Net Neutrality?

Im the first to admit Ive only taken a cursory look at the neutrality issue..... but my understanding is the biggest problem is traffic.....

they want all provider to pass all traffic regardless...... which is a big problem IMO

this can only lead to slower speeds for everyone.......... when you consider the types of traffic passed now days....... an example of a problem Ive read about is sites like netflix....

they want a main provider to pass streaming traffic through their lines even if the end user isnt on their network..... so this means eleventy thousand people streaming movies using my networks lines is going to give me horrible traffic speeds when all I want to do is check my email

I just dont think the networks are in place for rules like this yet

of course as I said..... Im not real familiar with exactly what theyre trying to do and what the implications of those actions are...... so I could be way off base with my thoughts

if someones more familiar or has a good referrence Im definitely interested in finding out more

I haven't looked at it as much as I should, but my understanding is a bit different copestag --

They could say "we're limiting everyone's speed to x".

They can't say "we're limiting your speed to watch netflix to x, but if you watch our (pay for our competing) streaming video service, we'll give you more bandwidth".

I dont think it has anything to do with limits placed on the end users speeds at all......... it has to do with providers and content

having just spent a bit of time reading on the subject..... pros and cons from about 30 different websites.... I have to say the whole thing is absolutely stupid

so to summarize my new found opinion here goes:

is the goal of net neutrality a good idea?...... absolutely
is net neutrality needed in any way shape or fashion?.... absolutely not

basically the concept is this...... Ill use specific names to give a better understanding (for those who, like me a few hours ago, have no clue what its about)

Yahoo hates Google (they both compete for search engine market among other things)..... Yahoo also provides internet services...... net neutrality basically prevents Yahoo ISP from blocking access to Google.com

thats the entire premise behind net neutrality......... so as I said earlier in this post...... good goal? sure.... needed goal? ummmm yahoo would never dream of doing that even without it, so why do we need it...... its just another one of those laws that has unintended consequences down the road

Im not exactly sure why this is even an issue...... is the FCC bored?...... do they need more to do?..... maybe we need to scale back their budget a little bit and let some people go........ we dont need more government interference

if its not broke dont fix it.... and stop trying to break it so you have an excuse to fix it

The thing is it could be broke. For example, Cox is a big ISP. They also have agreements with ABC and NBC to air their programming on demand. If there was no net neutrality, then Cox could easily block access to Hulu and/or NetFlix and require that if you wanted to watch an ABC show on demand that you would have to do so through their On Demand service and not anywhere else. Alternatively they could put throttling in place so that Hulu or Netflix runs at 56k speed and is practically useless, but that if you watch your show on ABC.com or NBC.com (their business partners) that it would run at it's full HD glory that your bandwidth can handle.

That's just one example of what could happen if there was no net neutrality law and if you think a cable company wouldn't do that if they thought they could pull it off, then I think you're naive. I haven't thoroughly read up on what legislation was passed and what it specifically says so I honestly have no idea if the legislation is any good. The idea behind it is though.

A.Nonymous said:

That's just one example of what could happen if there was no net neutrality law and if you think a cable company wouldn't do that if they thought they could pull it off, then I think you're naive.

Click to expand...

I must be naive...... I realize the interwebz are only a couple weeks old so maybe it takes at least 3 weeks or something........ currently there are absolutely no restrictions in place whatsoever to prevent them from doing this... there is absolutely no reason whatsoever a company couldnt do this if they wanted right now.... yet no companies are doing it yet.... I hope week 3 isnt the bad week

A.Nonymous said:

If there was no net neutrality, then Cox could easily block access to Hulu and/or NetFlix and require that if you wanted to watch an ABC show on demand that you would have to do so through their On Demand service and not anywhere else. Alternatively they could put throttling in place so that Hulu or Netflix runs at 56k speed and is practically useless, but that if you watch your show on ABC.com or NBC.com (their business partners) that it would run at it's full HD glory that your bandwidth can handle.

Click to expand...

there is NO net neutrality now....

copestag said:

I must be naive...... I realize the interwebz are only a couple weeks old so maybe it takes at least 3 weeks or something........ currently there are absolutely no restrictions in place whatsoever to prevent them from doing this... there is absolutely no reason whatsoever a company couldnt do this if they wanted right now.... yet no companies are doing it yet.... I hope week 3 isnt the bad week

Click to expand...

But it is already being done on wireless networks. There are Android phones where you can search in the Market for certain Google apps and they're not there. The cell carrier has blocked those apps from showing up. That's a violation of net neutrality right there.

but the net neutrality plan specifically excludes mobile carriers...... so that doesnt help anything

Google and Verizon are lobbying the FCC to have a tier service plan available, making any access outside of their walled garden subject to premium fees.

