dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2009-09-24 15:23:41: If you've paid attention, you know the modern "network neutrality" debate took off in 2005, when then AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre proudly, though dumbly, proclaimed that Google got a "free ride" on his network. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next

rit56

join:2000-12-01
New York, NY

Socialism

When all else fails refer to something as socialism. Lame right wing talking point.... being overused. As long as Insurance Companies, Banks, Telephone Companies continue to screw their customer base by nickle and dimeing them and out and out screwing them the less sympathy their get from consumers and I believe the word "socialism" is starting to backfire on them. What's the alternative? Let all of you continue to screw us unabated? People are viewing "government intervention, regulation" as not such a bad thing these days. Please keep calling everything socialism and we will delight as we watch it blow up in your face. The tide is slowly turning. Everyone other than Teleco's and their shareholders knows there is a need for regulation... You lost your trust from us. Did I hear someone mention Public Option? The mere mention of the word "socialism" now means it's good for consumers.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: Socialism

"free market, free market, get back to work serf, your finger print is on the contract, termination results in termination"
......
"drugged shmugged, your finger printed it, MOVE IT or you'll get a corrective shock from the collar you wear, its in the contract and the law will enforce it!"

NOVA_Guy
ObamaCare Kills Americans
Premium
join:2002-03-05

2 recommendations

Let's keep the conversation on track and leave the public option health care crap that will allow the government to euthanize our senior citizens for another thread.

Government regulation has its place, just as government has its place. Government's function should be very limited in role and scope in our lives, not the lumbering behemoth that needlessly pokes its nose into everything from executive compensation to whether you're changing your child's diapers properly.

A relatively weak central government that left most power to the states is what our founding fathers envisioned. The primary role of our government should be protection (i.e. defense, police, fire, etc) and infrastructure (i.e. roads, bridges, etc).

Now, I would argue that the definition of "infrastructure" has changed somewhat over the past couple decades when it comes to what is important for commerce in the United States. Today's definition of "infrastructure" should include at least a cursory role in regulating companies that provide access to the internet. Such actions not only help to ensure that consumers aren't wholly taken advantage of-- they also help ensure that our citizens have access to technology and information to put us on a level playing field with other nations.

Based upon the importance of broadband in our lives today, I might even be tempted to elevate broadband internet connections to the level of a utility. Just like electricity, water, phone, and gas, broadband can be an important part of people's lives. This argument, coupled with little to no active price competition in many markets, and high costs/barriers to entry, could justify a certain amount of government oversight and regulation of the industry.

As always, the devil is in the details. I'm sure that the Obama leftists and the capitalists on this site will find plenty of room to disagree on just what the correct amount of oversight and regulation is.

See-- the answer isn't always pure socialism or pure capitalism. I think Obama is an idiot and just plain wrong on most things, but his ideas around creating a broadband infrastructure might turn out half decent.
--
After listening to his UN speech, I'm convinced that Obama has a major self esteem problem and is projecting it upon the United States. He is more concerned with winning popularity contests than with keeping us safe.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

1 recommendation

Re: Socialism

See-- the answer isn't always pure socialism or pure capitalism.
Yes, I find it odd that a balance between socialism and capitalism with reasonable regulation proposed by a marginally objective legislative body is such an alien possibility to so many people...

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Re: Socialism

said by Karl Bode:

See-- the answer isn't always pure socialism or pure capitalism.
Yes, I find it odd that a balance between socialism and capitalism with reasonable regulation proposed by a marginally objective legislative body is such an alien possibility to so many people...
... Especially as it's so alien they don't see that's what they already live under. Can't see the forest for the trees, indeed.

Communism one one side; Capitalism on the other. Neither works alone.. Socialism is the only way.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

1 recommendation

Re: Socialism

Especially as it's so alien they don't see that's what they already live under.
Most Americans have never left the country. They don't know socialism, fascism or ventriloquism from silly putty. At this point, "socialism" is used by professional distortionists as a buzz word to conjure up images of scary bearded individuals wielding AK-47s. With failing schools that increasingly forget to teach critical thinking it's not surprising I guess.

KodiacZiller
Premium
join:2008-09-04
73368
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Re: Socialism

said by Karl Bode:

Especially as it's so alien they don't see that's what they already live under.
Most Americans have never left the country. They don't know socialism, fascism or ventriloquism from silly putty. At this point, "socialism" is used by professional distortionists as a buzz word to conjure up images of scary bearded individuals wielding AK-47s. With failing schools that increasingly forget to teach critical thinking it's not surprising I guess.
The ironic thing is that these failing schools are a result of socialism.

