how-to block ads
|
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL
| Gimmie A Break
The networks are not free as many people on this site know - especially those who make their living some way some how in IT etc.
This net neutrality thing is socialism in disguise, and no network has to make it balanced. In fact to think that it is now is naive. The networks are going to do everything possible to make the paying customers happy.
You got to pay to play or expect your play to suffer. | |
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| "This net neutrality thing is socialism in disguise, and no network has to make it balanced."
Respectfully disagree, having a NON neutral network would be more socialist.
Why should a network be unbalanced in favor of any one thing or another??? Shouldn't that be left to the user?
I'm not claiming networks are free here. I just can't understand why two parties should be limited in their exchange of data. A neutral network would ensure that this is the case, one that isn't, wouldn't.
I run my band's website. If I had to pay more money to ensure that my content were delivered as well as, say, a major label band's, that would not be fair. Sure, I might need to go for a dedicated server with more bandwidth, but that's different. Right now, the "little guy" still has just as much a chance to be heard as anyone else, and that is not socialism in disguise, it seems more like a simple matter of freedom in my mind.
What many in the "content" industry can't seem to grasp is that through technology, the tables have been turned. Some have used technology to their advantage, while others still sit back and cry about not being able to utilize it to its fullest potential.
Also, (the internet) was not built solely for commerce. Sure, it's a fantastic vehicle for it, but that's not the only thing it was designed for.
There is still more non-commercial material out there than commercial.......
Back on topic, bit torrent is a whole different can of worms.
I'm not sure about whether it's a neutrality issue or not due to the nature of how it operates... a swarm of users all maxing out their connections is much different than a traditional client/server relationship. | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| reply to TechieZero
said by TechieZero  :This net neutrality thing is socialism in disguise As well is public education, minimum wage laws, worker safety laws, and the FCC and FDA. | |
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| reply to amungus
said by amungus :Why should a network be unbalanced in favor of any one thing or another??? Shouldn't that be left to the user? I'm not claiming networks are free here. I just can't understand why two parties should be limited in their exchange of data. A neutral network would ensure that this is the case, one that isn't, wouldn't. Thanks for voicing a great argument against "net neutrality". Shouldn't a user be able to determine how their data is transported over a network? Doesn't "net neutrality" by definition limit how two parties are allowed to exchange data?
A truely neutral network would allow the network owner to provide access over the network based on any agreement they could reach with end users. Basic service at a basic price, and premium service at a premium price. It amazes me that people are so vehemently against an idea that is practiced in practically every single enterprise in a capitalist system. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to amungus
said by amungus :"This net neutrality thing is socialism in disguise, and no network has to make it balanced." Respectfully disagree, having a NON neutral network would be more socialist. ..and I have to disagree with you. When government tries to ensure fairness by decree or order, then you have socialism. We have a capitalistic system here where equality in financial wealth or benefit doesn't exist. We still have the right to earn and have while others -may- not...
Why should a network be unbalanced in favor of any one thing or another??? Shouldn't that be left to the user?
In a government run system, sure! In a privately run network, no. The very fact of trying to have government intervene in a privately run network in the name of "fairness" is in fact climbing on socialism.
Being a small guy myself in that same pond, I'd be one to want equal access to the net as the big boys.. but, so as not to set a new false set of standards in which we move forward, I side on the rights of private business. For the record, I don't agree with smoking bans either. It's private property. If there is such a need for non-smokers to have a smoke free environment, the capitalist society would take advantage of the supply and demand and rake in a fortune. Since the cry from non-smokers can't get their own places, government takes the route to ban smoking which in my opinion intrudes on property rights of land and business owners.
So.. force policy on to business? No. Does it happen? Yes... is it right in most cases.. the fact is - no - not in most cases. Our government over reaches it's powers all the time and it goes uncontested.
I'm not claiming networks are free here. I just can't understand why two parties should be limited in their exchange of data. A neutral network would ensure that this is the case, one that isn't, wouldn't. And this I would COMPLETELY agree with you if the network being operated was run by the government where the constitution would protect the free speech.. To allow for advantage given to some over others is not something the government can do. However, businesses, last time I checked, are still allowed to sell to the highest bidder. We may not like it, but it's not illegal.
