 
User0101
Premium
join:2002-12-12
S-ZZ9-PZA
clubs:  | Better Understanding... Will someone take the political speak out of this topic and put it in real world terms. First I've heard of the "Cope Act" but I've not followed this topic very strongly due to my lack of patience with Telcos. | |
|
 | |
| Odie97
join:2006-04-19
Oak Creek, WI
| Dominant telco's will now become the "gatekeeper's" to the traffic on the network (Internet) and the on/off ramp paths as well as "fast" and "slow" lanes of traffic (applications)based upon a set of conditions that they (the Telco's) will be able to set, fix and control.
Should make your lack of patience for the Telco's to move to anxiety and anger | |
|
| | 
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: Better Understanding... They now, effectively, can dictate what you can and cannot reach. | |
|
| | 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA
| said by Odie97  :Dominant telco's will now become the "gatekeeper's" to the traffic on the network (Internet) and the on/off ramp paths as well as "fast" and "slow" lanes of traffic (applications)based upon a set of conditions that they (the Telco's) will be able to set, fix and control. Should make your lack of patience for the Telco's to move to anxiety and anger You are incorrect, at least as far as your implication that this grants the telcos additional powers. The bill would have changed the rules, it being shot down just means everything stays the same for now. Nothing prevents new legislation from being passed. How about we wait to see if the telco chest-beating actually turns into reality before we pass new legislation that could have unforeseen wide reaching negative effects?
No one is going to die if Google's latency goes up a bit; we can afford to wait to see what happens and attempt to fix the problems if they come up.
--
"The Board of Directors believes that the name change would be in the best interests of the Company because the new name better reflects the long-term growth strategy of the Company"
-Infinium Labs on changing their name to Phantom Entertainment. | |
|
| | | 
anonpisser
@optonline.net | Re: Better Understanding... this coming from a guy that supports a shill scam on wall street called Infinium labs. | |
|
| | | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA
| Re: Better Understanding... said by anonpisser :
this coming from a guy that supports a shill scam on wall street called Infinium labs.
I sure hope you appreciate the irony of the name Phantom Entertainment, it works on so many levels. | |
|
| | | | |
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| the COPE act is the bill (H.R.5252) containing various provisions on net neutrality, TV franchising and "competition". Things in the bill:
national franchising for TV: BAD - telcos no longer have to build out service to everyone, they can redline; GOOD - telcos can build out faster
net neutrality: weak provisions are BAD - in absence of clear rules telcos will set up a "fast" lane and a "slow" lane; if you don't pay for the fast lane, applications or web sites will be in the slow lane. Think of it as the AOLization of the entire U.S. internet (please note this will only diminish the U.S. network; rest of the world is not impacted). By AOLization, I mean the telcos will control what you can access and how you can access it - if youtube doesn't pay for the fast lane, streaming videos could be slow and jerky, with frequent pauses while video loads. | |
|
| | NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
 ·LINGO
| Re: Better Understanding... said by nasadude :net neutrality: weak provisions are BAD - in absence of clear rules telcos will set up a "fast" lane and a "slow" lane; if you don't pay for the fast lane, applications or web sites will be in the slow lane. Think of it as the AOLization of the entire U.S. internet (please note this will only diminish the U.S. network; rest of the world is not impacted). By AOLization, I mean the telcos will control what you can access and how you can access it - if youtube doesn't pay for the fast lane, streaming videos could be slow and jerky, with frequent pauses while video loads. Keep in mind that the bolded you in the above phrase refers not to individuals, but to companies. The individual consumer will not be hit (directly) with any cost increase.
Here's the other thing. If the access pipe providers (telcos and cablecos) are unable to sufficiently monetize the development of next gen pipes, we as consumers won't be getting next gen pipes. The policies advocated under the broad umbrella of "net neutrality" eviscerate the access pipe providers' ability to monetize their networks.
Personally, I am happy to strongarm (some would say extort) google, yahoo, mytube, ebay, and all the other mega-internet firms to subsidize the next gen build for telcos and cablecos. Better that they subsidize the build than me.
I'd also like to see CNET's source for this: While the debate over Net neutrality started over whether broadband providers could block certain Web sites, it has moved on to whether they should be permitted to create a "fast lane" that could be reserved for video or other specialized content. Net Neutrality has NEVER been about blocking certain websites. The only example I'm aware of is a tiny ISP blocking a VoIP provider. And as soon as that came to light, the FCC ripped the tiny ISP a huge new one. Does anyone have a source that back's up CNET's claim?
