Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Yet again
this moron ignores the fact that EVERY ISP pays for ALL their bandwidth and implies they want bandwidth for free. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is..
Point 1: If you're never going to do it, then why do you care if there is legislation?
Point 2: Oh, so you are going to do it, but just for things you think are "moral". Do we want Comcast to be the informational judge/jury/executioner on morality? I think not.
This guy must need two straws to drink. |
|
chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
1 edit | Internet a la Cable services is on its way~!!!
child-friendly-content zone that packages $5
soport tier $5
science and resarch $5 ($2 if you fax your student ID)
basic internet will include google, msn, yahoo, ebay, cnn and we will trow in for free mysapce... |
|
bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL
| I believe everything he says..
NOT! Traffic shaping for entertainment traffic-don't really care for the pipe provider doing that. The adaptation of the computer into society is much more accelerated than electricity or automobiles were-laws and legislation were more able to keep up. IP is becoming and will be THE delivery mode of most information and knowledge. Knowledge is power and should not be shaped,altered, or throttled in any way. Something this important should be considered an utility,being protected and distributed as such. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| said by bamabrad  :IP is becoming and will be THE delivery mode of most information and knowledge. Knowledge is power and should not be shaped,altered, or throttled in any way. Ding Ding Ding. You got it brad.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad |
|
noblepaladin3
join:2006-08-02
Malden, MA
| Competition?
If they limit access, "they'd take a hit in their competition with DSL"?
You mean like how if they offer very low speeds for ridiculously high prices compared to all other countries, even though the United States suppose to be much more advanced. We need true competition. Many places are limited to Cable or DSL, not both. My home has Verizon DSL and Comcast Cable, but they target different markets (Verizon has that cheap 768k/128k plan for people who just browse, Comcast has faster speeds for very high prices for more regular users). Notice that places that have FIOS get their Cable speeds doubled, and prices greatly reduces when customers threaten to leave. Now that is competition at work. |
|
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
1 edit | reply to bamabrad
Re: I believe everything he says..
I do believe Cohen is on the right track. I believe he is telling it like it is. I believe he is absolutely correct when he says quote:
the wholly speculative nature of this problem is why so many refer to it as a "solution in search of a problem."
Don't legislate until there is a bona-fide problem. Proactive legislation is not a panacea for this issue, whether you believe it to be real or not ... proactive legislation is an invitation to unintended consequences and collateral damage. Let things develop on their own under a watchful eye.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
pb5k
more cowbell
Premium
join:2005-11-16
Glendale, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
| reply to Ahrenl
Re: Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is..
Thread is over, Ahrenl wins. 
The most nonsensical argument is the "objectional content" angle. Besides the fact that the definition of said content is entirely subjective, it's nothing more than a boogeyman to frighten people into surrendering control of content to someone else.
Oh, I don't know what's best for me and my family, Comcast does! 
This is entirely hypocritical anyway, coming from the people who killed the superb TechTV and replaced it with the juvenile-pandering G4TV which really should be renamed TASTV - tits, arse and star trek television. 
--
"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'" --
Theodore Roosevelt |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Ugh.
Won't somebody think of the children [other than the parents]? |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | reply to NGOwner
Re: I believe everything he says..
Not legislating would imply, necessarily, that current "net neutrality" will persist, contrary to what they're lobbying for. |
|
LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE | reply to pb5k
Re: Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is..
Oh, I don't know what's best for me and my family, Comcast does!
No, apparently the Bush and his cronies at the FCC do. |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
2 edits | reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl :Point 1: If you're never going to do it, then why do you care if there is legislation? Because 99% of the time legislation ends up reaching farther than it's stated purpose.
For instance, Comcast dedicates bandwidth on their cable to their services (ie: video, digital phone, and I believe their VOIP option, all have their own dedicated channels to use over coax). Legislation could leave them ripe for the picking to any lawyer looking for a class action suit, not to mention politicians angered by comcast.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| reply to NGOwner
Re: I believe everything he says..
said by NGOwner :I do believe Cohen is on the right track. I believe he is telling it like it is. I believe he is absolutely correct when he says quote:
the wholly speculative nature of this problem is why so many refer to it as a "solution in search of a problem."
Don't legislate until there is a bona-fide problem. Proactive legislation is not a panacea for this issue, whether you believe it to be real or not ... proactive legislation is an invitation to unintended consequences and collateral damage. Let things develop on their own under a watchful eye.[NG]Owner I am not one to like laws on the internet. There are some thing that's should naturally transfer over such as copyrights/patents, child pornography laws, etc. This is one area that I do want Uncle Sam to step and and say No. The viability of the internet as an open communication for information and ideas has to be safeguarded. Once someone else's information and ideas gets priority over others it will be a downward spiral.
There are two sides to this coin, is net-neutrality laws fixing a problem that doesn't exist, or is it nipping a problem in the bud? I see it as the latter. You don't wait for food to spoil before you decide to refrigerate it.
This is all about ISPs want to be able to charge content providers for priority on the network. The hope is to create a priority war amongst the large domains like Google, Ebay, myspace, etc. Under the current system all packets are routed equally and fairly, and we all get our content timely. Once one company gets it in their head to purchase priority then the other companies will have to follow suite or get left behind. Now they will all have to shell out money to have what they all used to have. Meanwhile the rest of us are left with our websites getting the shaft. This is why even companies like Google, the very companies this is suppose to help, are against it. They don't want to shell out big money for what everyone is getting already.