I run my band's website. If I had to pay more money to ensure that my content were delivered as well as, say, a major label band's, that would not be fair. The only reason I want to respond to this comment is because you used the word 'fair'. This is commonly used as a reason for why many times. As much as I agree it's not "fair" we have NOTHING in the constitution that grants us the rights to all be fair among others. Some are going to have more and advantages over the other. To have a government dole out their version of fair, in itself, is not fair to those that are working with in the capitalistic system that this country is based. To want to accept the government's version of fair, I hate to tell you, IS socialism. This is allowing the government to spread their idea of fairness... which also is discrimination in reverse. Those that have worked hard and built their empires or businesses forced to be on the same level as a small guy in his one bedroom apartment is in itself discrimination to the big guy. Or, someone like me who has put his time in, struggled, starved, worked hard to get to a mid level,.. say I have the money to buy more than, say, you.. a very little guy. I certainly don't want the government to tell me I have to be on the same level as you. (nothing personal)
When you create this false idea of fair, you also do what people here on BBR are against - they want people to innovate. Many people that are where they are (say the google boys) they worked hard, and build themselves to where they are. Just as you may want to do.. you may want to build to be something big. Would you continue to work hard if you knew the government would eventually tell you that all your hard work will not place you "fair" to the little guy who may not want to build and grow?
Naa... fair isn't the law. It's a dream.
Right now, the "little guy" still has just as much a chance to be heard as anyone else, and that is not socialism in disguise, it seems more like a simple matter of freedom in my mind. What people who believe this don't understand is that you aren't in threat of being censored. Your sites will still operate and serve as they are now. What they are talking about are large sites that throw a gob of bandwidth rich data. Ultimately, if the nets start selling premium services, this is a battle to the millionaires anyway.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to Maxo
Wanna 'splain how the FCC is socialist? | |
kyramilan
join:2006-11-26
Pensacola, FL
| reply to TechieZero
No because 99.999% of bittorrents are illegal. Actually, I'd like to see China blocked (less Spam...about 95% less spam!).
I ask for ONE legal file on The Pirate Bay and someone put a link to AOL IM. Actually, AOL doesn't allow redistribution of the program according to its TOS. They do now allow developers to create Plug-ins for it. | |
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
| said by kyramilan :No because 99.999% of bittorrents are illegal. Got proof of that???
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc :Wanna 'splain how the FCC is socialist? It's a government entity that regulates business, quite heavily at that.
Capitalism = free market
Socialism = Controlled market (to varying degrees)
I am not applying the socialist tag to any of these groups to put them down. I am registered to vote with the socialist party. I also agree to existence of all the things I listed, though not necessarily to the implementation.
--
"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 | |
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to fiberguy
The problem is, the government created the mess in the first place, allowing private companies to build networks on public ROWs. You can't have a free market when one competitor owns the marketplace, unless that competitor is forced to share the marketplace distribution that is un-reproducible. If every competitor were allowed to build their own network, then we could have a "free" market system in communications. Of course we also wouldn't be able to see the sky anymore through the tangle of network wires.
So there are two solutions. Either network owners aren't allowed to compete with content providers. Or network owners are required to give fair access to all service providers, especially those they compete with. Currently this is enforced through public interest, and the threat of government intervention; public interest in communications is pretty fickle though, and won't maintain the current status quo.
Imagine if one retail company bought all the commercial space (including internet access) in your state. Then decided to only sell their products. "Sorry we don't make Cheerios or light bulbs, you won't be able to buy those from now on." Of course a black market would be created selling Cheerios and light bulbs at huge mark-ups. A black market in communication networks is just not possible. | |
RideRed
Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista
Premium
join:2005-06-18
USA
| reply to TechieZero
said by TechieZero :The networks are not free as many people on this site know - especially those who make their living some way some how in IT etc. This net neutrality thing is socialism in disguise, and no network has to make it balanced. In fact to think that it is now is naive. The networks are going to do everything possible to make the paying customers happy. You got to pay to play or expect your play to suffer. I'll take socialism then if it means a company like Verizon can't purposely interfere with the service I PAY (yes, I pay to play) FOR to the advantage of their products (like Verizon Voicewing) over their competitors (like Vonage).
Pay to play is B.S.
ISP subscribers are already paying monthly to play...not have priority access to the ISP's crap services while their competitors are hobbled. | |
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to kyramilan
Most SPAM originates in the US. It's been measured and reported a bazillion times.. China produces some, but so does the phillipines, and Taiwan, and X number of other developing network enabled countries. | |
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to Maxo
True socialism would have no need for the FCC since the state would own the means of production, which in this case would be state-owned and operated telecommunications systems.
