Net Neutrality Ruling Passed

[Patranus]

Go ahead and try to start an ISP in another market where one already exist. Let us know how it goes after you get through all the court trials just to be told NO. Shouldn't take more than 10-20 years to go through all the lawyers.

That is the whole point people are trying to make. You cannot start an isp that offers alternatives. Go ahead and try to sell your own DSL in your city. Be prepared to jump through hoops for the next decade.

Compare it to being in the desert with a dictator being the only one selling water. He can make the rules however he likes and nothing you can do. Try to bring in water and sell it yourself and his army will kill you. The ISP are the dictator and his army is the lobbyist they use to control the rules.

Ya.
Starting another company in a regulated market sure stopped Direct TV.

 

[Modelworks]

Torrent sharing is a small amount of users and the with the advancements in switching as a whole on a WAN scale, has truly opened up so much more bandwidth. Now that we have added voice, I would say that leans more towards the actual physical quality rather than actual bandwidth. If your saving money by using slower or less capable backbone equipment but still want to throttle certain traffic to make up the difference, that ain't right. While I am a LAN guy, most WAN networks today are starting to mimic LANs more and more. I guess what I am saying is, ISPs want maximize their profit at the expense of its consumers.

I think another way to solve this is to get rid of TCP/IP . It works but it just isn't designed for the type of networks that exist now and the growth that is coming. I hope something like RINA replaces it. There is a good read on RINA and what it would bring . One of those things is the ability for an isp to use QOS without having to inspect packets or rely on ports.

http://www.ionary.com/PSOC-MovingBeyondTCP.pdf

 

[cubby1223]

see not everyone wants that or cares about that. TBH all im worried about is that if we say FUCK IT to net neut ISPs will begin only allowing you access to the shit they want. IE block youtube or hulu and make you use their paid video streaming service / block certain websites simply because they offer a different point of view then what the ISP supports,.....

And yet this has nothing at all to do with the pay-per-usage model ISPs want to switch to.

Seriously, though, we're over-regulating.

Has an ISP done what you say yet? No they haven't. And if they did, it would probably fall under breech of the first amendment or something. If Comcast ever blocked access to youtube, you bet they would be in lawsuits for a long-ass time. Or they would surely be in violation of other anti-competition laws. We don't need new ones.

But they haven't done these things, and I don't believe for a minute they ever will.

Comcast tried to slow down bittorrent, which 99.9999% of bittorrent traffic is illegal filesharing. Frankly I don't blame them for that.

What if it comes to a time where you cannot access youtube or hulu, because all your neighbors are hogging all the bandwidth pirating free movies through bittorrent? Or downloading porn? Is that a fair situation? Bandwidth is a limited resource.

The most fairest situation is for ISPs to charge you by your data usage. If you download 1gb per month, it costs this amount. If you download 500gb per month, it costs this higher amount. But opposition to this is _always_ the rider that comes along with net neutrality.


Lots of various issues involved, lots of complicated situations, unexpected consequences. And I guarantee you this, I don't trust our federal congress to get this right. And nor do I trust the idiot bloggers who only focus on one aspect.





When I was driving cross-country couple weeks ago, I'm driving through state tollways. If I travel the whole length of the tollway, I pay a higher price than he who travels a short distance on the highway. I don't scream out for government regulations to force the tollways to charge the same fee no matter what distance I travel. And we had a traffic jam going through a section of Indiana, did the tollway officials give me a refund? Hell no! I pay the same price for the same distance, despite the time it takes to travel that distance. Oh I must fill the blogosphere in rage over this breech of freedom!

The Net Neutrality in it's entirety, is not to far off from that analogy.

Do you ever worry that the tollway system will begin charging double for Toyota cars over Ford cars? Perhaps just because they don't like the politics of Toyota executives, perhaps they contributed a bit too much to the Republican party. Do you fear this situation? That we must take immediate preventative actions?

 

[0roo0roo]

So you are crying wolf for something that *might* happen.
(and if/when it does happen there is nothing stopping you from going to another ISP)

Hmmm...

99% of Bittorrent traffic is "illegal"
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/ne...les_downloaded_are_illegal_drm_might_be_blame

Bittorrent accounts for 50% to 90% of traffic
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21376597/

Why shouldn't Comcast be able to ensure network stability for the vast majority of users by throttling illegal activities?

Thats bullsh*t, yesterdays pirate bandwidth is todays youtube bandwidth.
If they had started charging by the mb years ago you wouldn't have youtube today.

 

[Modelworks]

Ya.
Starting another company in a regulated market sure stopped Direct TV.