S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

1 edit

Re: Socialism

Schools aren't failing due to "socialism", they're in trouble due to the fact that the children are being bombarded with peripheral influences. This is a Direct result of the programming that has diseased our youth for the past twenty-some years. Jerry Springer was one of the most egregious piles of s*it in this regard. Kids thought that was the way you act, and they brought that attitude to school. Disrupting class after class, this is an epidemic that has cost a generation a proper educational foundation. And to continue that spiral of ignorance, you have Rap music. Try teaching a kid how to respect authority with a Rap song. Billions and Billions of dollars wasted per year by the same sh*tbags that want you to bow before them while they walk the red carpet to accept their Oscar, Emmy, or Grammy.
Don't blame socialism...just find out what your kid is watching and what he/she is listening to!
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils!

KodiacZiller
Premium
join:2008-09-04
73368
kudos:2

Re: Socialism

I don't disagree about the influences in society.

However, my point was that the government spends countless billions on our public schools (spending has increased dramatically over the last decade) and yet our students perform *worse* than they ever have. This proves that government spending (aka socialism) is not the answer. This is why the government is inefficient: the idiots in Congress are not spending *their own* money. It's very easy to be wasteful with someone else's money. This is why the private sector is far more efficient -- they are in it for a profit, not to get reelected or to spend "feel good" money. Ergo, they will make every dollar count.

(NOTE: this is not to defend bandwidth capping, etc. I actually agree that net neutrality is a good thing).

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

2 recommendations

The ironic thing is that these failing schools are a result of socialism.
As the son of a 40-year school social worker, schools are failing in part because we as a culture place a low priority on intellect and critical thinking. Money from the private sector also lures the smartest teachers away from schools (that would be a case of too little funding). Which, ironically, leads to people not having any idea what socialism even means.

axiomatic

join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX

Re: Socialism

Dang Karl, that was DEAD ON!

Schools are failing because the average kid is far smarter and less influenced by adult sociological norms. They have yet to be forced to swallow the "conformity" pill forced upon us by the companies we adults work for. They are true individuals that speak with an honest truth that is always dismissed by the old and jaded as "innocent immaturity" when in truth the kids are usually spot on with what most would call a decent unbiased well balanced human being.

Kids speak with their hearts on their sleeves instead of the double talk and duplicity that if an adult does not adhere too they will usually not advance in their careers beyond much more than a retail employee.

It is us adults who are broken.

Back on topic: Net neutrality is only offensive to someone who is looking to capitalize and prey on the uninformed. As long as network professionals like us keep speaking the truth about the lies and double-talk being "sold" to the general public then we should be able to keep the wolves at bay.
Max Greene

join:2000-12-22
Bayonne, NJ

1 recommendation

as soon as you mentioned euthanizing anyone you showed your hand, and that you have ZERO credibility.

baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI

Not news

Maybe we should open an editorial section? This really isnt "News"

Though, the real question is, who does the internet belong to? The people? The ISPs? The backbones? The companies are the ones who have invested the money and time; shouldnt they have SOME right to dictate what goes on with their networks?

funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

Re: Not news

said by baineschile:

Maybe we should open an editorial section? This really isnt "News"
I see the Op/Ed flag.

said by baineschile:

Though, the real question is, who does the internet belong to? The people? The ISPs? The backbones? The companies are the ones who have invested the money and time; shouldnt they have SOME right to dictate what goes on with their networks?
The Internet belongs to The Internet Society and is made up of public and private networks who all have agreed to work together. It's a co-op. This co-op has standards and rules and handshake agreements and just plain-old custom. The access providers are just a part of the Internet ecosystem.