After being lambasted for this, they renamed their proposal to reflect support for net neutrality - in the title and in the press releases, but actually made their proposal worse.

And then they lobbied and succeeded in getting their net access proposal heard behind closed doors at the FCC - there is no accountability for that. So, several consumer rights groups stepped in - but didn't get far.

You have net neutrality now on mobile.

They're trying to make you pay extra.

They've got stuff in place so that they can charge you separately for access to Facebook, twitter, you name it.

And how will they accomplish this?

By packet sniffing - that's how.

Lose net neutrality - or think it doesn't matter and you're ok with it - you're giving carriers the right to inspect your internet traffic and then charge what they see fit.

And what will they do with those packets once they're theirs - why the new plan includes gathering demographic data, the better to spam you.

If anyone thinks this is a non-issue - study the issues here, and think again.

And think really carefully. This might be one issue where you cannot skim the surface and go by instinct or what you think you know is going on.

And yes - carriers have been pushing for exclusion.

This stinks to high heaven.

A.Nonymous said:

But it is already being done on wireless networks. There are Android phones where you can search in the Market for certain Google apps and they're not there. The cell carrier has blocked those apps from showing up. That's a violation of net neutrality right there.

Click to expand...

No, it's not.

The marketing of opt-in services are not affected by this.

It is not being done on wireless networks today.

Imagine paying extra to view this forum because your carrier stopped liking us.

Study what net neutrality is - and study the threat, it's been in the press for some time.

Please - at least google the phrase = eff net neutrality mobile

And be prepared to be completely enraged.

copestag said:

so to summarize my new found opinion here goes:

is the goal of net neutrality a good idea?...... absolutely
is net neutrality needed in any way shape or fashion?.... absolutely not

basically the concept is this...... Ill use specific names to give a better understanding (for those who, like me a few hours ago, have no clue what its about)

Yahoo hates Google (they both compete for search engine market among other things)..... Yahoo also provides internet services...... net neutrality basically prevents Yahoo ISP from blocking access to Google.com

thats the entire premise behind net neutrality......... so as I said earlier in this post...... good goal? sure.... needed goal? ummmm yahoo would never dream of doing that even without it, so why do we need it...... its just another one of those laws that has unintended consequences down the road

Click to expand...

Your assumptions that the services are not looking to do that is exactly in conflict with the reality of what's being proposed by most all of the major players.

And the unintended consequences will be your problem.

Remember that law that said you couldn't charge extra for credit cards but you could give a discount for cash?

You're on the chopping block to pay the exact same rates you're paying now - for limited service, and that's going to be your discount rate.

You want something extra, like a competitors' site or services? That'll be part of the new premium charges.

They've had lawyers and techs working on a way to take the internet war from quality of service and mindshare based on the quality of the product (who doesn't like google?) - to making it completely a financial situation.

Where they can inspect your traffic - something that law enforcement needs a warrant for.

It's a commercial war and they want to shear the sheep because now they've figured out how.

It's just that simple.

You think the battle of the search engines is over, because this deal fell through?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/technology/04yahoo.html

No freaking way is the war over - it's just being fought with other means.

Another good example of what this would allow providers to do: Google maps is FAR better than VZW Navigator plus it's free. VZW could block your use of Google Maps and force you to use their pay service which is inferior and by loading Google Maps onto your device you would be violating the terms of your agreement with VZW.

copestag said:

I must be naive...... I realize the interwebz are only a couple weeks old so maybe it takes at least 3 weeks or something........ currently there are absolutely no restrictions in place whatsoever to prevent them from doing this... there is absolutely no reason whatsoever a company couldnt do this if they wanted right now.... yet no companies are doing it yet.... I hope week 3 isnt the bad week

Click to expand...

OK - the FCC has a lot of control over what happens on the airwaves.

The celluar companies have enjoyed - or suffered from - a common carrier status and the rules applying to that.

They couldn't charge you extra for going to another network on a call's destination (but they can give you a discount for calling within their own).

The internet came along.

They added it to their backbone - and have treated it like any other common carrier service - as well they should.

One day, many years later, they woke up and figured out how to screw you.

And people following this issue starting bringing briefs forward saying that this violated the underlying principles for common carriers.

And the cellcos claimed that that the internet was not phone calling, so they could make up rules as they went along.

That's been really fairly recent.

Only for the last few years - and it was argued extensively between Obama and McCain during their election campaigns. It was covered on a regular ongoing basis in all of the high-tech media (I can't guarantee this is true of tech blogs) and in the NYT, WSJ the San Jose Mercury - The Register.