Because the regulation is next to zero.
Anyone with the money can start a satellite tv service. There are plenty of satellites and plenty of uplinks willing to provide the service without any bureaucracy involved. I know companies that will sell you video broadcast by satellite services by the day if you want.

 

[cubby1223]

Then there are the same posts in this thread, that a pay-per-use model over a one-size-fits-all payment system, is only because ISPs wants to rape customers of their money?

It's all bull-shit propaganda, I still can't the idiots who fall for this crap.

If ISPs wanted to steal your money they can do so with the one-size-fits-all system that is currently in place by most ISPs. It just seems only those who have become addicted to hording media files are those who are terrified of this change. And quite honestly, I have no sympathy for them.

 

[cubby1223]

Thats bullsh*t, yesterdays pirate bandwidth is todays youtube bandwidth.
If they had started charging by the mb years ago you wouldn't have youtube today.

You're an idiot. Youtube would be there. It would just be those who *gasp!* use youtube who pay the bandwidth bill, instead of those who don't use youtube, don't use the internet much, forced to chip in to cover the expenses of running and maintaining the network for your greater consumption.

 

[her209]

The most fairest situation is for ISPs to charge you by your data usage. If you download 1gb per month, it costs this amount. If you download 500gb per month, it costs this higher amount.

Why is that the fairest way? Someone who only uses their Internet connection to check e-mail is just as costly to the ISP. The ISP still has to keep staff on hand to monitor the network, to answer customer calls, to go out in the field, etc.

 

[spidey07]

Why is that the fairest way? Someone who only uses their Internet connection to check e-mail is just as costly to the ISP. The ISP still has to keep staff on hand to monitor the network, to answer customer calls, to go out in the field, etc.

The capacity is what costs money. Light users don't cost as much as a percentage of overall network cost and capacity. Providers are constantly upgrading their networks to keep up with growing demand. Data more than doubles in two years so if your main lines are running at 50% today you'll be in deep trouble in less than two years.

It would make the most sense to either bill by usage or a true burstable service where you get a big fat pipe and are charged at your 95th percentile utilization (which is how many providers bill, just not at the consumer level). You'd pay the minimum if you don't use it much and pay much more if you're a heavy user.

 

[0roo0roo]

You're an idiot. Youtube would be there. It would just be those who *gasp!* use youtube who pay the bandwidth bill, instead of those who don't use youtube, don't use the internet much, forced to chip in to cover the expenses of running and maintaining the network for your greater consumption.

fat chance, if they were charging per meg back in the day youtube type service would have been still born.

other countries are racing ahead, and you sit here trying to protect the fat profits of comcast and co, who scream about bandwidth hogs while they offer pitiful straws for americans to access broadband through while reaping fat profits through their protected monopoly. fact is this, they have every incentive to slow down progress and wring every last profit from their protected monopoly. it is a situation ripe for abuse. it is the duty of the regulators to prevent this. if they were offering leading edge broadband from the start you'd have a point, but they were offering a pittance while screaming foul.

 

[child of wonder]

Providers are constantly upgrading their networks to keep up with growing demand. Data more than doubles in two years so if your main lines are running at 50% today you'll be in deep trouble in less than two years.

So the answer to growing demand is to place a cap on users and use QoS to prioritize their traffic so only the traffic the ISP prefers gets low latency and jitter while the traffic they don't like is high latency and jitter which is completely contrary to what the free market demands.

What if a phone company did the same thing with phone calls? Only international calls (high price) gets static free, crisp signal, regular long distance is moderately acceptable, and local calls (which they don't charge for) is laden with static and noise. Also, if you make too many local phone calls in a month they shut off your service because you're an "abuser."

Eventually a new technology is going to come along that makes current telecom oligopolies impossible and then companies like Comcast are going to become like AOL -- bankrupt almost overnight -- because they fought the market instead of finding ways to give it what it wants.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The phone companies bribed...

Why yes, yes they did. Why? Because it was best for them, not the consumer. While I strongly disapprove of government taking bribes, I'm equally put off about companies who offer them. Obviously that doesn't bother people who seem to believe that is the right of business.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Eventually a new technology is going to come along that makes current telecom oligopolies impossible

That is patently untrue. Companies and government will stifle new technologies instead.

Don't believe me? Toss in a Blu-ray and burn a copy and distribute it legally. Took a couple minutes, right?

There will simply be another DMCA type law put in place.

 

[2Xtreme21]

What a non-neutral internet would look like.

 

[spidey07]

What a non-neutral internet would look like.

Bullcrap. The FCC would not allow it. And for all you net neutrality conspiracy theorists we have what you want today, no legislation is necessary because of the FCCs position and previous actions/rulings.

