If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   The hope of Net Neutrality took a major blow on Tuesday as 95 of the candidates that pledged support for it lost in the elections   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 233
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

1309 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Nov 2010 at 10:56 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



233 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-11-06 11:58:33 AM
bulldg4life: I want to know why tier 1 companies aren't raising holy hell about this. They've got a pretty sweet little racket going on and the public, at large, has no freaking idea they even exist as part of how "the internet" works.

Disclaimer: I have a very dim conception of how the tier 1 networks interact.

I think they stand to gain. At some point those companies need to peer with each other. Suppose I send a packet out through Comcast, who gets their service from Qwest, but then gets routed through to Level3, down to some ISP, and then to my website. If net neutrality is struck down and the other ISP is able to charge me for transit, what's to prevent Level3 from charging Comcast?

I think the tier 1 networks probably stand to gain the most from this because there's essentially no one above them who can then turn around and screw them for more money, assuming that their peering agreements survive net neutrality.
 
2010-11-06 11:58:54 AM
Shaggy_C: So let's recap, taking 4 examples:

1) Google blocks users from Comcast from accessing their sites


Google's content, their choice. However interrupts their business model that is predicated on people accessing their site.

2) Google offers a tiered system which delivers content to Verizon faster than to other ISPs because Verizon pay a fee


Google's content, their choice. However interrupts their business model that is predicated on people accessing their site, even if they receive additional revenue from Verizon. Verizon isnt their customer, they are distribution of their product to their customers.


3) The network administrator at the local university blocks users from accessing Google's sites entirely

Universities provide Internet to enrich the classroom experience. Students are paying for educational services, not Internet access.

4) Comcast offers a tiered system which delivers Google data faster to their customers because Google pays a fee

Consumers are paying for Internet access but are no longer able to dictate terms of service when distribution points and content providers collude.
 
2010-11-06 12:00:03 PM
scseth: Shaggy_C: Fox basically blocked any Cablevision user from accessing any of their websites, including Hulu. Do you see that as a gross violation of net neutrality?

As I understand the issue Fox blocked Cablevision users from Fox TV content via Hulu during a contract dispute when Cablevision was blocking Fox TV content on cable TV. This was purely about TV content.

What Fox and Hulu agree to about displaying content is purely up to them. I dont see this as anything to do with net neutrality.


As an affected Cablevision subscriber I can say that this is accurate. There was, however, a period early on in the blackout during which Cablevision subscribers could not access any Fox sites (i.e. fox.com, foxnews.com) at all. Fox fixed it pretty fast.
 
2010-11-06 12:00:16 PM
ExperianScaresCthulhu: I don't know anything about Net Neutrality.

But, John Paul Jones pointed out the wrong-headed assumptions in the guy's first argument.

Then, he pointed out that his continuing argument wasn't even a net neutrality issue.

If you want to learn about net neutrality, go read about net neutrality somewhere else.

Don't assume that the guy with the cool sounding argument is right if 15 people are telling him he is wrong just because the libs are telling him he is wrong.
 
2010-11-06 12:02:32 PM
scseth: Consumers are paying for Internet access but are no longer able to dictate terms of service when distribution points and content providers collude.

How does this not apply in exactly the same way to points #1 and #2? To the end consumer, they are getting the exact same end result. Is the fact that there could be a direct cost on the consumer to have better access the big sticking point, while the indirect and hidden cost of the IP paying for better access to a particular content provider is acceptable?
 
2010-11-06 12:05:42 PM
Shaggy_C: scseth: These are not net neutrality issues.

So let's recap, taking 4 examples:

1) Google blocks users from Comcast from accessing their sites

2) Google offers a tiered system which delivers content to Verizon faster than to other ISPs because Verizon pay a fee

3) The network administrator at the local university blocks users from accessing Google's sites entirely

4) Comcast offers a tiered system which delivers Google data faster to their customers because Google pays a fee

In all cases, the end consumer is going to have issues with getting to content. Either it is slowed down or blocked entirely. But the only place that this is an issue causing such alarm is in case #4. Why?


1, 2 - Content providers often have far faaar less power than ISPs in dictating terms. Google would be absolutely shooting itself in the foot with these methods, as it would have to provide substandard service to it's customers, and would absolutely lose business because of it. The fact is a consumer usually has just 1 ISP at a time, but can access multiple contents - if you didn't like google, you could just use Bing or whatever very easily, you don't have to change your ISP to do so, which is both expensive and difficult. Still, if if turns out in some bizzaro way to be a problem, then look at it then.

3 - the End Consumer is the university, it can do what it wants when providing access to it's students. It's like you can get the 'net, then block some of it from your kids or friends if you choose.

