FTC has decided to abandon net neutrality

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Can someone who is calling out the Republicans show me exactly which Republican representatives you are referring too? Or which Democrat representatives are fighting for Net Neutrality?

The bill introduced in Jan, which was really the first one with any teeth, was supported mostly by the Dems. Here is a copy I would cut and paste but it's PDF.

The bill was originally drafted by Senators Byron Dorgan (D) and Olympia Snowe (R). Since then, it has been largely supported by John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin, Patrick Leahy, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Genx87
Oh johnnys CS server wont get the same priority as my blocks VOIP or IPTV for the same price?

Damn, I am crying now!

If you're paying the same price, it's pretty egotistical to assume that your packets are more important.

Not to mention, net neutrality has as much to do with charging more based on source and destination location as it does port and packet type.

In addition, the big communications companies have made their fortunes off of running their lines through everyone's property for free. If they're going to start charging everyone to nickel and dime everyone for their traffic, I'm going to start charging them rent for using my land. Screw easement agreements, if they don't have to play by the rules then neither do I.

You dont think IPTV and VOIP should have higher priority for a price than a CS server?

As for the easement issue, talk to your local city municipalities. And next time you purchase a piece of property check about utility easements.

 

[BoberFett]

No, they shouldn't have higher priority. Why do you think they should? What makes you more important than your neighbor?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
No, they shouldn't have higher priority. Why do you think they should? What makes you more important than your neighbor?

Amazing, a rare time we are on the same page.

Perhaps becuse we both go to the bathroom the same way too?

This net nuetrality issue basically sets up an outhouse version of the internet for the poor and marble toilets version of the internet for the rich.

I'm sure most in here support this.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
No, they shouldn't have higher priority. Why do you think they should? What makes you more important than your neighbor?

For a price, yes, my IPTV should get higher priority routing than johnnys CS server.
Under the current scheme everybody is neutral in the eyes of the ISP. Johnnys cs server and me pay the same price and I get degraded service due to not having priority.

Of course johnny is now available to purchase such priority is he so wishes.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BoberFett
No, they shouldn't have higher priority. Why do you think they should? What makes you more important than your neighbor?

For a price, yes, my IPTV should get higher priority routing than johnnys CS server.
Under the current scheme everybody is neutral in the eyes of the ISP. Johnnys cs server and me pay the same price and I get degraded service due to not having priority.

Of course johnny is now available to purchase such priority is he so wishes.

Would you be in favor of tiered water?

Those that can afford healthy water get healthy water all others get dirty water?

What makes the internet any different?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BoberFett
No, they shouldn't have higher priority. Why do you think they should? What makes you more important than your neighbor?

For a price, yes, my IPTV should get higher priority routing than johnnys CS server.
Under the current scheme everybody is neutral in the eyes of the ISP. Johnnys cs server and me pay the same price and I get degraded service due to not having priority.

Of course johnny is now available to purchase such priority is he so wishes.

Would you be in favor of tiered water?

Those that can afford healthy water get healthy water all others get dirty water?

What makes the internet any different?

Gee lets see, is the internet the basis of life on this planet?
You walked right into that one.

And besides we do have tiered water in this country. What the hell do you think bottled water is at the grocery store?

 

[manowar821]

God dammit.

I'm pissed off, but not surprised. The people running our country don't give two flying fvcks about us or our feelings, they just want power and money, and that's exactly what they've been getting for some time now.

Also, I'd like to run over lobbyists with my car.

WTFXs!!11one

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BoberFett
No, they shouldn't have higher priority. Why do you think they should? What makes you more important than your neighbor?

For a price, yes, my IPTV should get higher priority routing than johnnys CS server.
Under the current scheme everybody is neutral in the eyes of the ISP. Johnnys cs server and me pay the same price and I get degraded service due to not having priority.

Of course johnny is now available to purchase such priority is he so wishes.

Would you be in favor of tiered water?

Those that can afford healthy water get healthy water all others get dirty water?

What makes the internet any different?

Gee lets see, is the internet the basis of life on this planet?
You walked right into that one.

And besides we do have tiered water in this country. What the hell do you think bottled water is at the grocery store?

How bout tiered electric?

 

[Bowfinger]

I think many of you guys are missing the real issue. It's not so much that you as an individual customer will have to pay more to get higher priority. It's the major carriers providing preferential service to their partners and their own products. For example, Time Warner gives high priority to its streaming video service while degrading competitors like Block Buster, iTunes, and YouTube. Microsoft might strike a deal with Time Warner, guaranteeing priority service for its traffic and degraded service for competitors like Google or iTunes. Maybe Time Warner caves to pressure from evangelicals pressuring them to block porn sites, or from corporate or political interests who want to shut down access to unflattering blogs.