The FCC instead is the ultimate capitalist tool: It is used to restrict access and entry to markets, props up incumbents, and generally is about as consumer-friendly as OPEC. The modern FCC looks more like a trade organization than a regulator.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
For "Pompous Windbag", see 419381 | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to ropeguru
said by ropeguru :said by kyramilan :No because 99.999% of bittorrents are illegal. Got proof of that??? It's probably left in the orifice that fact was manufactured from. Do you really want to see that?  | |
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to RJ44
I'm trying to address your question of the nature and limits of freedom so I am not trying to deal with the probable argument that companies should be free to do anything they want with their networks(to which I would only reply that, if true, the US should, as it did with public roads, build a public communications infrastructure that is open to all.
"Doesn't "net neutrality" by definition limit how two parties are allowed to exchange data?"
Yes, in the sense that one can not negotiate special privileges on the network that work to the detriment of others.
"Shouldn't a user be able to determine how their data is transported over a network? "
In general, a user should not be able to make a determination that is detrimental to others' transport over the network.
One of the principles of libertarian thought is that you don't have the right to use your freedom to violate others freedom. When we are talking about people entering a competition to see who will pay to get special privilege on the network, that works to the disadvantage of everyone else. Allowing the wealthiest network users absolute freedom to negotiate contracts that force everyone else into a slower lane is not an overall enhancement of liberty, though it may increase the liberty of the wealthiest negotiators(at a cost to everyone else).
| |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc :True socialism would have no need for the FCC since the state would own the means of production, which in this case would be state-owned and operated telecommunications systems. Well, the exact definition of socialism is the thesis of many long arguments that have taken place. The way I see it, based on my knowledge of history, and from the various socialists I know, socialism deals with controlled economics with the goal of serving the public interested. To that extreme there is Communism which takes most (or all) of industry, turns it into a government entity, and controls it. Usually the stated idea is public interest, but almost always becomes a bloated mess of greed and corruption.
The FCC would be the ultimate capitalist tool if capitalism only dealt with making money, but it doesn't. It deals with a free market economy where goods and services are sold without restriction. While the FCC works as a tool to ensure the wealthy have their way (which is close to communism), it does nothing (or little at best) to promote competition and ensure companies compete based off of offering the better service.
In the communication industry there is very little competition. There is also no way for companies without the big bucks to compete. You can't just start your own radio station and compete on quality with the big guys. It's too damn expensive. Not just buying the equipment but dealing with the licensing and other governmental fees.
You know better about these things than I do though. We can either give up the FCC, and those with wealth can really squash any kind of competition, or deal with the bowlegged FCC that nobody in Congress will steer on track.
Oh, now you got me digressing. Oh well. 
--
"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 | |
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| reply to asdfdfdfdf
said by asdfdfdfdf :
"Doesn't "net neutrality" by definition limit how two parties are allowed to exchange data?"
Yes, in the sense that one can not negotiate special privileges on the network that work to the detriment of others.
"Shouldn't a user be able to determine how their data is transported over a network? "
In general, a user should not be able to make a determination that is detrimental to others' transport over the network.
Of course, you're assuming and implying that offering higher QOS services on the internet will negatively impact others. I don't believe that will be the case. Is FedEx Ground service negatively impacted by their Overnight? Is 1st class snail mail negatively impacted by Priority Mail?
Nope, and nope. It can be done. | |
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| "Of course, you're assuming and implying that offering higher QOS services on the internet will negatively impact others."
Yes, I am.
I think, in turn, you are making an erroneous assumption that QOS is being created simply to build a more efficient network.
Although you could make the technical argument that it is possible to enhance certain services without undermining others, since different services can be more or less sensitive to different network variables, we need to look at the real world intent of this within the context of human nature and the behavior of companies.
The telcos want quality of service as a way of extracting additional revenues as well as a way of protecting their services from competition.
They are going to extract additional revenues, from other companies, by having them compete for advantaged transport. No company is going to pay extra, while others don't, for a more efficient network. They are going to pay expecting to be given a performance edge over their competition that doesn't pay.
We can get into sophistries that granting advantage to one company in return for additional payment doesn't create a disadvantage for competing companies but is this true in any meaningful sense?
Furthermore I think it is very unlikely, given what we know about human nature, that the telcos will not use QOS to subtly undermine the performance of competitors in the broad range of services and content telcos want to provide. Once a QOS environment is fully developed it becomes very easy to do such a thing and it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to prove that the intent is to stifle competition. | |
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to RJ44
"Is FedEx Ground service negatively impacted by their Overnight? Is 1st class snail mail negatively impacted by Priority Mail?"
The reason I don't feel this is an apt comparison is
1. These services are provided within the same company. They are not services owned and run by competitors with fedex facilitating transport/acting as a middleman. In the same sense net neutrality doesn't deny telcos the right to sell both a 1Mb service level and a 3Mb/s service level. There would be no net neutrality issue if ATT owned and controlled all of the services over the network, as well as the infrastructure, because they would simply build whatever network was required to meet the demands of all their services. Of course this wouldn't be the internet either, it would be an updated version of the old Ma Bell network.