The way the companies are selling this is basically by lying. One was even saying a gaming company, like WOW, could pay to have players bandwidth uncapped. That has nothing to do with network neutrality, and there probably will be no system to having users bandwidth uncapped on demand.
They are also saying that packets will receive the same priority as they always have, and all websites will continue to load just as well. If this was true then there would be no incentive for web-site providers to purchase network priority from companies like AT&T and it would all be quite mute.
So, I see it as putting the food in the fridge before it spoils, not waiting for it to spoil and then refrigerating it.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad |
|
ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17
| reply to tsu9
Re: Ugh.
said by tsu9 :Won't somebody think of the children [other than the parents]? Gotta love the simpsons |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Combat Chuck
Re: Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is..
Fortunately the entire discussion is framed around the internet service pipe. (or tube if you like  ) If Verizon and AT&T would like to setup a separate service just for hospitals, and separate service for games, then more power to them.
No one is saying they can't charge THEIR customers more. We're saying, we don't want you filtering our data with hidden fee structures. If they want to start a FREE service which they charge content providers to access, then that would be fine as well. You don't get it both ways. Especially when you're a monopoly for a service that our economy depends on. |
|
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
1 edit | reply to Maxo
Re: I believe everything he says..
Sage points Maxo. As an FYI, the validity of my argument rests on the following:
As I see it as long as the data pipe is not overloaded to begin with, prioritization is useless. It doesn't make a difference which packet is prioritized as there is capacity for both FIFO-wise on the pipe. Prioritization only comes into vogue when there is contention for a single timeslice on the pipe by two packets.
Furthermore, the pipe to the home must work tomorrow as well as it does today, with appropriate improvements in throughput (similar to what we've seen over the past decade). Degradation or stagnation of what we have today is NOT factored into any of my arguments.
I still don't like the idea of proactively legislating. If it becomes an issue, undo it. Otherwise let the markets decide.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs: | I get your point. Though I sit far to the left I am weary of will-nilly government legislation, especially when it comes to the internet. I think this one issue is a place where I'm willing to part and say let's do it. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Wait a second...thats not what ol' Bri said.
"the cable-broadband business is intensely rivalrous with DSL"
You mean that Brian Roberts was wrong when he said DSL was no threat to cable? Really? The Hyundai is threatening to undo the Beemer? I thought Comcast had nothing to fear from those silly telcos?
What has this world come to?
Man, what a bunch of double-speaking corporate crap...
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
sago
join:2001-12-19
| not quite there yet
talk about broadband over power lines.
OK, here's the deal. People with dial-up WILL tend to switch to companies like Comcast, because they have no other choice. I'm not going to sit here and say that Comcast is a monopoly, but on the other hand, there isn't really a whole lot of "choice" in many areas still -- you've got cable broadband, DSL (if you can get it), Verizon's fiber (if you're in the area), and of course things like T1's and satellite broadband.
Cable internet is turning into the best solution for those who can get it. So if your signal levels degrade when "digital voice" or voip phone service gets priority packets, what then? When "family friendly broadband games" (whatever those are) get priority over your incomplete shopping cart at your favorite online retailer what happens then?
Well... it "shouldn't" happen. There's "something wrong" with the network -- we're "working on it".
The article is simply not realistic. This is simply not the way things are. The greatest threat is probably an overloaded network, with revenue-generating broadband content being given priority, and the internet itself simply not working as well.
OTOH, net neutrality legislation may very well turn into a huge amount of red tape -- and that would not be good either.
So I would say that net neutrality is a very good thing, and that we should support it. I'm just not sure that our government is capable of crafting a law without creating miles of red tape that creates problems.
The question in my mind is whether or not the red tape is really worth it. But generally speaking, with companies like Comcast, if they do give priority to "family friendly broadband games", chances are your TV channels and other services won't work as well or at all in any neighborhood where there are problems with the network - and there are neighborhoods that are like that from time to time as problems show up and are fixed over time.
Is it worth the red tape? Otherwise, net neutrality is a good idea. Are our lawmakers capable of crafting a law that reflects the concept? That's another question. |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | reply to Ahrenl
Re: Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is..
said by Ahrenl :Fortunately the entire discussion is framed around the internet service pipe. Unfortunately that's not the entire discussion. Where is the line drawn? What constitutes being non-net-neutral?
Is it just charging content providers for higher QOS? Is limiting the speeds of end users based on how much they pay a month? Is it limiting free access of data by limiting internet access to a single channel while giving your own services dedicated channels?
The bottom line is that there is no way to target what is net neutral without either making the definition to broad (thus it encompasses charging customers more for higher speeds), or making the definition too narrow and thus ineffective (so a cable company could just put infrastructure in place to make it so preferred content has a wide channel while general internet gets squeezed thru a narrow pipe).
You can be sure as hell that legislators are going to choose the broad option if for no other reason then it allows them more control.
--edit--
just FYI, yes i know that the CC guy is making these announcements because he's worried about his companies bottom line, thus I could care less what he or any other CEO says about things like this. But the idea that if they don't intend to do it they have nothing to fear from legislation is as ridiculous applied to this as it is applied to people who are concerned by wiretapping.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. |
|
