1 recommendation |
Cry Cry CryEveryone is crying Net Neutrality and Anti-Broadband bills that aren't really even affecting anything. There is nothing wrong with the Internet to even need a Network Neutrality bill/law. When something doesnt go some one's way on the Internet they post it on here or some where else and everyone starts saying "we need Net Neutrality" when nothing is wrong! Don't fix something when its not broke. And as far as Google even doing anything with broadband thats just in 1 city! Get over it Google! |
|
|
AwsomeAt least google is doing something... |
|
Dissonance |
to hottboiinnc4
Re: Cry Cry Crysaid by hottboiinnc4:Everyone is crying Net Neutrality and Anti-Broadband bills that aren't really even affecting anything. There is nothing wrong with the Internet to even need a Network Neutrality bill/law. When something doesnt go some one's way on the Internet they post it on here or some where else and everyone starts saying "we need Net Neutrality" when nothing is wrong! Don't fix something when its not broke. And as far as Google even doing anything with broadband thats just in 1 city! Get over it Google! The idea is to stop it before it becomes rampant. I hope you realize the anti-competitive possibilities that can arise from lack of regulation. I'm a road runner customer and as of right now, RR has reserved the right to de-prioritize competing VoIP. If the government isn't going to stop them, they WILL do it. And why wouldn't they? It means more money... |
|
bmfan Premium Member join:2005-03-15 Saint Helen, MI 1 edit |
bmfan
Premium Member
2007-Jun-21 6:03 pm
Google Building a Lobbying BeastI guess great that google is doing something positive, but sad that this is how our political system works |
|
|
to Dissonance
Re: Cry Cry CryI'm a RR customer as well and have never been sent anything from RR regarding the network being de-prioritize anything on their network. Nothing by email and nothing in the mail. Seems Mid-Ohio doesnt care what you use your connection for.
But why make a law for something that doesnt need it? just more regulation that we don't need. OT- just like the group of people who want a Airline Customer Bill of Rights; If you don't like the way the airlines work- don't use them. Its that simple. One problem with JetBlue and everyone wants a law.
People need to stop bitching for new laws all the damn time. If people don't like the way companies run their networks; those people should build their own. |
|
Mactronel Camino Real Premium Member join:2001-12-16 PRK |
Mactron
Premium Member
2007-Jun-21 6:06 pm
Go Google !!!"This was compared to the tens of millions being spent by companies like AT&T and Verizon, who've over decades developed a vast and very effective (if sometimes ethically dubious) public policy machine." Oh, and I trust the Telco's soooo much to protect me. You go Google ! |
|
|
to hottboiinnc4
Re: Cry Cry CryThe difference between an airline and an ISP is that you can choose the airline you want to fly. I can't choose anything but Time Warner because they're the only ISP available.
Your argument is that since ISP's aren't taking advantage, there's no need for a law to stop them. That's like saying "since there are very few murders, there's no need to make it illigal".
ISP's cannot be allowed to CONTINUE shaping the traffic that they choose, because it is anti-competitive. |
|
|
en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA |
to Dissonance
Yup...eventually, everything that isn't 'subsidized' through the ISP will be have low priority, if there's nothing to stop it. |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ
1 recommendation |
to Mactron
Re: Go Google !!!said by Mactron:"This was compared to the tens of millions being spent by companies like AT&T and Verizon, who've over decades developed a vast and very effective (if sometimes ethically dubious) public policy machine." Oh, and I trust the Telco's soooo much to protect me. You go Google ! Are you as happy that Google is also lobbying to bring more immigrants in to the US to take high tech jobs from U.S. citizens? » googlepublicpolicy.blogs ··· ion.htmlLobbying power is a 2 edged sword, and "Google the Good" is a very misleading phrase to apply to the new huge Google ad machine that plans on merging with Doubleclick and aggregating and selling your private info. |
|
|
to hottboiinnc4
Re: Cry Cry Crysaid by hottboiinnc4:I'm a RR customer as well and have never been sent anything from RR regarding the network being de-prioritize anything on their network. And why would RR contact you? You wouldn't be the one charged. What you don't seem to understand, though, is that (for the sake of arguement)...in RR's eyes, they own you as a customer. They own where you visit on line and the right to control your enjoyment of the services you use via the Internet. You say "they" should just go and build their own networks...But, what that translates in to is "Google" should go and build their own network. And Microsoft, and Youtube, and Flickr, and DSL Reports. Net Neutrality is about your ISP saying, "if you want to reach my customers, then pay me". This isn't like a toll booth on a highway or turn pike. Companies pay huge amounts to not only build their network, but also peering and access charges to upstream providers so others can reach them. You have a 1and1 review under your name tag. How would you feel about their "fast servers" if RR decided to tell them, "if you want your hosting services to reach my customers with any sort of reliable quality...pay me!" Net neutrality protection is about making what is already working, stay working. It's never been about you...but you'll benefit from these efforts. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2007-Jun-21 6:34 pm
Google Learned From MicrosoftFor most of the 1990s, Microsoft actively stayed away from politics. They would not hire lobbyists, they would not fund political campaigns or the like. But unfortunately, politics is not like trouble, in the sense that if you avoid trouble, it usually avoids you.