4 - the biggest problem, especially when there is an ISP monopoly or Duopoly in an area.
 
2010-11-06 12:07:11 PM
Fubini: I think they stand to gain. At some point those companies need to peer with each other. Suppose I send a packet out through Comcast, who gets their service from Qwest, but then gets routed through to Level3, down to some ISP, and then to my website. If net neutrality is struck down and the other ISP is able to charge me for transit, what's to prevent Level3 from charging Comcast?

I think the tier 1 networks probably stand to gain the most from this because there's essentially no one above them who can then turn around and screw them for more money, assuming that their peering agreements survive net neutrality.


That's just it...Their peering agreements would have to survive net neutrality.

If Comcast starts blocking access or throttling service for a website that is contracted with a different ISP (and that ISP is on a different tier 1), then there is a massive gray area where Comcast is infringing on L3's or Qwest's deals with their customers.

I can't imagine L3 or Qwest or GBLX or whatever being happy if Comcast starts dicking around with the customers of an ISP that uses their services.
 
2010-11-06 12:10:32 PM
Shaggy_C: bulldg4life: For $29.99 and cable, you shouldn't have to pay extra for various connections based on content, on your end.

So what is your opinion of a subscription-based service like Total Fark? Isn't that paying extra for additional content?


ok, analogy time. I'm gonna stand in front of the community park and charge you 5 bucks a month so your kids can use the swingset.

seem fair?

the issue is that ISPs will charge extra for arbitrary things that they have no right to charge for. merely because they are popular.
 
2010-11-06 12:12:44 PM
The idea that a decent sizeable chunk of people are against net neutrality boggles the mind. (Then one realizes they're 90% conservatives/Republicans/Foxites).

To me, net neutrality a litmus-test issue.

If you're against it, you're either uninformed, misinformed, purposely ignorant of the situation, agree with whatever Fox/Republicans say, or some combination of the four.

I've yet to hear a single decent argument against net neutrality and, in my experience, if you explain it to people they're for it too, unless they're irrevocably on the Fox/Limbaugh/Stevenson/Tea Party bus.

The regulation itself should be written in plain english as concisely as possible so that those who DO wish to understand it can do so with talking heads getting between them and the truth.

Anybody got a draft copy of any net neutrality proposal?
 
2010-11-06 12:13:00 PM
Shaggy_C: How does this not apply in exactly the same way to points #1 and #2? To the end consumer, they are getting the exact same end result. Is the fact that there could be a direct cost on the consumer to have better access the big sticking point, while the indirect and hidden cost of the IP paying for better access to a particular content provider is acceptable?

In option 1 and 2, the content provider decided to share content with only a portion if Internet users. Thats the providers discretion, i.e. Fark has the right to share differing content with paying customers and non-paying customers.

In option 4, the distributor decided to block content the content provider wanted to share. i.e. Comcast blocks Fark until Drew pays Comcast a fee.

I see those as fundamentally different.
 
2010-11-06 12:17:22 PM
scseth: In option 1 and 2, the content provider decided to share content with only a portion if Internet users. Thats the providers discretion, i.e. Fark has the right to share differing content with paying customers and non-paying customers.

Under Net Neutrality, anyone can access Fark and make the decision for themselves whether to pay or not.

Under #1, if you are a Comcast subscriber, you are now fubared if you want to access Google. You probably have little to no choice in the matter, depending on the providers in your area.

Under #2, if you are a Verizon subscriber and you use an alternative search engine, you now get to pay for extra service you don't need, want, or use. You probably have little to no choice in the matter, depending on the providers in your area.

Which of these 3 offers the most choice to consumers?
 
2010-11-06 12:20:04 PM
Shaggy_C: scseth: Consumers are paying for Internet access but are no longer able to dictate terms of service when distribution points and content providers collude.

How does this not apply in exactly the same way to points #1 and #2? To the end consumer, they are getting the exact same end result. Is the fact that there could be a direct cost on the consumer to have better access the big sticking point, while the indirect and hidden cost of the IP paying for better access to a particular content provider is acceptable?


Net neutrality isn't about forcing Drew to give everyone TotalFark memberships. Are you really that daft?
 
2010-11-06 12:20:13 PM
jbuist: Show us your Marx: How come?

/serious question

Because there are perfectly legitimate reasons to change the priority of network traffic based on the contents or route of it. The simple fact that we're not already seeing this, when the technology has existed for years, is a source of amazement for me. I'm of the opinion, based on what I've heard from other techs, is that ISPs aren't doing it right now because they're lazy.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to pay an extra $5 to have my VoIP traffic to Vonage given a higher priority on my cable company's network? Or maybe a small premium to get better service to XBOX Live? I do all of these things on my home network and think it'd be great if that high priority would be carried along the chain. Hell, give me a discount if I agree that non-standard (ie: BitTorrent) traffic can take low priority.

