The open internet ends today!

[sactoking]

Here's a question: Does this net neutrality rule, or any contemplated by anyone to this point, consider traffic discrimination by content providers as opposed to IPSs? Specifically I'm thinking of sites like Hulu, which discriminate against browser, or ESPN3, which are only available to customers of certain ISPs.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Yes, exactly. Imagine my surprise when I heard they were going to pass a net neutrality law. And it was exactly the opposite?

White is Black
Right is Wrong
Down is Up

I read another thread titled "Breaking: FCC Adopts Net Neutrality" and I said to myself, "Good! I can't believe it!"

But apparently it's just government double speak. I knew it was too good to be true.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

First things they need to clean it up! :biggrin:

• Abolish all porn forever! I'm fine with an internet ban only which leaves the mags/smut videos intact. Make ALL porn the same as child porn. Get caught with it, go to jail.

If we can't access Internet pr0n then why have an Internet at all? Half of all Internet traffic is probably Internet pr0n. Besides, what's wrong with watching naked chicks with big bazongers on the Internet?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Says the woman who was talking about banging a deer in another thread...

(!!!) Men aren't endowed enough? Link please.

 

[Phokus]

If all this is doing is codifying the FCCs policy statement then it certainly is very good news if it passes. Still allows "reasonable network management" to offer top notch service to all customers and allow the advancement of the Internet.

This is a win for all internet users. You should be happy if this passes.

What part of this is bad?

If spidey is for this, then we, as internet users, are fucked big time.

 

[Phokus]

I have one simple rule. If you are for it, its bad for internet customers like me.

Whoops, looks like techs beat me to this comment.

What should we name this, the 'spidey07 rule'?

The 'spidey07 theorem'?

 

[Martin]

The providers get to decide. Afterall we spent the money to build the network and we ARE going to do what is necessary to provide top quality service to all our customers. The providers are the ones that get to decide what is reasonable, as well they should be. It's their network, they paid for it and they have millions of customers to take care of for a next generation Internet experience.

You make decent money doing consulting for the big guys, no? Of course you'd be all over something that benefits you and your employers. Unfortunately, entrepreneurs that actually create new products and their customers will be fucked over so you can get yours.

Netflix streaming launched in Canada a few months ago. On the day they launched, the local cable monopoly Rogers announced that they're decreasing bandwidth caps down to 80gb/month with very pricey penalties. Why? Well, these new breed of services compete with Rogers' shitty cable and VOD service, so if Rogers makes it too expensive to use these new services, people will have to settle for VOD from their shitty boxes or DVDs from their shitty stores. And in your world, this is somehow good for the consumer.

The details might differ, but it's the same sad story everywhere - large telcos want to be both pipe and content provider, so it's in their best interest keep consumers from products/services they want, make it hard for startups to offer great services and/or content, all the while hawking their own terrible, overpriced crap. With new services and products like Netflix, Boxee and GoogleTV just starting to be available and popular, this fight is only beginning, and you motherfuckers will eventually lose, it's just that you'll be holding everyone back for years while you lose.

 

[Phokus]

You make decent money doing consulting for the big guys, no? Of course you'd be all over something that benefits you and your employers. Unfortunately, entrepreneurs that actually create new products and their customers will be fucked over so you can get yours.

Netflix streaming launched in Canada a few months ago. On the day they launched, the local cable monopoly Rogers announced that they're decreasing bandwidth caps down to 80gb/month with very pricey penalties. Why? Well, these new breed of services compete with Rogers' shitty cable and VOD service, so if Rogers makes it too expensive to use these new services, people will have to settle for VOD from their shitty boxes or DVDs from their shitty stores. And in your world, this is somehow good for the consumer.

Hah, that's so blatant, kind of like what Time Warner tried to do, but with a 40 Gig cap. Of course Spidey cheered for that. It amazes me that conservatives on this board actually back spidey and the cable companies who try to fuck the consumer up, as if they aren't affected by this somehow.

 

[Phokus]

Also, a reminder that spidey sided with Comcast over their disagreement with level 3 over netflix and spidey agreed that the disagreement was over a peering agreement? How the hell is spidey a network engineer?

 

[Martin]

Nationalize all ISPs and backbones, it is the only way to ensure free public access to the internet for citizens, since it is our right to be online. We can pay for it by increasing the taxes on the wealthiest of Americans.