Can ISPs dictate? To a point, yes. But the Internet stops being the Internet if the access providers start acting in non-Internet ways. Blocking or degrading connectivity to some in favor to the traffic of others isn't what made the Internet great and it isn't the kind of service that those seeking Internet connections want.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/

cpsycho

join:2008-06-03
HarperLand

Re: Not news

The internet belongs to everyone.
nevtxjustin

join:2006-04-18
Dallas, TX

Re: Not news

said by cpsycho:

The internet belongs to everyone.
But how *you* connect to it, belongs to the people that provide you the connection at their leisure, i.e. they can choose to accept you as a customer or tell you to find some other provider. And of course you can chose to pay or not pay them for your access.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by funchords:

Blocking or degrading connectivity to some in favor to the traffic of others isn't what made the Internet great and it isn't the kind of service that those seeking Internet connections want.
Which isn't being done. And some of the proposed net neutrality proposals go way beyond prohibiting such activity. They want to get in to requiring ISPs to provide unlimited bandwidth without regard to cost or practicality. If such proposals become law, only the very rich would be able to afford to use this idealized internet because of runaway costs.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

Re: Not news

They want to get in to requiring ISPs to provide unlimited bandwidth without regard to cost or practicality.
You'll have to show me which proposal does that.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: Not news

said by Karl Bode:

They want to get in to requiring ISPs to provide unlimited bandwidth without regard to cost or practicality.
You'll have to show me which proposal does that.
Here is 1 example. The key was prohibition of QOS and admission control of data to the network.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_F···_of_2006
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_ne···islation
quote:
prohibits the use of admission control to determine network traffic priority.
Net Neutrality proponents are still trying to put things like this in to law. The network either is completely unmanageable or so cost prohibitive to make the net non-blocking.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

Re: Not news

Oh. I thought you meant current proposals. Not ones defeated in 2006. Yes, I don't think restricting intelligent network management makes sense, and I think most of the newer proposals have evolved to reflect the kind of things Sandvine is doing with real time node congestion detection.

funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
said by FFH:

Net Neutrality proponents are still trying to put things like this in to law. The network either is completely unmanageable or so cost prohibitive to make the net non-blocking.
If you're trying to say that NN proponents want all broadband modems to be wide open, then you're mistaken. What they're saying is that prioritization isn't allowed. ISPs can still limit the admission rate, they just generally can't prioritize/degrade among the traffic.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/

tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:9
Reviews:
·G4 Communications
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
said by FFH:

quote:
prohibits the use of admission control to determine network traffic priority.
Net Neutrality proponents are still trying to put things like this in to law. The network either is completely unmanageable or so cost prohibitive to make the net non-blocking.

I think you are being deliberately hyperbolic.

The issue is not traffic priority per se, it is who gets to set priority levels, the ISP or customer. Concern is ISP will enter into business relationships with preferred vendors and provide enhanced service level to them and lower service level to competitors. This is at odds with the end-to-end paradigm of the Internet as a transparent bit delivery mechanism.

Neither the PSTN nor the Internet is non-blocking. Both utilize different mechanisms to manage overload conditions. Even commercial accounts with Service Level Agreement's (SLA) count on the statistical nature of traffic.

The problem for ISP's is the initial model of bursty Internet access is giving way to media streaming. This results in higher average traffic per unit of time then originally expected. In addition residential accounts were expected to be primarily data sinks. As new services are created upload is becoming more important.

/tom

funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
said by FFH:

They want to get in to requiring ISPs to provide unlimited bandwidth without regard to cost or practicality. If such proposals become law, only the very rich would be able to afford to use this idealized internet because of runaway costs.
If someone is proposing that in the name of NN, then they're co-opting the principle.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/

funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
said by FFH:

said by funchords:

Blocking or degrading connectivity to some in favor to the traffic of others isn't what made the Internet great and it isn't the kind of service that those seeking Internet connections want.
Which isn't being done.
Madison River blocking VOIP?
Comcast and Sandvine blocking P2P uploads?
Cox and Sandvine blocking P2P uploads?
Cox's prioritization trial in Arkansas and Kansas?

Thanks to this debate and the creation of federal Net Neutrality policies, there are only a few examples if ISPs blocking or degrading VOIP and user uploads. But even those examples are huge when you consider that Comcast and Cox together were involved in the Sandvine RST thing. Together that's a large fraction of the USA Internet populace, not to mention the peers outside of the ISPs what those RSTs also went to.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/

baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI

1 recommendation

Who is the leader of the Internet Society? Can we nominate you Rob

funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

Re: Not news

said by baineschile:

Who is the leader of the Internet Society? Can we nominate you Rob
"I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected."