Likewise why shouldn't content distributors be able to pay more for better priority? If the tubes get clogged up, and Google's reserved the #1 priority spot, well, they still get the traffic that can fit through. Everybody else gets backlogged until the pipe clears.

Or, in the event of some kind of disaster, where network services are severely interrupted should the ISPs be able to change priority in the fly? What happens when there's another 9/11 type event and everybody's mashing refresh to see what's on CNN? Or streaming video coverage of the events? Should the ISP not be allowed to shut down BitTorrent traffic to help clear things up for what they deem to be the most likely important service to the majority of their customers? Why not throttle back video services at a time like that to make sure there's still room for basic communication like email, IM, and VoIP?


You miss it. The response to anything that shows how NN is bad is always responded dto with "That's not what Net neutrality is."

NN folks always have the belief that NN will be the ultimate in free speech. In reality, it just makes the Govt the overseer and regulator of IP traffice. Regardless of it's intentions Govt is run by people that are influenced by lobbies. Where NN has been implemented, regulations have been imposed to favor lobbying companies. Even here, we see Google and Verizon and TimeWarner all carving out their exemptions and desires. This won't stop and will only get worse.

For whatever reason, NN folks think that NN will be beyond the reach of this influence and they are sadly mistaken.

Right now, you have choices. If you don't like the particular routing decisions or service levels, you can take your business elsewhere as it is reasonably competitive. A NN future will eliminate that. In order to vote with your wallet on ISP issues, you will need to contribute to a lobbying group.

There's nothing technically wrong with NN. In an infinite bandwidth world, it would be great. But that's not the case. Just like electricity never became "too cheap to meter" Net Neutrality will never be what it's visionaries want.
 
2010-11-06 12:20:13 PM
qorkfiend: Which of these 3 offers the most choice to consumers?

Is this addressed to me or Shaggy? Whats with all the choices and options today? I havent even had my first cup of coffee ;)
 
2010-11-06 12:20:15 PM
What is the definition of "net-neutrality" this week?

/much like the word "freedom" that opensource advocates use - it appears to have different definitions depending on who and when you ask
 
2010-11-06 12:20:22 PM
maddermaxx: 4 - the biggest problem, especially when there is an ISP monopoly or Duopoly in an area.

This is the big area where I am in agreement. The state-sponsored monopolies on cable mean that those operators should be bound by local government rules regarding net neutrality. After all, they would not have rights to the lines if not for the government giving them the right to install them.

But other IPs - satellite, dial-up, cell networks? There isn't exactly the same kind of monopoly control.
 
2010-11-06 12:22:14 PM
I'm not really sure one way or the other on the subject. As with most things, you can find so many different claims. Total freedom is not always good, yet government regulation is not always good. I'm sure I'll biatch about something no matter which way it goes. ;)
 
2010-11-06 12:23:27 PM
Shaggy_C: heinekenftw: For 29.99, you get cable for ALL websites equally.

Assuming, of course, that the source website you are looking at has the same server speed, same internet connection, and is located in a geographically similar place. There is a reason that Fark loads quickly while Michael Blount's Geocities page takes a good 30-40 seconds.


well duh.

my ISP has little to no control over that. But what they do have control over, they distribute equally.
 
2010-11-06 12:23:39 PM
scseth: In option 1 and 2, the content provider decided to share content with only a portion if Internet users. Thats the providers discretion, i.e. Fark has the right to share differing content with paying customers and non-paying customers.

In option 4, the distributor decided to block content the content provider wanted to share. i.e. Comcast blocks Fark until Drew pays Comcast a fee.

I see those as fundamentally different.


In both cases, the end user is stuck paying extra money to access content that would otherwise be free. They have no individual control over this whatsoever. I guess maybe there is a difference from a philosophical perspective but in all practicality the end consumer is getting screwed the same way. And this idea that content is an exchangeable commodity is just silly.
 
2010-11-06 12:24:50 PM
i42.photobucket.com

And can't wait for ISPs to start letting corporations pay them so that us little people can't ever even see information that makes them look bad or might hurt their interests.

Want freedom of speech? Build your own internet, farking commies.
 
2010-11-06 12:25:20 PM
Chimperror2:
You miss it. The response to anything that shows how NN is bad is always responded dto with "That's not what Net neutrality is."


You're a tool. How dare someone expect you to argue on the actual grounds of what NN is rather what you perceive it to be.
 
