Republicans senators against net neutrality

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

You really do have a touch of paranoia in you.

If ISPs ever did make their data public, I think we'd all be surprised at just how overwhelming porn, bittorrent, rapidshare, etc. are on networks.



You have to go back and assess what the ultimate goal is in all of this, and then look at whether net neutrality guarantees this or not. The internet is a finite resource that we all have work with each other to share.

I don't trust companies that have already proven they can't be trusted over and over. If they had that data that you suggest it would be in their interest to produce it since it would make their case for them .

This is the same thing the telco tried against AOL. Your users are tying up the phone lines for several hours we don't have the capacity. Of course they don't . They are too busy keeping the profits rather than spending them on infrastructure. I'm still waiting for that 89% of homes with fiber promised 10 years ago and already paid for.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I don't trust companies that have already proven they can't be trusted over and over. If they had that data that you suggest it would be in their interest to produce it since it would make their case for them .

This is the same thing the telco tried against AOL. Your users are tying up the phone lines for several hours we don't have the capacity. Of course they don't . They are too busy keeping the profits rather than spending them on infrastructure. I'm still waiting for that 89% of homes with fiber promised 10 years ago and already paid for.

Sounds like your ultimate goal is for the internet to be cheaper, faster, and more fair sharing of resources?

Does net neutrality really make the internet cheaper and faster? Does net neutrality incentivize infrastructure? And I've already given an example where net neutrality could potentially greatly unfairly skew the sharing of resources.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I don't trust companies that have already proven they can't be trusted over and over. If they had that data that you suggest it would be in their interest to produce it since it would make their case for them .

This is the same thing the telco tried against AOL. Your users are tying up the phone lines for several hours we don't have the capacity. Of course they don't . They are too busy keeping the profits rather than spending them on infrastructure. I'm still waiting for that 89% of homes with fiber promised 10 years ago and already paid for.

Sounds like your ultimate goal is for the internet to be cheaper, faster, and more fair sharing of resources?

Does net neutrality really make the internet cheaper and faster? Does net neutrality incentivize infrastructure? And I've already given an example where net neutrality could potentially greatly unfairly skew the sharing of resources.

incentives for infrastructure ? what more do they want ? $200 billion + isn't enough to build what they promised ?

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
incentives for infrastructure ? what more do they want ? $200 billion + isn't enough to build what they promised ?

I am asking a simple question, does net neutrality get that job done?

 

[cubby1223]

Not to mention the government handed over that much money without any accountability. So doesn't that also say something about the inability of the government to get the most for your tax dollar?

We're damned if we do, damned if we don't, for long as we look at everything only in terms of the absolute extremes.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: cubby1223

You really do have a touch of paranoia in you.

If ISPs ever did make their data public, I think we'd all be surprised at just how overwhelming porn, bittorrent, rapidshare, etc. are on networks.



You have to go back and assess what the ultimate goal is in all of this, and then look at whether net neutrality guarantees this or not. The internet is a finite resource that we all have work with each other to share.

I don't trust companies that have already proven they can't be trusted over and over. If they had that data that you suggest it would be in their interest to produce it since it would make their case for them .

This is the same thing the telco tried against AOL. Your users are tying up the phone lines for several hours we don't have the capacity. Of course they don't . They are too busy keeping the profits rather than spending them on infrastructure. I'm still waiting for that 89% of homes with fiber promised 10 years ago and already paid for.

Qwest hasnt made much money if my memory serves right. I remember about 5 years ago they were saddled with 25 billion dollars in debt from infrastructure upgrades.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87



And what does any of that have to do with him talking about his expertise in this field? You have yet to actually address any of his valid arguments about QoS and the role the FCC has already played in restricting ISPs from shaping traffic that competes with their own services. Instead you resort to true form and attack the messenger. As if proving Spidey is wrong in completely unrelated topics will validate your ignorant stance on the subject.

[/quote]

1) because he has a history of being ignorant on even the most common sense things. So WHAT if he's an 'expert'. The fact is, even when everyone in ATOT pointed out what a dolt he was and several people linked to the financial reports for TWC, he STILL persisted in arguing his indefensible views.

2) Actually, i did address the FCC. The president appoints the FCC chairman. There's no guarantee that the FCC will always rule against telecom companies who try to shape traffic. Having a very hardline law in place is just another firewall in preventing these abuses from occurring. Imagine the GOP trying to gut a law protecting net neutrality. You saw what happened to TWC when they tried bandwidth capping their customers.

3) I honestly believe there's a 50% chance that Spidey is just pretending to be a conservative just to sucker you guys into defending him and his idiotic positions. If that's the case, Spidey is a genius, because he's doing an excellent job so far.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Phokus
1) because he has a history of being ignorant on even the most common sense things.