Apple, IBM, Sun Whinersystems and Oracle successfully lobbied the US Government to set its sights on Microsoft in the mid-1990s. We had all sorts of anti-trust lawsuits come of it, and Microsoft ended up spending a lot of money to defend itself from these lawsuits. By the time the 2000 presidential election came, they had learned the hard way that unless you pump sufficient "protection money" into a politician's pocket, you become a target. What did they do? Dumped a ton of money into the Bush campaign... and upon Bush's victory, the government actions against Microsoft came to an end.
Anyone who thinks Google's influence purchasing is somehow for the "greater good" is going to be sadly mistaken. Google only cares to protect its own interests. "Lobbying up" as it is, is merely a means by which Google protects itself from hostile actions that could be taken against it by the US Government. |
|
Mactronel Camino Real Premium Member join:2001-12-16 PRK |
to FFH5
Re: Go Google !!!said by FFH5:Lobbying power is a 2 edged sword, Gosh, I never realized that Lobbyists have multiple agendas... This discussion is a single issue. May be you didn't realize that. Hmmm |
|
|
to FFH5
said by FFH5:said by Mactron:"This was compared to the tens of millions being spent by companies like AT&T and Verizon, who've over decades developed a vast and very effective (if sometimes ethically dubious) public policy machine." Oh, and I trust the Telco's soooo much to protect me. You go Google ! Are you as happy that Google is also lobbying to bring more immigrants in to the US to take high tech jobs from U.S. citizens? How is lobbying to hire qualified immigrants (who will pay into the tax system) any worse than "other domestic companies" outsourcing jobs qualified US residents could fill? |
|
KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to hottboiinnc4
Re: Cry Cry Cryoddly ehough wouldnt this be akin to Comcast charging ABC to reach its viewers on Comcast? |
|
|
to Dissonance
There is always another ISP- Dial-up, WildBlue, and at times a WSIP. So just because AT&T made the comment of charging content providers to access their network we need a law you think?
You always have a choice. And if you don't like whats available to you; start your own ISP. |
|
1 recommendation |
to pnh102
Re: Google Learned From MicrosoftMicrosoft was actually doing wrong... |
|
|
to DaSneaky1D
Re: Cry Cry CryI would be contacted if they're de-prioritizing the customer side of the network like some customers of RR's has said. And i clearly understand what is going on; simply a bunch of people complaining about what a company can and can not do. They built it and own it. If you don't like it don't use it and build your own. I mean they as in the customers; at least on here. If you don't like your ISP build a network to compete. MSN already has their own of Dial-up and are partnered with Qwest for DSL.
Well as with 1and1 and their reliable quality its the Internet. Nothing has quality its only best of effort now.
I don't see the point of making a law that is not needed. When it's needed then make the law otherwise its just wasting time being bitched about in DC when other bills that are needed just sit there.
and for the Record TWC, Comcast and every other cable company already does prioritize their network with their Digital Phone- it has priority access on their network on a different channel then anything else. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
to DaSneaky1D
Re: Google Learned From Microsoftsaid by DaSneaky1D:Microsoft was actually doing wrong... But that only became "true" after the companies I mentioned lobbied the US Government to figure that out for themselves. |
|
|
|
to pnh102
"Anyone who thinks Google's influence purchasing is somehow for the "greater good" is going to be sadly mistaken. Google only cares to protect its own interests. "Lobbying up" as it is, is merely a means by which Google protects itself from hostile actions that could be taken against it by the US Government."