2010-11-06 12:27:50 PM
Shaggy_C: In both cases, the end user is stuck paying extra money to access content that would otherwise be free. They have no individual control over this whatsoever. I guess maybe there is a difference from a philosophical perspective but in all practicality the end consumer is getting screwed the same way. And this idea that content is an exchangeable commodity is just silly.

Of course, the main difference being whether the content provider or the service provider should control access.

But, sure, it is silly distinction.
 
2010-11-06 12:29:32 PM
Shaggy_C: In both cases, the end user is stuck paying extra money to access content that would otherwise be free. They have no individual control over this whatsoever. I guess maybe there is a difference from a philosophical perspective but in all practicality the end consumer is getting screwed the same way. And this idea that content is an exchangeable commodity is just silly.

Currently, I pay for content to the content owner when necessary (i.e. TF) and I pay for access to that content to Internet providers.

While you think they are the same in result, it changes the model if I must pay Internet providers for content.

Ironically, its liberals fighting to keep the status quo... isnt that a conservative ideology? ;)
 
2010-11-06 12:30:46 PM

FCC Outlines Its Net Neutrality Proposal

The first of the new principles would prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management. The second would ensure that Internet access providers are transparent about the network management practices they implement.

The other four are:

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
 
2010-11-06 12:31:33 PM
If consumers want a Neutral Net, they will purchase from companies which offer it. Customers deserve to have the right to choose a less open network in order to get faster, better, and more reliable service of the portion of the net they actually care about. Liberals shouldn't force that choice upon everyone, not every household needs to be forced to receive Slashdot and Reddit comments at the same priority as their bank statements.
 
2010-11-06 12:33:48 PM
Lost Thought 00: If consumers want a Neutral Net, they will purchase from companies which offer it. Customers deserve to have the right to choose a less open network in order to get faster, better, and more reliable service of the portion of the net they actually care about. Liberals shouldn't force that choice upon everyone, not every household needs to be forced to receive Slashdot and Reddit comments at the same priority as their bank statements.

*quizzical dog.jpg*
 
2010-11-06 12:34:08 PM
I bet the RIAA is against this Net Neutrality thing. Imagine how much power it would give them to keep people from trading films and movies and other things. I bet anything that had a .mp3 or a .avi would be blocked automatically. They're already asking the ISP's to turn people in for trading. It all kind of makes sense now.
 
2010-11-06 12:36:23 PM
bulldg4life: Of course, the main difference being whether the content provider or the service provider should control access.

So in the case where a content provider will only offer access to ISPs that will pay them a fee for it...the decision falls on the ISP whether or not to pay for that content. Does that not give them de facto control?
 
2010-11-06 12:36:29 PM
This world is going farking insane.

It used to be that the willfully, dangerously ignorant were laughed at and kept out of anything resembling power. Seriously. I remember this to be true. Nixon wasn't ignorant. Reagan didn't willfully refuse to "believe" science (I put believe in quotes because science just is, it's not something to believe in or disbelieve in) and actively crusade against it. Birchers weren't allowed to win elected office. Newsmen like Murrow and Cronkite called people on their shiat rather than just reporting it as, "Senator Joe Blow is here saying net neutrality hurts freedom. Tell us how awful net neutrality is, Senator, and I won't contradict you with silly facts."

Even the 90s weren't like this. Newt Gingrich doomed his own career and Republican chances in 1996 by listening to the evangelicals and the willfully ignorant.

It wasn't until the past ten years or so of my lifetime that these proud no-nothings, these self-righteously flag-waving, idol-worshipping sons of biatches were allowed to gain power, their voices given equal weight to the voices of reason, science, and logic.

What the fark happened? You know what, troglodyte assholes?

I want my country back. When I was a kid, science was respected. Education was respected. Twatwaffles who bleated idiotic conspiracy theories were laughed out of the debate. Today we farking welcome the rusty tampon-mongerers and lie down with these filthy dogs, and we have the verminous fleas to show for it.

Meh. I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK, YOU WILLFULLY IGNORANT ASSWIPES.
 
2010-11-06 12:36:37 PM
Fubini: I think the tier 1 networks probably stand to gain the most from this because there's essentially no one above them who can then turn around and screw them for more money, assuming that their peering agreements survive net neutrality.

Now that I look at the list of opponents, it seems you have the right idea.

I guess I just figured the current setup and agreements would be more important. But, perhaps working together to screw customers large and small is much better.
 
2010-11-06 12:37:45 PM
China or Iran doesn't have network neutrality either. Why do you libs think you need it?
 
2010-11-06 12:37:45 PM
Lost Thought 00: If consumers want a Neutral Net, they will purchase from companies which offer it. Customers deserve to have the right to choose a less open network in order to get faster, better, and more reliable service of the portion of the net they actually care about. Liberals shouldn't force that choice upon everyone, not every household needs to be forced to receive Slashdot and Reddit comments at the same priority as their bank statements.