You as an individual customer won't be able to pay more to restore that service because you're not really in the picture. You may not even be aware of the deal. All you'll know is MSN services work great, while Google "seems really unstable these days," iTunes is just "so slow, it's not worth the hassle," and HawtTeenLoveSlaves.com seems to have disappeared entirely.

You might counter, "I'll just switch to another ISP." You're right, that might work ... as long as that ISP doesn't buy its bandwidth from Time Warner, or from a major carrier like Sprint or AT&T who has also signed with Microsoft.

That's the real threat of losing net neutrality. It allows major corporate interests to effectively control your access to content, moving the Internet from its current state of almost infinite diversity into the same bland, commercial cesspool as television. The Internet thrives, warts and all, in large part because it has been a free-for-all equally open to all.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
When the lack of Net neutrality screws ups the American people's internet addiction----you can bet that they are going to take their anger out on the GOP. The big telecoms have already relegated the American people to almost third world status on rates and service. And now those pigs want even more instead of being content with the sweetheart deal they have now. Sooner or later its going to backfire on the telecoms bigtime---the internet may well becomes like social security---a third rail of politics---touch it and you die.

Goodbye Internet, I guess.

I wonder when they'll start charging people for accessing other people's (free) online multiplayer gaming servers.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Lemon law
When the lack of Net neutrality screws ups the American people's internet addiction----you can bet that they are going to take their anger out on the GOP. The big telecoms have already relegated the American people to almost third world status on rates and service. And now those pigs want even more instead of being content with the sweetheart deal they have now. Sooner or later its going to backfire on the telecoms bigtime---the internet may well becomes like social security---a third rail of politics---touch it and you die.

Goodbye Internet, I guess.

I wonder when they'll start charging people for accessing other people's (free) online multiplayer gaming servers.

Over my cold dead body.

We should all just start our own open internet, if it gets bad.

 

[BoberFett]

Bowfinger is quite right on this one, and it's what I touched on above. The real threat of tiered internet isn't packet prioritization but actual intentional service degradation.

 

[Lemon law]

To WhipperSnapper---who asks---I wonder when they'll start charging people for accessing other people's (free) online multiplayer gaming servers.

When we have politicians and corporations willing to promise us the moon and the stars---we have to realize that any fun activity they can figure out ways to charge for will be charged for. And in the new coming corporate internet---if you use their lines to have interactive fun--you must pay them for the privilege. This FTC action is a green light to start implementing all those countless new ways to charge us for what used to be free.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I think many of you guys are missing the real issue. It's not so much that you as an individual customer will have to pay more to get higher priority. It's the major carriers providing preferential service to their partners and their own products. For example, Time Warner gives high priority to its streaming video service while degrading competitors like Block Buster, iTunes, and YouTube. Microsoft might strike a deal with Time Warner, guaranteeing priority service for its traffic and degraded service for competitors like Google or iTunes. Maybe Time Warner caves to pressure from evangelicals pressuring them to block porn sites, or from corporate or political interests who want to shut down access to unflattering blogs.

You as an individual customer won't be able to pay more to restore that service because you're not really in the picture. You may not even be aware of the deal. All you'll know is MSN services work great, while Google "seems really unstable these days," iTunes is just "so slow, it's not worth the hassle," and HawtTeenLoveSlaves.com seems to have disappeared entirely.

You might counter, "I'll just switch to another ISP." You're right, that might work ... as long as that ISP doesn't buy its bandwidth from Time Warner, or from a major carrier like Sprint or AT&T who has also signed with Microsoft.

That's the real threat of losing net neutrality. It allows major corporate interests to effectively control your access to content, moving the Internet from its current state of almost infinite diversity into the same bland, commercial cesspool as television. The Internet thrives, warts and all, in large part because it has been a free-for-all equally open to all.

I think what you mentioned is covered under antitrust regulation, which covers everything including the Internet. I mean if ISP use their power to give favors to their own business unit or partners, it violates fair competition and that's not allowed. We don't really need anther regulation, like net neutrality, to cover something that's already covered.