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. | |
|
| | | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs: | Re: Better Understanding... Truer words were never spoken. | |
|
| | | 
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
| "Personally, I am happy to strongarm (some would say extort) google, yahoo, mytube, ebay, and all the other mega-internet firms to subsidize the next gen build for telcos and cablecos. Better that they subsidize the build than me."
do you really think for a second that a corporation is not going to increase our rates based on this? no way. they will now get it from both ends and you can bet your rates will go up. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | |
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| Re: Better Understanding... Both consumers and companies (particularly small businesses) will both be hit with additional fees (and penalties if they don't pay up). Customers will pay more for access to websites, and those websites will forward that on to the ISPs, with ISPs dictating which sites can and cannot be reached properly.
It's comforting to know that small business sites can be destroyed by ISPs, should they not pay their protection monies. | |
|
| | | | | |
anonpronman
@69.183.x.x | Re: Better Understanding... tsu, To bad only some of us are educated enough to understand "To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"
In short the customer is going to get shafted on this one. | |
|
| | | | | | |
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: Better Understanding... Customers and businesses are going to be screwed from this. The only winner is the ISP, whom is now free to resume doing nothing. | |
|
| | | | | AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by TK Junk Mail :Your rates were going up no matter how this law came out. Higher bandwidth apps were going to increase rates. The only question is who is going to get more of your money - the isp's or the content providers. You're of course, under the assumption that telcos will actually provide bigger pipes. Since they run the show now, they have really no insentive to fund for better anything, but now can sell you back the internet you were used to at a premium rate.
Fuggin' awesome. | |
|
| | | | | | 
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace | Re: Better Understanding... They are in the process of providing bigger pipes: there was an article here on BBR only a day or two ago about how AT&T was quadrupling its backbone capacity to 40 Gbps at OC768 levels. That's NOT cheap. | |
|
| | | | | | | AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: Better Understanding... said by LinuxJunkie :They are in the process of providing bigger pipes: there was an article here on BBR only a day or two ago about how AT&T was quadrupling its backbone capacity to 40 Gbps at OC768 levels. That's NOT cheap. And these various speed-increase articles have been pushed to us for how long now, and America still hasn't seen much of a speed increase outside these spotty test sites? Hell, the last bandwidth "leap" I was avaliable to was several years ago from dial-up to broadband. I still await any kind of significant performance leap since then. | |
|
| | | | NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
·LINGO
edit:
June 9th, @10:01AM
| said by rit56 :do you really think for a second that a corporation is not going to increase our rates based on this? no way. they will now get it from both ends and you can bet your rates will go up. I absolutely believe that the cost of Internet access is going down, not only for us as consumers, but for corporations as well. Look at ATT (formerly SBC). Their prices have been in a free fall. Everyone is running specials. Where there is competition, there are deals. My RR is running $24.99 per month because of ATT in the area. Look at FIOS's pricing in those areas where Cablevision is. Internet access is a COMMODITY. And as the supply increases its price is forced down.
In the corporate world, look at what Cogent has done to access pricing. Forced an off-a-precipice-like free fall.
As far as content providers are concerned, read this thread: »Clueless head of the FCC?!
I speak extensively about how content providers will not be able to raise price.
The concept of Net Neutrality, IMHO, is government intervention and intrusion where none is (currently) warranted.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. | |
|
| | | | | 
AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß
| Re: Better Understanding... I think you may be missing one small point:
The ability to "throttle" or provide now "better" access to sites will stop the free fall. What happens when AT&T starts trottling down local mom and pop ISP access to stuff on their network? You move from mom and pop to AT&T or mom and pop has to pay money to get access to AT&T.