Because there exists a huge selection of choices for internet access? And each one was created with out any government assistance what soever?

amirite?
 
2010-11-06 12:39:13 PM
jbuist: Show us your Marx: How come?

/serious question

Because there are perfectly legitimate reasons to change the priority of network traffic based on the contents or route of it. The simple fact that we're not already seeing this, when the technology has existed for years, is a source of amazement for me. I'm of the opinion, based on what I've heard from other techs, is that ISPs aren't doing it right now because they're lazy.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to pay an extra $5 to have my VoIP traffic to Vonage given a higher priority on my cable company's network? Or maybe a small premium to get better service to XBOX Live? I do all of these things on my home network and think it'd be great if that high priority would be carried along the chain. Hell, give me a discount if I agree that non-standard (ie: BitTorrent) traffic can take low priority.

Likewise why shouldn't content distributors be able to pay more for better priority? If the tubes get clogged up, and Google's reserved the #1 priority spot, well, they still get the traffic that can fit through. Everybody else gets backlogged until the pipe clears.

Or, in the event of some kind of disaster, where network services are severely interrupted should the ISPs be able to change priority in the fly? What happens when there's another 9/11 type event and everybody's mashing refresh to see what's on CNN? Or streaming video coverage of the events? Should the ISP not be allowed to shut down BitTorrent traffic to help clear things up for what they deem to be the most likely important service to the majority of their customers? Why not throttle back video services at a time like that to make sure there's still room for basic communication like email, IM, and VoIP?


I had responses to this, but just the fact that you are so ignorant about the political uses of media, the way people organize priorities (you can ALWAYS make a message look "low priority" and block it, and there are examples all over US history before the web), and your idiotic assumptions about how households can budget their money...rant...rant...jesusfarkingfark you're dumb. Just. Plain. Farking. Dumb. And screw your assinine ISP knowledge. No ISP or network admin should be in this discussion if they have no evidence to back up their understanding of the history of free speech or democratic process, which your raving comments manage to piss all over. This kind of crap makes me SO ENRAGED. And that, of course, is why you win. :(
 
2010-11-06 12:41:20 PM
Lost Thought 00: If consumers want a Neutral Net, they will purchase from companies which offer it. Customers deserve to have the right to choose a less open network in order to get faster, better, and more reliable service of the portion of the net they actually care about. Liberals shouldn't force that choice upon everyone, not every household needs to be forced to receive Slashdot and Reddit comments at the same priority as their bank statements.



8/10. Needs more typos.
 
2010-11-06 12:41:57 PM
Shaggy_C: scseth: These are not net neutrality issues.

So let's recap, taking 4 examples:

1) Google blocks users from Comcast from accessing their sites

2) Google offers a tiered system which delivers content to Verizon faster than to other ISPs because Verizon pay a fee

3) The network administrator at the local university blocks users from accessing Google's sites entirely

4) Comcast offers a tiered system which delivers Google data faster to their customers because Google pays a fee

In all cases, the end consumer is going to have issues with getting to content. Either it is slowed down or blocked entirely. But the only place that this is an issue causing such alarm is in case #4. Why?


1) This one would not happen. Why? Google wants all users to have access to it's services it's how ad revenue is generated.

2) An intra-corparate deal. Except Verizon will charge it's end users extra for that.

3) Internet censorship and easy to circumvent I might add.

4) It's because the tiered system that is being considered allows JOECORP* an ISP to charge end users a fee for something that is now free. Lets explain it this way. Google pays for internet use just like any other web entity. You pay for internet access just like any other end user. Now JOECORP* wants to charge Google to let you have access to Google. Right now Google does not charge you any fee's for access but in order to make up the loss for having to pay JOECORP's* fee they have to start charging for the services they provide to you that were once free. OR they have to hike their charges for their ad clients.

But what happens if the company that is being charged a fee to let you see their content is not as big as Google and cannot make up the revenue loss by passing it off in a different manner. They are going to want to charge YOU an access fee to make up for the fact that they have to pay your both your ISP and their ISP just to let you see their content. What winds up happening is the death of independent free internet content because the ISP's would wind up choking it off. It's corporate censorship on a massive scale.


* JOECORP is a fictional ISP I made up just for this.
 
2010-11-06 12:42:12 PM
China gives a pretty good example of what the internet is like without Net Neutrality.

Google works (technically), but fails randomly a lot of the time, while Baidu (Chinese Google, essentially) always works.

YouTube is blocked completely, while Youku (Chinese YouTube) works fine.

