[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I’d like to get opinions on this subject. I’m not 100% concrete on exactly what I think although I have a pretty fair idea…but my hope is to get opinions from people who are intelligent and perhaps one or two that work in the industry.
I see it as a non-issue. The principle which Obama laid out sounds like a good one on the surface, but the question is, is it really a problem? Certainly the threat of bandwidth control seems like a threat to the neutrality of the internet, but the question is, is it really a problem?
I don’t think it is based on the sheer magnitude of the internet itself and it’s participants.
Say Comcast wanted to dedicate the lion’s share of it’s band width to favored corporate sites. This would certainly piss me off as a consumer, but does the government have the solution? I don’t think so. Even with regulation, there are enough ways of bundling information packets that even under a regulated situation it would be easy to find loop holes, where they could still accomplish this goal and circumvent the regulations. So, the only solution from a governing situation would be tantamount to micromanaging how information is delivered and the effect would be the opposite, the ‘little guy’ would then be forced to deal with so much government red tape that it would make it difficult for smaller organizations to compete with well resourced larger outfits.
Unlike utilities, where there are limited sources from which a consumer can draw from, information providers in the internet are exponentially more numerous, so there are literally thousands of ways around artificially imposed bandwidth limitations.
Further, a company, such as a Comcast, should they piss people off with bandwidth favoritism, would create many opportunities for others to step in and offer solutions with no such limitations and cost a Comcast to lose customers, in droves. The only way ISP’s could prevent such a workaround would be to cooperate in this bandwidth discrimination with other ISP’s, but that wouldn’t be mutually beneficial across the board.
Bottom line I think there are to many ways around the issue for it to be an issue. They may try it, but it could cost them dearly to do so.
My thinking is to wait and see if this is really going to be a problem on any kind of large scale. I am weary of ceding control of the internet to government regulation. I feel that they would be a bigger threat to the free flow of information, than some ISP trying to get greedy with their bandwidth. The problem is, once you let the government in, you cannot get them out. All we would need is some sedition act and the freedom of information flow on the internet is done.
I say let the market forces do their own natural work. If then there is a private sector conspiracy, then we can let the government in, once other options are exhausted.
I am for net neutrality, but I think the problem would largely take care of itself. IF you let the government jump in to preempt such a thing, you may end up causing the very problem you were hoping to prevent.
I say lets keep the government out of it for now. If they have to step in, so be it.
I would rather end up there, than start there. That’s what I think.
I’ve read through this thread over several days, so I am not sure if this has been explicitly called out. Essentially the argument on the table is whether we want the internet to remain the same - the way it has been since its inception - or if we want to allow ISPs to exert more control over its content. This is an issue since the courts, in January, threw out the provisions of the federal law stating that all internet traffic needs to be treated equally. (This law was very loosely written in 2002, I think, where it classified broadband as an “information service”).
Whether you believe broadband service should be reclassified under Title II (like utilities) or the law simply needs to be rewritten is really the crux of the matter. I personally think just “letting it ride” puts way too much power into the hands of the ISPs who provide not only internet access (the infrastructure of the internet) but also content.
This is a great blog post that explains the need for solid net neutrality rules. It is very long and those that are well versed in economics would likely want to skip the first few pages, but it is definitely worth reading:
But I’m not Beans. Yes, of course, you prioritize the people that pay you the most, but your clients agree to pay you more free of coercion. From what I understand ISPs will force companies to pay more and if they don’t the ISPs will intentionally slow down their services.
That’s not the same thing.
Again, offer a fast lane for a fee and I’m totally cool. Force companies to pay the fee or have their speed throttled, not cool.
[/quote]
This is not how it is currently working. Read the link posted above (the streamingmedia link that hmm87 posted: “how the deal is really structured with data”) and you’ll see why–Netflix paid a company named Cogent to interface with Comcast and deliver their packet data. Inside this written contract are guarantees on data rate delivery, charge rate, bandwidth, as well as a step-up program for expansion of the network with increased traffic year to year.
Cogent didn’t deliver what it contractually agreed to. Comcast and Netflix entered into another agreement after Netflix said “goodbye” to Cogent, and THAT is why Comcast is getting money from them–they are now agreeing to provide the services on the “backend” that Cogent failed to supply. There’s no double dipping going on from a business perspective with this as far as I can see. These sorts of deals are widespread, very competitive, and change often. You just don’t see it on the front end as the consumer.
Cogent has a history of screwing things up btw. Netflix isn’t the only one do ditch them.
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
I’ve read through this thread over several days, so I am not sure if this has been explicitly called out. Essentially the argument on the table is whether we want the internet to remain the same - the way it has been since its inception - or if we want to allow ISPs to exert more control over its content. This is an issue since the courts, in January, threw out the provisions of the federal law stating that all internet traffic needs to be treated equally. (This law was very loosely written in 2002, I think, where it classified broadband as an “information service”).
Whether you believe broadband service should be reclassified under Title II (like utilities) or the law simply needs to be rewritten is really the crux of the matter. I personally think just “letting it ride” puts way too much power into the hands of the ISPs who provide not only internet access (the infrastructure of the internet) but also content.
This is a great blog post that explains the need for solid net neutrality rules. It is very long and those that are well versed in economics would likely want to skip the first few pages, but it is definitely worth reading:
[/quote]
Thank you for posting this. It articulated my feelings very well:
“This practice is not only new; until this year, it was also considered illegal. One of the basic design principles of the World Wide Web (according to its inventor, Sir Tim Berners-Lee) is the idea that network owners may charge individuals to access their networks, and may charge them for data use, but, once individuals are on the network, the network must treat all data equally. Comcast cannot decide to delay your download of a YouTube video in order to make more room on the network for your neighbor to download the same video from Comcast.com; you both paid equally for network access for the same amount of data, so the network must treat your data equally. Without this principle, much of the internet breaks down. It stops being an open network facilitated by service providers â?? who merely connect you to whatever data you want, anywhere on the network â?? but becomes a closed network shaped and ultimately controlled by service providers â?? who drive you toward a limited number of ISP-owned services and content streams that wouldn’t survive in the online free market free-for-all we have today. That principle â?? a core design at the very heart of the World Wide Web and all the brilliant competition and innovation that has come from it â?? is called Network Neutrality.”
But I’m not Beans. Yes, of course, you prioritize the people that pay you the most, but your clients agree to pay you more free of coercion. From what I understand ISPs will force companies to pay more and if they don’t the ISPs will intentionally slow down their services.
That’s not the same thing.
Again, offer a fast lane for a fee and I’m totally cool. Force companies to pay the fee or have their speed throttled, not cool.
[/quote]
This is not how it is currently working. Read the link posted above (the streamingmedia link that hmm87 posted: “how the deal is really structured with data”) and you’ll see why–Netflix paid a company named Cogent to interface with Comcast and deliver their packet data. Inside this written contract are guarantees on data rate delivery, charge rate, bandwidth, as well as a step-up program for expansion of the network with increased traffic year to year.
Cogent didn’t deliver what it contractually agreed to. Comcast and Netflix entered into another agreement after Netflix said “goodbye” to Cogent, and THAT is why Comcast is getting money from them–they are now agreeing to provide the services on the “backend” that Cogent failed to supply. There’s no double dipping going on from a business perspective with this as far as I can see. These sorts of deals are widespread, very competitive, and change often. You just don’t see it on the front end as the consumer.
Cogent has a history of screwing things up btw. Netflix isn’t the only one do ditch them.[/quote]
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
Essentially the argument on the table is whether we want the internet to remain the same - the way it has been since its inception - or if we want to allow GOVERNMENT to exert more control over its content. [/quote]
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
I’ve read through this thread over several days, so I am not sure if this has been explicitly called out. Essentially the argument on the table is whether we want the internet to remain the same - the way it has been since its inception - or if we want to allow ISPs to exert more control over its content. This is an issue since the courts, in January, threw out the provisions of the federal law stating that all internet traffic needs to be treated equally. (This law was very loosely written in 2002, I think, where it classified broadband as an “information service”).
Whether you believe broadband service should be reclassified under Title II (like utilities) or the law simply needs to be rewritten is really the crux of the matter. I personally think just “letting it ride” puts way too much power into the hands of the ISPs who provide not only internet access (the infrastructure of the internet) but also content.
This is a great blog post that explains the need for solid net neutrality rules. It is very long and those that are well versed in economics would likely want to skip the first few pages, but it is definitely worth reading:
[/quote]
Thank you for posting this. It articulated my feelings very well:
“This practice is not only new; until this year, it was also considered illegal. One of the basic design principles of the World Wide Web (according to its inventor, Sir Tim Berners-Lee) is the idea that network owners may charge individuals to access their networks, and may charge them for data use, but, once individuals are on the network, the network must treat all data equally. Comcast cannot decide to delay your download of a YouTube video in order to make more room on the network for your neighbor to download the same video from Comcast.com; you both paid equally for network access for the same amount of data, so the network must treat your data equally. Without this principle, much of the internet breaks down. It stops being an open network facilitated by service providers â?? who merely connect you to whatever data you want, anywhere on the network â?? but becomes a closed network shaped and ultimately controlled by service providers â?? who drive you toward a limited number of ISP-owned services and content streams that wouldn’t survive in the online free market free-for-all we have today. That principle â?? a core design at the very heart of the World Wide Web and all the brilliant competition and innovation that has come from it â?? is called Network Neutrality.”[/quote]
Again, this isn’t happening. Comcast doesn’t’ do this.
You guys are calling for government to step in and fix a problem that doesn’t exist.
hmm posted a link that explains how government intervention isn’t needed, at all, at this moment, but because people don’t know wtf they are talking about they are hoping for intervention into an area there need not be.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Again, this isn’t happening. Comcast doesn’t’ do this.
You guys are calling for government to step in and fix a problem that doesn’t exist.
hmm posted a link that explains how government intervention isn’t needed, at all, at this moment, but because people don’t know wtf they are talking about they are hoping for intervention into an area there need not be.
So… the two sides are point fingers? Shocking! [/quote]
Point being, it is occurring at the consumers expense. [/quote]
lol, and you honestly think government stepping in won’t?
Come on, lol. They can’t even keep a highway free of potholes, and they get like 21 cents a gallon in tax money. The fuck makes you think this regulation won’t hurt the consumer too?
So… the two sides are point fingers? Shocking! [/quote]
Point being, it is occurring at the consumers expense. [/quote]
lol, and you honestly think government stepping in won’t?
Come on, lol. They can’t even keep a highway free of potholes, and they get like 21 cents a gallon in tax money. The fuck makes you think this regulation won’t hurt the consumer too?
[/quote]
Lol, I thought highways weren’t paid for by the Fed…
Anyway, you said it isn’t happening and I was point out that is actually is happening.
No I don’t think the government stepping in will necessarily be good for the people, however, I am at least open to the idea it will ultimately be better if the government does.
Like I said, sometimes regulation is a good thing and sometimes it isn’t. We’ve been talking about things that imo don’t really matter (streaming movies) what happens when ISPs slow down data flow to Fidelity.com because they own Vanguard Mutual Funds or want to push traffic to T-Rowe Price?
Again, this isn’t happening. Comcast doesn’t’ do this.
[/quote]
While that’s up for some debate, the courts essentially allowed them to be able to do just that with their recent ruling. If something isn’t done (Title II reclassification, rewritten law, etc.) they will be able to as they wish.
Likely the reason they aren’t doing it now (arguable) is because there are too many eyes on this right now. I have Comcast (I have no other choice) and I wouldn’t put it past them for a second to deprioritize certain traffic.
Again, this isn’t happening. Comcast doesn’t’ do this.
[/quote]
While that’s up for some debate, the courts essentially allowed them to be able to do just that with their recent ruling. If something isn’t done (Title II reclassification, rewritten law, etc.) they will be able to as they wish.
Likely the reason they aren’t doing it now (arguable) is because there are too many eyes on this right now. I have Comcast (I have no other choice) and I wouldn’t put it past them for a second to deprioritize certain traffic. [/quote]
And, as I’ve pointed out over and over and over again in this thread, that prioritization may very well work in the customer’s favor.
Whatever. I’m done arguing this. You’ll get you wishes, and .gov will step in. If it gets fucked up, I don’t want to hear any bitching.
And worst case, when the internet is nothing remotely close to free anymore, and it is cable tv on a computer, I’m going to point and laugh at all the people so worried about evil Comcast making Netflix pay for its usage, that they asked for the benevolent government to come and save them.
Again, this isn’t happening. Comcast doesn’t’ do this.
[/quote]
While that’s up for some debate, the courts essentially allowed them to be able to do just that with their recent ruling. If something isn’t done (Title II reclassification, rewritten law, etc.) they will be able to as they wish.
Likely the reason they aren’t doing it now (arguable) is because there are too many eyes on this right now. I have Comcast (I have no other choice) and I wouldn’t put it past them for a second to deprioritize certain traffic. [/quote]
And, as I’ve pointed out over and over and over again in this thread, that prioritization may very well work in the customer’s favor.
Whatever. I’m done arguing this. You’ll get you wishes, and .gov will step in. If it gets fucked up, I don’t want to hear any bitching.
And worst case, when the internet is nothing remotely close to free anymore, and it is cable tv on a computer, I’m going to point and laugh at all the people so worried about evil Comcast making Netflix pay for its usage, that they asked for the benevolent government to come and save them. [/quote]
You seem to be glossing over the fact that the internet has been “free” all along. The ISPs received, however, a green light in January to change that. That is the issue.
And ftr, I never said I wanted some kind of government takeover.
So… the two sides are point fingers? Shocking! [/quote]
Point being, it is occurring at the consumers expense. [/quote]
lol, and you honestly think government stepping in won’t?
Come on, lol. They can’t even keep a highway free of potholes, and they get like 21 cents a gallon in tax money. The fuck makes you think this regulation won’t hurt the consumer too?
[/quote]
The main problem is, once you get the government in, you cannot get them out. Their track record on making things like this better is pretty dismal. They are already spying the internet, you want to give the full control? Even if they do not have nefarious intentions, they still fuck a lot of very simple things up.
I am not saying I am against the idea, I am saying lets make damn sure we need it before with give it up.
Do you want the government deciding which porn is ok for you to watch? What if a gay FCC chief grants the most band width to gay porn sites and minimal band width to ‘regular’ porn sites? hmmm, HMMM!? What about that?!
[quote]pat wrote:
The main problem is, once you get the government in, you cannot get them out. Their track record on making things like this better is pretty dismal. They are already spying the internet, you want to give the full control? Even if they do not have nefarious intentions, they still fuck a lot of very simple things up.
I am not saying I am against the idea, I am saying lets make damn sure we need it before with give it up.[/quote]
I agree with your point. I don’t want government intrusion if it isn’t necessary. That’s why we’re talking this out.
And ftr, I never said I wanted some kind of government takeover.
[/quote]
Government involved = government take over.
Government “regulation” = government take over.
This shit is not going to be pretty. I really can’t understand how people can look at what happened at the IRS, not understand that it will be their team persecuted eventually, and actually invite this level of government into their lives.