Cogdis
join:2007-03-26
Floral Park, NY | reply to hottboiinnc
Re: Cry Cry Cry said by hottboiinnc: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... |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| 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. 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. |
|
Cogdis
join:2007-03-26
Floral Park, NY | The 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 | reply to Cogdis
Yup...eventually, everything that isn't 'subsidized' through the ISP will be have low priority, if there's nothing to stop it. |
|
 DaSneaky1Done wall to block them allPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc: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.
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| reply to Cogdis
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. |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| reply to DaSneaky1D
I 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. |
|
| reply to en102
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. |
|
Cogdis
join:2007-03-26
Floral Park, NY | reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc:...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). |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| AT&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. |
|
| reply to hottboiinnc
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. |
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc: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/wp-dyn/co···211.html
for 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.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
| reply to hottboiinnc
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. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to hottboiinnc
The government provides the wireline monopolies that these ISP's provide their service over. The law in question would ensure that the services provided over that network remain neutral. If it weren't necessary for the government to provide a wireline monoploy (and it is) then we could use the "start your own ISP" or "switch to anther choice" argument, but since there is a wireline monoploy because of government regulation, there must be full regulation ensuring as much of an "open-market" like reality as possible. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to satellite68
There is an important difference. The ISP's network is sitting on public land in public ROW's. Therefore the government (supposedly the people) does get a say, especially since they won't let unlimited competing networks be built on the same ROW's. The government provides the wireline monopoly that creates their billion dollar profits. What are ISP's? Maintenance companies. They don't create content (any good content), they don't provide any reason for a customer to want to connect to the internet except for the fact that they own the lease on the last link between you, and what you want. The government has a responsibility to ensure that the network wireline monopoly on public land remains neutral. |
|
| reply to Ahrenl
There is no wireline monopoly. You are free to star your own ISP weather it by Wireless or wired.
How do you figure the government provides a monopoly for wireline carriers? |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| reply to RayW
Actually no I don't have anything to do with AT&T I don't even use their services. I use Time Warner and Sprint. And someone from Lowe's Companies, Inc signs my paycheck since you asked 
But what Ed had to say back when he said this does not have anything to do with now. It did not happen. Nobody is charging content providers anything extra to access the end-user and Ed is not even working for AT&T any longer so whats the big deal?
And again why create a law when one is not needed? When this changes, if it ever does, then we may need a bill/law protecting the customers. |
|
| reply to Ahrenl
Actually now the state PUCs are taking over the ROWs and they get to say who builds and who doesn't. Will that eliminate over-builders, most likely not. But most people won't over build, instead they'd just rather complain about something. |
|
| reply to Ahrenl
Re: Cry Cry Cry - major error said by Ahrenl:There is an important difference. The ISP's network is sitting on public land in public ROW's. ISPs do not generally build infrastructure. The last time I checked, albeit a year ago at least, earthlink does not have ROWs. Telcos, CableCos, Wireless and SatCos use ROWs.
said by Ahrenl:Therefore the government (supposedly the people) does get a say, especially since they won't let unlimited competing networks be built on the same ROW's. The government provides the wireline monopoly that creates their billion dollar profits. What are ISP's? Maintenance companies. They don't create content (any good content), they don't provide any reason for a customer to want to connect to the internet except for the fact that they own the lease on the last link between you, and what you want. The government has a responsibility to ensure that the network wireline monopoly on public land remains neutral. My only point is that you seem to be confused about what an internet service provider and an infrastructure provider is.
(not that the lines didn't get blurred once the real ISPs were either bankrupted or absorbed into existing regulated entities)
It ain't much different than the wal-mart model. We all complain about local jobs lost, yet we shop there because of low prices, which are caused by labor that is less than local jobs provide.
We sorta killed the ISP industry and handed it to the telcos and cablecos. It reminds me of that original small check we all received from Bush when he was first elected...face it, us americans are whores...
Just food for thought. |
|
| reply to hottboiinnc
Re: Cry Cry Cry There is a wireline monopoly because the freakin government helped the isps to start with favorable laws (you must have heard of these little things called franchise agreements). Tax breaks to telcos etc... Sorry the government is already involved, so really all it's doing is correcting a previous mistake (which unfortunately is the best course of action even though it is ultimately doomed to fail). |
|