(probably)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/

jlivingood
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:2
said by baineschile:

Who is the leader of the Internet Society? Can we nominate you Rob
FWIW, anyone can become a member of ISOC for free, even individuals. As a non-profit, ISOC welcomes anyone's financial support as well:

»www.isoc.org/membership/
--
JL
Comcast
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
said by funchords:

The Internet belongs to The Internet Society and is made up of public and private networks who all have agreed to work together. It's a co-op. This co-op has standards and rules and handshake agreements and just plain-old custom. The access providers are just a part of the Internet ecosystem.
If its a custom, only fools hold onto it, change or DIE! per byte charging is the future!
Can ISPs dictate? To a point, yes. But the Internet stops being the Internet if the access providers start acting in non-Internet ways. Blocking or degrading connectivity to some in favor to the traffic of others isn't what made the Internet great and it isn't the kind of service that those seeking Internet connections want.
Peering disputes will turn the internet into what it wants to be, phone companies. I get free M2M to X, Y, and Z with Company D, and I get free M2M to A, B, and C with Company E, other sites I must pay for.

imanogre

join:2005-11-29
Smyrna, GA
I like how when a company wants to *gasp* make money it's automatically called corporate greed.

Not that I disagree with net neutrality, but it's phrases like this that really turn me off to an argument.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Re: Not news

said by imanogre:

I like how when a company wants to *gasp* make money it's automatically called corporate greed.

Not that I disagree with net neutrality, but it's phrases like this that really turn me off to an argument.
Simple when you expect someone to pay twice or more times for the same thing it's greed.
k1ll3rdr4g0n

join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL
said by imanogre:

I like how when a company wants to *gasp* make money it's automatically called corporate greed.

Not that I disagree with net neutrality, but it's phrases like this that really turn me off to an argument.
Statements like that are a slippery slope. There is a difference to make money to enhance the business and build it, then there is to prevent innovation in the industry just to make sure you don't loose profit margins.

Now, if facts were shown that the ISPs have to pay per byte and they were overselling for years - then ISPs have a leg to stand on for charging insane pricing per byte. But, the fact is ISPs DO NOT pay per byte, they pay by the bandwidth. If I bought a T1, there is no limit on how much I can download or upload, period. Same thing goes with an OC line. The only limit is how much data I push down the pipe at any given time.

This is where the ISPs are being greedy because they don't pay per byte, but yet they want the customer(s) to. You see where I am going with this?
It's similar to a concept of a buffet. The buffet pays $X for the food. You pay $Y to eat as much as you want. Now, what if you walked in tomorrow and they said they are still a buffet but you can only get 2 platefuls and you have to pay for platefuls after that because there is a limit. And lets say that another plateful costs MORE than what you paid at the door. At that point you would find another buffet right? Well, taking the buffet example to what ISPs are trying to do - I think we can agree that an ISPs usually have a monopoly or duopoly and even rarely a "triopoly" (sp?) but most of the time you don't have much of a choice for high speed internet, that is a fact. Now, lets say ISP X started to charge after the "2 platefuls", in a normal buffet you would just goto the competition....but in the real world there are no competition for high speed internet. See what I did there?
Paying-per-byte would only be appropriate if there was proper competition to keep the rates at a fair level that the ISPs competed for. But, since there is no competition - ISPs can charge whatever they want for overages and who is going to stop them? High speed internet is unregulated so they government wont, there is no competition so there is no incentive to keep the rates low.
Do you still think that pay-per-byte or overage charges is fair to the consumer?

••••
Expand your moderator at work

karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
Chicago, IL

1 recommendation

The ANSWER to your question of who 'owns' the internet, can only be answered by THE CUSTOMER. The CUSTOMER is WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM. PERIOD. Without the customer, there is no backbone, no ISP, no nothing.
Why is that? Lets see now. If say, AT&T got it's way, and made google double pay, and google chose NOT TO, then google would die. simple. Do the math. There are 50 million broadband accounts. Call it an average of $50.00/month. That is a total of $125 TRILLION DOLLARS. With 125 Trillion PER YEAR, WHY doesn't the government just lay fiber to every single home in america, and charge a $10.00 'access fee', and THEN let providers sell you an IP Address. I guarantee you, you would see the average broadband bill drop to about $30.00 a month for data. AND, if we break up the media megacorps, and force them to sell channels via a-la-carte, I suspect the average person would pay about $20.00 month for channels, and call it $10.00 for Voip. So, your total monthly bill would be about $60.00, for PHONE, TV, and DATA. That's a HELL of a lot cheaper than the $150.00 comcast charges.

Call it socailism if you will. The government, in my view, exists to provide services when the scale is too big for anyone else to do. RE: National Defense, Highway Network, Security.