Also, once the backbones and ISPs are fully under the control of the people, and not greedy corporations, not only can we ensure net neutrality, but we can also decrease child pornography using special filtering technology once the we (the people) control access to all information.

The people "own" water pipes, roads, electricity grids and many other forms of infrastructure. The telcos have proven to be quite inept at serving people's needs, so if a politician came out in support of public internet infrastructure, I'd certainly support him. Why? A decade ago I first got high-speed internet - 1.5mbps DSL service with no caps. In 2010, I have 3mbps service with a 200gb cap or I could get 10mbps service with a 80gb cap. Internet service seems to be the only technology that gets WORSE over time.

I drink tap water, I drive on public roads, I walk in public parks and use the public grid. All of those are far, far better than dealing with ISPs

 

[Martin]

Hah, that's so blatant, kind of like what Time Warner tried to do, but with a 40 Gig cap. Of course Spidey cheered for that. It amazes me that conservatives on this board actually back spidey and the cable companies who try to fuck the consumer up, as if they aren't affected by this somehow.

They're corporatist whores. I mean, expecting them to fuck over consumers at every opportunity should come as no surprise, but in this case they're really show off their big business colours. If you read what people in the startup and tech communities say (people that actually create new jobs and wealth), they're all for Net Neutrality because they know innovation will suffer when big entrenched companies are allowed to stand in the middle and milk both consumers and startups for all they can.

 

[mb]

The providers get to decide. Afterall we spent the money to build the network and we ARE going to do what is necessary to provide top quality service to all our customers. The providers are the ones that get to decide what is reasonable, as well they should be. It's their network, they paid for it and they have millions of customers to take care of for a next generation Internet experience.

That's nice, except that Comcast hasn't done ANYTHING, EVER to provide "top quality service" to ANY of its customers. In the few markets where people actually have a choice of cable/internet providers they have done the minimal to stay competitive so they don't lose too many customers, but certainly nothing that could qualify as "top quality."

Comcast wants nothing more than to restrict everyone's internet access so they don't have to pay another penny to expand their network. Cap this, block that, slow everything unless you pay $$$$/mo. Pure greed. I'd be surprised if they've spent any significant amount of money on upgrades in the last few years.

 

[spidey07]

Also, a reminder that spidey sided with Comcast over their disagreement with level 3 over netflix and spidey agreed that the disagreement was over a peering agreement? How the hell is spidey a network engineer?

Don't insult me, I tell the engineers what to do. I'm a architect/strategy guy.

 

[spidey07]

That's nice, except that Comcast hasn't done ANYTHING, EVER to provide "top quality service" to ANY of its customers. In the few markets where people actually have a choice of cable/internet providers they have done the minimal to stay competitive so they don't lose too many customers, but certainly nothing that could qualify as "top quality."

Comcast wants nothing more than to restrict everyone's internet access so they don't have to pay another penny to expand their network. Cap this, block that, slow everything unless you pay $$$$/mo. Pure greed. I'd be surprised if they've spent any significant amount of money on upgrades in the last few years.

The largest docsis 3.0 rollout and rapid upgrades isn't enough for ya, is it?

Go google how much that cost Comcast. Haven't spent any significant money on upgrades my ass, you have NO IDEA the kind of upgrades they've done. It's massive, it's comcastic.

 

[boomerang]

spidey, I think they're just mad that their internet isn't free. After all, the rich can certainly afford to pay for it.

 

[zhangjohn]

Several month ago, someone told me Jews are thinking about how to make money
from the internet traficc , he said someday we'll pay for the information we get from
the internet. I thought that's inpossible. How can they make this reality? But
today, when I read this thread, I think this's possbile.

Some one is absolutely clever, they can make money from Carbon emissions exchange,now they want to make money from internet traficc.


I must declare I'm a Chinese, I am not a racist or anti-semitic. In fact most Chinese
admire Jews.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Makes racist comment while stating he's not racist.

Uhg man. You really had to come into this discussion with that?

Spidey, did Comcast perform these upgrades in prime markets where there was actually competing service providers threatening to erode their customer base or in the many markets where they have "franchise licenses" insuring they are the only broadband choice to their customer base?

Comcast is a corporation and in turn is legally obligated to find ways to generate a profit. This doesn't mean we need our government handing them those profit potentials on a silver platter like they did today.

