 GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: this post 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 |
|
| 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
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. |
|
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. |
|
| 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! |
|
