 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | no subsidization of private networks absolutely no tax money should go to support subsidization of private infrastructure. any money should go toward equal access infrastructure with telco's having to get in line just like any Joe Schmoe's ISP. yes, I'm talking about YOU, AT&T. see Utah's UTOPIA for a guide. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Nothing Wrong With Current Approach Hopefully the FTC will discuss "Net Neutrality" as the two separate things that it really is, and not attempt to confuse people by mixing the issues:
Currently ISPs are sanctioned when they block access to a particular service.
No one seems to have a good reason for banning companies from building their own private networks to offer their own services. If people think these services are worth it, they will pay for them. If not, then its the company investors left holding the bag if the project fails. Why should this be of any concern whatsoever to the government?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
|
|
| Logistically,how would the internet work without neutrality? The telcos collect from customers for providing them internet service. What is wrong with this model? If the telco thinks that the consumer is using too much bandwidth then charge them more for it. You already have an accounts recievable department recieving money from the consumer anyway!!
This logic of charging the content provider is totally ridiculous and even more so, it's totally impracticle. Say AT&T decided to bill Broadbandreports a nickel every time an AT&T customer went to the bbr website. How is that going to be possible? Now the consumer has to have a credit card number to get charged a nickel for every site they go to....unless its on the AT&T network. This is nothing but another push for a monopoly. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Wait and See Regulation is not required for a problem that doesn't exist. If/When such a problem arises, reevaluate the situation at that time. I should think that the FTC has larger, more prevailing problems to deal with than this "potential" issue. |
|
 POBRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | said by openbox9:Regulation is not required for a problem that doesn't exist. If/When such a problem arises, reevaluate the situation at that time. I should think that the FTC has larger, more prevailing problems to deal with than this "potential" issue. Exactly which potential issue are you referring to? If Net Neutrality does not become a reality, then essentially, all bets are off. The telcos want to double dip so they make up all sorts of fictions about NN, that is the bottom line. If NN does not constitute a potential issue in the world according to you, then apparently you haven't been paying very close attention.
--
The Toll
|
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | When I said "potential" issue, I was referring to one that hasn't come to pass. There's a lot of hype on both sides of the fence on what will/won't be done in regards to "net neutrality" (the term in and of itself has many meanings and is vague at best). The real bluff is that ISPs to date, haven't double-dipped and haven't prioritized their traffic over other providers' traffic in an anti-competitive nature (except for a couple of rare occasions that have been corrected). So what exactly would you propose be regulated that is NEEDED right here and now? |
|
| The issue is FREEDOM Net neutrality came about simply because the dumb ass ceo's of the megacorps SAID that they wanted to double dip. Look back at any of their past comments, and you can see why people get so riled up. WE, the customer, see NO ADVANTAGE in that proposal. WE, the customer, PAID for the internet. We, the customer, DEMAND that we get what we paid for.
What did we pay for? Bluntly, I am paying for a pipe that is x/mb/sec. I expect it to provide me with an IP address, and that's IT. PERIOD. I don't want AOL. I don't want COMPUSERV. I want an IP address, that can get to any other ip address, at the speed I paid for.
What they are proposing? They are saying that I pay based upon how much they think they can charge me. They want to charge me if I download a video from utube. They want to charge me more if I use google to search. They want to charge me more if I download a movie.
Guess what, that's NOT what I'm buying. I pay for a pipe. I expect that pipe to run at it's specs. I pay based on the SIZE of the pipe, NOT what I use it for.
Net neutrality is required simply because what we pay for isn't what the CEO's of the megacorps think we should be buying. We KNOW what we want, and we WILL use the law to enforce it.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | You pay for a commercial product that is subject to change at any point in time with sufficient notice from your provider to amend your contract (there is an implied month-to-month contract when you pay for any service). The provider should be held accountable to provide what was sold in accordance with their current terms of service (this is a separate issue). If you don't like the conditions of service provided to you, find a different provider.