Now AT&T's new marketing is "we are faster because we can throttle" the access of others to "our content". So there is a new created "value" to going with AT&T...so now they can "charge more" or at a minimum charge access fees to mom and pop ISP for access. | |
|
| | | | | | 
wwdubbia
join:2002-06-03
Clinton, NY
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Better Understanding... said by AnonProxy :I think you may be missing one small point: The ability to "throttle" or provide now "better" access to sites will stop the free fall. What happens when AT&T starts trottling down local mom and pop ISP access to stuff on their network? You move from mom and pop to AT&T or mom and pop has to pay money to get access to AT&T. Now AT&T's new marketing is "we are faster because we can throttle" the access of others to "our content". So there is a new created "value" to going with AT&T...so now they can "charge more" or at a minimum charge access fees to mom and pop ISP for access. ATT has content? | |
|
| | | | | | | Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX | Re: Better Understanding... Yes, they do. Their project lightspeed is content. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
wwdubbia
join:2002-06-03
Clinton, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
edit:
June 9th, @04:12PM
| Re: Better Understanding... said by Talis :Yes, they do. Their project lightspeed is content. oh, so you're talking about subscription content anyway, nothing free that a casual surfer would care to access for free. The post that I replied to was talking about mom and pop ISP's accessing ATT's content. Can a non subscriber access Project Lightspeed? There is a difference between 'content' and 'a service'. | |
|
| | | | viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| "Personally, I am happy to strongarm (some would say extort) google, yahoo, mytube, ebay, and all the other mega-internet firms to subsidize the next gen build for telcos and cablecos. Better that they subsidize the build than me."
Bump! I would also point out that, just like facilities based telecom, if you don't like what is out there, build your own. If, as a CLEC, you don't like the incumbents wholesale rates for resale of dial-tone, build your own network. If you don't like broadband providers prices or think they are restrictive, build your own and sell some service! There is nothing in any of these laws to prevent new networks. What? To expensive, you say? Well, there's the rub. It's expensive for the incumbent to operate, maintain and invest in additional capacity. | |
|
| | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Re: Better Understanding... The shear stupidity of your post warrants no comment, other than the fact that it is shear stupidity. | |
|
| | | | | | jtorre69
join:2005-12-26
Hollywood, FL | Re: Better Understanding... skippy, go to your room. I told you not to talk when we are having adult conversation. | |
|
| | | | | | viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| said by Skippy25 :The shear stupidity of your post warrants no comment, other than the fact that it is shear stupidity. DUDE!
I don't remember any personal attacks in my post, just some points to consider. Do you have any thoughts on the subject, or do you resort to lashing out when you don't have a real thought of your own? | |
|
| | | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Better Understanding... I guess your comment of "if you don't like it, build one yourself" is considered a pretty intellectual statement, right? So by your wisdom if google wants you as a search customer, they should build out a network? What about DSLReports? If they want you to access their site then they should build a network to you too right or pay (again) to get you there. Since I access 50 different internet apps or sites a week, should all of them build a network to my house as well? Do you now see the stupidity I saw in your comment?
How about we turn your comment around on these monopolistic pigs? How about they (network providers) innovate with services that their customers would see a benefit in so that they want to use them instead of trying to extort from those that have? That is truely what all this is about. It has nothing to do with bandwidth, as that is paid for IN FULL at both ends. The only thing they are trying to innovate is a new cash cow that requires nothing on their part other then stamping the checks to be deposited.
Do you know why a vast majority of all communities have only 1 network for each service (Cable and Telco)? If it was as easy as you claim to just go build one yourself, then it would be done. However, as you chose to ignore there are multiple barriers of entry that go way beyond just the shear cost of laying copper/coax/fiber. Besides not a single network that is there now would be there if we as a country did not subsidize it and we continue to do so even to this day. So it should be ripped from the greedy claws of these monopolies and returned to its people.
We as consumers should not have to result to having a new line ran from one company's network through our streets and yards every time we want to change providers or get a new service. I shouldnt have to deal with it when my neighbor switches, nor should they when I switch.
If you review my history you would see that I am a big proponent for having 1 (one / single) nationwide network independent of any service providers mainly because of the 2 things I pointed out above. If someone wants to provide services, that is fine. But they should not control the product and the method for getting it and any competing product delivered. We tried this back in the days of the railroad system, which is pretty similar to this. If it didnt work then without the government getting involved, what makes anyone think that it would work now? | |
|
| | | 
quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI
·TDS
| You do realize that those content providers won't just 'eat' the cost -- they will pass it on to us, either through subscription fees, or through more [intrusive] ads on their sites.
And where does my $70/mo go to? Shouldn't it be used to subsidize and build out the network? I hope its not just going to somebody's paycheck.... | |
|
| | | gar8182
Premium
join:2004-02-18
Seattle, WA | "Better that they subsidize the build than me."
