Is it the end of "net neutrality" ?

D

davidjinfla

CAGiversary!
I saw a brief mention on the "feed" on G4 saying it was dead and that the FCC was going to give IP the right to govern the download speeds. Has anyone else heard of this and does it matter to you?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']No and no. I don't illegally download music and movies.[/quote]

This directly effects "gaming." You may have heard of it. You know, one of the top uses of bandwidth. If companies decide to limit bandwidth, online gaming (both console and PC, mind you) will suffer. A lot.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']No and no. I don't illegally download music and movies.[/quote]But if you legally download music and movies, you're fucked.

Goodbye "Digital Distribution replacing retail" if this really happens. Nice to see yet another industry buying its ways into the pockets of the government (the cable companies).

The Death of Net Neutrality: It's COMCASTic!
 
/Fail to all

Gaming packets look different than music and movie packets.

Wait ... I'm sure somebody will point out encryption.

So ... your legally downloaded music and movies will have different source IPs than your bit torrents.

Yes, Netflix and the Itunes stores do not operate on residential IP addresses.

Come on, folks, tell me how the cable company is going to screw your legit business while going after piracy. I'm sure it'll be enlightening.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']/Fail to all

Gaming packets look different than music and movie packets.

Wait ... I'm sure somebody will point out encryption.

So ... your legally downloaded music and movies will have different source IPs than your bit torrents.

Yes, Netflix and the Itunes stores do not operate on residential IP addresses.

Come on, folks, tell me how the cable company is going to screw your legit business while going after piracy. I'm sure it'll be enlightening.[/quote]

net-neutrality-as-cable-company.jpg
 
You don't see a problem with the end of net neutrality?

In the overall scope, Comcast doing traffic shaping on BitTorrent streams is very small. Look at the overall picture and you see an ISP controlling what you are allowed to get on their network regardless of whether or not you are paying.

It won't stop at trying to curb illegal downloads. That's just their sensical justification for their behavior right now. Soon they'll try and justify why they're blocking other material, regardless of legality. If ISPs get full control over the internet, it'll be a pretty crappy place. Material they don't want you to see will be blocked and eventually companies would buy "airtime" from the ISPs so you'd be flooded with ads and their competitors would be minimalized. You really wanna see Google own the internet? End net neutrality and you have a good chance of them practically doing just that.
 
[quote name='camoor']
net-neutrality-as-cable-company.jpg
[/quote]

Now, this is different.

Am I reading this ad right?

The number of websites you can access depends on how much you pay?
 
I don't see where this would do anything but make the richest websites have the best exposure and accessibility (as they'll be able to pay the ISPs). The internet is the best opportunity to actually have a level playing field and this will just fuck it up.

That's barely even a slippery slope, it's how things are outside of the internet, so why would it be any different on the internet?
 
Are the pro neutral folks arguing that the browsing experience will be similar to AOL (highly sheltered)?

In order for that to happen, wouldn't the consumer have to become less familiar with the Internet?

I just don't see people paying a premium to access only a handful of websites when there is plenty of competition for a full experience.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I like the internet the way it is.[/quote]

The government, old media, and ISPs certainly don't. That the internet is so open and accessible is a f'ing miracle as far as I'm concerned. Just don't let them take it away.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Now, this is different.

Am I reading this ad right?

The number of websites you can access depends on how much you pay?[/quote]

Exactly. ISPs, like music industry execs, have been sold on bad sci-fi when it comes to how the internet of the future should work.

If you keep thinking that net neutrality is just about a bunch of illegal file-sharing, there's a good chance this advertisement will show up in your mailbox one day.
 
Camoor totally understands and the first statement of SpazZ in his latest comment sums it up. These assholes want to try and shut the Internet down, make it closed like it is with TV and radio, giving us limited access. I don't WANT it almost closed, the preference of speed being given to the elite's while sites like Cheapy's and other's are mandated to a crawl.
Have fun trying to order import's of anything from sites as well. Caitlyn you usually seem like a sharp guy. It amazes me you could be so dense about this.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Are the pro neutral folks arguing that the browsing experience will be similar to AOL (highly sheltered)?

In order for that to happen, wouldn't the consumer have to become less familiar with the Internet?

I just don't see people paying a premium to access only a handful of websites when there is plenty of competition for a full experience.[/quote]

I don't see people paying for phone service and text messages.

Text messages are just the sending of small data packets over the wireless network - the transfer of a typical text is much less data then a phone conversation. So why should we have to pay extra for texts once we are paying for phone service? Why can't they just convert the text charge into how much data it uses (half a minute or a minute's conversation worth - I really don't know the detailed math here)

Yet we do - up your plan or pay 10 cents per message. Ridiculous charges relative to the data involved.
 
Before the discussion gets too far along, I work for an ISP's tech support.

So, my opinion is skewed.

EDIT: Now that I'm at home. I can write without my employer possibly throwing a fit.

Bandwidth speed is already determined by how much you pay. Producers / Businesses pay for the upload. Consumers / the typical users pay for the download.