Facebook is blocked completely, while renren (Chinese Facebook) works fine.

So basically, people who are against Net Neutrality want to give corporations the power to block their competitors and make internet in America more like what internet in China is like now?

太棒了
 
2010-11-06 12:45:52 PM
Government: We will legislate monopolies to cable companies.
Government: We will legislate net neutrality to fix the problem we created by legislating monopolies.
Government: We will legislate exceptions to net neutrality to fix any problems created by legislating net neutrality to fix problems with legislating monopolies.
This is why we hated "conservatives" dislike net neutrality. We see where it is going. Is net neutrality guarenteed to go this way? No, but we don't even want the risk. We saw what happened the the banking system. This is why All legislation needs sunset clauses. Monopolies met a necessasity when they were created. That necessity may not exist anymore, but some areas are stuck with the monopolies. Dealing with companies that limit content or charge more than people want to pay for access is a different issue.
 
2010-11-06 12:48:35 PM
xtrc8u: Government: We will legislate monopolies to cable companies.
Government: We will legislate net neutrality to fix the problem we created by legislating monopolies.
Government: We will legislate exceptions to net neutrality to fix any problems created by legislating net neutrality to fix problems with legislating monopolies.
This is why we hated "conservatives" dislike net neutrality. We see where it is going. Is net neutrality guarenteed to go this way? No, but we don't even want the risk. We saw what happened the the banking system. This is why All legislation needs sunset clauses. Monopolies met a necessasity when they were created. That necessity may not exist anymore, but some areas are stuck with the monopolies. Dealing with companies that limit content or charge more than people want to pay for access is a different issue.


Lol good one, I thought you were serious until you said "We saw what happened the the banking system." Then I knew you were just trolling.

pretty good one there.
 
2010-11-06 12:49:49 PM
Lumi: What the fark happened? You know what, troglodyte assholes?

What happened is we let the news be subject to the same ratings that other tv shows are subject to, and thus it became more sensationalist.

Capitalism killed the news by making each one sensationalist to out do the other. And communism would only make the news a propaganda piece for the state. So what do we do to bring back Murrow and Cronkite? For that, I have no answer.
 
2010-11-06 12:50:55 PM
andino: China gives a pretty good example of what the internet is like without Net Neutrality.

Google works (technically), but fails randomly a lot of the time, while Baidu (Chinese Google, essentially) always works.

YouTube is blocked completely, while Youku (Chinese YouTube) works fine.

Facebook is blocked completely, while renren (Chinese Facebook) works fine.

So basically, people who are against Net Neutrality want to give corporations the power to block their competitors and make internet in America more like what internet in China is like now?

太棒了


May as well, those same people have already outsourced most of our labor to China.
 
2010-11-06 12:51:09 PM
The whole tiered cable packages analogy is certainly a consequence of striking down net neutrality, but I don't know that it's really a good analogy. After thinking a bit, I think this might be a more straightforward analogy to the debate.

Remember back in the day when everyone had a landline phone? You subscribed to your local telephone company, and as long as you didn't need to go outside of your local area code (first three digits) you got free service to everyone within your same area code.

Think of your area code as your Internet Service Provider. In our case, let's say Bell Communications. If you pay Bell and your grandma pays Bell, then both of you are in Bell's local network. You can make as many calls too and from your grandma as you want, because both of you pay the same business for access. In essence, there is only one middle man.

Now, suppose you want to call your friend in the next town over. Your friend doesn't have the same area code as you, because they get their telephone service from a second company, let's say ATT. Now, ATT has a local network and Bell has a local network. You have no arrangement with ATT so you can't make calls on their network and your friend has no arrangement with Bell, so they can't make calls on your network. There is no way for you and your friend to communicate.

But then, the companies come to the rescue and start offering a long-distance plan. If you want to call your friend Bell says that they'll offer a higher-priced service which allows you to make calls out to ATT's network. Essentially, you call Bell, who in turn calls ATT for you, and then ATT calls your friend on Bell's behalf. The end result is a point-to-point communication between you and your friend, having to pass over both of Bell's network and ATT's network.

Now, here's where the net neutrality analogy comes in. You get your general telephone access from Bell, and in return you are promised free access to everyone on Bell's network. However, you the consumer do not have an explicit business agreement with ATT. You only have a somewhat tangential relationship with ATT in the sense that you do business with Bell, and Bell does business with ATT. ATT does do business with your friend, but that ought to be inconsequential.

