We're screwed. Court rules against net neutrality.

[JTsyo]

It says right on the patent:
Inventors: Gonzalez; Noel (Oviedo, FL), Hartman; Daniel J. (Orlando, FL), Rouse; William G. (Haure De Grace, MD), Malecki; Raymond J. (Perry Hall, MD), Morgan; Paul W. (Altamonte Springs, FL)

You are simply personifying the government, ascribing ideas to something other than the mind.

Some of those guys are probably government employees. Just like 3M gets a patent when one of it's employees invents something, so does the US government. IANL, but I'm sure if the US wanted to use this patent they wouldn't need permission from those listed as inventors. I'm not sure what being the assignee entails.

 

[CycloWizard]

Some of those guys are probably government employees. Just like 3M gets a patent when one of it's employees invents something, so does the US government. IANL, but I'm sure if the US wanted to use this patent they wouldn't need permission from those listed as inventors. I'm not sure what being the assignee entails.

You really don't get it? Really? People invent things. The assignee has legal standing to enforce the patent.

 

[dmcowen674]

Currently consumers in the USA are getting screwed yet again by corporations with deep pockets.

Yes and will be fun watching the Republicans that back these Corporations whining even more when they get their favorite access to the Internet cut off by their buds.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Yes and will be fun watching the Republicans that back these Corporations whining even more when they get their favorite access to the Internet cut off by their buds.

If Republicans could cut off your internet connection permanently, I'd consider voting for them. You know, like you voted for Bush?

 

[DanDaManJC]

This is my opinion of odd:

1.) Comcast will be within their right to limit my VOIP service in order to push their own digital voice package that is more expensive.
2.) This expands the monopoly known as the massive cable companies. I have one choice in broadband, Comcast. It's not like if they start limiting services, I can just jump to the next cable company. I don't have access to DSL, I have 0 other feasible choices.
3.) Comcast can now limit my access to movie streaming and TV streaming sites to push for me to pay for more expensive cable packages. They can limit my bandwith to Netflix movies which in turn makes it look like shit so that I instead pay for it on their services.

Do I believe Comcast will do some of these things? Damn right they will. Just give them the time to implement the hardware to do so. I could completely see them becoming the new Great Firewall. Do I hate Comcast? Damn right I do. They limit the services they offer to cut their costs until a competitor moves in proximity and threatens to offer services, then MAGICALLY their internet speed doubles. Hmmm wonder why that happened? Magical isn't it.

I would agree with people saying Comcast is free to do what they want, except for the fact that they have already been allowed to lock in a Monopoly in A LOT of regional areas.

Exactly this.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

 

[sactoking]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/03/technology/net_neutrality_election/index.htm

All 95 Senators and Representatives who backed net neutrality lost last night. Looks like net neutrality is officially dead. Long live discriminatory internet access.

 

[Craig234]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/03/technology/net_neutrality_election/index.htm

All 95 Senators and Representatives who backed net neutrality lost last night. Looks like net neutrality is officially dead. Long live discriminatory internet access.

All 95 who supported net neutrality lost??? That's unbelievable - Politogenocide.

all of the 95 candidates that said they would support Net neutrality on the left-leaning Progressive Change Campaign Committee's website were Democrats

Thank you, 'Republican wave', for threatening our most important public media system.

The sad thing is, so many on the right could care less about net neutrality - they don't miss the 'independent' information they have no use for.

I suspect more right-wingers in this forum might take issue with this, though, as they are better informed on the net and get more benefit from net neutrality.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Can someone explain exactly what it means to give all traffic equal attention? Does this mean IRC traffic and torrents would get as much attention as streaming movies? It seems like some types of traffic, like streaming, should have more bandwidth by default.

 

[Genx87]

Yeah life has been just awful on the internet without net neutrality! Talk about a bunch of baselsss fear mongering.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Yeah life has been just awful on the internet without net neutrality! Talk about a bunch of baselsss fear mongering.

Umm, net neutrality has basically been the status quo until now.

 

[spidey07]

Yeah life has been just awful on the internet without net neutrality! Talk about a bunch of baselsss fear mongering.

Treating all traffic as best effort would be terrible for the internet, especially for voice and video.

It is a TERRIBLE idea and it's only supporters are those that don't understand how networking or the internet work. Nothing but baseless "but, but, what if!" that never happens because the FCC won't allow it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Can someone explain exactly what it means to give all traffic equal attention? Does this mean IRC traffic and torrents would get as much attention as streaming movies? It seems like some types of traffic, like streaming, should have more bandwidth by default.

I agree, the problem is consumers will be paying for what type of service they want. "Oh, you only want to surf? try this out for $xx." "Oh, you want to stream movies also? that will be 2*$xx." Sorry, no lube available..

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

There is a distinction between allowing internet wide standards that would allow the prioritization of voice, video, etc. as a whole and allowing ISP's to boost/throttle/charge extra for specific content at their own descretion. Net neutrality is an attempt to legislate on the latter instead of leaving such a thing to the whim of the FCC and courts.

 

[sactoking]

Can someone explain exactly what it means to give all traffic equal attention? Does this mean IRC traffic and torrents would get as much attention as streaming movies? It seems like some types of traffic, like streaming, should have more bandwidth by default.

Yes, net neutrality means that service providers cannot discriminate against legal content- all of it must be provided the same access and transmission. While I can empathize with your desire to give certain "good" types of content (Netflix streaming) priority over "bad" types of content (bittorrent) the problem is that a lack of neutrality permits service providers to throttle anything and everything they choose.

