Anti-Competitive Behavior Is A First Amendment Right The cable industry's new talking point pops up again... Last week you'll recall that the cable industry's chief lobbying and policy group, the NCTA, unveiled a new talking point suggesting that network neutrality protections would violate the cable industry's First Amendment rights. It's a weird and incoherent argument for anybody who has actually bothered to read the First Amendment. That isn't stopping the cable industry from using the argument as their new rallying cry against new FCC neutrality rules. Randolph May, and his cable-industry funded "think tank" Free State Foundation, loyally repeats the new talking point in today's Washington Times: The First Amendment's language is plain: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." ISPs possess free speech rights just like newspapers, magazines, cable operators, movie and CD producers - and the man preaching on a soapbox. They are all speakers for First Amendment purposes. And under traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, it is as much a free speech violation to compel a speaker to convey information that the speaker does not wish to convey as it is to prevent a speaker from transmitting information it wishes to make available. The argument still doesn't make any sense. By "compelling a speaker to convey information that the speaker does not wish to convey," May means forcing an ISP to carry content or services that might compete with its own. In other words, the cable industry is seriously trying to argue that being anti-competitive is a Constitutional right. There's plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose network neutrality protections without having to completely make them up. Despite being one of the dumbest telecom arguments we've ever seen made, the various policy and lobbying tendrils of the phone and cable industry are running with this First Amendment gag as their latest logistical assault on network neutrality laws. Paid AT&T and Verizon policy wonk Scott Cleland, frequently called to DC as a leading telecom "expert" despite being little more than a walking press release, blogs and bleats his support for the bizarre premise in loyal unison. Nonsensical rhetoric has been a mainstay of the network neutrality debate since it really took off in 2005 with AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre insisting people who already pay for bandwidth should pay more to use his "pipes." While their arguments still don't make any sense, at least industry lobbyists, policy wonks and pseudo-scientists are staying consistent in the level of idiocy they're applying to the discussion.
|
  MurdocPremium
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI
2 edits | Oh boy we are screwed even more.... If anti competitive behavior is a right. Does anyone have a link to show what this idiot looks like? Never mind I Found one! Exactly what I thought an idiot looked like! | |
|  |  56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | Re: Oh boy we are screwed even more.... Two words end this entire fiasco:
Common Carrier. | |
| | | | if anti-competitive is a right then we should all have the right to stop paying taxes to this goverment.
I Hate Corporate Assholes !!!! | |
|
| | Can't Help But Agree with This The very idea that being required to not limit another person's First Amendment Rights somehow violates your own is ludicrous on its face.
I have lost my trust in all things FED pretty much, so I don't want to see the FCC add regulations to something which is working just fine right now.
Still this argument is twisted at best. | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Can't Help But Agree with This But, the 1st amendment only applies to freedom from the government limiting speech against the government or practice of free religion, or limiting of the press's ability to talk freely.. still, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
[blockquote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/blockquote]
While I actually am split on this one myself, I tend to side with the industry that the government IS in fact making a law establishing and controlling speech. But, if the Feds DO want to control the speech or transport thereof, then they're also going to have to back down on the fact many of them want to adapt to the changing times, when it involves the internet, and give up on trying to limit how the internet is being billed to consumers.
Like consumers, and BBR's, say all the time, "The ISPs need to adapt and go with the times when it comes to the internet.. it's not 1999 any more"... and I agree... and that argument is more than one sided.. then, if this is the case, the internet HAS changed, dramatically, since we first really met it. We're not just looking at the dancing Jesus and dancing baby on a web page any more.. we're watching TV, videos, making phone calls, we use it for almost anything now.. and that to me constitutes a major change.
When we got our TV over cable or satellite, and we got our phones over copper lines and wireless, the internet wasn't AS robust as it is today. People want the internet to take on so many different roles, right? I agree with that, as it should be able to.. with that also means some consumers ALSO need to adapt to the changing times and not expect that the ISPs are going to remain the same too. If the Internet IS replacing other medium, that makes the internet "worth" more, and more valuable.. not to mention, it WILL cause other product lines to phase themselves out.. that revenue has to be replaced by other revenue.