The problem is the republicans sold everything else off. I sure as hell would love to pay a $10.00 'connect fee' for my electricity, and be able to BUY electricity from anywhere in the country, from whomever sells it cheapest.

So, Lets call this new place 'A better America'. The governement owns and maintains the roads, national defense, electric grid, data grid, water grid and health care. Everyone pays an ''access fee' to get on these grids, and then buys whatever they want from whomever they want it to. I guarantee you I could buy electricity from the Midwest at a fraction of the cost we pay in the Northeast, and I would cut all my bills in half.

Guess what, $10.00 per service (road/electric/water/data) would run you $40.00 a month. Health Care, probably about $200.00 per month. So, I am telling you right now, for $7 trillion a year ($250*125Million households), you could have dirt cheap electricty, good roads, great data, good water, and top notch health care.

Today, the average SINGLE american pays $8000.00 a year in health care. In 1970 (40 years ago), we paid an average of $350.00 a YEAR. In todays dollars, that's about $2000.00. Under my plan, everyone pays about $2500.00 a year, and everyone gets coverage, but you buy it from REAL competing insurers (or the government, if it's cheaper). Under My plan, you will pay about $70 a month for 100/100, 50 channels, and all you can talk.

Call it a tax, call it a $3500 tax for every man, woman and child. And then eliminate all the other fees. We would come out way ahead.

So who owns the internet, the megacorps, which is wrong. WE the people should own the backbone, and use whatever provider gives us the service at the level we want to pay for,
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity!

•••••••••••••••••••

rawgerz
The hell was that?
Premium
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA
The internet is made up of content and work from many thousands of individuals, if it were not for them, we'd still be in pre 1996! Maybe you weren't online in 96' but I was, and it SUCKED.

Besides I'm pretty sure many billions of tax dollars were allocated to help fund such networks.
--

You can't make all the people happy all of the time. But it should be common sense to shoot for the majority.

bent
and Inga
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO

Wall Street Journal

By the Pigs, For the Pigs.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: Wall Street Journal

said by bent:

By the Pigs, For the Pigs.
Isn't it obvious the WSJ only says PC statements that align with what wall street wants the naive investors and the public to believe (AKA, there is no recession, Government Motors and American International Greed were AAA++ investments for tax payers)?

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

How much does WSJ

pay this retard for writing retarded stuff?
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Opposite of what AT&T wants is what country needs

Next February the FCC will present a national broadband plan and if it's the exact opposite of what AT&T wants it will be wildly successful and envied by the rest of the world. Let's hope our bought and paid for leaders realize that the cost of turning our nation into a third world country just for the sake of short term profits is way too high.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: Opposite of what AT&T wants is what country needs

said by Sammer:

Next February the FCC will present a national broadband plan and if it's the exact opposite of what AT&T wants it will be wildly successful and envied by the rest of the world. Let's hope our bought and paid for leaders realize that the cost of turning our nation into a third world country just for the sake of short term profits is way too high.
But turning the USA into third world communications wise is the goal. In the Soviet Union nobody except Party Members/Managers and law enforcement had phones at home. 25 year waiting list for civilians. You don't want people to communicate among each other, dangerous things happen. All communications should be 1-way and centrally administered.

cleetcleet

@rice.edu
Precisely. But alas, the words of Menken (never overestimate...) ring all too loudly in my ears even if hope springs eternal!

funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

A little dial-up history

The original article is a train wreck. Taking from it,

AOL users were dialing up and keeping a line open for days or even weeks at a time—yet faced no cost for the disproportionate capacity they used up.
Another way to refer to AOL users is "customers of the phone company." Every one of them were making these calls over the telephone system, sometimes paying a toll when no local phone number existed with the free zone. My first dial-up bills were hundreds of dollars.

When the dial-up networks expanded and bought accounts in nearly every prefix zone, those toll incomes evaporated. People could stay on longer. Suddenly the phone companies started complaining about the disproportionate capacity. Funny, they weren't saying anything when many users were paying tolls!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/

••••••••••••••••••••••

Rivand

@pacbell.net

You got some right, some wrong

You're correct: Mr. Jenkins' article shows he both does not fully understand the "net neutrality" debate and is probably being paid to whip up (what's apparently becoming right wing) supporters against rational debate on the topic.