And you have a history if saying one person is representative of everyone in a group. Spidey07 speaks for Spidey07. Genx87 speaks for Genx87. Modelworks speaks for Modelworks. Phokus, you speak for yourself and yourself alone. You're nothing special. You're flat out wrong whenever you label someone a racist for simply disagreeing with you. Go out and live in the real world some time. Stop reading all those left-wing blog sites.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Qwest hasnt made much money if my memory serves right. I remember about 5 years ago they were saddled with 25 billion dollars in debt from infrastructure upgrades.

Qwest and the rest are rolling in cash.
http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandcommentsrelease.htm

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Phokus
You saw what happened to TWC when they tried bandwidth capping their customers.

they got a lot of bad press and backed down from it. what does that have to do with the FCC?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

1) because he has a history of being ignorant on even the most common sense things. So WHAT if he's an 'expert'. The fact is, even when everyone in ATOT pointed out what a dolt he was and several people linked to the financial reports for TWC, he STILL persisted in arguing his indefensible views.

2) Actually, i did address the FCC. The president appoints the FCC chairman. There's no guarantee that the FCC will always rule against telecom companies who try to shape traffic. Having a very hardline law in place is just another firewall in preventing these abuses from occurring. Imagine the GOP trying to gut a law protecting net neutrality. You saw what happened to TWC when they tried bandwidth capping their customers.

3) I honestly believe there's a 50% chance that Spidey is just pretending to be a conservative just to sucker you guys into defending him and his idiotic positions. If that's the case, Spidey is a genius, because he's doing an excellent job so far.

1. Again pointing out completely unrelated topics from another poster doesnt bolster your case. You still havent shown any indication you have a damned clue what you are talking about in this conversation.

2. And yet under Bush we had the FCC step in. Regardless, so far we have managed to survive without a law on the books. How does that work?

3. I am not defending Spidey at all. This is more of your black and white, us vs them go into attack mode view of the world. I am pointing out your mindless attack the messenger mentality doesnt cure your ignorance on the subject.

I am curious what your cost effective solution is to giving email the same QoS as VOIP when the network is saturated.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit

Originally posted by: JS80
I'm against net neutrality and I'm not on the telecom dole.

Ok, I'll bite. Why would you be against a well thought out and implemented Net Neutrality law or FCC ruling?

Just to piss off the Torrent leeches that I indirectly subsidize.

So you are telling me you have never used bittorrent for anything?

I do understand where the anger is coming from though, I get annoyed when my roommate starts up torrents.

Back in college I admit I downloaded movies/music through file sharing programs. But I never did a torrent.

When was college? 1990? Old man get off our internets you are clogging our ports with your slow old timey ways.

Torrents are file sharing just more advanced. I do respect that you actually admit your own former illegal activity. Most just like to pretend and continue to be hypocrites.

Torrents do serve a great purpose. They are quick, easy, safe ways to access things at "Our" speed. I personally use them as a means to access media, I would have had no other way of accessing. For instance, I have been looking for Xmen the animated series (The 90's cartoon) for about 5-6 years now. Disney, who owns the rights, refuses to release the whole series and instead chooses to lock away a part of my childhood. I would buy the series in a second if I had the opportunity, much like I did with Batman: The animated series (again, the 90's version) but it is out of my hands.

2000-2004

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

1) because he has a history of being ignorant on even the most common sense things. So WHAT if he's an 'expert'. The fact is, even when everyone in ATOT pointed out what a dolt he was and several people linked to the financial reports for TWC, he STILL persisted in arguing his indefensible views.

2) Actually, i did address the FCC. The president appoints the FCC chairman. There's no guarantee that the FCC will always rule against telecom companies who try to shape traffic. Having a very hardline law in place is just another firewall in preventing these abuses from occurring. Imagine the GOP trying to gut a law protecting net neutrality. You saw what happened to TWC when they tried bandwidth capping their customers.

3) I honestly believe there's a 50% chance that Spidey is just pretending to be a conservative just to sucker you guys into defending him and his idiotic positions. If that's the case, Spidey is a genius, because he's doing an excellent job so far.

1. Again pointing out completely unrelated topics from another poster doesnt bolster your case. You still havent shown any indication you have a damned clue what you are talking about in this conversation.

2. And yet under Bush we had the FCC step in. Regardless, so far we have managed to survive without a law on the books. How does that work?

3. I am not defending Spidey at all. This is more of your black and white, us vs them go into attack mode view of the world. I am pointing out your mindless attack the messenger mentality doesnt cure your ignorance on the subject.

I am curious what your cost effective solution is to giving email the same QoS as VOIP when the network is saturated.

1. EVEN IN THE FACE OF INDISPUTABLE FACT in this *RELATED* case (TWC), he *STILL*persisted in spewing bullshit, how do you explain THAT?

