deadi
Premium
join:2001-08-26
Perry, OH
1 edit | reply to pnh102
Re: More Confusing The Issue
Again, I dont see the point of a second network when they cant keep up with the demand as it is. This is just an excuse for more revenue that will discriminate against how much money you are willing to spend on content. I think they need to take care of what is there already.
Besides, I have no issues receiving content as it is. Its all there and it works. Why do we need to change that?
--
We learn through the exchange of information, tell me more...... |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to pnh102
the fact is though that both Google and the person viewing google already pay for the connections.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
| reply to pnh102
I have to strongly disagree. These companies have and will be given tax breaks and all sorts of tax payer dollar type incentives that inevitably make part of the infastructure public domain if you will. As such they should not be able to have a separate lane for discriminating content, because then the old lanes will just never be upgraded and ignored. |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| reply to Kearnstd
The problem is that they will refuse to upgrade the original travel lanes and only expand their fast lane. Too the point that you are sick of it and decide to pay for the faster lane.
E.x:
I-95 three lanes variable at a max of 5 sometimes all the way down to 1 lane with many exits and entrances congesting traffic and the highway simply does not have much capacity for it's demand. Free to drive.
Florida's Turnpike - Two to five lanes construction is always pushed to the side and almost never close a lane and if they do it's the left lane only. Very few exits and entrances with higher speed limits, gas and resting stops with much merges with major highways at selected key points. You pay tolls, while you travel.
Congestion continues to grow on the I-95 but no construction has yet to be taken place to expand the highway and the state says it does not have enough funding or it's not required for them to do so.
State expands the turnpike from 5 lanes to 8-10 lanes and minimal congestion if any at all.
Eventually everyone will be forced to go to the Turnpike because the I-95 is simply congested and worn out asphalt make the ride noisy and extremely bumpy, while the Turnpike is smooth as molasses.
--
Duct tape, saving lives since 1942. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to pnh102
i have to agree if their special fast lane doesnt degrade my travel lane then i dont care.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to Jason Levine
said by Jason Levine  :I wouldn't oppose a telecom building a "fast lane" for their own stuff (HDTV, Digital Phone, etc) so long as the general Internet connection doesn't suffer. Suppose an ISP decides that they should getting more revenues from Digital Phone and so they degrade down all Internet connections to make services like Vonage unreliable. I would classify that as being against the principles of Network Neutrality. As long as their "fast lane" does not take away from my service I am okay with it. If I am paying for a 10mbps speed and they throttle that down to 1mbps on outside connections so that they can deliver 10mpbs for "their" services then that would be against net neutrality principles.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to Jason Levine
I agree 100%.
Telcos/Cable Co's providing VoIP don't necessarily want apps such as Skype or Vonage competing.
Similarly, I suspect that YouTube and now Netflix online will be hitting road blocks.
ISPs are moving to the old AOL style where they sell it all, bundled, and will not want competition. Wireless has been like that since the start. Wireless won't allow for VoIP, streaming or anything outside of light browsing, unless its provided by them, and their content provider ... for a fee  |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :The third point, regarding the prohibition of companies from building their own dedicated pipes to offer content of their own choosing has no bearing on net neutrality. Let's say there is a company out there that rents movies over the internet - you pay and you download them for a few days. Your provider does the exact same thing - you pay and you download them for a few days. The only difference between the two services is that your ISP has relegated the other service with the other internet data where load times are much slower, however, they create a separate VLPS on their network and allow you to download their movies two or three times faster. People notice this faster download speed and use the ISP service.
In the above example, which is what 3 opposes, they are using their position as an ISP to unfairly compete against the other video rental firm. The purpose of the separate pipe is so that their services can outshine other services.
Cheating, plain and simple.
Point 3 wold not, however, prohibit a company from seperating out its VoIP or Video-over-IP service from the internet for quality reasons though.
--
Prove it... |
|
kyler13
Is your fiber grounded?
join:2006-12-12
Arnold, MD
| reply to pnh102
I'm assuming as it pertains to neutrality that point 3 is simply the same as point 2 except the network owner would be prioritizing it's own content instead of third-party content. Point 2 is more of an issue with de-prioritizing as in the case of P2P or VoIP. You're right that running a redundant and dedicated network would not constitute a neutrality issue, but unless your provider runs that network all the way to a second ethernet port in your house, somewhere along the line neutrality (or lack of) would come into play. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to pnh102
I wouldn't oppose a telecom building a "fast lane" for their own stuff (HDTV, Digital Phone, etc) so long as the general Internet connection doesn't suffer. Suppose an ISP decides that they should getting more revenues from Digital Phone and so they degrade down all Internet connections to make services like Vonage unreliable. I would classify that as being against the principles of Network Neutrality.
The problem is that, as ISPs move from being merely "pipe providers" to "pipe and content providers", they will run into situations where their own service, delivered on their own lines, competes with third party services on third party lines. The temptation will be very great to find some way of leveraging the line ownership to better compete with the service. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
|  I agree with the first 2 points.
The third point, regarding the prohibition of companies from building their own dedicated pipes to offer content of their own choosing has no bearing on net neutrality. If people like the services offered on these new pipes, they will buy them, otherwise, they won't.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
