives, and other public funds to build a network that isn't, as far as I know, even close to what was promised. Are you contesting this? Because even the Bells don't contest this...they make excuses for it.
How could such an action benefit the provider in question? You claim to not have seen a single suggestion of how this could benefit the provider? Try reading posts other than yours for a change. If SBC forces users to use Yahoo over Google, then they benefit because they own Yahoo. If they gain the right to charge Google extra fees for delivering search services over their networks, they gain monetarily. If they gain the right to influence content to further their political agenda, they put sock puppets like Bobby Rush in office, who can continue to champion legislation on their behalf (like this act). Rush's biggest campaign contributors are telcos, including $1m spent on his pet nonprofit in Englewood. Need more examples to prove they'd have something to gain?
It is *not* an argument against monopoly standing to say "but they could start their own companies". A monopoly is defined as controling a certain percentage of market share. Not "SBC doesn't have a monopoly because citizens could run their own ISPs" ...if the economic model allowed individuals to run their own ISPs, there would be no need for a government mandated monopoly in the first place. If I don't like my power company, I can't start my own.
And backhaul doesn't come from the sky. Or it might, but then I'd be paying a satellite provider. Either way, building an ISP in my backyard overnight is simply not an option.
Get over yourself, buddy. There are a lot of techies here. More importantly, there are several people on this forum who seem to understand basic economics, business principles, or telecom history. You don't. Either take the time to read the material or stop acting like your techie experience gives you an understanding of telecom law. For someone who didn't know what network neutrality was when this debate started, you've certainly become quite the overnight expert.
Dave.
Also:
1. Google Vint Cerf. As someone with experience in telecom, you sure know the name, but Google his position on this anyway.
2. Mark Cooper, Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America:
"Cable operators, who were excused from Network Neutrality by the Federal
Communications Commission, force consumers to pay twice if they want a
different Internet service provider than the one they provide. They
discriminate against Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) providers in
quality of service (Comcast refuses to guarantee the same quality of
service to unaffiliated VOIP providers), against content (Time Warner
blocked letters to subscribers of its AOL subsidiary with which it
disagrees) and against applications (Cox is blocking craigslist while it
promotes its own classified advertising Web site)."
->To discuss even one of these examples, I'd call Craigslist a fairly major service provider, and one that consumers should have access to. The fact that it is being blocked while customers have no alternatives to turn to disproves your theory that no ISP would do this, and that consumers would switch in hordes (or start their own ISPs) if an ISP tried it. Last I checked, Cox is still in business.
The same email:
"For years, the FCC let the telephone companies force consumers to pay
twice if they wanted VOIP from an unaffiliated provider (i.e. they
refused to sell "naked" DSL). Even when the practice was banned as a
merger condition, the companies continued to make it difficult for
competitors. When the North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked competing
services, the FCC made them stop but then repealed its own authority to
prevent blocking in the future by reclassifying broadband access as an
information service. "
->This would seem to indicate clearly that the telcos have undermined FCC authority to regulate this kind of discrimination.
I believe I've made my point that there is a fairly large threat, and that the motive and opportunity for telcos to discriminate are both very evident. The only real argument I've heard (from Bobby Rush's office in IL) is that this will be worth it, because it'll result in lower cable bills for the low-income black cable subscribers in his constituency.
Dave.
1. Google Vint Cerf. As someone with experience in telecom, you sure know the name, but Google his position on this anyway.
2. Mark Cooper, Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America:
"Cable operators, who were excused from Network Neutrality by the Federal
Communications Commission, force consumers to pay twice if they want a
different Internet service provider than the one they provide. They
discriminate against Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) providers in
quality of service (Comcast refuses to guarantee the same quality of
service to unaffiliated VOIP providers), against content (Time Warner
blocked letters to subscribers of its AOL subsidiary with which it
disagrees) and against applications (Cox is blocking craigslist while it
promotes its own classified advertising Web site)."
->To discuss even one of these examples, I'd call Craigslist a fairly major service provider, and one that consumers should have access to. The fact that it is being blocked while customers have no alternatives to turn to disproves your theory that no ISP would do this, and that consumers would switch in hordes (or start their own ISPs) if an ISP tried it. Last I checked, Cox is still in business.
The same email:
"For years, the FCC let the telephone companies force consumers to pay
twice if they wanted VOIP from an unaffiliated provider (i.e. they
refused to sell "naked" DSL). Even when the practice was banned as a
merger condition, the companies continued to make it difficult for
competitors. When the North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked competing
services, the FCC made them stop but then repealed its own authority to
prevent blocking in the future by reclassifying broadband access as an
information service. "
->This would seem to indicate clearly that the telcos have undermined FCC authority to regulate this kind of discrimination.
I believe I've made my point that there is a fairly large threat, and that the motive and opportunity for telcos to discriminate are both very evident. The only real argument I've heard (from Bobby Rush's office in IL) is that this will be worth it, because it'll result in lower cable bills for the low-income black cable subscribers in his constituency.
Dave.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
Yeah right, like that's gonna happen.
Yeah, that's what I said. His staffer didn't have a response when I asked him how (clearly, he hadn't been studying the telco ads well enough).
In Chicago, this may be moot...the RFP draft released for Chicago's municipal wireless plan includes very strict network neutrality language. Even if Federal law doesn't enforce, it becomes a binding clause in their contract with the city, which *should* provide some level of protection for those of us receiving service through the city.
Since I'll most likely have moved back within city bounds before this is ever implemented, I'm a little less worried personally, provided the final RFP keeps the same language and incorporate some of the suggestions made by the community on draft language / conditions.
This may be one solution to network neutrality...enforceable contracts for municipal / community wireless that require it as a contract clause. Hopefully, Chicago will set a strong example in this.
Dave.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