2. I didn't say ANYTHING about Bush. I said, even though the FCC may have ruled against throttling in the past that in the future, the GOP might elect an even SHITTIER president (see their ridiculous love affair with Sarah palin) that would do away with this. What the fuck does bush have to do with this when i didn't even mention him?

3. yes you are defending spidey. You are saying that since he is apparently a network engineer (i have no idea what he does, but from your description, that sounds like it) that somehow he is inscrutable in anything related to network engineering. I don't know what to tell you, if he goes on about how cable companies are getting squeezed by bandwidth hogs and need to cap bandwidth to be profitable, yet is presented with indisputable evidence (the company's income statement) that connection costs are going down while revenue and subscribers are going up, and STILL spouts off the same old crap, then you are blind as hell.

4. What are my plans? Oh i dunno, how about using some of those increased profits or some of the government money that these assholes stole a while ago (and promised to build more capacity but never did) and build more bandwidth?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Phokus
You saw what happened to TWC when they tried bandwidth capping their customers.

they got a lot of bad press and backed down from it. what does that have to do with the FCC?

Genx is saying that the FCC is enough to shield us from abusive practices of the ISPs because of their past rulings. If you have a shitty enough president in the future, the chairman that he/she appoints to the fcc may not be so favorable in preserving network neutrality.

What i was saying is that if there was a solid net neutrality law ALONG with the FCC, any party that tried to gut the net neutrality law would get SLAUGHTERED by the public (just like TWC did). The internet is one of those things you don't screw with when it comes to voters.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Phokus
You saw what happened to TWC when they tried bandwidth capping their customers.

they got a lot of bad press and backed down from it. what does that have to do with the FCC?

Genx is saying that the FCC is enough to shield us from abusive practices of the ISPs because of their past rulings. If you have a shitty enough president in the future, the chairman that he/she appoints to the fcc may not be so favorable in preserving network neutrality.

What i was saying is that if there was a solid net neutrality law ALONG with the FCC, any party that tried to gut the net neutrality law would get SLAUGHTERED by the public (just like TWC did). The internet is one of those things you don't screw with when it comes to voters.

Even better than doing net neutrality. Watch the first 10 minutes of this video. This guy has the perfect solution if they could just get the fcc to implement it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...9IEQV4&feature=related

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Not to mention the government handed over that much money without any accountability. So doesn't that also say something about the inability of the government to get the most for your tax dollar?

We're damned if we do, damned if we don't, for long as we look at everything only in terms of the absolute extremes.

And yet the Japanese government was successful. Maybe it speaks to more about how we're a screwed up nation than anything else.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Phokus
You saw what happened to TWC when they tried bandwidth capping their customers.

they got a lot of bad press and backed down from it. what does that have to do with the FCC?

Genx is saying that the FCC is enough to shield us from abusive practices of the ISPs because of their past rulings. If you have a shitty enough president in the future, the chairman that he/she appoints to the fcc may not be so favorable in preserving network neutrality.

What i was saying is that if there was a solid net neutrality law ALONG with the FCC, any party that tried to gut the net neutrality law would get SLAUGHTERED by the public (just like TWC did). The internet is one of those things you don't screw with when it comes to voters.

Even better than doing net neutrality. Watch the first 10 minutes of this video. This guy has the perfect solution if they could just get the fcc to implement it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...9IEQV4&feature=related

I'll watch it at home, but if it has anything to do with municipal fiber, that's a tough one because telecom lobbyists are FEROCIOUS in shutting that down. I think after one NC town implemented that, TWC and other telco's lobbied to outlaw it in the rest of the state.

 

[Cogman]

Its surprising that people don't want net-neutrality. They act like the world will quickly come to an end if it is enacted. Whats Ironic, is that for the most part it is as bad now as it ever will be, so enacting Net-Neutrality will only guarantee that some shifty telco doesn't start looking at our data.

Republican or Dem, you should realize that people monitoring all your communications to try and catch you slipping up is a bad thing.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Phokus

I'll watch it at home, but if it has anything to do with municipal fiber, that's a tough one because telecom lobbyists are FEROCIOUS in shutting that down. I think after one NC town implemented that, TWC and other telco's lobbied to outlaw it in the rest of the state.

He has the proposal already in bill form:
http://www.ionary.com/separationbillproposal.htm

If the FCC would enact that bill net neutrality would be a non issue.

 

[James Bond]

Man this thread is a cluster fuck. I haven't studied NN enough to chime in, but if it is what I think it is, Best Effort traffic shaping from provider edge-to-edge (or a lack of shaping, rather), then this would be a huge fucking mistake.

Again, maybe I'm understanding it wrong, but anyone with a background in QoS should understand why that would be totally fucked.

