Cry Cry Cry Everyone is crying Net Neutrality and Anti-Broadband bills that aren't really even affecting anything. There is nothing wrong with the Internet to even need a Network Neutrality bill/law. When something doesnt go some one's way on the Internet they post it on here or some where else and everyone starts saying "we need Net Neutrality" when nothing is wrong! Don't fix something when its not broke. And as far as Google even doing anything with broadband thats just in 1 city! Get over it Google!
Floral Park, NY
Re: Cry Cry Cry
said by hottboiinnc:The idea is to stop it before it becomes rampant. I hope you realize the anti-competitive possibilities that can arise from lack of regulation.
Everyone is crying Net Neutrality and Anti-Broadband bills that aren't really even affecting anything. There is nothing wrong with the Internet to even need a Network Neutrality bill/law. When something doesnt go some one's way on the Internet they post it on here or some where else and everyone starts saying "we need Net Neutrality" when nothing is wrong! Don't fix something when its not broke. And as far as Google even doing anything with broadband thats just in 1 city! Get over it Google!
I'm a road runner customer and as of right now, RR has reserved the right to de-prioritize competing VoIP. If the government isn't going to stop them, they WILL do it.
And why wouldn't they? It means more money...
| |DaSneaky1Dwhat's upPremium,MVMReviews:
| |said by hottboiinnc:And why would RR contact you? You wouldn't be the one charged. What you don't seem to understand, though, is that (for the sake of arguement)...in RR's eyes, they own you as a customer. They own where you visit on line and the right to control your enjoyment of the services you use via the Internet.
I'm a RR customer as well and have never been sent anything from RR regarding the network being de-prioritize anything on their network.
You say "they" should just go and build their own networks...But, what that translates in to is "Google" should go and build their own network. And Microsoft, and Youtube, and Flickr, and DSL Reports.
Net Neutrality is about your ISP saying, "if you want to reach my customers, then pay me". This isn't like a toll booth on a highway or turn pike. Companies pay huge amounts to not only build their network, but also peering and access charges to upstream providers so others can reach them.
You have a 1and1 review under your name tag. How would you feel about their "fast servers" if RR decided to tell them, "if you want your hosting services to reach my customers with any sort of reliable quality...pay me!"
Net neutrality protection is about making what is already working, stay working. It's never been about you...but you'll benefit from these efforts.
:: my trivial ramblings ::
Floral Park, NY
Re: Cry Cry Cry
said by hottboiinnc:Dude...
...I don't see the point of making a law that is not needed. When it's needed then make the law ...
...and for the Record TWC, Comcast and every other cable company already does prioritize their network...
In many areas cable companies have exclusive rights to have infrastructure. Therefore they are the ONLY HSI available.
We both have Road runner who has already de-prioritized certain kinds of traffic (call them and ask- I did).
Many of these companies have already made their intentions clear, that they will prioritize their own internet traffic, or that of companies that will pay them for it (meaning competition- won't be competition at all if it can't get to you reliably).
| || |
quote:Oh my, don't we feel important?
I would be contacted if they're de-prioritizing
Net Neutrality is about keeping the status quo: best effort delivery and all. Double dipping the parties who already pay for access is ludicrous.
quote:This argument gets used here an awful lot. Applied to any other commerce arrangement, it would seem illogical and ill advised at best. I suppose if you don't like WalMart, you should build your own store? That's hardly feasible. Luckily, most other commerce arrangements have other choices in the marketplace-there are competitors to WalMart. Building ones own ISP is hardly a feasible proposition for a majority of people. Possible? Yes, but so is building my own doctor's office, or football stadium, or ocean liner. None of those things are feasible from a cost/skill/time/effort/energy perspective for just about anyone. I don't see how an ISP is any different than those examples. Sure, a one man, one location, two pipes for redundancy ISP is possible, but who amongst the peasants of the world could afford/want to do so, when there are clearly behemoth giants already squatting on that space? Could a one man ISP compete with say Time Warner, pricewise? Absolutely not.
They built it and own it. If you don't like it don't use it and build your own.
Re: Cry Cry Cry - major error
said by Ahrenl:ISPs do not generally build infrastructure. The last time I checked, albeit a year ago at least, earthlink does not have ROWs. Telcos, CableCos, Wireless and SatCos use ROWs.
