| reply to S_engineer
Re: this post said by S_engineer:Well, the carriers only have themselves to blame. This would put alot of people to work investigating the number of net neutrality violations  I think the carriers will just try to buy time until another more friendly administration gets elected. To Markeys credit, he keeps on trying. What net neutrality violations? As far as has been reported, there haven't been any.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
 GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| said by fAcEtIOUs:said by S_engineer:Well, the carriers only have themselves to blame. This would put alot of people to work investigating the number of net neutrality violations I think the carriers will just try to buy time until another more friendly administration gets elected. To Markeys credit, he keeps on trying. What net neutrality violations? As far as has been reported, there haven't been any. You mean, besides these possible violations:
»Qwest Customers Unable To Access Pirate Bay
»Comcast Sued For Traffic Shaping
»Time Warner Cable: Let's Not Talk About Net Neutrality
»Google Voice Ban Is Clear Network Neutrality Violation
»Verizon App Store To Block Bandwidth-Intensive Apps
»FCC Probes Google Voice Ban
--
My BLOG!
Black Friday Ads |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
well how about Comcast throttling p2p traffic from bit torrent for one, or the extreme grey area that are popping up from recent applications being blocked on mobile carriers.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
| reply to Gbcue
said by Gbcue:said by fAcEtIOUs:What net neutrality violations? As far as has been reported, there haven't been any. You mean, besides these possible violations: » Qwest Customers Unable To Access Pirate Bay quote:
blocking an illegal site isn't net neutrality - if that is really what is happening. We don't know yet. And besides net neutrality violations are when an ISP blocks something to favor their own product. Is Qwest rolling out their own illegal file sharing site?
» Comcast Sued For Traffic Shaping quote:
Traffic shaping isn't a net neutrality violation. Even under the proposed bill that would be legal. All the FCC knocked Comcast for was not announcing that fact to its customers ahead of time.
» Time Warner Cable: Let's Not Talk About Net Neutrality quote:
Since when is metered billing a net neutrality violation? This is the problem - anytime an ISP does something some so-called consumer advocate doesn't like they cry "net neutrality violation", even when it has nothing to do with it.
» Verizon App Store To Block Bandwidth-Intensive Apps quote:
Traffic management isn't a net neutrality violation. Even under the proposed bill that would be legal.
» FCC Probes Google Voice Ban» Google Voice Ban Is Clear Network Neutrality Violation quote:
MAYBE this could be discussed. But no one can force APPLE to accept apps in its app store. Now if AT&T blocked apps from the app store on their network(as opposed to Apple doing it), then maybe a case can be made. But let's see if AT&T did it or Apple did it.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
1 edit | you have to look at it with bigger eyes there tk, from dumb pipes to content managers....it has and will continue to infringe on non-sponsored usage. Ask your self this, 5 years ago would you have thought that we'd be discussing how low the caps are, or "best effort" packet flow, or discriminatory practice of what apps could be used over a mobile network?
Its a bigger game here.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Gbcue:said by fAcEtIOUs:What net neutrality violations? As far as has been reported, there haven't been any. You mean, besides these possible violations: » Qwest Customers Unable To Access Pirate Bay quote:
blocking an illegal site isn't net neutrality - if that is really what is happening. We don't know yet. And besides net neutrality violations are when an ISP blocks something to favor their own product. Is Qwest rolling out their own illegal file sharing site?
» Comcast Sued For Traffic Shaping quote:
Traffic shaping isn't a net neutrality violation. Even under the proposed bill that would be legal. All the FCC knocked Comcast for was not announcing that fact to its customers ahead of time.
» Time Warner Cable: Let's Not Talk About Net Neutrality quote:
Since when is metered billing a net neutrality violation? This is the problem - anytime an ISP does something some so-called consumer advocate doesn't like they cry "net neutrality violation", even when it has nothing to do with it.
» Verizon App Store To Block Bandwidth-Intensive Apps quote:
Traffic management isn't a net neutrality violation. Even under the proposed bill that would be legal.
