mrvid
join:2007-06-19
Levittown, NY
3 edits | Capping is not non-neutrality cause it is the same for all.. My thoughts on all of this; If i owned an ISP (which I don't) and I wanted to raise my rates $20/mo; as long as there is competition, people shouldn't be saying its unfair. If it were my system, and I want to charge more for its use and this is how I want to charge, it's my business.
We are so used to getting everything at 1 flat rate now but thats not a guarantee, its not written in stone, and a reason to cap doesn't have to be all about capacity; it could be for any reason.
Net neutrality, as far as I understand, is about treating all traffic over the net fairly, not giving greater priority to one over the other. What, how or the terms for which an ISP charges for their services, as long as there is competition, is their business.
Here is what I do think though; if ISP's are going to do this, then there should be some way that doesn't cost more for people to be able to tell what their usage is at any one given time. |
|
 ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | You are right, provided that there is competition. However, competition doesn't mean that there is one other possible provider... there needs to be tens of providers that can give internet access to anyone before your theory holds.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
| reply to mrvid
The problem with network neutrality is that it gives huge amounts of power to the ISP's. And we already know from experience that AT&T and Verizon are famous for abusing their power. Please remember that the telecom act of 1996 made the telcos the maintainer of dumb pipes and fiber would be in 90% of US homes by 2006 (and they were given BILLIONS in your tax dollars to make this happen.)
Here we are 12 years later arguing if the telcos should be allowed to regulate the content of the internet!!!
Kids in college don't even understand that an ISP and a telco use to be two seperate entities.
Giving the telcos and cable companies the legal power (they already have the technological power) to discriminate who they connect to would be catestrophic in my opinion. If network neutrality is passed, this is what the internet will look like: »www.attblueroom.com/home/index.php
What would stop it? What would stop AT&T from telling ebay that they had to pay AT&T one cent everytime an AT&T customer visited ebay? If ebay says that is unacceptable then AT&T can block ebay's traffic. And for the AT&T customer who complains, the AT&T operator would say, "ebay did not pay their bill so we can't connect you, why don't you try AT&T's new auction site?" |
|
 sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| I think you misunderstand. 
quote:
What would stop it? What would stop AT&T from telling ebay that they had to pay AT&T one cent everytime an AT&T customer visited ebay? If ebay says that is unacceptable then AT&T can block ebay's traffic.
Why, network neutrality would! That's the point. Your example is of a lack of neutrality, the very thing network neutrality proponents want to prevent.
--
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon profitable cause... |
|
| An alarmist attempt to grab attention No; antitrust law would. "Network neutrality" is an attempt to (among other things) prohibit ISPs from charging a fair price for what they deliver. If a service costs more for the ISP to provide, it is entitled to charge more. Plain and simple. Trying to legislate getting something for nothing is not only insane; it's unconstitutional. |
|