But here's where you're wrong: Wireless carriers that provide wireless broadband service have no choice but to implement some version of "per-byte" billing. "Unlimited" wireless bandwidth for a fixed monthly fee is 100% out of the question, with or without "net neutrality" legislation, or the threat thereof. You guys are smart enough to know that spectrum is limited and wireless carriers cannot build fiber-served cell towers every 500 meters.

You opine that (US) telecom carriers have a tendency to "overcharge" customers. I happen to agree. But, again, "unlimited" bandwidth for a fixed monthly fee is impossible. Think AT&T is hurting because of iPhone traffic? Just wait, wireless broadband hasn't even begun yet.

Since wireless carriers cannot "shape," "block," or otherwise "manage" Internet traffic (and I don't think for a second they should be able to!), they're left with but one option: metered billing (of some sort). And keep in mind, this can be implemented much more elegantly than it is today, to the point where a customer can easily manage how much money they're spending.

I know because I'm working on it.

••••••••••••

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Ad hominem attack on Jenkins won't work

»What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
Thanks to said wonks, we're still having the exact same debate we were back in 2005 as this painful editorial in the Wall Street Journal attests. Say hello, Mr. Holman W. Jenkins Jr.

That idea, like most of Mr. Jenkins' editorial, comes directly from the brains of phone company lobbyists who are now fighting new network neutrality rules at both the FCC and in Congress.
Mr Jenkins background does nothing to justify the attempt to portray him as a tool of the telco lobbyists. But when your argument is based on the premise that "profits are bad" and corporations are evil, I guess you have to use questionable methods to make your point.

About Holman W. Jenkins Jr.

Holman W. Jenkins Jr. is a member of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal and writes editorials and the weekly Business World column.

Mr. Jenkins joined the Journal in May 1992 as a writer for the editorial page in New York. In February 1994, he moved to Hong Kong as editor of The Asian Wall Street Journal's editorial page. He returned to the domestic Journal in December 1995 as a member of the paper's editorial board and was based in San Francisco. In April 1997, he returned to the Journal's New York office. Mr. Jenkins won a 1997 Gerald Loeb Award for distinguished business and financial coverage.

Born in Philadelphia, Mr. Jenkins received a bachelor's degree from Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, N.Y. He received a master's degree in journalism from Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., and studied at the University of Michigan on a journalism fellowship.

--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


•••

morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
Reviews:
·Charter

Thoughtful history of Net Neutrality debate

"the debate has always been driven by phone and cable company lobbyists, who aren't paid to compromise. They're paid to win by any means necessary, which includes the endless repetition of already disproven concepts."
Excellent post. This is a comprehensive explanation of the net neutrality issue. It really comes down to the insatiable greed by the phone and cable companies.

Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12

lol

According to Arbor Networks, the cost of fielding a single call to customer service can wipe out three years' profitability for a customer's broadband account.


Uh huh. Jenkins is a kook. Either that or customer service is overpaid at Comcast. Didn't realize one telephone call costs them $3000.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2

Re: lol

Alternately, charge for customer service calls...

...oh wait, that would make people move to another provider. Crapmuffins.
Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Comcast
·CenturyLink

Seems like old times

From the time internet service providers began offering internet access until about 1997 the local exchange carriers loved the ISP's. All that new revenue coming in made the commissioned employees, from account executives to the CEO's drool.

Unfortunately all good things come to an end. In this case the traffic generated by all of the dial up customers on line at the same time caused network blockage. As a result of the increased traffic the telephone companies would be unable to maintain the service objectives set forth by the state public service commissions. They would be forced to upgrade their switched networks if traffic continued to increase. Who was going to pay for the upgrades?

The Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers had the answer. Convert all of the ISP's modem access lines from flat rate service to measured rate service. That way the ISP's would have to raise prices and make internet access financially prohibitive by forcing consumers, to pay through the nose.

The lobbyists for the telephone companies and the FCC got into a brawl. Fortunately for consumers the telephone companies lost the battle otherwise the internet would have died on the vine.

Why did the LEC's loose the battle. It was simple. Telephone Companies had always under designed their networks assuming that each residential subscriber would be on the line no more than 250 Seconds per Hour. (2.5 CCS per hour.) When dial up internet subscribers began staying on line 1,800 Seconds an hour the switched network took a crap. Fortunately the government took the position that the ISP's should not be held responsible because the Local Exchange Carriers had under designed their networks, The FCC required the LEC's to fix the problem by upgrading their networks at their expense.

