F***ing "Republican" government!!! Actually, f***ing corrupt government! Mofo's are always trying to make a buck for themselves.:|
Number1
Diamond Member
- Feb 24, 2006
- 7,881
- 549
- 126
at the risk of being somewhat berated -- I'm not sure if I'm for the net neutrality bill. Please hear me out.....
I just think that we have to be careful about legislating too much commerce regulations -- and let the market work it out. The telecoms / cable companies may want to charge more to people who use large gobs of bandwidth while others who don't wouldn't have to pay. It costs them more to support higher-speed/bandwidth infrastructures. If there's trulyl a neutrality, everyone would pay higher prices to support those that use lots -- even if you use a little.
Real life example, in the east coast we have turnpikes. These are highways that go straight through and potentially save minutes to hours of time driving versus going through all the stoplights or round-about ways. Its your choice if you want to take the slow way or fast way but if you take the fast way you pay for it ( I do every day). They don't make the tax payers (general users) pay for these roads -- only the people who use them.
Google, as expected, would want net neutrality given that it is best for their business.
I just think that we have to be careful about legislating too much commerce regulations -- and let the market work it out. The telecoms / cable companies may want to charge more to people who use large gobs of bandwidth while others who don't wouldn't have to pay. It costs them more to support higher-speed/bandwidth infrastructures. If there's trulyl a neutrality, everyone would pay higher prices to support those that use lots -- even if you use a little.
Real life example, in the east coast we have turnpikes. These are highways that go straight through and potentially save minutes to hours of time driving versus going through all the stoplights or round-about ways. Its your choice if you want to take the slow way or fast way but if you take the fast way you pay for it ( I do every day). They don't make the tax payers (general users) pay for these roads -- only the people who use them.
Google, as expected, would want net neutrality given that it is best for their business.
Patrick Wolf
Platinum Member
- Jan 5, 2005
- 2,443
- 0
- 0
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
and there'd be another federal bureaucracy sitting around inspecting ISPs routers and investigating claims. and guess who'd have to pay for it? and guess who would take bribes and become corrupt and captured by the body that they're supposed to be regulating? we've got enough of them already. and i'm supposed to want another one? no thanks. the microsofts and googles of the world should work it out for themselves rather than getting taxpayers to foot the bill. especially of something that is no more than a what if.
LtPage1
Diamond Member
- Jan 15, 2004
- 6,311
- 2
- 0
In addition to the following form petition, I'd like to let whoever's reading this know that, regardless of party affiliation or other idealogical beliefs (I'm a hardcore left-leaning Democrat), THIS BILL IS THE MOST IMPORTANT VOTE YOU WILL SEE THIS YEAR. Keep the Internet free- to vote otherwise would be the most disgusting and perverted act of corruption ever seen on a floor of Congress. Earn my vote, and do the right thing.
Originally posted by: GeekDrew
Your point? If someone here disagrees, they should leave.
Yes, however google wants the internet to be free because that's what their business depends on. They do not provide bandwidth, what telecoms want to do is say make it so u have to use their search engine and not google or something similar.
Number1
Diamond Member
- Feb 24, 2006
- 7,881
- 549
- 126
An interesting article on this topic: http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/Ou/?p=242.
Article Cliff's:
Internet is already tiered (56k vs DSL vs Cable vs T1 vs etc) You get what you paid for
FCC already fined a company that tried to outright block Vonage
VOIP and Games have priority over regular webpages for they need low latency but use low bandwidth (~40 kbps)
Any ISP who blocks Google/AOL etc will probably lose business
Could be wrong, but this seemed to be a pretty non-biased article (TechRepublic is owned by CNet)
Article Cliff's:
Internet is already tiered (56k vs DSL vs Cable vs T1 vs etc) You get what you paid for
FCC already fined a company that tried to outright block Vonage
VOIP and Games have priority over regular webpages for they need low latency but use low bandwidth (~40 kbps)
Any ISP who blocks Google/AOL etc will probably lose business
Could be wrong, but this seemed to be a pretty non-biased article (TechRepublic is owned by CNet)
Fact of the matter is that a tiered internet could be beneficial, although just as likely it could not be. It all comes down to how the telcos use their priviledges. Unfortunately we can only know this after it's already been done.
If a tiered internet comes with strict regulations to ensure it's used to expand the capabilities of paying customers rather than restrict the lines of those who do not pay, I could see myself welcome the change.
Without such regulations, the big corporations will be free to do what they do best; shrink expenses, maximize profit margins, accept payoffs to handicap competition, and I've not seen any indication of such regulations coming into effect.
Neutrality seems like the safe road, although one with limited potential.
If a tiered internet comes with strict regulations to ensure it's used to expand the capabilities of paying customers rather than restrict the lines of those who do not pay, I could see myself welcome the change.
Without such regulations, the big corporations will be free to do what they do best; shrink expenses, maximize profit margins, accept payoffs to handicap competition, and I've not seen any indication of such regulations coming into effect.
Neutrality seems like the safe road, although one with limited potential.
MaxDepth
Diamond Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 8,757
- 43
- 91
Has no one thought of the Interstate comerce that comes from net neutrality?
To say that Company X uses the straight Internet to sell goods or services will be at a disadvantage because Company Y pays $$$ to a telco for a fatter pipe and thereby sells its goods and services quicker (or brings to market faster).
The court will have to decide whether or not Internet speed should be regulated just like conventional methods. (There are statewide and national limits on how fast one can fly or drive.)
To say that Company X uses the straight Internet to sell goods or services will be at a disadvantage because Company Y pays $$$ to a telco for a fatter pipe and thereby sells its goods and services quicker (or brings to market faster).
The court will have to decide whether or not Internet speed should be regulated just like conventional methods. (There are statewide and national limits on how fast one can fly or drive.)
Mani
Diamond Member
- Aug 9, 2001
- 4,808
- 1
- 0
It would likely just fall under the FCC, and given that they already have people who do similar things in investigations of telcos and cable companies, I don't see it being much beyond a few incremental positions, if that.
I do agree with your overall point that we should see if this becomes a problem before we start legislating it though.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
you forgot to mention that deliberately blocking a competitor's traffic is already illegal under FCC regulations, and is becoming strengthened with this new law.
looks like the FCC is already doing that. so what does 'net neutrality' add?
the George Ou piece is a mandatory read, i think.
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter