dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9488
share rss forum feed
page: 1 · 2 · next


baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI

Not news

Maybe we should open an editorial section? This really isnt "News"

Though, the real question is, who does the internet belong to? The people? The ISPs? The backbones? The companies are the ones who have invested the money and time; shouldnt they have SOME right to dictate what goes on with their networks?



funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

said by baineschile:

Maybe we should open an editorial section? This really isnt "News"
I see the Op/Ed flag.

said by baineschile:

Though, the real question is, who does the internet belong to? The people? The ISPs? The backbones? The companies are the ones who have invested the money and time; shouldnt they have SOME right to dictate what goes on with their networks?
The Internet belongs to The Internet Society and is made up of public and private networks who all have agreed to work together. It's a co-op. This co-op has standards and rules and handshake agreements and just plain-old custom. The access providers are just a part of the Internet ecosystem.

Can ISPs dictate? To a point, yes. But the Internet stops being the Internet if the access providers start acting in non-Internet ways. Blocking or degrading connectivity to some in favor to the traffic of others isn't what made the Internet great and it isn't the kind of service that those seeking Internet connections want.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/


cpsycho

join:2008-06-03
HarperLand

The internet belongs to everyone.



imanogre

join:2005-11-29
Mcdonough, GA
reply to baineschile

I like how when a company wants to *gasp* make money it's automatically called corporate greed.

Not that I disagree with net neutrality, but it's phrases like this that really turn me off to an argument.



karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
Chicago, IL

1 recommendation

reply to baineschile

The ANSWER to your question of who 'owns' the internet, can only be answered by THE CUSTOMER. The CUSTOMER is WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM. PERIOD. Without the customer, there is no backbone, no ISP, no nothing.
Why is that? Lets see now. If say, AT&T got it's way, and made google double pay, and google chose NOT TO, then google would die. simple. Do the math. There are 50 million broadband accounts. Call it an average of $50.00/month. That is a total of $125 TRILLION DOLLARS. With 125 Trillion PER YEAR, WHY doesn't the government just lay fiber to every single home in america, and charge a $10.00 'access fee', and THEN let providers sell you an IP Address. I guarantee you, you would see the average broadband bill drop to about $30.00 a month for data. AND, if we break up the media megacorps, and force them to sell channels via a-la-carte, I suspect the average person would pay about $20.00 month for channels, and call it $10.00 for Voip. So, your total monthly bill would be about $60.00, for PHONE, TV, and DATA. That's a HELL of a lot cheaper than the $150.00 comcast charges.

Call it socailism if you will. The government, in my view, exists to provide services when the scale is too big for anyone else to do. RE: National Defense, Highway Network, Security.

The problem is the republicans sold everything else off. I sure as hell would love to pay a $10.00 'connect fee' for my electricity, and be able to BUY electricity from anywhere in the country, from whomever sells it cheapest.

So, Lets call this new place 'A better America'. The governement owns and maintains the roads, national defense, electric grid, data grid, water grid and health care. Everyone pays an ''access fee' to get on these grids, and then buys whatever they want from whomever they want it to. I guarantee you I could buy electricity from the Midwest at a fraction of the cost we pay in the Northeast, and I would cut all my bills in half.

Guess what, $10.00 per service (road/electric/water/data) would run you $40.00 a month. Health Care, probably about $200.00 per month. So, I am telling you right now, for $7 trillion a year ($250*125Million households), you could have dirt cheap electricty, good roads, great data, good water, and top notch health care.

Today, the average SINGLE american pays $8000.00 a year in health care. In 1970 (40 years ago), we paid an average of $350.00 a YEAR. In todays dollars, that's about $2000.00. Under my plan, everyone pays about $2500.00 a year, and everyone gets coverage, but you buy it from REAL competing insurers (or the government, if it's cheaper). Under My plan, you will pay about $70 a month for 100/100, 50 channels, and all you can talk.

