Net Neutrality Ruling Passed

[DanDaManJC]

News just passed that we have a victory for the google/amazon side of the net neutrality debate.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/31411a78-589e-11df-a0c9-00144feab49a.html

I dare say, hurray for that! This will allow the internet to remain an open and free place, one that won't be strangled by the content providers.

Vince Cerf, father of the internet, sums up the pro-net neutrality argument nicely in this quote.

My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in control of online activity. Allowing broadband providers to segment their IP offerings and reserve huge amounts of bandwidth for their own services will not give consumers the broadband Internet our country and economy need. Many people will have little or no choice among broadband operators for the foreseeable future, implying that such operators will have the power to exercise a great deal of control over any applications placed on the network.

Src: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/11/vint-cerf-speaks-out-on-net-neutrality.html (in response to another piece of legislation)

The bold (my emphasis), is definitely what makes net neutrality legislation a requirement. Without competition in a free market, the consumer would be locked into this one choice.

Even if there were absolutely no govt regulation on telecoms, you have to remember that it's damn expensive to lay down fiber. How many years would it take for there to be legitimate broadband competition in a town of 10,000 under a non regulated telecom market?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Doesn't this mean that we have to give 50c to the obama campaign now whenever we open a new browser window?

That's what I heard on glen-beck.


ps

For anyone who's purchased the radio-talk-show-host line of crap: think about how incredibly wrong they are about net-neutrality next time you think that some other layer of horse-shit they are shoveling you is right.

 

[0roo0roo]

mainly you can't trust em, comcast denied throttling bit torrent for quite a while until evidence kept mounting. they are freaking liars, no transparency at all with their official monopoly.

never mind them crying foul over bandwidth hogs when they offer bandwidth to customers that pale in comparison to those in other countries.

 

[LTC8K6]

Government regulation is seldom a good thing, though...

 

[spidey07]

You don't want net neutrality. It's a false scare that only harms the development of the Internet to provide quality voice, video and data. Treating different traffic differently is crucial to advance the internet and provide better service.

 

[PokerGuy]

Yay for more government interference!

 

[zsdersw]

Yay for more government interference!

I'd rather the government "interfere" in this case by preventing ISPs from segmenting/prioritizing traffic than having the geographically monopolistic ISPs decide what I can utilize all of the bandwidth for that I pay for.

 

[zsdersw]

You don't want net neutrality. It's a false scare that only harms the development of the Internet to provide quality voice, video and data. Treating different traffic differently is crucial to advance the internet and provide better service.

TCP/IP is a wonderful protocol.. and is all we need to enjoy all of the services the Internet can provide, both now and in the future. We don't need to segment or prioritize certain types of traffic.

 

[xj0hnx]

You don't want net neutrality. It's a false scare that only harms the development of the Internet to provide quality voice, video and data. Treating different traffic differently is crucial to advance the internet and provide better service.

Bullshit. Voice, video, and data work fine now, those were excuses so that content providers could coral customers into their services without giving them a say.

Yay for more government interference!

Government interfered to keep companies from interfering with people's service? The government isn't interfering they are keeping the companies from interfering. Cable companies are bullshit scam artist as it is.

 

[Modelworks]

TCP/IP is a wonderful protocol.. and is all we need to enjoy all of the services the Internet can provide, both now and in the future. We don't need to segment or prioritize certain types of traffic.

TCP/IP is a terrible protocol and needs to be replaced . It was designed to accommodate restrictions that no longer exist. The only reason we still use it is changing to something else would cost too much. Even the creators of the protocol admit its time has passed.

 

[zsdersw]

TCP/IP is a terrible protocol and needs to be replaced

Bullshit.

 

[brxndxn]

You don't want net neutrality. It's a false scare that only harms the development of the Internet to provide quality voice, video and data. Treating different traffic differently is crucial to advance the internet and provide better service.

Bullshit.. Net neutrality is only bad if we plan on never upgrading the Internet. Forcing net neutrality forces ISPs to keep upgrading to accommodate for demands in bandwidth. Speed of the Internet should constantly be increasing (faster than the current market is providing) to the point where bandwidth is not the constraint.

Laws should be on the side of upgrading infrastructure..

 

[Patranus]

I find it laughable that the "progressive" is for this government regulation when historically this type of government regulation has restricted free speech.

Well, then again, I am not really surprised.....

In any event, we all know that the FCC started out regulating the spectrum to ensure that competing products didn't use the same frequencies. This mainly applied to radio and television. Now the FCC uses its authority to regulate the spectrum to restrict speech on that spectrum.

Hmmm.

The original intent was something good but the end result was something bad.
And surprise surprise, government is at fault.

I dare say, hurray for that! This will allow the internet to remain an open and free place, one that won't be strangled by the content providers.

HAHAHAHAHA

Government regulation = "open and free"

You just made my day.

 

[xj0hnx]

I find it laughable that the "progressive" is for this government regulation when historically this type of government regulation has restricted free speech.

Well, then again, I am not really surprised.....

In any event, we all know that the FCC started out regulating the spectrum to ensure that competing products didn't use the same frequencies. This mainly applied to radio and television. Now the FCC uses its authority to regulate the spectrum to restrict speech on that spectrum.

Hmmm.

The original intent was something good but the end result was something bad.
And surprise surprise, government is at fault.