Net Neutrality is a step backwards for The Internet and prevents technological advancement to provide quality voice, video and data for a rich internet experience.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Bullcrap. The FCC would not allow it. And for all you net neutrality conspiracy theorists we have what you want today, no legislation is necessary because of the FCCs position and previous actions/rulings.

Net Neutrality is a step backwards for The Internet and prevents technological advancement to provide quality voice, video and data for a rich internet experience.

Gov't is not the answer. I abhor your support of the FCC.

 

[Kappo]

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.

I completely disagree. It actually creates an environment that forces them to upgrade infrastructure to keep up with the times instead of just resting on their laurels. When pressured, businesses find new and creative ways to save or make money by innovation.

Net Neutrality removes the "one step closer to the great firewall of China" possibility, allows ME to be in control of the crap I pay for, and assures me that I'm getting what I pay for. Today, it's peer to peer. Tomorrow it's "whatever they feel like throttling". Why does my 30mb connection matter if the best I can do is load a 128k page in a reasonable amount of time? It's basically a license for them to take the popular protocols, throttle them to crappy speeds, and call it "fixed". How does that NOT stifle innovation?

Not to mention, "GoogleTV is my competitor, lets just turn the dial down to 10kbps and no one will like it". Putting Broadband providers in control of what I can an cannot do with my connection is, in no way, a good idea. They profit from people NOT using the connection they pay for.






This message brought to you by Kappo Broadband Services - home of the 10gig Ethernet service. *




*10gig ethernet speeds only available for online flash games and sending emails without attachments.

 

[her209]

The capacity is what costs money. Light users don't cost as much as a percentage of overall network cost and capacity. Providers are constantly upgrading their networks to keep up with growing demand. Data more than doubles in two years so if your main lines are running at 50% today you'll be in deep trouble in less than two years.

Hmmm... what you say does not match what Comcast is saying.

From the Feb 2010 10-K filing (page 33 of the PDF):

Cable Segment Operating Expenses (in millions)
Technical labor
2007... 1,899
2008... 2,138
2009... 2,245

High-Speed Internet
2007... 575
2008... 523
2009... 519

Technical labor expenses include the internal and external labor to complete service call and installation activities in the home, network operations, fulfillment and provisioning costs. These expenses increased in 2009 and 2008 primarily due to growth in the number of customers, which required additional personnel to handle service calls and provide in-home customer support, as well as activity associated with the transition by broadcasters from analog to digital transmission and our all digital conversion, and, in 2008, due to the effects of cable system acquisitions.

High-speed Internet expenses and phone expenses include certain direct costs for providing these services but do not fully reflect the amount of operating expenses that would be necessary to provide these services on a stand-alone basis. Other related costs associated with providing these services are generally shared among all our cable services and are not allocated to these items. The decreases in high-speed Internet expenses in 2009 and 2008 and phone expenses in 2009 were primarily due to lower support service costs that were the result of operating efficiencies. Phone expenses increased in 2008 primarily due to an increase in the number of customers, partially offset by operational efficiencies.

Hmmm... technical labor expenses up 18% from 2007 to 2009, high-speed Internet expenses down 9.7% in the same time period. All this despite adding more users. If you are to believed, shouldn't the expenses for HSI have roughly doubled, or at least gone up, due bandwidth demand doubling?

 

[DanDaManJC]

Bullcrap. The FCC would not allow it. And for all you net neutrality conspiracy theorists we have what you want today, no legislation is necessary because of the FCCs position and previous actions/rulings.

Net Neutrality is a step backwards for The Internet and prevents technological advancement to provide quality voice, video and data for a rich internet experience.

Net neutrality isn't about regulating QoS but about the stuff in this pic:
http://i.imgur.com/5RrWm.png
You talk about conspiracy, but Modelworks has already mentioned a couple different stories to the contrary of conspiracy.

To patranus:
point is that in many places there is no real competition for the needs of many consumers. even if there were less govt regulation such that anyone could feasibly setup an ISP, the costs are so high and margins so slim that we really wouldn't have any practical competition for years.

Personally, I like the idea of opening up the last mile. It seems like you'd get more healthy competition that way. How to do that? Beats me. But having real choice between cable operators would be quite nice.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Net neutrality isn't about regulating QoS but about the stuff in this pic:
http://i.imgur.com/5RrWm.png
You talk about conspiracy, but Modelworks has already mentioned a couple different stories to the contrary of conspiracy.

To patranus:
point is that in many places there is no real competition for the needs of many consumers. even if there were less govt regulation such that anyone could feasibly setup an ISP, the costs are so high and margins so slim that we really wouldn't have any practical competition for years.