 

[James Bond]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Phokus

I'll watch it at home, but if it has anything to do with municipal fiber, that's a tough one because telecom lobbyists are FEROCIOUS in shutting that down. I think after one NC town implemented that, TWC and other telco's lobbied to outlaw it in the rest of the state.

He has the proposal already in bill form:
http://www.ionary.com/separationbillproposal.htm

If the FCC would enact that bill net neutrality would be a non issue.

Great video, awesome alternatives.

 

[JayhaVVKU]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Modelworks
incentives for infrastructure ? what more do they want ? $200 billion + isn't enough to build what they promised ?

I am asking a simple question, does net neutrality get that job done?

It will, probably in a slower and more painful way, but without the implications of giving the ISPs control over content and completely solidifying their monopolies.

As current capacity is strained further the ISPs will have to make the oh so painful leap to upgrading infrastructure(hopefully).

The governement has, as Modelworks already said, invested shittons of money in all of these companies and every single one has not fully upheld their promises. Why do you think the US lags behind so many countries in high speed access? Is it because the ISPs don't have enough money and can't afford to make the "fat dumb pipes" fatter and bigger? Or is it because it's more profitable not to spend money on infrastructure and instead throttle traffic while continuing to raise prices and restricting competition? It's really not a hard concept to grasp.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
link

What's their reason for being against Net Neutrality? Too much illegal money from telecom companies? Pathetic.

No, more like they realize the advancement of The Internet has to provide quality of service to voice, video and data traffic and in order to to that you have to treat different traffic differently.

You DO NOT WANT net neutrality. It is a terrible concept to The Internet and it's advancement. You don't want all your traffic treated "equally" and "fairly".

YES, YOU DO.
This is not just a question of network administration. This is the model of a new society in which there should be no classes. From a philosophical viewpoint, any interference with it would be no less than criminal and short-sighted.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
link

What's their reason for being against Net Neutrality? Too much illegal money from telecom companies? Pathetic.

No, more like they realize the advancement of The Internet has to provide quality of service to voice, video and data traffic and in order to to that you have to treat different traffic differently.

You DO NOT WANT net neutrality. It is a terrible concept to The Internet and it's advancement. You don't want all your traffic treated "equally" and "fairly".

YES, YOU DO.
This is not just a question of network administration. This is the model of a new society in which there should be no classes. From a philosophical viewpoint, any interference with it would be no less than criminal and short-sighted.

Well if you want all internet traffic to have the same priority as VOIP(real time, low latency), you are going to be building a very expensive network that is going to drive prices up. Lets face it voip and email traffic can be treated differently without any ill effects.


And if you want everyone to have dedicated bandwidth, rather than oversold bandwidth things are going to get much more expensive.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Genx87

Qwest hasnt made much money if my memory serves right. I remember about 5 years ago they were saddled with 25 billion dollars in debt from infrastructure upgrades.

Qwest and the rest are rolling in cash.
http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandcommentsrelease.htm

Unfortunately this guy is an idiot and cant even get the little stuff right. That $300B, not long ago was $200B. I am still not sure how he comes up with that number.

I will take a few of the easy points he cant get right.

.4) DSL was a 'Bait and Switch'. DSL travels over the old copper wiring and was considered inferior in 1992. DSL was only deployed after it became obvious the Internet required more speed than dial up.

DSL was top of line technology in 1992. Yes fiber still beat it, but fiber was overkill for a dialup world and dsl was far less expensive to deploy.

6) What about AT&T's U-Verse and Verizon's FIOS? Combined, these companies have only 3+ million upgraded broadband-TV customers. But more importantly, these networks are "closed networks", controlled by the phone companies. Customers paid for "open" networks, so customers could have choices.

At this point ATT has upgraded >18M lines for uverse. Verizon has upgraded >12M lines for fios. Together that makes about 30M. Together they have a bit over 3M subscribers. I guess he thinks everyupgrade line should be in use before it is counted? He is only off by a factor of 10.

9) There is no serious competition. Broadband is a duopoly and phone service is still a telco-monopoly as cable companies only have 15% of the market, and competition using the wireline networks is down 60% since 2004. In fact, every state is now having major price increases, 80% in New Jersey, for example. Prices shouldn't rise if there is true competition.

Speeds have been going up and prices have been going down. I pay less for broadband today than I did for dialup. I can get 18meg down for less than I paid for ISDN.

9) There is no serious competition. Broadband is a duopoly and phone service is still a telco-monopoly as cable companies only have 15% of the market, and competition using the wireline networks is down 60% since 2004. In fact, every state is now having major price increases, 80% in New Jersey, for example. Prices shouldn't rise if there is true competition.

Between voip and wireless there is more phone competition than ever.

This guy is simply not honest in his simple argument, so I doubt any of his arguments are honest.