However, ATT decides that it's not inconsequential. In fact, ATT decides that your friend is so popular that they are going to charge a premium to anyone else who wants to call your friend from outside their network. Now, not only will it cost more for you to call your friend, but in fact anyone trying to call your friend will be charged more by ATT. There are two very important things to note about this situation: first is that ATT has no business relationship with you, so in order to call your friend you are going to have to call ATT and set up some kind of premium arrangement between Bell and ATT so you can access your friend. Next month in the mail you'll get both a bill from your telephone company and ATT. Second is that ATT has done absolutely nothing to make your friend so popular, they just charge a premium for anyone trying to get to him. They also have no obligation to turn around and give any of this new cash to your friend. They are in essence just realizing that they control access to a valuable commodity, and charge you more for it. They are not involved with the creation or promotion of the content they offer in any way shape or form.

But then again, what are you going to do? Bell is the only telephone company in your town, so you can switch. Moreover, even if you could switch your telephone company that doesn't fix the issue with ATT. So long as your friend gets phone service from ATT the entire world will be beholden to the gatekeeper for access to him.

The key point here is that net neutrality is not about a faster connection or more bandwidth. Suppose Bell telephone company installed new video telephone lines and everyone in town got a video phone. Bell had to invest money in new infrastructure to enable a nicer service, and it's 100% a-ok to charge more for better service. No one is disputing that, and it's not at all what net neutrality is about. The problem I see with the story above is that ATT was able to charge a premium to people it didn't even have a business relationship with simply because they had the dumb fortune to have a popular person subscribing through their local business area. ATT did not add any value whatsoever to the communication between you and your friend, they merely charged more because they recognized that they were a gatekeeper to your friend, and if you (or anyone else) wanted to talk to him then they had to go to ATT first.

This all sounds bad enough, but it's hardly the worst case scenario. Remember grandma? She's getting upset because you hardly ever call anymore, and she suspects that you're spending all your time on the phone with your friends instead of her. Thus, she takes your entire inheritance and essentially bribes ATT to not allow anyone from Bell to call your friend anymore. She just so happens to have that much money and at the end of the day ATT is corporation beholden to its shareholders, so they are going to take the option which garners them the most money. Note here that if we didn't have net neutrality then these people would be doing nothing illegal- your friend's contract with ATT is all about making calls, it doesn't say anything about receiving calls. Your friend can call out, but for some reason no one calls him anymore. ATT has no obligation to let him know that they're blocking traffic from Bell's network to him just because some third party decided to pay a lot of money.

At this point just remember that even if you and your friend don't like the situation, there is a very good chance statistically that you only have access to one phone provider.

The whole point of net neutrality is that endpoint providers (internet service providers) are supposed to treat all of their customers equally and all of their traffic equally. This is not the vision that the corporations have for you or the internet, they want to squeeze every last cent of potential value they can from the services they provide, even though they don't do any of the content creation and they are certainly not obligated to share any of the wealth with the website owners who make the internet a valuable and engaging place. They really just want to exploit the fact that people run websites off of their networks, and that gives them a monopoly over access to that website. If Drew's ISP suddenly decided that they wanted more money for you to access Fark they are under no obligation to turn around and kick part of that to Drew for the work and expense of maintaining it.

And again, if you don't like this, or the ideas, or the basic principle of screw them all I got mine. Well your just straight out of luck. Even if you're one of the lucky Americans who actually has a choice in who provides your internet it does not matter. Your service provider does not stand to gain from charging people for access to you, Joe consumer. It will be the myriad of other service providers who decide they want a piece of your pie and demand that you pay them for your favorite content like Google, Hulu, Amazon, and yes, even Fark.
 
2010-11-06 12:51:11 PM
Government: We will legislate monopolies on Wireless Frequencies
Government: We will legislate to fix the problems caused by legislating monopolies on wireless frequencies.

Oh you silly stupid government. If only they had left it open to the free market, everything would be roses.


Right?
 
2010-11-06 12:53:46 PM
If you are for Net Neutrality, the solution is simple.

Flood the internet with stories that liberal media corporations plan to block or slow all access to Foxnews.com, Hotair, and every other right wing site out there because they don't like the message those sites are sending out.

It'll become common knowledge among conservatives that the left wing is really AGAINST net neutrality and they are tricking the right wing into opposing it.

/When dealing with the conspiracy minded, it's best to present them with a conspiracy they can battle against.
 
2010-11-06 12:56:29 PM
sluck604: Chimperror2:
You miss it. The response to anything that shows how NN is bad is always responded dto with "That's not what Net neutrality is."


You're a tool. How dare someone expect you to argue on the actual grounds of what NN is rather what you perceive it to be.


I know what it is. I argue what it is. The response of imbeciles is always "that's not what is." Since to those imbeciles, NN is actually a unicorn that has special powers conceived in their imagination, it's hard to argue with their perception. In their own mind, NN is magical, mythical creature that morphs itself into perfection at every turn.