I think it's only fair that the internet is charged differently moving forward.. The average consumer pays about $100 a month for phone, internet, and cable.. I don't see a problem with the internet being charged at $99 a month, solo. If people want to bundle and choose to continue to get their other services over copper or other means, then fine.. offer a discount.. again, only fair. And, the argument by some of "well, I'm getting my video, and paying others for it, and I don't think I should pay more for internet.. " well, again,.. that's not a reasonable case.. then they can pay for their internet with a cap and overages.. or they can simply pay a flat rate higher price.
The "fairness" has to go all around to all parties involved.
I have no problem with ISPs charging higher flat rates for those that want it with a virtually unlimited amount of data,....bundling as we do now for lower rates, or simply going base price with a per byte charge model.. but one thing for sure, the consumer HAS to get their heads out of 1999 the same as those very consumers are wanting the ISPs to do..
Again, fair is far.. | |
| | | | | Re: Can't Help But Agree with This I dont even know where to begin with you.
First off, lets get this clear because this seems to be overlooked way to often: ISP's are dumbpipes. Plain and simple. They don't want to be dumbpipes because they can make more money being the pipes AND providing content. Especially if they can discriminate and charge more for discriminated packets. But the simple truth is that they are in fact dumbpipes.
Second, ISP's are free to charge what ever they want for the service of the dumbpipes. One of your last argument imply they don't. If they want to charge $100 just for internet, then by golly charge $100 for internet. Just don't come crying when nobody signs up for it.
Third, companies being required to carry packets (because that is their core business) regardless of where it originated or where it is going has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st amendment and is simply ass backwards thinking by a bunch of corporate sheep that are digging deep to come up with something because they can't legitimately come up with any other good reason. By this argument we can say that virtually any business regulation removes the 1st amendment right of the businesses it effects and take it even more broad to say that they remove the rights of those people that want to use that service as well.
Lastly, you are absolutely correct in that the internet has changed and will continue to change. However, the role of the ISP has not changed and will not change. The sooner these ISP's realize they are dumbpipes and begin acting and investing their resources like it, the sooner all of us in this country will be better off and the internet will be able to begin thriving again. | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Can't Help But Agree with This You're making a LOT of inaccurate assumptions.. who says that ISPs are "dumbpipes"..." What "LAW" has established it?
NONE of my arguments implied that they are not allowed to charge anything.. open your eyes and read.
Third.. your post makes no sense to what I said.. so I won't reply..
Lastly.. no one has "established" what EXACTLY an ISPs "duties" are.. so once again, we're coming off with Utopian thoughts and dreams again..
You say "in this country will be better off and the internet will be able to begin THRIVING AGAIN"... um.. when did it STOP thriving?
Seriously.. where do you get these ideals from? What are you basing ANY of what you just said from, other than your own vision?
As for the whole "If they want to charge $100 just for internet, then by golly charge $100 for internet. Just don't come crying when nobody signs up for it." Um... that's what they're trying to do.. they want to charge MORE for a resource that is taking prominence to the communication world and MANY people, here of all places, are crying that they are trying to do just that.. and the argument in return is that it's "Anti-consumer"... people WON'T just not sign up for it.. they want to bitch their way to lower prices.. ain't going to happen, AND when all the providers as an industry try to make these changes, the people cry foul and collusion.
So.. how do you respond to that? | |
| | | | | | | Re: Can't Help But Agree with This Wow, for someone that wasnt replying you certainly had a lot to say. And my reply to that is boo hoo to you corporations. So you think the value of your product is greater than the people are willing to pay. That's so so sad.
There is no law saying they are dumbpipes moron. However, there should be and hopefully by the time this is all said and done there will be. We can sugar coat dumbpipe and call them internet service providers if it makes you feel better. But really what does an ISP do? Let me give you a hint: They take a packet, they send a packet. That is pretty much a dumbpipe isn't it? AND that is exactly what they should be doing.
They want to get into the content business? Then let them form a company that is separate in every way to be a content provider. They should not be the content providers as well as dumbpipes because they are greedy bastards and can't control themselves when it comes to doing what is right (pass packets of competing providers) and doing what earns more money.
By thrive again I meant that without allowing them to create walled AOL gardens the people of the world will be able to continue to produce content that other people of the world want without the worry that ISP's won't sign off on it or give them "permission" to have their packets delivered. Nothing can thrive when there are major barriers in place. It can move forward as the internet is, but it can't thrive.
