3 edits | False premise network neutrality is about incumbent phone companies trying to hold on to market power in the face of Internet evolution Absolutely false. "Network neutrality" is a scare campaign, mounted by lobbyists working for Google and other content providers, whose purpose is to regulate the Internet so as to give those providers an advantage and prevent new competitors to them from arising.
As I've demonstrated many times before, "network neutrality" regulations aren't neutral. They harm ISPs -- especially the small and competitive ones that provide consumers with a choice -- so as to advantage large, greedy corporations such as Google. (Incidentally, this Web site receives money from Google, creating a conflict of interest when it publishes "news" reports or editorials on this issue.) But since "network neutrality" advocates are in the pay of Google, they become apologists for Google even when it clearly violates the same regulations they're lobbying for. It's hypocrisy, plain and simple. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | said by SuperWISP:"Network neutrality" is a scare campaign [...] whose purpose is to regulate the Internet so as to give [content] providers an advantage and prevent new competitors to them from arising. And how do the following Net Neutrality principles accomplish that?
•The first principle is that consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
•The second principle is that consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
•The third principle is that consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
•The fourth principle is that consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
•The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications.
•The sixth principle is a transparency principle -- stating that providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/ |
|
1 edit | said by funchords:And how do the following Net Neutrality principles accomplish that? By tying engineers' hands, by preventing providers from managing their networks, by preventing providers from stopping abuse of their networks, by preventing providers from selling services that customers need (e.g. expedited packet delivery), and by preventing providers from controlling costs so that they do not lose money on every customer. |
|
 toddbs98
join:2000-07-08
North Little Rock, AR | reply to SuperWISP
Thanks for the dumbest post I've read today on any forum.  |
|
|
|
 NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | reply to SuperWISP
I don't see anything in the principles listed above that ties engineers' hands, prevents providers from managing their networks, or anything else. These principles appear to be more a consumer bill of rights to me.
How does allowing consumers to bring their own network devices tie engineers' hands, keep providers from managing their networks, prevent them from stopping network abusers, keep them from selling extra services, or keep them from controlling costs? A user brings a router with him/her and tries to use it. If it works, great. If it doesn't, it's not like net neutrality requires the ISP to troubleshoot and make the consumer's device work with the network.
That's just one of the points. I could ask similar questions for the remainder of them as well. Please connect the dots for me, as I don't see the picture here.
--
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. |
|
| said by NOVA_Guy:I don't see anything in the principles listed above that ties engineers' hands, prevents providers from managing their networks, or anything else. That's because you know jack about the actual business of providing Internet service. Which, in turn, means that you're a willing pawn in Google's hands. Anything that they say is "good for consumers," you buy unquestioningly.
And you certainly have no right to dictate how I carry on my business. I do far more for consumers than you could imagine. |
|
1 edit | reply to toddbs98
Of course. He is just regurgitating the "Google gospel." Remember, it's money from Google that pays his salary. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Used AdSense before? Google might slip in an ad or two of their's every once in awhile...and they pay for those ads...but in fact Google takes a cut of your ad revenues, not the other way around, by being an ad broker.
Just because I have AdSense on my site doesn't mean I'm Google's pawn, no more than my college newspaper is the pawn of Alloy Media, a national add aggregator that has given us a few McDonald's print ads that we wouldn't have gotten ourselves.
ANYWAY...
Net neutrality doesn't preclude metered billing, reasonable network management, kicking customers off for illegal operations (which tends to, but doesn't always, line up with network abuse).
Net neutrality legislation is an answer to what is effectively a duopoly system across much of the nation for internet access. It's to keep the big guys from abusing market power.
That said, Net Neutrality does preclude providers from implementing technology for the purpose of killing VoIP (voice or video) traffic, then charging a $5, $10 or $20 per month fee to get that part of the internet back. If you're not letting that sort of traffic through, you're not selling internet service and thus should rename your product to reflect this. Maybe call it "intervision".
All that said, I want to hear your opinion. Please quote a specific Net Neutrality guideline and tell how it will hurt your business. Keep in mind that, last I checked, Google wasn't the main source of anyone's bandwidth usage (in fact, their websites are some of the lightest out there) and YouTube has enough capacity problems of its own without ISPs injecting molasses into the bitstream. |
|