Net neutrality legislation is not required at this time. Do you know of any provider that "double dips" or prioritizes their traffic over a competing service's traffic? |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | If they're not doing it, then the legislation won't effect them. The fact is, they said they were going to charge service providers for "using their pipes". They (whitacre) started the debate. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | But nothing has been implemented. Do people not realize that legislating things that aren't broken more often than not tends to make situations worse. Less government is usually better  Not to mention, I'd rather my tax dollars go towards things that are broken. |
|
POBRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
1 edit | reply to openbox9
Re: Wait and See said by openbox9:When I said "potential" issue, I was referring to one that hasn't come to pass. There's a lot of hype on both sides of the fence on what will/won't be done in regards to "net neutrality" (the term in and of itself has many meanings and is vague at best). The real bluff is that ISPs to date, haven't double-dipped and haven't prioritized their traffic over other providers' traffic in an anti-competitive nature (except for a couple of rare occasions that have been corrected). So what exactly would you propose be regulated that is NEEDED right here and now? Do you even understand what is at stake in NN debate? I seriously doubt it b/c it. But nm, I'm not going to participate in a battle of wits with an unarmed person. Move along now...Go back to watching Fox News.
--
The Toll
|
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Intelligent response. I do understand the net neutrality debate. The point is that you can debate all day, the reality is that there's nothing requiring legislation because no "mischievous" action has been taken by the providers. So my question still stands...what needs to be regulated? |
|
 batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | No we can't all get along. When it comes to money, my money you have to earn it. If you steal it from me I will not like it and get even by any means necessary.
You can listen to the next hustle a buck WorldCom/MCI and pass all of the laws you want. The US is 16th, do you want to try for 32ed? |
|
batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | reply to morbo
Re: no subsidization of private networks said by morbo:absolutely no tax money should go to support subsidization of private infrastructure. any money should go toward equal access infrastructure with telco's having to get in line just like any Joe Schmoe's ISP. yes, I'm talking about YOU, AT&T. see Utah's UTOPIA for a guide. Ahhha Utopia, how wide are the tubes on there back-bone. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to openbox9
Re: The issue is FREEDOM Umm, it is broken, that's the problem. This will keep it from getting wrecked more. It's broken because it's not possible to compete as an ISP, when your competition owns the network you're competing on.
I'm all for less government. Unfortunately, unless we let everyone who wants to build a network in public ROW's (which would blot out the sun) then less government, in this case, is not possible. |
|
viffer
join:2007-02-15
Toronto, ON | Content & Carriers With regard to wireless data networks owned by the carriers, it appears that without regulation they will completely control what type of content is delivered through their "pipes". This is like if our highways were completely commercially owned, our options for holidays or road trips might be quite limited. Although, HOV lanes and toll roads appear to work to an extent and still provide access to all. Could this balance be achieved for broadband? |
|
| reply to openbox9
Re: Wait and See said by openbox9:Regulation is not required for a problem that doesn't exist. If/When such a problem arises, reevaluate the situation at that time. I should think that the FTC has larger, more prevailing problems to deal with than this "potential" issue. I believe the same thing was said about the stock market, right about the time it crashed in 1929 due mainly to unregulated banking practices. |
|
bi0tech
join:2003-06-19
Cockeysville, MD | reply to openbox9
Yeah I mean it's not like ISP are:
providing nebulous service under unstated terms... oh wait
throttling traffic in whatever way seems fit to them... oh wait
are basically a geographically oriented monopoly/duopoly... oh wait
intent on squeezing as much money out of customers as possible without regard to making broadband available to the masses as any real UTILITY should be... oh wait
always seeking financial aid for infrastructure buildouts that they then turn around and cry pauper when any kind of open system legislation is attempted... oh wait
have continuously lobbied against communities setting up their own systems that fulfill net neutrality requirement based on nonsensical and outright fraudulent claims... oh wait
Shall I continue? |
|
| The real crime The real crime is that these telcos were given BILLIONS in subsidies and tax breaks to encourage them to build out their infrastructures to support today's needs.
They were happy to take the money, but only built out to the absolute minimum requirements, thus maximizing profits.
You want to prioritize the network. Fine. Then pay back all the BILLIONS we taxpayers put forth to subsidize all your efforts. It is clear that the telcos want their cake and your cake and my cake while their stuffing themselves.
Ultimately, these are local monopolies, so that government should step in to make sure the consumer is protected. Sadly, this administration seems to feel the citizens of this country are nothing more than cash providers for corporations. These corporations are allowed to rape and pillage the American population with substandard connections (compared with other nations) AND they receive BILLIONS in corporate welfare (which are also our dollars). |
|
k0balt
join:2007-02-16
Melber, KY | reply to openbox9
Re: The issue is FREEDOM i created an account just to correct you.
open box 9 says: "Net neutrality legislation is not required at this time. Do you know of any provider that "double dips" or prioritizes their traffic over a competing service's traffic?"
clearwire blocks voip ports unless you call them to open them up. a few months after they started this they introduced their own voip service.
fuck off |
|