It appears that Mr. Ed is taking the same position the Local Exchange Carriers CEO's took in 1997 when it comes to upgrading AT&T's broadband networks to meet increased traffic. Make content providers and customers pay more so the AT&T's does not have to pay for upgrading their networks. It is time to take the feed bag away from Mr. Ed.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

Re: Seems like old times

Well-thought-out post, thanks.

Interesting how we keep coming back to the same things over and over again. Providers build networks "wway back when" and hope to reap enormous, increasing profits on those networks for years to come. Time moves on and people get closer to using advertised services, which causes oversubscription built into the network to fail. Communications companies, forced to provide more infrastructure (and forced to realize they're infrastructure companies), start crying.

Why anyone's pointing to Google though I'm not sure. That company doesn't have very many high-bandwidth applications, compared with online video providers. YouTube is the ony one, and YT isn't particularly high-quality...
kaila

join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL

Excellent post Karl!

Probably the best article I have ever read summarizing network neutrality.
--
Jeff Howe
Jeff's Blog - »www.ostjournal.net

Lark3po
Premium
join:2003-08-05
Madison, AL
Reviews:
·Knology

Re: Excellent post Karl!

said by kaila:

Probably the best article I have ever read summarizing network neutrality.
Agreed!

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
said by kaila:

Probably the best article I have ever read summarizing network neutrality.
I agree and it's about damn time!

I want to jump into the discussions here, but I know exactly where most of them are headed.

bostonkarl

@mda.mil

Bravo!

Bravo bravo bravo.

Excellent editorial.

bigbizpress

@comcast.net

the press sucks

since westinghouse purchased cbs, ge nbc, disney abc, time warner cnn the press has sucked

most of the news is owned by big busienss

we are toast, with all the misinformation it's nearly impossible to know the real truth.

only what the spin the they are pushing

»la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php
axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast

nice

I enjoyed the editorial. Network neutrality is about fairness and equality... of bytes, IP addresses, and port numbers. Treating all messages equally has a lot of great benefits, for free speech and open competition.

The drawback is spam, viruses, and child porn. We can't have a perfectly network neutral policy, but we should have it as much as possible.
brianiscool

join:2000-08-16
Tampa, FL
kudos:1

yes

If this passes no more bandwidth caps : )
cyclone_z

join:2006-06-19
Ames, IA

Media companies are what worries ME

I can't wait till ESPN's extortion results in every Internet customer's bill having $3 hidden in it for ESPN360, $3 for a movie studio, $3 for....

Soon we'll all be paying $120 per month to access the Internet.

tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:9
Reviews:
·G4 Communications
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting

Re: Media companies are what worries ME

Well crafted Network Neutrality regulations ought to prevent ISPs from entering into business relationships with preferred companies at the expense of others as well as content owners charging first-mile providers for the privilege of connecting.

This is not to say there cannot be charges for some content just that this cannot be done at the ISP level.

In my opinion there needs to be a clear distinction between carriage and content. ISP's main function is carriage, transparent deliver of data from customer to whomever the customer chooses. If they want to sell value add services all fine and good but that has to be separate from basic ISP functionality.

There are some functions only the ISP can provide, due to limited competition in first-mile I think those should be regulated. Other services can be provided by anyone and ought to be as open to competition as possible.

/tom
eternal85

join:2006-09-14
Knox, IN

Nice way to break it down author.

That was a GREAT and informative article/post.

anon

@sbcglobal.net

AOLers

AOL users were dialing up and keeping a line open for days or even weeks at a time—yet faced no cost for the disproportionate capacity they used up.
Where were all these AOL users??? One was lucky to stay online for a few hours let alone days or weeks! Weeks? WEEKS??? You must be joking! That's just not true. You couldn't use the phone for calls if you had it in constant use for days and weeks! Nobody would even try that unless they paid for a second line and that second line at 56k (or less) cost more than broadband today at 3000k!

Plus the service was paid for so it was NOT "free" or "no cost" in any case.

Keep in mind that the internet didn't get popular until AOL and all the other ISPs went to unlimited plans. That is what the people want and expect.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Health Care in Japan

I`m in Japan now as part of a study abroad program.

You have *no idea* how cheap healthcare is here. It`s absolutely insane how cheap it is. Basically going to the doctor will cost you something like $3, and there are basically no forms to fill, so people go all the time for meaningless things like `runny noses`. It`s so cool.