Call it a tax, call it a $3500 tax for every man, woman and child. And then eliminate all the other fees. We would come out way ahead.

So who owns the internet, the megacorps, which is wrong. WE the people should own the backbone, and use whatever provider gives us the service at the level we want to pay for,
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity!



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to funchords

said by funchords:

Blocking or degrading connectivity to some in favor to the traffic of others isn't what made the Internet great and it isn't the kind of service that those seeking Internet connections want.
Which isn't being done. And some of the proposed net neutrality proposals go way beyond prohibiting such activity. They want to get in to requiring ISPs to provide unlimited bandwidth without regard to cost or practicality. If such proposals become law, only the very rich would be able to afford to use this idealized internet because of runaway costs.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page



Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

They want to get in to requiring ISPs to provide unlimited bandwidth without regard to cost or practicality.
You'll have to show me which proposal does that.


baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI

1 recommendation

reply to funchords

Who is the leader of the Internet Society? Can we nominate you Rob


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to karlmarx

It sure is easy to throw meaningless numbers around. So where's you're "plan"? You've intrigued my interest.


beaups

join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH
reply to karlmarx

Actually...the investors paid to build the network. Us customers are helping pay the investors back. So by your logic, the investors should dictate how it is managed, and (to a degree sadly) that's exactly what is happening.



88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to imanogre

said by imanogre:

I like how when a company wants to *gasp* make money it's automatically called corporate greed.

Not that I disagree with net neutrality, but it's phrases like this that really turn me off to an argument.
Simple when you expect someone to pay twice or more times for the same thing it's greed.


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to Karl Bode

said by Karl Bode:

They want to get in to requiring ISPs to provide unlimited bandwidth without regard to cost or practicality.
You'll have to show me which proposal does that.
Here is 1 example. The key was prohibition of QOS and admission control of data to the network.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_F···_of_2006
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_ne···islation
quote:
prohibits the use of admission control to determine network traffic priority.
Net Neutrality proponents are still trying to put things like this in to law. The network either is completely unmanageable or so cost prohibitive to make the net non-blocking.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


k1ll3rdr4g0n

join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL
reply to imanogre

said by imanogre:

I like how when a company wants to *gasp* make money it's automatically called corporate greed.

Not that I disagree with net neutrality, but it's phrases like this that really turn me off to an argument.
Statements like that are a slippery slope. There is a difference to make money to enhance the business and build it, then there is to prevent innovation in the industry just to make sure you don't loose profit margins.

Now, if facts were shown that the ISPs have to pay per byte and they were overselling for years - then ISPs have a leg to stand on for charging insane pricing per byte. But, the fact is ISPs DO NOT pay per byte, they pay by the bandwidth. If I bought a T1, there is no limit on how much I can download or upload, period. Same thing goes with an OC line. The only limit is how much data I push down the pipe at any given time.

This is where the ISPs are being greedy because they don't pay per byte, but yet they want the customer(s) to. You see where I am going with this?
It's similar to a concept of a buffet. The buffet pays $X for the food. You pay $Y to eat as much as you want. Now, what if you walked in tomorrow and they said they are still a buffet but you can only get 2 platefuls and you have to pay for platefuls after that because there is a limit. And lets say that another plateful costs MORE than what you paid at the door. At that point you would find another buffet right? Well, taking the buffet example to what ISPs are trying to do - I think we can agree that an ISPs usually have a monopoly or duopoly and even rarely a "triopoly" (sp?) but most of the time you don't have much of a choice for high speed internet, that is a fact. Now, lets say ISP X started to charge after the "2 platefuls", in a normal buffet you would just goto the competition....but in the real world there are no competition for high speed internet. See what I did there?
Paying-per-byte would only be appropriate if there was proper competition to keep the rates at a fair level that the ISPs competed for. But, since there is no competition - ISPs can charge whatever they want for overages and who is going to stop them? High speed internet is unregulated so they government wont, there is no competition so there is no incentive to keep the rates low.
Do you still think that pay-per-byte or overage charges is fair to the consumer?