I'm FAR from a "progressive" and I can see what ISP's are trying to do, it's what they have been doing, but legally. They are Internet Service PROVIDERS, not Internet Service DECIDERS. I pay for internet service, not what they decide I need to be doing. they do not own the content on the internet, they provide me with the service to access it, and them deciding what I can, and can not access is not what I pay for.

If ISP's want to cry about people using too much bandwidth ...then don't sell them that much bandwidth. Simply put, if I pay for 14mbps down and 2mbps up, than I should be able to max that amount 24/7 if I want. If their infrastructure can't handle it, and they can't provide what I pay for, than they shouldn't be charging me for it.

 

[Hacp]

Net neutrality is bad. It places an arbitrary limit on what companies can do. However, what's even worse is the government backed cable and phone monopolies we have in the US. They literally have the local officials by the balls. What we need to do is to tear down regulation and let any company that wants to lay cable lay cable. If that happens, cable companies will be in tears while they have no choice but to reduce rates.

 

[Patranus]

I'm FAR from a "progressive" and I can see what ISP's are trying to do, it what they have been doing but legally. They are Internet Service PROVIDERS, not Internet Service DECIDERS.

And if you think the level of service you are getting from your ISP is not up to your standards nothing is stopping you from going to a different ISP that uses any number of technologies.

Every ISP has a const/benefit to it. It is up to you (the consumer) to decide what ISP is best for you.

If an ISP blocks bittorrent and is able to provide higher speeds to the average consumer (the average consumer doesn't use bittorrent) why shouldn't the consumer be able to decide if that is the product they want to buy, especially if they never use bittorrent?

The consumer is the decider.

 

[Patranus]

Net neutrality is bad. It places an arbitrary limit on what companies can do. However, what's even worse is the government backed cable and phone monopolies we have in the US. They literally have the local officials by the balls. What we need to do is to tear down regulation and let any company that wants to lay cable lay cable. If that happens, cable companies will be in tears while they have no choice but to reduce rates.

Exactly.

The government cause the problem and now the government is trying to fix the problem it caused by causing more problems.

Government needs to get the fuck out of the way and let entrepreneurs enter the market.

 

[zsdersw]

Net neutrality is bad. It places an arbitrary limit on what companies can do.

No, I'm sorry, but ISPs have no business deciding that some of my Internet traffic is higher priority than others. I'm paying for it, so I get to decide what, if anything, uses all or most of my Internet bandwidth.

However, what's even worse is the government backed cable and phone monopolies we have in the US. They literally have the local officials by the balls. What we need to do is to tear down regulation and let any company that wants to lay cable lay cable. If that happens, cable companies will be in tears while they have no choice but to reduce rates.

Yes, those monopolies are definitely bad and should end.

 

[Hacp]

And if you think the level of service you are getting from your ISP is not up to your standards nothing is stopping you from going to a different ISP that uses any number of technologies.

Every ISP has a const/benefit to it. It is up to you (the consumer) to decide what ISP is best for you.

If an ISP blocks bittorrent and is able to provide higher speeds to the average consumer (the average consumer doesn't use bittorrent) why shouldn't the consumer be able to decide if that is the product they want to buy, especially if they never use bittorrent?

The consumer is the decider.

Only problem is that these companies are government sponsored monopolies. If you try to put your own cell phone tower up, you can't! The phone companies bribed the government officials and scooped up all the spectrum already. Want to lay cable at your local city? No! The city has an exclusive agreement with the cable company. No one else can and if you do they will rip your cable out and send you to jail.

 

[Patranus]

No, I'm sorry, but ISPs have no business deciding that some of my Internet traffic is higher priority than others. I'm paying for it, so I get to decide what, if anything, uses all or most of my Internet bandwidth.

And if you do not like the level of service you are receiving from your ISP you are more than free to chose any number of other ISPs.

The only thing this is going to lead to is higher prices and slower internet speeds for the vast majority of users.

 

[zsdersw]

Government needs to get the fuck out of the way

You probably wouldn't be saying that if the topic were the FCC's "decency rules".

 

[Patranus]

Only problem is that these companies are government sponsored monopolies. If you try to put your own cell phone tower up, you can't! The phone companies bribed the government officials and scooped up all the spectrum already. Want to lay cable at your local city? No! The city has an exclusive agreement with the cable company. No one else can and if you do they will rip your cable out and send you to jail.

There are other technologies that are available besides cable.

Cable
Dialup
DSL
Wireless (3G)
Satellite

There are probably more but this is all I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[xj0hnx]

And if you think the level of service you are getting from your ISP is not up to your standards nothing is stopping you from going to a different ISP that uses any number of technologies.

Actually, YES, there IS. Or area is controlled by Time Warner, I have been fighting with them for a year now to let me switch, but they own the hard lines, and do not let other companies sell service in this area. Don't tell me I'm "free to switch". There's a LOT of place that do not have multiple companies servicing them, should those people be relegated to whatever company that services their area?

 

[zsdersw]

And if you do not like the level of service you are receiving from your ISP you are more than free to chose any number of other ISPs.

There's two in my area: Time Warner and AT&T... and if they both prioritize/segment traffic what do I do then?

The only thing this is going to lead to is higher prices and slower internet speeds for the vast majority of users.

The geographical monopolies that are in place are what drive up prices.

 

[zsdersw]

There are other technologies that are available besides cable.

Cable
Dialup
DSL
Wireless (3G)
Satellite

There are probably more but this is all I can think of off the top of my head.

Oh yes, because Dialup, 3G, and Satellite are such *great* solutions