Are you serious? In the end, it's always the "end-user" who pays. Google, eBay, et al. will just increase their user fees to compensate. | |
|
| | | wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| said by NGOwner :Keep in mind that the bolded you in the above phrase refers not to individuals, but to companies. The individual consumer will not be hit (directly) with any cost increase. Perhaps not "directly", but we will be hit. I doubt that Google et. al. will eat increased access expense out of the goodness of their heart. This expense will be passed on to the advertisers as a whole, and, consequently, to you and me.
said by NGOwner :Here's the other thing. If the access pipe providers (telcos and cablecos) are unable to sufficiently monetize the development of next gen pipes, we as consumers won't be getting next gen pipes. The policies advocated under the broad umbrella of "net neutrality" eviscerate the access pipe providers' ability to monetize their networks. Horse manure! They are monetizing the hell out of existing networks. There is nothing about new, higher-speed networks that prevents them from being monetized using the existing model. This is nothing more than a naked greed play.
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
|
| | | 
dv
What was that?
Premium
join:2005-04-19
Goleta, CA
| Think about this:
Do you think these companies, google, youtube, myspace just have extra money laying around for paying for this?
I doubt it.
By increasing their bandwidth costs, it may not affect what we are paying our isp's but I GUARANTEE it will show up when you go to watch that video and they charge you for access to those sites.
Will you pay for that? I doubt I would. SO, ultimately they are forcing us to pay for all this, one way or another.
I pay enough for my server's current connections (2 colo'ed with an unmetered 100mbit link which costs me more than enough for them)
And I KNOW I could not pay more for bandwidth fees. My costs would increase, which again would come out of the customers pockets. | |
|
| | johnh123
join:2002-11-19
Chicago, IL
| Good thing it passed. Hopefully the senate will pass it as well.
I'm just wondering, when the bill becomes law, and the internet continues to flourish with new services, faster speeds, and more innovation, will everybody here acting like it is the end of the world admit they were wrong? | |
|
| | |
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: Better Understanding... And when that dreamland fails to occur, will the supporters wake up and smell the roses?
 | |
|
| | | AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by johnh123 :I'm just wondering, when the bill becomes law, and the internet continues to flourish with new services, faster speeds, and more innovation, will everybody here acting like it is the end of the world admit they were wrong? We probably won't be posting, as the 'net's "slow lane" will render most forums unusable. | |
|
|
Genny Pershing
@covad.net
| See www.cybertelecom.org/ci/neutral.htm for an explanation of Net Neutrality.
To put it simply, market power. In the local access market, the DSL and the Cable broadband providers have market power. Now as common carriers, they were not allowed to use market power to discriminate. The problem is - DSL and cable broadband services are not common carriage - unlike the old phone network. That means they have opportunity and incentive. They have market power to discriminate, and they get to extract a lot of protection money (aka monopoly rent) if they do. You dont get to cross their net unless you pay the man. People do not get to do new cool things without the permission of AT&T. | |
|
rdmiller
join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA | House Rejects Net Neutrality Not even close! And not really along party lines. | |
|
| |
| | Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL
| Re: House Rejects Net Neutrality My Congressman, Meek, was one of the 58 who voted against it. He was also a cosponsor of the COPE act. I was curious of his reason for voting against the amendment so I called his office today. They had no comment. While I would have preferred that he vote for it, I can respect his decision if he would explain his reasoning. But, I find it very arrogant that they would not provide a reason why he was against the amendment. | |
|
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| We will be buying Internet like we buy cable soon I can just picture this very soon!!!
Family internet tier... Disney.com, discovery.com, cnn.com, myspace.com....
Sport Tier... nba.com, mlb.com espn.com....
Basic tier all your government sites, msn, google
If the telco have it their way is going to be the end of the Internet as we know it. And I dare to say that all the innovation that have come from the internet will just slow down. Why? There is an extra cost!
Is really sad that or Representatives votes are influenced by this companies. As far I'm concern they stop representing thier constituency years ago... Now they are just a mediator of the Private Industries with us... | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Doom! Queue posts ringing the forthcoming demise of the internet. | |
|
| AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: Doom! said by tsu :Queue posts ringing the forthcoming demise of the internet. They probably would, but then the forums would be too slow to bother accessing.  | |
|
jpark
join:2005-02-05
Jackson, TN | USA shoots itself in the foot again. So we (US) will be saddled with Internet restrictions, extra costs, failed and blocked services while the rest of the world will have an Internet that is unshackled.