That's not reality though,
 
2010-11-06 12:57:25 PM
whitman00: If you are for Net Neutrality, the solution is simple.

Flood the internet with stories that liberal media corporations plan to block or slow all access to Foxnews.com, Hotair, and every other right wing site out there because they don't like the message those sites are sending out.

It'll become common knowledge among conservatives that the left wing is really AGAINST net neutrality and they are tricking the right wing into opposing it.

/When dealing with the conspiracy minded, it's best to present them with a conspiracy they can battle against.


This is ingenious. It would probably work, too.
 
2010-11-06 12:58:18 PM
My mom believes that net neutrality is Obama's new law that says every right-wing website must be balanced with a left-wing website. It's the fairness doctrine for the internet.

I really wish I was kidding.
 
2010-11-06 01:00:43 PM
AngryTeacher: My mom believes that net neutrality is Obama's new law that says every right-wing website must be balanced with a left-wing website. It's the fairness doctrine for the internet.

I really wish I was kidding.


Did you correct her?
 
2010-11-06 01:02:41 PM
ongbok: sweetmelissa31: Republicans have mostly been opposed to Net Neutrality, and the Tea Party even formed a coalition against it back in August, arguing that it hurts freedom.

I love when people are opposed to something they know nothing about.

So their motto is "Don't Tread on Me" but they support corporate regulation that will guarantee censorship of the last bastion of free speech. So I guess if it treads on you and not them it's ok.

The people in this country need to get their heads out of their asses and realize what they are trying to put into power.


the boogeyman is the government censorship and spy, they conveniently leave out corporate censorship and information gathering. At the moment the censorship is blocked by net neutrality, but corporations are even bigger on sharing private information... yay privacy!

/notice how movies make the government the bad censorship/regulation or internet spy, the corporations that run the internet infrastructure, or information gather (facebook, google) are ignored even though they can do it just as well...

//corporations are soon if not already going to be even more a "person" than people are, more freedoms, more power, more influence, and government laws to control the people and stifle competition.
 
2010-11-06 01:03:48 PM
Why shouldn't I be allowed to pay Danegeld to have my shipping traffic to Wales given a higher priority? (it won't get hijacked) Or maybe a small premium to get better service for my cattle and crops? (they won't get stolen or burned) I do all of these things in my home village and think it'd be great if that high priority would be carried along the chain. Hell, give me a discount if I agree that non-standard (ie: my nagging biatch of a wife) traffic can take low priority. (you can kidnap her if you really want to... don't say you weren't warned)
 
2010-11-06 01:03:49 PM
Shaggy_C: bulldg4life: Of course, the main difference being whether the content provider or the service provider should control access.

So in the case where a content provider will only offer access to ISPs that will pay them a fee for it...the decision falls on the ISP whether or not to pay for that content. Does that not give them de facto control?


No, because there are far more options for content providers, and it is far easier to access alternative content. Not to mention that the content providers are only hurting themselves if they refuse access to their product.

For instance, if Awesome-Mart said "you can only buy from us if you turn up to our store in a "Bob's" taxi cab, but you can't buy from us if you're in a "Pete's" taxi cab... they'd be a pretty frikkin stupid store. Whatever kickbacks they get from Bob's, they'll still destroy their brand, and force more consumers to the store next door. Meanwhile, if a taxi picked you up, started rolling, asked where you want to go, and you said that new Awesome-mart, only to get the reply "oooh, right, well that'll cost you double"... hmm... well, can I get out of it? "oooh, nope, getting out fees will cost you a bucket, and then you'll have to wait around and spend a lot of time and effort to find a new cab too". Worse yet, is if they're the only Cab company in town of course.

Basically, if you can go to any store/content freely, then it would be counter-productive to itself to dictate terms to it's customers, unless it really had an unreproducable and essential service that it could block. As there isn't anywhere on the web that isn't expendable (Lose google? Bing/Yahoo/Whatever. Lose Youtube? lots of other flash video sites and platforms these days. Ect.) content providers only harm their own brand by denying access. Now, it's not the case the other way around, as there isn't true competition, and people are locked into their ISPs a lot of the time. ISPs can dictate things in ways that most content providers just can't.

Finally, look at the little guys, the start-ups, the non-mainstream stuff. If all the big content providers just paid the toll to the ISPs to deliver their services faster, then the start-ups have far less chance of getting a look in, unless you can pay those bribes as well. It's like a guy standing outside your shop, not letting any customers in until you've paid your access fee. Can't afford the fee? poor you. It really damages the freedom of the web if only the big money makers can get full access to a customer base, let alone the other way around.
 
Displayed 50 of 233 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report