2. Fedex doesn't own the highway and air transport infrastructure with all it's concomitant incentives to use control of that infrastructure to undermine competitor services.
This is a major difference. If the telcos didn't own the underlying wireline infrastructure, but were simply service competitors we wouldn't be dealing with these issues. In fact ATT would be an advocate of net neutrality if they didn't control the infrastructure but were simply another service competitor. | |
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| reply to fiberguy
Wow. Ok fiberguy, settle down. I'm not a turbo pro net neutrality advocate, I'm just a regular joe who's claiming to be no expert here...... just voicing some thoughts...
"When government tries to ensure fairness by decree or order, then you have socialism."
Ok, point taken. Perhaps I'm taking a more "academic" or less strict viewpoint of the whole thing. I'm no socialist either, but your remarks in a comment further down that "most people here" are, is just dumb. Go watch some foxnews' or something, maybe read some fairy tales, come back when you're happier...
"The internet" is not simply "private" networks. Granted, it has become largely just that, and granted, lots of traffic does go through 'ma-bell'... but the whole of the internet is not simply private, commercial interests. Access to it, and services rendered of course are of a commercial (capitalist) nature. I'm not against that at all. Sure, most communications upon the internet are facilitated by commercial contracts. When, why, and how exactly does that describe, or allude to describing limitations on one's freedom to utilize their contracted, agreed upon connection?
Let me say it one more time and HOPE that this fact soaks in a little bit -
There is still more non-commercial material out there (on the internet) than commercial.......
"Some are going to have more and advantages over the other. To have a government dole out their version of fair, in itself, is not fair to those that are working with in the capitalistic system that this country is based. "
oohkay... point taken. Perhaps it would not be detrimental to me, and it would be for others. Why should it have to be argued in that direction though?
Perhaps it could be more detrimental to the freedom to thrive in such a capitalistic society where there would be no chance of a smaller business being able to compete on any playing field (unless they could already afford to buy into it).
Still doesn't mean that if you have more speed, more connections, more servers, that I shouldn't be able to utilize the same exact resources available to me, in whatever fashion I so choose. I'm not clear on where this line in the sand is, so to speak. I don't care if someone else has an entire server farm and a billion lines of fiber all crossing over to everyone else's connections. If I have a server, a dedicated connection, and that connection is then partnered with other peering agreements, then my data should travel to its destination in as timely (best effort) a manner as yours - minus the volume of the contents (payload) and the number of concurrent destinations. Sure, if a million people hit a shared server, it'll choke. I understand that.
"I certainly don't want the government to tell me I have to be on the same level as you. (nothing personal)"
No offense taken. I don't want a handout just to be on your level either.
"Would you continue to work hard if you knew the government would eventually tell you that all your hard work will not place you "fair" to the little guy who may not want to build and grow?"
That doesn't seem like the issue to me here. I think it's exactly the reverse as I tried explaining in the bolded text above. Perhaps you are correct, and it's the other way around, either way, it's a matter of perspective here; and, I don't think anyone deserves to be hampered by gov't meddling in the affairs of one's business, be that yours, mine, or some guy across the world with something to say.
"What people who believe this don't understand is that you aren't in threat of being censored. Your sites will still operate and serve as they are now. "
It's this part that I'm concerned about. How do we know that with certainty? How do we know that by the time "premium" whatever comes along, that these "millionaires" haven't AOL'd the entire internet to the point where nobody even has a clue anymore? Sure, there might still be a little guy out there, but how is he heard? If a tree falls on the side of a lonely dirt road, does anybody hear it? Nope, too busy checking their bread and circuses.
"Being a small guy myself in that same pond, I'd be one to want equal access to the net as the big boys.. but, so as not to set a new false set of standards in which we move forward, I side on the rights of private business. For the record, I don't agree with smoking bans either. It's private property."
I tend to side on the rights of private businesses as well
...but they usually don't pay for gobs of connectivity until two requirements are met: 1) they can afford it. 2) they need to afford it to stay in business...
...Also, yes, I concur with your analogy about smoking and the conclusion, overall:
"is it right in most cases.. the fact is - no - not in most cases. Our government over reaches it's powers all the time and it goes uncontested."
And, finally, the last thing that I'll quote from your post:
"To allow for advantage given to some over others is not something the government can do."
Exactly why communication agreements should remain neutral.. You sum it up perfectly  | |
|