» FCC Probes Google Voice Ban» Google Voice Ban Is Clear Network Neutrality Violation quote:
MAYBE this could be discussed. But no one can force APPLE to accept apps in its app store. Now if AT&T blocked apps from the app store on their network(as opposed to Apple doing it), then maybe a case can be made. But let's see if AT&T did it or Apple did it.
How is pirate bay an "illegal" site? "Illegal" in whose eyes?
--
My BLOG!
Black Friday Ads |
|
| said by Gbcue:How is pirate bay an "illegal" site? "Illegal" in whose eyes? In several countries already due to convictions and court orders.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
| what about our own Funchords discovery of comcast using dpi on p2p applications. Do you think that that was ok?...of course you don't because that's a pretty slippery slope that Comcast took.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
·Frontier FiOS
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:blocking an illegal site isn't net neutrality - if that is really what is happening. We don't know yet. And besides net neutrality violations are when an ISP blocks something to favor their own product. Is Qwest rolling out their own illegal file sharing site? The part about network neutrality is that the ISP doesn't get to decide what is right/wrong, appropriate/inappropriate. They provide a pipe. That's it. Period.
Traffic shaping isn't a net neutrality violation. Even under the proposed bill that would be legal. All the FCC knocked Comcast for was not announcing that fact to its customers ahead of time. Traffic shaping doesn't necessarily imply a network neutrality violation. But it could. It would depend on the circumstances of the shaping. If Comcast shapes all traffic so that everyone gets their fair share, then that's fine and I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. If they degrade VoIP traffic but favor Digital Voice, then there is a problem. Or if they degraded Netflix or Blockbuster streaming video in favor of their own streaming video/VOD.
Since when is metered billing a net neutrality violation? This is the problem - anytime an ISP does something some so-called consumer advocate doesn't like they cry "net neutrality violation", even when it has nothing to do with it. Reading comprehension I know can be difficult, but can you at least attempt to read the article linked to. The article was about the requirement of accepting stimulus funds to have an open network principal, but TW claiming that robust competition will keep them doing the right thing for consumers. Yet they were actively testing caps in markets that had no competition at the same potential speeds.
Traffic management isn't a net neutrality violation. Even under the proposed bill that would be legal. But network neutrality means you don't look at what the bits are used for. the provider is providing a network connection. Period. They don't get to say what it's used for. They can put limitations on how much you might be able to use (metering), or how much at any given time you can consume (throttle). But network neutrality advocates don't want the providers to say that competiting products will break the network, but their own similar apps won't.
MAYBE this could be discussed. But no one can force APPLE to accept apps in its app store. Now if AT&T blocked apps from the app store on their network(as opposed to Apple doing it), then maybe a case can be made. But let's see if AT&T did it or Apple did it. Do you REALLY think Apple pulled the app because it didn't want it in the store? Or AT&T didn't want it in the store. If you take AT&T (or any other provider for that matter) away from the picture, what difference does Apple care if Google voice or Skype or any other cellular competition uses their phone? Apple makes money off of the app store, and unless Apple is making/planning a product that directly competes with Google voice or whatever, they themselves don't care. If anything, it make convince others to buy a iPhone. AT&T is pulling the strings, either directly or indirectly. You can bet on it. |
|
GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Gbcue:How is pirate bay an "illegal" site? "Illegal" in whose eyes? In several countries already due to convictions and court orders. Do we live in those "countries" where free speech is denied and you can view only what your ISP deems as "clean"?
--
My BLOG!
Black Friday Ads |
|
| reply to cdru
said by cdru:The part about network neutrality is that the ISP doesn't get to decide what is right/wrong, appropriate/inappropriate. They provide a pipe. That's it. Period. Well, that is what a lot of people want them to do. But hey this is the USA and they get to decide what business they are in and not you. If they want to be more than a dumb pipe why shouldn't they?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
In 2005 Telus, a large Canadian telco, blocked access to a union website during a labor dispute.