Personally, I like the idea of opening up the last mile. It seems like you'd get more healthy competition that way. How to do that? Beats me. But having real choice between cable operators would be quite nice.

Spidey would personally give his left nut for corporations to succeed in bankrupting this nation, so I don't think logic and reason affects him.

 

[Craig234]

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

It's often a good thing. Stop accepting the propaganda at face value.

 

[spidey07]

Net neutrality isn't about regulating QoS but about the stuff in this pic:
http://i.imgur.com/5RrWm.png
You talk about conspiracy, but Modelworks has already mentioned a couple different stories to the contrary of conspiracy.

To patranus:
point is that in many places there is no real competition for the needs of many consumers. even if there were less govt regulation such that anyone could feasibly setup an ISP, the costs are so high and margins so slim that we really wouldn't have any practical competition for years.

Personally, I like the idea of opening up the last mile. It seems like you'd get more healthy competition that way. How to do that? Beats me. But having real choice between cable operators would be quite nice.

Still bullcrap. The FCC would not allow that propaganda scare picture. It absolutely is about QoS as net neutrality supporters always want their traffic all treated equally without understanding the consequences of such action. It's like somebody wanting their hands cut off thinking it's somehow a good thing.

The FCC has a memorandum of understanding regarding the whole concept and so far it has worked out well, they won't allow anti-competitive behavior. I don't like the FCC any more than anybody else, but in this area they really have been looking out for the best interests of the internet and consumers as a whole.

As a network architect of over 15 years I want to deliver the best experience possible of voice, video and data. Treating all traffic equally is best effort delivery, you don't want that. Stop believing the sky is falling net neutrality supporters because it's painfully obvious they don't know the consequences of supporting it. It's destructive to the advancement of the internet.

Not to mention the destruction treating all traffic equally would do to control protocols like BGP. Right now those protocols have the utmost priority over your traffic, pissed about that?

 

[cubby1223]

Net neutrality isn't about regulating QoS but about the stuff in this pic:
http://i.imgur.com/5RrWm.png
You talk about conspiracy, but Modelworks has already mentioned a couple different stories to the contrary of conspiracy.

Name me one ISP which has plans to price their service that way.

You're so wrapped up in one hypothetical, and also VEEERRRRYYYY unlikely scenario (as well as probably already illegal under other existing laws), that you can't see the negatives this legislation will cause in other areas.

It's like preaching to brick walls around here

 

[Pulsar]

This BS again?

All it ever is is outrage from people who just want cheap and unlimited access to bittorrent all the free movies of the world.

Then the anti-capitalism crowd butts in and dreams up wild scenarios of how corporations *could* be the most evil devilish threat to humanity stomping on our throats cutting off our right to information! It's all bull-shit. They're imagining up scenarios that don't exist, to justify over regulation, government control, for what purpose exactly?

Gosh, flipping through the channels this morning, I normally never watch G4, but going past it they had a segment on the wonders of Net Neutrality, and in describing why we want net neutrality, showed images of The Pirate Bay and other piracy sites, saying we need full access to these sites at no cost.


The whole issue is, the ISPs want to switch from a one-size fits all payment model, to one where you pay for what you use. Why should the person who just checks email once a week, pay the same price to ISPs as the other person who maxes out his connection 24/7 hording as many movies and tv shows off p2p apps as he can get away with? Doesn't make any sense to any sane person.

You have absolutely no idea what net neutrality actually is.

This isn't about what bandwidth the customer gets. This is far more about what bandwidth that companies like netflix streaming, comcast on demand, and others are getting. If the ISP's are allowed to tier their services, then you can be gauranteed everyone on Comcast's network will get far better service with Comcast on-demand streaming than if they did if they tried to order a netflix video. Therein lies the problem. Tiered pricing allows for 'legal' anti-competitive practices by companies like comcast who are already guaranteed a monopoly on broadband in given markets due to other rules.

Please, educate yourself on the issue before you embarass yourself further.

 

[spidey07]

You have absolutely no idea what net neutrality actually is.

This isn't about what bandwidth the customer gets. This is far more about what bandwidth that companies like netflix streaming, comcast on demand, and others are getting. If the ISP's are allowed to tier their services, then you can be gauranteed everyone on Comcast's network will get far better service with Comcast on-demand streaming than if they did if they tried to order a netflix video. Therein lies the problem. Tiered pricing allows for 'legal' anti-competitive practices by companies like comcast who are already guaranteed a monopoly on broadband in given markets due to other rules.

Please, educate yourself on the issue before you embarass yourself further.

A few ISPs tried this. The FCC smacked them down. You totally don't understand this issue at all.