I think net neutrality is about tier'ed pricing like others have mentioned. And I do agree that companies like Google that use Internet to generate huge amount of revenue, should pay more, based on their usage of the Internet bandwidth. I mean it cost money to build Internet bandwidth, and it's only natural for those that make use of those bandwidth to pay more, especially those that use bandwidth to generate commercial profit.

 

[BoberFett]

rchiu

The head of AT&T has said publicly that he intends to charge websites who don't host at AT&T extra for any traffic which crosses their network.

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=918

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051031-5498.html

http://arstechnica.com/news.ar...ing-off-his-mouth.html

 

[blackangst1]

I dunno. It seems like Congress on both sides of the aisle, are against this proposed practice. Many bills have been drafted claiming anti-trust violations if companies put this into full force. It will certainly be interesting to see how this fleshes out.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
rchiu

The head of AT&T has said publicly that he intends to charge websites who don't host at AT&T extra for any traffic which crosses their network.

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=918

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051031-5498.html

http://arstechnica.com/news.ar...ing-off-his-mouth.html

(I didn't read the links)

FYI:

As part of the BellSouth deal, there will no action, pro or con, regarding Net Nutrality from AT&T for (I believe) at least two years.

Also, it's not about degrading anyone's service, it is (or at least, it was) about offering higher quality of service for an additional fee. No impediments, but no perks, unless the SERVICE (i.e., website) paid more for the higher class of service.

QOS / COS don't mean much unless the link is congested. All traffic classes move at the same rate & speed on an open / uncongested link. Higher QOS *may*, depending on the local active infrastructure, offer a shorter buffer path / faster queue.

If the link is congested, the lower QOS traffic is dropped first (just like now).


Also, Ed Whitacre is gone, retired; R. Stephenson is now the CEO.

FWIW

 

[BoberFett]

Ah, I see he just retired last month. I was not aware of that, thanks.

All the same, I have no faith in a company like AT&T to not try to squeeze every cent possible out of their customers. QoS means the giant telcoms will be able to put off upgrading infrastructure, claiming that if people want better speed they need to spend more until EVERYBODY is paying extra for priority, and we'll end up with exactly the same performance we have now, only we'll all be paying for more for it.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Ah, I see he just retired last month. I was not aware of that, thanks.

All the same, I have no faith in a company like AT&T to not try to squeeze every cent possible out of their customers. QoS means the giant telcoms will be able to put off upgrading infrastructure, claiming that if people want better speed they need to spend more until EVERYBODY is paying extra for priority, and we'll end up with exactly the same performance we have now, only we'll all be paying for more for it.

Well, at the same time, if you have bunch of politicians coming up with rules specific to the Internet on how companies can or cannot charge for Internet usage, you may stop companies from charging appropriate amount of money for future investments. Companies like Googles can use up huge amount of free Internet resources with their youtube, and other Internet traffic related money making mechanism to make a huge profit while not paying their fare share.

I'd say FTC is correct in this to let free market sort out what the pricing for Internet usage is. But I do agree with you that Telcom industry suck and you have very little competition there. I dunno why FTC is letting ATT buying out all baby bells and forming a monopoly again.

 

[flyfish]

I applaud this decision.
What is wrong with you people that think the government should fix everything? The government should have NO involvement in the internet whatsoever!

Mommy Government! Save us from the big bad companies! Save us from our unhealthy lifestyles! Save us from our bad spending habits!
:roll:

 

[Modelworks]

I can see it now.
The government solves the problem.
emails that cost 39 cent to send

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Perhaps it's only a matter of time before people have to pay for the bandwidth they consume. People will start to think before they click on a link or try to explore. YouTube and the like will get squashed and online gaming could go the way of the dodo or Microsoft Live.

Perhaps this would be a compelling reason to try to obtain citizenship in another country and leave, as though there aren't enough good reasons already.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Perhaps it's only a matter of time before people have to pay for the bandwidth they consume. People will start to think before they click on a link or try to explore. YouTube and the like will get squashed and online gaming could go the way of the dodo or Microsoft Live.

Perhaps this would be a compelling reason to try to obtain citizenship in another country and leave, as though there aren't enough good reasons already.

So you feel people will mass emigrate rather than revolt?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: flyfish
I applaud this decision.
What is wrong with you people that think the government should fix everything? The government should have NO involvement in the internet whatsoever!

Mommy Government! Save us from the big bad companies! Save us from our unhealthy lifestyles! Save us from our bad spending habits!
:roll:

:roll:

The big telcoms never seemed to have a problem with government intervention when that intervention came in the form of protected monopolies.