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39
reply to FFH

Oh. I thought you meant current proposals. Not ones defeated in 2006. Yes, I don't think restricting intelligent network management makes sense, and I think most of the newer proposals have evolved to reflect the kind of things Sandvine is doing with real time node congestion detection.



Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39
reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n

Statements like that are a slippery slope.
I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find anybody who doesn't think carriers should be allowed to make money. It's more than a slippery slope, it's an intentional distortion of an entire position.

Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Comcast
·CenturyLink
reply to karlmarx

I wonder how they did it? In New York's Hudson Valley in the 1850's almost all roads were Turnpikes which means they were privately owned toll roads, much like the Internet is now. Between the 1850's and the present, the Turnpikes were converted to government owned public roads. I wonder how they did it?


patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to funchords

said by funchords:

The Internet belongs to The Internet Society and is made up of public and private networks who all have agreed to work together. It's a co-op. This co-op has standards and rules and handshake agreements and just plain-old custom. The access providers are just a part of the Internet ecosystem.
If its a custom, only fools hold onto it, change or DIE! per byte charging is the future!
Can ISPs dictate? To a point, yes. But the Internet stops being the Internet if the access providers start acting in non-Internet ways. Blocking or degrading connectivity to some in favor to the traffic of others isn't what made the Internet great and it isn't the kind of service that those seeking Internet connections want.
Peering disputes will turn the internet into what it wants to be, phone companies. I get free M2M to X, Y, and Z with Company D, and I get free M2M to A, B, and C with Company E, other sites I must pay for.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n

said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:

Now, if facts were shown that the ISPs have to pay per byte and they were overselling for years - then ISPs have a leg to stand on for charging insane pricing per byte. But, the fact is ISPs DO NOT pay per byte, they pay by the bandwidth. If I bought a T1, there is no limit on how much I can download or upload, period. Same thing goes with an OC line. The only limit is how much data I push down the pipe at any given time.
Your ignoring 95th percentile billing.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to Mr Matt

said by Mr Matt:

Between the 1850's and the present, the Turnpikes were converted to government owned public roads. I wonder how they did it?
Revoking the charter under eminent domain, or whatever law governed the initial charter.


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

1 recommendation

reply to beaups

Technically, investors, taxpayers, unions and executives helped build many of these networks. Seems only reasonable that all of them are involved in discussing the networks' future?



funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to FFH

said by FFH:

They want to get in to requiring ISPs to provide unlimited bandwidth without regard to cost or practicality. If such proposals become law, only the very rich would be able to afford to use this idealized internet because of runaway costs.
If someone is proposing that in the name of NN, then they're co-opting the principle.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to baineschile

said by baineschile:

Who is the leader of the Internet Society? Can we nominate you Rob
"I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected."

(probably)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to FFH

said by FFH:

Net Neutrality proponents are still trying to put things like this in to law. The network either is completely unmanageable or so cost prohibitive to make the net non-blocking.
If you're trying to say that NN proponents want all broadband modems to be wide open, then you're mistaken. What they're saying is that prioritization isn't allowed. ISPs can still limit the admission rate, they just generally can't prioritize/degrade among the traffic.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to Mr Matt

There are still a large number of toll roads around PA/NY. Sounds like in interesting example to model.



funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to FFH

said by FFH:

said by funchords:

Blocking or degrading connectivity to some in favor to the traffic of others isn't what made the Internet great and it isn't the kind of service that those seeking Internet connections want.
Which isn't being done.
Madison River blocking VOIP?
Comcast and Sandvine blocking P2P uploads?
Cox and Sandvine blocking P2P uploads?
Cox's prioritization trial in Arkansas and Kansas?