See »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telus
On July 25, 2005, Telus blocked its internet subscribers from accessing a website supporting striking union members, leading to allegations of censorship by TWU members.[18][19] Telus expressed concerns over content on the site, saying it including images of employees crossing picket lines and encouraged disruptive behaviour.[18] The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association issued an official objection to the unilateral blocking on July 26, stating "Telus is leveraging its power as a telecommunications service provider to censor a specific group, shut down debate and limit the messages conveyed about the current labour dispute".[20]
On July 28, Telus issued a news release detailing an Alberta court injunction ordering the blocked website, Voices For Change, to remove postings of "Telus employee photos" and other "intimidating or threatening material"; the site owner agreed to comply and Telus unblocked its subscribers from the website.[21]
See »www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?op···=85&nsub
Telus could have just asked for a court order in the first place, but chose to block access to the union website instead - before going to court.
What if the site had been a sex toy store site, and some religious zealot at a telco decided to block it on moral grounds? Illegal.
What if the site had been Planned Parenthood? Blocking it would be illegal.
Always "Think of the children" - that seems the mantra to skate any heavy-handed ISP behavior on-side.
That, or "Our interests align more closely with some other group - ie. MPAA because we also happen to run an on-line video store, or some rightwing nutbars - because they aid our lobbying efforts against independent ISP's, municipal fiber, free speech, and anything else that might cut into our profits". |
|
| said by MaynardKrebs:In 2005 Telus, a large Canadian telco, blocked access to a union website during a labor dispute. What does that have to do with the United States Congress passing or NOT passing a net neutrality bill. Last time I looked, the US Congress has no authority in Canada.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Uh...since when was it determined by US law that The Pirate Bay is an illegal site? Moreover, it is not the ISPs job to act as watchdogs or gatekeepers of the internet. If someone wants to access child porn, let them do it and face the consequences if they get caught. People don't want their ISP to control any aspect of their their lives.
Metered billing becomes a net neutrality violation when ISPs attempt to deliver their own content that doesn't affect people's usage amounts. Metered billing is only a step towards that process.
Traffic management at the network level isn't a net neutrality violation, but at the service level it is. For example when Comcast attempts to throttle P2P they're violating net neutrality.
The FTC can in fact force Apple to allow users to install apps outside of the Apple store. |
|
|
|
GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by MaynardKrebs:In 2005 Telus, a large Canadian telco, blocked access to a union website during a labor dispute. What does that have to do with the United States Congress passing or NOT passing a net neutrality bill. Last time I looked, the US Congress has no authority in Canada. Just like those countries blocking pirate bay have "no authority" in the US.
--
My BLOG!
Black Friday Ads |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:...If they want to be more than a dumb pipe why shouldn't they? they are absolutely, positively, 100% entitled to be more than a dumb pipe.
what they are not entitled to do is privilege or give an advantage to the apps or content they own outright or have a stake in, which is what they are absolutely, positively, 100% itching to do.
they also aren't entitled to block or degrade competing content or apps. |
|
1 edit | reply to MaynardKrebs
Not true. The site was operated by a third party, not the union, and was blocked because it contained threats to the life and limb of employees who crossed picket lines. (Such threats are illegal in Canada.) These threats actually forced at least one of the threatened employees to pack up his family and leave town for fear that they would be harmed. The lawyer of the owner of the site admitted that the content of the site was "reprehensible" and told his client to remove it... just before the Court also did.
In short, Telus acted responsibly. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by cdru:The part about network neutrality is that the ISP doesn't get to decide what is right/wrong, appropriate/inappropriate. They provide a pipe. That's it. Period. Well, that is what a lot of people want them to do. But hey this is the USA and they get to decide what business they are in and not you. If they want to be more than a dumb pipe why shouldn't they? Because that is bait and switch. It's kind of like: Hey, we've been given money to pay for college tuition and we've decided to party instead. Break the content into another company and let the dumb pipe be a dumb pipe! |
|
Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
I want to know what are violations actually?
I didn't know Net Neutrality was such a thing. As far as this country is considered its only something on a sheet of paper that people bitch about when something doesn't go there way as far as a network.
Also as far as the iPhone is considered, you know up front what you're agreeing to, even with the Internet, read your contract and then decide.
As Qwest is considered HA! Another one of Rob's attemps to have something regulated and bitched about such as the iPhone, Caps, meter billing, and open handsets. He should go after Qwest now. Maybe, he'll land himself a phone system. |
|