The biggest concern I'm reading is access. I think it is an overblown concern.

Let's pretend an ISP blocks a website because it didn't pay the ISP enough.

What happens when a customer of that ISP tries accessing that website?

The customer calls somebody like me and starts bitching. If I give that customer some bullshit excuse like the website didn't bribe the ISP enough, that customer is going to throw a fit, cancel service and tell an average of 9 people about the ISP's shitty service. The first ISP just lost 10 customers to a second ISP willing to grant them access (nevermind speed) to a website.

Believe it or not, my superiors want customers to call in LESS, not more.

Start blocking access to "poor" websites, the ISP might as well file bankruptcy.
 
Ah, the old "the market will fix/regulate" itself argument.

Just like it did with home loans, gas mileage, and corporate governance right?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Before the discussion gets too far along, I work for an ISP's tech support.

So, my opinion is skewed.

EDIT: Now that I'm at home. I can write without my employer possibly throwing a fit.

Bandwidth speed is already determined by how much you pay. Producers / Businesses pay for the upload. Consumers / the typical users pay for the download.

The biggest concern I'm reading is access. I think it is an overblown concern.

Let's pretend an ISP blocks a website because it didn't pay the ISP enough.

What happens when a customer of that ISP tries accessing that website?

The customer calls somebody like me and starts bitching. If I give that customer some bullshit excuse like the website didn't bribe the ISP enough, that customer is going to throw a fit, cancel service and tell an average of 9 people about the ISP's shitty service. The first ISP just lost 10 customers to a second ISP willing to grant them access (nevermind speed) to a website.

Believe it or not, my superiors want customers to call in LESS, not more.

Start blocking access to "poor" websites, the ISP might as well file bankruptcy.[/quote]

You seem like a reasonable guy, and I'm sure the people you work with are mostly reasonable people as well.

However IMO it's a mistake to mix up the worker's knowledge of the business and sense of responsibility to the customer with the moves that the CEO or Execs will make to boost short-term profits and please Wall Street (while lining their pockets, of course).

It's an empire of collusion up there at the top with CEOs doling out business to memebers on the board of directors in return for fat bonus payouts and golden parachute provisions.

If all of the cable companies agree to throttle traffic as they see fit, I'm sure the execs will be making so much money that a few complaints from the geeks smart enough to see which sites are getting preferential treatment will fall on deaf ears.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Now, this is different.

Am I reading this ad right?

The number of websites you can access depends on how much you pay?[/quote]

How is this any different than what I said? Don't wanna be a jerk but do you need pretty pictures to understand?

Everyone gets it but you. Sorry if you work for an ISP but if you worked for Dunkin Donuts and they made donuts out of animal shit, would you be sympathetic to that too?

I'm usually not "you're wrong, we're right" as that's very arrogant but in this instance, camoor is pretty much spelling it out cut and dry. If ISPs get enough leeway to control what they want and do not want on their services, soon businesses will form partnerships to use this as an advantage. CEOs from businesses win, customers lose. America 101.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Ah, the old "the market will fix/regulate" itself argument.

Just like it did with home loans, gas mileage, and corporate governance right?[/quote]

The market will fix and regulate itself if there are enough choices.

I do agree with camoor in principle.

IF all of the ISPs collude to throttle traffic to certain websites, there is a possibility of those access fears coming to fruition. Currently, most ISPs are trying to take customers away from other ISPs. It is becoming a zero sum game instead of a growing pie. Cablecos are breaking into telphone. Telecos are breaking into TV. To have this access fear to occur, there needs to be a new service that will cause a huge influx of customers so that ISPs aren't stepping on each other's toes to obtain market share OR several mergers so that customers' choices are limited to 1 ISP in their area.

Also, neutral areas such as level3.net (run a tracert to yahoo) have to get on board.
 
[quote name='davo1224']Don't wanna be a jerk but do you need pretty pictures to understand?

[/quote]

You understand that the picture is a fake, right?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The market will fix and regulate itself if there are enough choices.

I do agree with camoor in principle.

IF all of the ISPs collude to throttle traffic to certain websites, there is a possibility of those access fears coming to fruition. Currently, most ISPs are trying to take customers away from other ISPs. It is becoming a zero sum game instead of a growing pie. Cablecos are breaking into telphone. Telecos are breaking into TV. To have this access fear to occur, there needs to be a new service that will cause a huge influx of customers so that ISPs aren't stepping on each other's toes to obtain market share OR several mergers so that customers' choices are limited to 1 ISP in their area.

Also, neutral areas such as level3.net (run a tracert to yahoo) have to get on board.[/quote]

It's scary we have to rely on the goodwill of ISP CEOs because there are already powerful bought-and-paid-for congressmen on the floor.

