In one sentence

[tfinch2]

Do your own homework.

 

[UNCjigga]

More bandwidth for those willing to pay for it.

 

[jmdeathsquad]

Porn at your fingertips, 24/7.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: UNCjigga
More bandwidth for those willing to pay for it.

That's a general misconception. You've already paid for the bandwidth, and you still have the bandwidth. It's the rate of information getting to you that's throttled.

Think of public roads, and someone decide to start putting up toll booths everywhere.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SSSnail
It's an attempt to cash in on old technologies instead of innovating and renovating like the rest of the world; and fvcking us, the consumers in the process.

Could you elaborate? Specifically the old technologies you're referring to, and the innovations from the rest of the world?

Alright, so instead of investing in new technologies and furnish their customers with the latest innovations, in hope of charging more for better service, they're doing the opposite. Sitting on old infrastructure (with slight improvements), they would try to tier off different level of service by prioritizing packets, the priority is based on how much a web based service, herein WBS, would pay them. With Netneutrality, even if you have a 10MB pipe (yes, "old technologies") and the WBS don't pay, your connection could essentially be gimped to let's say, dial-up?

Right now you're paying for high speed internet service correct? And you are rightfully assumed that the service you paid for is equal with all WBS with regards to connection speed. Let's say WBS A pays the telco to have a higher tier service, which in turn the telco gives packets from WBS A all the priority, while WBS B could be providing the same service to you, but because they didn't pay the premium so their information will be getting to you at a snail pace. In order to compete with WBS A, WBS B will have to pay the premium, which will eventually be distributed as additional cost to you, and me, the consumers.

Many parts of the world already have far better connection services than the US for the same or even less amount of money. They compete based on quality of service, not throttling bandwidth. Welcome to the internets!

See, you didn't actually name any of these "old technologies" and "innovations" you're talking about, and that's what I was looking for. You accuse the telcos of resting on their laurels and not improving their quality of service, but that is entirely untrue. Verizon is rolling out fiber to the premises and AT&T is rolling out fiber to the node. Yes, some countries are ahead of us. How many of those countries are the size of the United States? Or even the size of California?

And the telcos' issue with net neutrality is more related to IPTV services than to web-based services.

 

[JRich]

It's not some big truck...

 

[Kaervak]

Originally posted by: UNCjigga
More bandwidth for those willing to pay for it.

That's how it is now and I have no problem with it, there's a choice. What Net neutrality is is the concept of keeping companies from making you pay more to get to Site A faster than if you don't and from charging those that use a lot of bandwidth (google, yahoo, ectera) twice, once for access and then for their usage. For a far better explanation than I can provide, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality However fact check what you read there. Wikipedia is great, but don't just blindy believe every word of the page.

 

[Turin39789]

Definitions of network neutrality vary widely, but most would agree that a data network which has no discriminatory restrictions on what kinds of equipment can be attached, has no discriminatory restrictions on whether or how equipment can communicate, and does not degrade one set of communications for the sake of another; would be an example of a completely Neutral Network

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: UNCjigga
More bandwidth for those willing to pay for it.

That's a general misconception. You've already paid for the bandwidth, and you still have the bandwidth. It's the rate of information getting to you that's throttled.

Think of public roads, and someone decide to start putting up toll booths everywhere.

they can't throttle or inhibit packets already.


the IPTV folks want to be able to stream content to you. they want the packets to get to a specific place at a specific time in a specific order, otherwise their service goes to hell. and they don't want to pay for it. got it yet?

 

[Kaervak]

Originally posted by: mugs
See, you didn't actually name any of these "old technologies" and "innovations" you're talking about, and that's what I was looking for. You accuse the telcos of resting on their laurels and not improving their quality of service, but that is entirely untrue. Verizon is rolling out fiber to the premises and AT&T is rolling out fiber to the node. Yes, some countries are ahead of us. How many of those countries are the size of the United States? Or even the size of California?

And the telcos' issue with net neutrality is more related to IPTV services than to web-based services.

Watch this, http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/index.html About an hour and a half long, but well worth it IMO.

Back in the mid ninties, the telco's got huge tax breaks from the government to build high capacity networks capable of handling probably more traffic than we could ever use. They did nothing, took the money and ran. Now when municipalities try to setup fiber/other high speed data service, the telco's go apesh!t and complain/sue to stop them for doing something they were supposed to have started doing a decade ago.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SSSnail
It's an attempt to cash in on old technologies instead of innovating and renovating like the rest of the world; and fvcking us, the consumers in the process.

Could you elaborate? Specifically the old technologies you're referring to, and the innovations from the rest of the world?

Alright, so instead of investing in new technologies and furnish their customers with the latest innovations, in hope of charging more for better service, they're doing the opposite. Sitting on old infrastructure (with slight improvements), they would try to tier off different level of service by prioritizing packets, the priority is based on how much a web based service, herein WBS, would pay them. With Netneutrality, even if you have a 10MB pipe (yes, "old technologies") and the WBS don't pay, your connection could essentially be gimped to let's say, dial-up?

Right now you're paying for high speed internet service correct? And you are rightfully assumed that the service you paid for is equal with all WBS with regards to connection speed. Let's say WBS A pays the telco to have a higher tier service, which in turn the telco gives packets from WBS A all the priority, while WBS B could be providing the same service to you, but because they didn't pay the premium so their information will be getting to you at a snail pace. In order to compete with WBS A, WBS B will have to pay the premium, which will eventually be distributed as additional cost to you, and me, the consumers.

Many parts of the world already have far better connection services than the US for the same or even less amount of money. They compete based on quality of service, not throttling bandwidth. Welcome to the internets!

See, you didn't actually name any of these "old technologies" and "innovations" you're talking about, and that's what I was looking for. You accuse the telcos of resting on their laurels and not improving their quality of service, but that is entirely untrue. Verizon is rolling out fiber to the premises and AT&T is rolling out fiber to the node. Yes, some countries are ahead of us. How many of those countries are the size of the United States? Or even the size of California?

And the telcos' issue with net neutrality is more related to IPTV services than to web-based services.

Not just IPTV, it would essentially give them carte-blanche throttling on any services. Assume that we understand how the "internet" works, do I really have to break down the components? Yes, the telcos are upgrading their infrastructure, but at a snail pace and only to accomodate for new growth. It's sad when you really think about it, technologies that we've developed, available for decades and other nations are surpassing us in terms of service for their citizens.