As the rules appear to be worded, I see a new model of broadband pricing model. You'll basically be guaranteed dial up speeds and allowed actual broadband speeds in accessing sites you subscribe to or that pay for "priority." Basically they've opened the gate for a subscription model for websites like what's available for TV today. Of course you'll be required to subscribe to 200 websites you could care less about to gain useful access to the one you actually want.

This, should it stand up to legal challenges, is the FCC legitimizing the crappy cable subscription model while in effect insuring that you won't be the next Mark Zuckerberg unless you have a corporate backer. This, IMO, is the day the internet died.

 

[jackace]

You make decent money doing consulting for the big guys, no? Of course you'd be all over something that benefits you and your employers. Unfortunately, entrepreneurs that actually create new products and their customers will be fucked over so you can get yours.

Netflix streaming launched in Canada a few months ago. On the day they launched, the local cable monopoly Rogers announced that they're decreasing bandwidth caps down to 80gb/month with very pricey penalties. Why? Well, these new breed of services compete with Rogers' shitty cable and VOD service, so if Rogers makes it too expensive to use these new services, people will have to settle for VOD from their shitty boxes or DVDs from their shitty stores. And in your world, this is somehow good for the consumer.

The details might differ, but it's the same sad story everywhere - large telcos want to be both pipe and content provider, so it's in their best interest keep consumers from products/services they want, make it hard for startups to offer great services and/or content, all the while hawking their own terrible, overpriced crap. With new services and products like Netflix, Boxee and GoogleTV just starting to be available and popular, this fight is only beginning, and you motherfuckers will eventually lose, it's just that you'll be holding everyone back for years while you lose.

This is exactly why this is so bad. On top of this manipulation the providers will be giving priority to the big companies that pay them for that priority. Basically internet is going to become like cable TV, and that crap is so bad I haven't paid for it in over 10 years.

 

[Phokus]

The largest docsis 3.0 rollout and rapid upgrades isn't enough for ya, is it?

Go google how much that cost Comcast. Haven't spent any significant money on upgrades my ass, you have NO IDEA the kind of upgrades they've done. It's massive, it's comcastic

LOL you're such a corporate whore, it's unbelievable. I have optimum online in connecticut and we have NO CAPS and we can get 100 mb/s cable. I highly doubt CT is a profitable area for them. Comcast has 250 Gig caps, nowhere near as fast internet, and they actively try to fuck content providers like Netflix. You're unbelievable.

 

[Phokus]

Why the fuck do we even have corporate monopolies at all if we aren't going to regulate them? There are some towns in this country that have municipal fiber to the home and they don't have to deal with comcast/time warner/corporate fuckery bs.

 

[hal2kilo]

If spidey is for this, then we, as internet users, are fucked big time.

That was my general consensus.

 

[cubby1223]

LOL you're such a corporate whore, it's unbelievable. I have optimum online in connecticut and we have NO CAPS and we can get 100 mb/s cable. I highly doubt CT is a profitable area for them. Comcast has 250 Gig caps, nowhere near as fast internet, and they actively try to fuck content providers like Netflix. You're unbelievable.

You are a very disturbed individual with a lot of inner-rage/hate, you know that, don't you? Congratulations for living near New York City, you don't suppose that has any affect on speed & costs, do you? Of course not!

Work up the cost of extending 100mb/s ISP services out to Supai, Arizona, divided by the number of people living there. Or Jarbidge, NV.

 

[Phokus]

You are a very disturbed individual with a lot of inner-rage/hate, you know that, don't you? Congratulations for living near New York City, you don't suppose that has any affect on speed, do you? Of course not!

Optimum Online (owned by cablevision) is a very small player and has 1/5th the revenue of Comcast and loses money while Comcast makes money... and they only serve part of NYC (I believe comcast serves the majority of it) Comcast, being a much bigger company is able to leverage their fixed costs more than Cablevision, yet their service is terrible compared to cablevision. Comcast is the epitome of corporate greed.

 

[pcgeek11]

Anybody over the age of 50 should not be allowed to vote for anything regarding restricting anything related to the internet.

Why not?

If it wasn't for all of us people over the age of 50 you wouldn't even have an Internet to watch/get your porn?

Change " airdata " to " airhead ".

 

[boomerang]

http://reason.tv/video/show/real-net-neutrality-keeping-th