The typical statement is that it would lead to a tiered internet. Google, Yahoo!, and MSN might be Tier 1 sites included in basic internet service. If you want to go to Facebook, you pay $5 per month more. If you want to use Twitter, that's an additional $2.50. If you want to connect to battle.net or COD servers, that's $10 per month.

The other (less talked about) possibility is that service providers (who are content providers in many instances) just shut off access to anything they don't own or have an agreement with. Time Warner customers couldn't access anything owned by or licensed to Cablevision. Charter customers can't access sites owned by Comcast affiliates, etc.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

The other (less talked about) possibility is that service providers (who are content providers in many instances) just shut off access to anything they don't own or have an agreement with. Time Warner customers couldn't access anything owned by or licensed to Cablevision. Charter customers can't access sites owned by Comcast affiliates, etc.

This actually happened with Hulu during the Cablevision/Fox dispute:
http://technologyexpert.blogspot.com/2010/10/fox-content-on-hulu-blocked-as.html

 

[her209]

Can someone explain exactly what it means to give all traffic equal attention? Does this mean IRC traffic and torrents would get as much attention as streaming movies? It seems like some types of traffic, like streaming, should have more bandwidth by default.

See my sig.

 

[spidey07]

Yes, net neutrality means that service providers cannot discriminate against legal content- all of it must be provided the same access and transmission. While I can empathize with your desire to give certain "good" types of content (Netflix streaming) priority over "bad" types of content (bittorrent) the problem is that a lack of neutrality permits service providers to throttle anything and everything they choose.

The typical statement is that it would lead to a tiered internet. Google, Yahoo!, and MSN might be Tier 1 sites included in basic internet service. If you want to go to Facebook, you pay $5 per month more. If you want to use Twitter, that's an additional $2.50. If you want to connect to battle.net or COD servers, that's $10 per month.

The other (less talked about) possibility is that service providers (who are content providers in many instances) just shut off access to anything they don't own or have an agreement with. Time Warner customers couldn't access anything owned by or licensed to Cablevision. Charter customers can't access sites owned by Comcast affiliates, etc.

This is EXACTLY the fear mongering that I'm talking about. None of that has happened, none of it is going to happen. The FCC wouldn't allow such behavior. It's just not going to happen. It isn't in a providers best interest to even do what you're proposing. They don't care where you go, they just care about their infrastructure and providing the best service possible for the price.

Net Neutrality is about killing the performance of the internet by mandating all traffic be treated as best effort. That's what it boils down to.

Ask ANY person that works in networking if this is a good idea. Andybody that actually builds and architects service provider networks. Unanimously they will say it's a terrible idea because of the performance consequences and added cost it would bring. We don't appose it because of the politics, we oppose it because it's a bad idea for technology and The Internet.

 

[ElFenix]

This actually happened with Hulu during the Cablevision/Fox dispute:
http://technologyexpert.blogspot.com/2010/10/fox-content-on-hulu-blocked-as.html

in this case it was not quite the same as the doom scenarios: hulu was forced by fox to block cablevision subscribers

 

[piasabird]

So what is net neutrality? Communism or what? If you build your own backbone it belongs to you if leas a line from a backbone company, then that line is yours because you paid for it. If you want speed, pay for it!

If you go to some online site that has video and they start blocking, then go to youtube and watch it there then go back to the site and then tell them what you just did, just to let they know there are alternatives.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

in this case it was not quite the same as the doom scenarios: hulu was forced by fox to block cablevision subscribers

If content providers/owners can pick and choose content owners/providers, it's still the same end result.

 

[blackangst1]

This is EXACTLY the fear mongering that I'm talking about. None of that has happened, none of it is going to happen. The FCC wouldn't allow such behavior. It's just not going to happen. It isn't in a providers best interest to even do what you're proposing. They don't care where you go, they just care about their infrastructure and providing the best service possible for the price.

Net Neutrality is about killing the performance of the internet by mandating all traffic be treated as best effort. That's what it boils down to.

Ask ANY person that works in networking if this is a good idea. Andybody that actually builds and architects service provider networks. Unanimously they will say it's a terrible idea because of the performance consequences and added cost it would bring. We don't appose it because of the politics, we oppose it because it's a bad idea for technology and The Internet.

Pretty much this.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Oh, My God......gotta love my Cappuccino and Crumpets while reading Anands site.
Way too many` crybabies who have no freaking clue!!

wawawawawaaaaaa....too mant children on these forums who should be in school!!

 

[sactoking]

This is EXACTLY the fear mongering that I'm talking about. None of that has happened, none of it is going to happen. The FCC wouldn't allow such behavior. It's just not going to happen. It isn't in a providers best interest to even do what you're proposing. They don't care where you go, they just care about their infrastructure and providing the best service possible for the price.

Net Neutrality is about killing the performance of the internet by mandating all traffic be treated as best effort. That's what it boils down to.

Ask ANY person that works in networking if this is a good idea. Andybody that actually builds and architects service provider networks. Unanimously they will say it's a terrible idea because of the performance consequences and added cost it would bring. We don't appose it because of the politics, we oppose it because it's a bad idea for technology and The Internet.

See: Cable and satellite TV.

 

[nyker96]

This is a conundrum for Libertarians:

Freedom of info flow vs freedom of business practices.