Obama claimed it was one of his key components in his victory over McCain.

And then, he hired a telco exec to head his net neutrality committee - that was within 6 months after got into office.

That created a howl in all of the media - especially the legal and financial communities.

there is NO net neutrality now....

Click to expand...

Things work the way they work and they often get reported on.

We invented the term net neutrality specifically because we basically had it and it was being targetted to be taken away.

And I won't even go into what the cablecos did to inflict pain on the backbone of the internet.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/02/net_neutrality.html

http://gigaom.com/2010/03/02/yahoos-carol-bartz-hates-net-neutrality-nope/

Feds please no one with first official net neut rules : The Register

Yep, we're screwed.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/21/fcc-we-didnt-impose-stricter-net-neutrality-regulations-on-wir/

EarlyMon,

You've made a very confusing idea easier to understand. I was thinking of a way to explain the problems with what the FCC just did, but you did a great job of it.

I'm really worried about the future of the internet. I hope someone in congress/fcc has the brains (ha yeah right) to understand what this is going to mean for progress and innovation. Have we seen the end of small start-up internet companies?

Right now i pay ~$100 dollars a month for a decent cable/internet package. with the amount of bandwidth i use now, i'm also reallllllllly worried about what the prices of the "new" internet will be in the VERY near future.

Crude said:

DeMint vows to reverse FCC's 'Internet takeover' | Washington Examiner

Click to expand...

"In order to provide the stability businesses need to grow, I will work with my fellow senators to see passage of my FCC Act..."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...-reverse-fccs-internet-takeover#ixzz18u9IUbNF​

Click to expand...

Businesses need to grow so this decision needs to be reversed.

All under the smokescreen language of how we all don't need the FCC intruding in this area.

These businesses have been growing just fine until now.

Net neutrality stops a form of monopolizing.

But the good man in Washington in this article says these businesses now need his help to grow.

And they've made clear HOW they intend to grow.

I can't make the problem any clearer than that.

the new law IS net neutrality...... net neutrality is a term used to describe restrictions placed on ISPs requiring them to treat all traffic 'equally' (neutral status for all traffic)........ until yesterday we have never had net neutrality laws in any form...... ISPs have been free to do whatever they want without restriction......... there have been NO neutrality laws in place and yet NONE of the 'bad men are gonna get ya' has happened........

dont get me wrong..... I dont disagree with the goal of neutrality laws.... I just dont think we need 'laws' to achieve that goal.... considering weve already achieved the goal and havent had any laws yet

plain and simple.... the free market prevents the need for any type of net neutrality law

First, this isn't a law.

Second, I'd suggest googling about Comcast for the things you want to believe haven't already happened.

I respect your opinion, however, it's not apparently taking facts on record fully into account.

EarlyMon,

I'm glad you brought up Comcast.

Copestag,

Comcast was accused of throttling traffic.
Comcast denied throttling traffic.
Comcast was caught throttling traffic.

We still don't know the extent that Comcast was throttling traffic.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That being said, I feel that mobile internet is a bit different (and I have a good reason).

With traditional internet, you can provide more bandwidth by laying more fiber. There are only so many airwaves to use. And it's not like we can put more out there once we use them all.

So, with mobile internet we may not have a choice but to throttle bandwidth intensive traffic.

I hate it. I don't like it. But eventually we might not have a choice, unless we either do something to substantially increase the efficiency with which we are using the airwaves, or increase the spectrum which we can use for mobile internet.

Don't leave out Comcast's similar history to deny access to high traffic sites.

Throttling across the board to protect the wireless distribution points from loss of service is ok.

Throttling movie sites because they compete with you would not be ok.

check out this really easy to understand page for net neutrality

The Open Internet: A Case for Net Neutrality

I'm willing to bet we'll end up seeing it as a Trojan Horse for net non-neutrality. Right now we have no federal regulation of the internet. For the vast majority of people (billions), for the majority of time (nearly all of it), that has meant freedom to do what you want on the Internet, and massive growth for all kinds of new business ventures, large and small.

Now we have federally regulated "net neutrality". But with certain exceptions. Over time, guess who will stay on top of figuring out exactly which exceptions should apply and when? Consumers and innovators or wanna be monopolists with scads of lawyers and lobbyists in Washington? Wanna take a bet?

Just so we're clear - net neutrality movement didn't start the problem.

It tried to prevent it.

The rhetoric is already scapegoating it.

Plain and simple, monopolistic practices are not all covered by laws that never envisioned the net.

I highly recommend the Wired article in case anyone has any doubts as to what the ISPs are going to do unless stopped. The FCC is probably not the agency to deal with this, but since no-one else is stepping up to the plate, what they've done is better than nothing.