I'd like to yeild the floor to the Distinguished "Gentleman" from Alaska, Ted Stevens for elaboration:

There's one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home and you change your order but you pay for that, right.
But this service isn't going to go through the interent and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free.
Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?
I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?
Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.
So you want to talk about the consumer? Let's talk about you and me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren't using it for commercial purposes.
We aren't earning anything by going on that internet. Now I'm not saying you have to or you want to discrimnate against those people [...]
The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in the sense that it says "No one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the internet". No, I'm not finished. I want people to understand my position, I'm not going to take a lot of time. [?]
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.
It's a series of tubes.
And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you know that?
Do you know why?
Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately. They can't afford getting delayed by other people.
[...]
Now I think these people are arguing whether they should be able to dump all that stuff on the internet ought to consider if they should develop a system themselves.
Maybe there is a place for a commercial net but it's not using what consumers use every day.
It's not using the messaging service that is essential to small businesses, to our operation of families.
The whole concept is that we should not go into this until someone shows that there is something that has been done that really is a viloation of net neutraility that hits you and me.
Click to expand...

So there. Now anyone want to post an 'internet' and refute me? ;)
 
^Was Stevens drunk when he spoke this?

EDIT: I'm not saying restricting access isn't possible, but the backlash from the general public that WILL happen makes it infeasible.

You would have to tell people up front how limited the service is or your tech support will be buried with complaints and disconnects. Since the service would be limited, you would have to drop the price dramatically. Then, you get around the complaints and disconnects, but you lose money when something physically breaks and a technician has to make repairs.

I just don't see it working in the current competitive environment.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']^Was Stevens drunk when he spoke this?
[/quote]

I know - "series of tubes" got the Daily Show/Youtube/techno remix treatment, but I just think the entire speech is chock full of hilarity.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']EDIT: I'm not saying restricting access isn't possible, but the backlash from the general public that WILL happen makes it infeasible.

You would have to tell people up front how limited the service is or your tech support will be buried with complaints and disconnects. Since the service would be limited, you would have to drop the price dramatically. Then, you get around the complaints and disconnects, but you lose money when something physically breaks and a technician has to make repairs.

I just don't see it working in the current competitive environment.[/quote]

I actually would be inclined to agree that major changes are not likely in the competitive environment of the near future. However I think it's instructive to look at the music industry as an example - the first early 20th century recorded music companies producing player pianos were not nearly as unified, politically saavy (some would say "inclined to give bribes") or aggressive (some would say ruthless) as today's collusive Big Four music labels and their legal attack dog, the RIAA.

And the issue of net neutrality is destined to be so much more important then the business of recorded music.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You understand that the picture is a fake, right?[/quote]

No I actually bought it hook, line, and sinker :roll:
 
FCC: Comcast Violated Rules

WASHINGTON—The head of the Federal Communications Commission said Thursday he will recommend that the nation's largest cable company be punished for violating agency principles that guarantee customers open access to the Internet.

The potentially precedent-setting move stems from a complaint against Comcast Corp. that the company had blocked Internet traffic among users of a certain type of "file sharing" software that allows them to exchange large amounts of data.

"The commission has adopted a set of principles that protects consumers access to the Internet," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told The Associated Press late Thursday. "We found that Comcast's actions in this instance violated our principles."

Martin said Comcast has "arbitrarily" blocked Internet access, regardless of the level of traffic, and failed to disclose to consumers that it was doing so.

Company spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice on Thursday denied that Comcast blocks Internet content or services and that the "carefully limited measures that Comcast takes to manage traffic on its broadband network are a reasonable part" of the company's strategy to ensure all customers receive quality service.

Martin will circulate an order recommending enforcement action against the company on Friday among his fellow commissioners, who will vote on the measure at an open meeting on Aug. 1.

The action was in response to a complaint filed by Free Press and Public Knowledge, nonprofit groups that advocate for "network neutrality," the idea that all Internet content should be treated equally.

Martin's order would require Comcast to stop its practice of blocking; provide details to the commission on the extent and manner in which the practice has been used; and to disclose to consumers details on future plans for managing its network going forward.

The FCC approved a policy statement in September 2005 that outlined a set of principles meant to ensure that broadband networks are "widely deployed, open, affordable and accessible to all consumers."

The principles, however, are "subject to reasonable network management."

Comcast argues that the agency's policy statement is not enforceable and that the commission has "never before provided any guidance on what it means by 'reasonable network management.'"

If a majority of commissioners side with Martin, it will be the first test of the agency's network neutrality principles. Members of both the House and Senate have sponsored network neutrality bills, but they have never come close to becoming law.

Large Internet service providers have fought against such regulation, arguing that it is a solution in search of a problem and that companies that spend billions on their networks must be free to manage traffic.

Ben Scott, federal policy chief for Free Press said Thursday night the FCC's action may have consequences for other Internet providers going forward.

"This is going to be a bellwether," he said.

Martin, a Republican, will likely get support from the two Democrats on the commission, who are both proponents of the network neutrality concept. Those three votes would be enough for a majority on the five-member commission.
Click to expand...

:whee:
 
Man I hate comcasst. I am a customer. But where I live, it's that or shitty dsl.

I just called them yesterday actually and made them give me another 6 months at half price. Apparently you can do it indefinitely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top