I agree with you 100% but we will always think Google is GOD and can do no wrong even though it's a multi-billion dollar company |
|
|
to en102
Re: Cry Cry CryLike I said. The law is only needed when this is an issue. Other wise there is nothing to stop. Just a bunch of major companies shooting the breeze. |
|
|
to odreian615
Re: Google Learned From MicrosoftI agree.
Most of the people here are pretty much idiots. |
|
Mactronel Camino Real Premium Member join:2001-12-16 PRK |
Mactron
Premium Member
2007-Jun-21 7:40 pm
ROFL ... Again ! |
|
|
Corporate RollerballI say let the corporations field teams and settle all of our political issues with rollerball tournaments. |
|
|
to hottboiinnc4
Re: Cry Cry Crysaid by hottboiinnc4:...I don't see the point of making a law that is not needed. When it's needed then make the law ... ...and for the Record TWC, Comcast and every other cable company already does prioritize their network... Dude... In many areas cable companies have exclusive rights to have infrastructure. Therefore they are the ONLY HSI available. We both have Road runner who has already de-prioritized certain kinds of traffic (call them and ask- I did). Many of these companies have already made their intentions clear, that they will prioritize their own internet traffic, or that of companies that will pay them for it (meaning competition- won't be competition at all if it can't get to you reliably). |
|
Dissonance |
to steelyken
Re: Corporate RollerballRollerball! yes! |
|
|
to Dissonance
Re: Cry Cry CryAT&T has exclusive use of their backbone as well. TWC/Comcast on the other hand has built their entire network with their own money. I mean the entire back bone is what i meant by network.
But like i said- It's only the NYC people saying they're not giving fair access. Thats where the "letters" were email from to their customers. |
|
|
to hottboiinnc4
Your argument is fairly illogical. Regulation that is pro competition should be welcome. I don't like regulation, but I can certainly support it if it improves competition. How can one be against competition? And the network neutrality regulation is not onerous at all. It just says that you can't do something that the telcos and cablecos say they don't do. So, it really should be no big deal. |
|
RayW Premium Member join:2001-09-01 Layton, UT |
to hottboiinnc4
said by hottboiinnc4:Like I said. The law is only needed when this is an issue. Other wise there is nothing to stop. Just a bunch of major companies shooting the breeze. Is your name Edward Whitacre, Jr. or does he sign your paycheck? See » www.washingtonpost.com/w ··· 211.htmlfor what the head of SBC seems to have said he wants to do. You are right, it is not a KNOWN issue at this time, however the people (providers) who *own* the customers do currently have the right to screw with or charge extra for data streams that we are paying for if they do not come from the best money making (for the provider) location (read the article, I have summarized drastically). So says the Boss of SBC. As I read what the Golden Boy of Telecom had to say in 2005, the fact that Google (example) pays whomever for internet access and that I pay SBC (assuming I have SBC as an ISP/connection) for Internet access does not mean that SBC has to allow me to access Google without Google paying SBC extra for data from Google to traverse SBC into my house. |
|
|
to hottboiinnc4
quote: I would be contacted if they're de-prioritizing
Oh my, don't we feel important? Net Neutrality is about keeping the status quo: best effort delivery and all. Double dipping the parties who already pay for access is ludicrous. quote: They built it and own it. If you don't like it don't use it and build your own.
This argument gets used here an awful lot. Applied to any other commerce arrangement, it would seem illogical and ill advised at best. I suppose if you don't like WalMart, you should build your own store? That's hardly feasible. Luckily, most other commerce arrangements have other choices in the marketplace-there are competitors to WalMart. Building ones own ISP is hardly a feasible proposition for a majority of people. Possible? Yes, but so is building my own doctor's office, or football stadium, or ocean liner. None of those things are feasible from a cost/skill/time/effort/energy perspective for just about anyone. I don't see how an ISP is any different than those examples. Sure, a one man, one location, two pipes for redundancy ISP is possible, but who amongst the peasants of the world could afford/want to do so, when there are clearly behemoth giants already squatting on that space? Could a one man ISP compete with say Time Warner, pricewise? Absolutely not. |
|
tiger72SexaT duorP Premium Member join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO |
to FFH5
Re: Go Google !!!So you're saying that Google should hire unqualified Americans in place of highly qualified foreigners... For WHAT reason?
If Google can't find what it needs here, that says alot about our education system (poor), and market (highly competitive with low unemployment). |
|