Damned intelligent. | |
|
Masque
join:2001-12-04
Auburn, MI | Wait Until The Rest Of The World Reads This...... .....U.S. Internet Held Hostage. | |
|
bi0tech
join:2003-06-19
·Comcast
| why I do I have great trepidation when Congressmen think "The United States doesn't even rank in the top 10 of the nations of the world in broadband deployment," said Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), the main sponsor. "This bill should change that statistic."
So because we do something completely irrelevant to competition, suddenly the vast majority of people will somehow acquire new isps where most only have 1-2 choices.
Note to Bagdad: Target these fools and do us a favor. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| It Would Have Changed Nothing Everyone here posts about how this law would have enshrined "redlining" and do all sorts of other mean, evil things which would have restricted rural broadband deployments.
How is this different than what is currently going on? Most telegraph companies and cable companies already redline rural areas by not offering Internet services to any of them. The net effect of any bill which would "ban" redlining will be a reduction in all broadband deployments anywhere as any provider won't to take the risk of building out to a rural area which will not only cost more but also carries the greater risk of loss on such an investment.
--
Tancredo 2008! | |
|
|
quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI
·TDS
| Re: It Would Have Changed Nothing Then why do they push to stop municipalities from deploying their own. Why do they push to stop all regulation on unbundled loops (and end up increasing the price so 3rd party can afford it)? If they can't make money on it, don't stop anybody else from doing it! | |
|
| ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| said by pnh102 :Everyone here posts about how this law would have enshrined "redlining" and do all sorts of other mean, evil things which would have restricted rural broadband deployments. How is this different than what is currently going on? Most telegraph companies and cable companies already redline rural areas by not offering Internet services to any of them. The net effect of any bill which would "ban" redlining will be a reduction in all broadband deployments anywhere as any provider won't to take the risk of building out to a rural area which will not only cost more but also carries the greater risk of loss on such an investment. Isn't it contrary to the purposes which the form basis for the establishment of USF fees to allow redlining? | |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | Of course... ...they're whores. Whether it's unions, telcos, energy companies, environmentalists or anyone else bribing them the result is the same: we get screwed...constantly. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL | Just my comment Why they never mention Cableco's they're pushing for this to | |
|
GoodyearMark
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Goodyear, AZ
·Cox HSI
| Che help! Thank you wmarkhall for posting, I was just thinking about your avatar and how this country needs a man like that to turn this country on its head right about now.
--
Got a V3? Want to get the most out of it? Check out my site »hacktheV3.com | |
|
|
AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß | Re: Che help! If you really think Che would actually be of help, you need to check you history books my man...sort of figures that it's a cali address | |
|
| |
odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
edit:
June 9th, @12:50PM
| Re: Che help! "If you really think Che would actually be of help, you need to check you history books my man...sort of figures that it's a cali address"
its not nice to burn(own) memebers this early in the morning but pacificamark I did bookmark your site nice | |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
edit:
June 9th, @12:48PM
| I find it amusing The number of un-related industry groups I've been e-mailed by this morning praising the COPE bill.
I haven't dug into funding yet, but I find the bubbly tone of these e-mails suspect. There's just no way legitimate seniors and rural farmers would support this bill if they actually knew it will likely result in limited expansion by eliminating build-out requirements. I also find it highly suspect Seniors were very concerned with net-neutrality one way or the other....
Seniornet?
quote:
"The COPE Act will allow older Americans and consumers to benefit from lower
cable prices and wider deployment of broadband," said Kristin Fabos,
Executive Director of SeniorNet. "Furthermore, the House took into
consideration the concerns of seniors and wisely avoided legislating network
neutrality before in-depth study of the side-effects on beneficial applications
like telehealth and distance learning can be understood."
American Corn Growers Association?
quote:
he American Corn Growers Association (ACGA)
commends the U.S. House of Representatives for passage of H.R. 5252, the
Barton-Rush "Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act
of 2006."
"ACGA believes the passage of this legislation will result in increased
competition that sparks investment in rural America and carries broadband
into underserved areas nationwide," stated Larry Mitchell, CEO of ACGA. "We
believe cable competition will reduce rates and provide more innovative
options for a growing number of consumers in rural America."
Ironically rural areas will be the most hurt by this bill.
Regurgitate our incorrect talking points and we'll send a little cash your way! | |
|
A majority of Democrats supported HR 5252