Thanks to this debate and the creation of federal Net Neutrality policies, there are only a few examples if ISPs blocking or degrading VOIP and user uploads. But even those examples are huge when you consider that Comcast and Cox together were involved in the Sandvine RST thing. Together that's a large fraction of the USA Internet populace, not to mention the peers outside of the ISPs what those RSTs also went to.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/


NOVA_Guy
ObamaCare Kills Americans
Premium
join:2002-03-05
reply to karlmarx

At $200/month for health care, I would be paying more than I am now and absolutely receiving less coverage. My employer picks up about 70% of the tab for my health care coverage and I'm happy with that situation, thank you very much.

The rest of the argument about the government owning the electricity grid, etc. might make sense if private corporations hadn't spent billions of dollars developing these on their own. Do you propose that the government just confiscate these from them, or would you like to ram another useless $700+ billion spending package through Congress with single-party support, handing money to pet liberal political support groups? Where would the money come from for this anyway, since Obammer has already admitted that we're broke (you know, just a few days before he and his wife Mickey went jetting off to NYC for date night at taxpayer expense)?
--
After listening to his UN speech, I'm convinced that Obama has a major self esteem problem and is projecting it upon the United States. He is more concerned with winning popularity contests than with keeping us safe.



NOVA_Guy
ObamaCare Kills Americans
Premium
join:2002-03-05
reply to openbox9

Especially the PA Turnpike. Ed Rendell has made the rates there obscene, along with screwing up quite a bit of the rest of the state. Thank God he hasn't gone through with his idea to turn I-80 into a toll road as well.
--
After listening to his UN speech, I'm convinced that Obama has a major self esteem problem and is projecting it upon the United States. He is more concerned with winning popularity contests than with keeping us safe.



wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace

join:2004-08-07
New York, NY

1 recommendation

reply to karlmarx

said by karlmarx:

So, I am telling you right now, for $7 trillion a year ($250*125Million households), you could have dirt cheap electricty, good roads, great data, good water, and top notch health care.
Sure those number sound compelling, until of course we wipe off the sugar coating and realize you are talking about the government owning and controlling every aspect of our lives! Furthermore, will that $7 trillion give us the same amazing level of service and customer support as we can expect from, oh lets say, the post office or the DMV!

For whatever reason you think the government can do anything efficiently is beyond me. Take a long hard look at any 'business' that is government controlled; THAT is what you want our entire economy to be based upon???
--
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
-Ronald Reagan-
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

said by wifi4milez:

said by karlmarx:

So, I am telling you right now, for $7 trillion a year ($250*125Million households), you could have dirt cheap electricty, good roads, great data, good water, and top notch health care.
Sure those number sound compelling, until of course we wipe off the sugar coating and realize you are talking about the government owning and controlling every aspect of our lives! Furthermore, will that $7 trillion give us the same amazing level of service and customer support as we can expect from, oh lets say, the post office or the DMV!

For whatever reason you think the government can do anything efficiently is beyond me. Take a long hard look at any 'business' that is government controlled; THAT is what you want our entire economy to be based upon???
KarlMarx is a statist. That is where the government has control over everything. The fact that this form of gov't often devolves in to a dictatorship seems not to bother him.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page



wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace

join:2004-08-07
New York, NY

said by FFH:

said by wifi4milez:

said by karlmarx:

So, I am telling you right now, for $7 trillion a year ($250*125Million households), you could have dirt cheap electricty, good roads, great data, good water, and top notch health care.
Sure those number sound compelling, until of course we wipe off the sugar coating and realize you are talking about the government owning and controlling every aspect of our lives! Furthermore, will that $7 trillion give us the same amazing level of service and customer support as we can expect from, oh lets say, the post office or the DMV!

For whatever reason you think the government can do anything efficiently is beyond me. Take a long hard look at any 'business' that is government controlled; THAT is what you want our entire economy to be based upon???
KarlMarx is a statist. That is where the government has control over everything. The fact that this form of gov't often devolves in to a dictatorship seems not to bother him.
A brilliant move on his part, especially considering how much success the Soviet Union had with that.........
--
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
-Ronald Reagan-
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html