There is an important difference. The ISP's network is sitting on public land in public ROW's.
said by Ahrenl:My only point is that you seem to be confused about what an internet service provider and an infrastructure provider is.
Therefore the government (supposedly the people) does get a say, especially since they won't let unlimited competing networks be built on the same ROW's. The government provides the wireline monopoly that creates their billion dollar profits. What are ISP's? Maintenance companies. They don't create content (any good content), they don't provide any reason for a customer to want to connect to the internet except for the fact that they own the lease on the last link between you, and what you want. The government has a responsibility to ensure that the network wireline monopoly on public land remains neutral.
(not that the lines didn't get blurred once the real ISPs were either bankrupted or absorbed into existing regulated entities)
It ain't much different than the wal-mart model. We all complain about local jobs lost, yet we shop there because of low prices, which are caused by labor that is less than local jobs provide.
We sorta killed the ISP industry and handed it to the telcos and cablecos. It reminds me of that original small check we all received from Bush when he was first elected...face it, us americans are whores...
Just food for thought.
Re: Cry Cry Cry
said by hottboiinnc:Is your name Edward Whitacre, Jr. or does he sign your paycheck?
Like I said. The law is only needed when this is an issue. Other wise there is nothing to stop. Just a bunch of major companies shooting the breeze.
for what the head of SBC seems to have said he wants to do.
You are right, it is not a KNOWN issue at this time, however the people (providers) who *own* the customers do currently have the right to screw with or charge extra for data streams that we are paying for if they do not come from the best money making (for the provider) location (read the article, I have summarized drastically). So says the Boss of SBC.
As I read what the Golden Boy of Telecom had to say in 2005, the fact that Google (example) pays whomever for internet access and that I pay SBC (assuming I have SBC as an ISP/connection) for Internet access does not mean that SBC has to allow me to access Google without Google paying SBC extra for data from Google to traverse SBC into my house.
I am not lost, I find myself every time.
Re: Cry Cry Cry
said by hottboiinnc:Did not happen. Wonder what would have happened if the fuss did not occur? And from what I have read in various trade journals, I doubt if the thought of more money into the coffers will go away unless something is done. History has proven that corporations, especially big ones that many people depend on, do not care about anything except the executive bonus levels.
Actually no I don't have anything to do with AT&T I don't even use their services. I use Time Warner and Sprint. And someone from Lowe's Companies, Inc signs my paycheck since you asked
But what Ed had to say back when he said this does not have anything to do with now. It did not happen. Nobody is charging content providers anything extra to access the end-user and Ed is not even working for AT&T any longer so whats the big deal?
And again why create a law when one is not needed? When this changes, if it ever does, then we may need a bill/law protecting the customers.
I am not lost, I find myself every time.
Re: Go Google !!!
said by Mactron:"This was compared to the tens of millions being spent by companies like AT&T and Verizon, who've over decades developed a vast and very effective (if sometimes ethically dubious) public policy machine." Are you as happy that Google is also lobbying to bring more immigrants in to the US to take high tech jobs from U.S. citizens?
Oh, and I trust the Telco's soooo much to protect me.
You go Google !
Lobbying power is a 2 edged sword, and "Google the Good" is a very misleading phrase to apply to the new huge Google ad machine that plans on merging with Doubleclick and aggregating and selling your private info.
My Web Page
| |pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
Mount Airy, MD
Google Learned From Microsoft For most of the 1990s, Microsoft actively stayed away from politics. They would not hire lobbyists, they would not fund political campaigns or the like. But unfortunately, politics is not like trouble, in the sense that if you avoid trouble, it usually avoids you.
Apple, IBM, Sun Whinersystems and Oracle successfully lobbied the US Government to set its sights on Microsoft in the mid-1990s. We had all sorts of anti-trust lawsuits come of it, and Microsoft ended up spending a lot of money to defend itself from these lawsuits. By the time the 2000 presidential election came, they had learned the hard way that unless you pump sufficient "protection money" into a politician's pocket, you become a target. What did they do? Dumped a ton of money into the Bush campaign... and upon Bush's victory, the government actions against Microsoft came to an end.
Anyone who thinks Google's influence purchasing is somehow for the "greater good" is going to be sadly mistaken. Google only cares to protect its own interests. "Lobbying up" as it is, is merely a means by which Google protects itself from hostile actions that could be taken against it by the US Government.
Only SHATNER is Kirk.