Of course prices are not going to get cheaper. Their goal is always to make more money, not less and being in an industry that has great barriers of entry and there are only a couple players in a vast majority of ALL markets why would prices ever come down? Their own actions speak for them self and the ONLY reason we probably don't have a full walled garden approach now is because the FCC got involved during the baby steps of this approach which scared the hell out of them.
The government needs really to just do one thing to settle this whole thing - Create one nationwide fiber network (one big dumbpipe) that connects all users and businesses that can be serviced by any ISP that elects to lease the line to service those people. Let Comcast, Charter, Cox, Verizon, AT&T, and whoever else wants to become a POP compete for every user and business in this country.
Otherwise they need to establish the below 2 rules:
1.) ISP's can't be content providers and content providers can't be ISP's nor may either enter into an agreement giving one or the other preferential treatment over any others.
2.) ISP's are to accept any and all legal packets and send any and all legal packets regardless of content, source, or destination in the most efficient and timely manner possible without discriminating the priority of one packet over another because of it's content, source, or destination. | |
| | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Can't Help But Agree with This I believe in the freedom to make money.. I have YET to see anything so over priced or unreasonable that people can't afford it.. I assume that you think everyone should be able to have everything.. and in this society, this isn't true. you have to make choices and live with in your means.. if someone can't afford fast internet, full on cable tv, fully featured phone service, iPhones or expansive cell phones, then you have to make a decision that allows you to live with in your own means..
And as for being content providers.. they already are.. and as for their own cable TV services, since we're on the lines of cable, I have NO problem with them doing what they can to protect their own content.. and so far they are.. they instituted a 250gb cap, comcast has, and everything falls into that.. so what's your problem? .. I suppose they're just greedy bastards.. to be honest, your posts make you, yourself, sounds like a "greedy bastard".. you think? Being greedy works both ways.
There is NOTHING wrong with making "more money"... our economy and businesses have to have growth.. be VERY careful about talking about by how much
and the LAST people I want creating a dumb pipe is the government.. THAT statement of yours, alone, speaks VERY loudly of your intention.. the government is not the solution.. they are the problem...
And I hate to tell you.. cable TV companies were providers before they offered internet..
I'm sorry, I just can't agree, or even see your side, of any of your arguments.. they are WAY too dangerous. | |
| | | | | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Can't Help But Agree with This said by fiberguy:I believe in the freedom to make money.. I have YET to see anything so over priced or unreasonable that people can't afford it.. Wow. Just wow.... you should try thinking outside your world for a minute. So, you've never seen people who have no medical insurance? You've never seen people who drive an old clunker instead of a new car? Better yet people who have no car period? Never seen people who will pay for one service and have to do without two others as a result? People who live in a crappy apartment in a Ghetto area of town instead of a nice place in the suburbs?
Seriously man, open your eyes. Not everyone has tons of extra money lying around to pay for rate increases and price jumps and new fees. Be glad you do.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | | | | |  VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by fiberguy:I have YET to see anything so over priced or unreasonable that people can't afford it Now you just are lying so there isn't much more to argue about
Never seen anything so over-priced that people couldn't afford it?
Do you live inside a box? | |
| | | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Can't Help But Agree with This said by Van:said by fiberguy:I have YET to see anything so over priced or unreasonable that people can't afford it Now you just are lying so there isn't much more to argue about Never seen anything so over-priced that people couldn't afford it? Do you live inside a box? Don't make vague statements... speak your mind...
First of off, off your blanket statement, let me say that not everything is supposed to be affordable to everyone. We live in a system of classes and some people just aren't going to be able to afford everything they want. I'd love to have Mercedes and other fine cars a yachts but it's not going to happen. Not everyone needs to have an iPhone, for example, and not everyone needs full cable or the fastest internet or even mobile internet.. it's called "living in your means"... people often don't want to do that.
The basics of life, people can afford or find affordable options that suit their abilities. I will excuse health care from that issue because that's a whole other political nightmare.
Some people want to be able to buy prime rib at the store, while others can only afford 80/20 ground beef... um, so is life... that's how it works.
And then there is the whole conversation on one's own abilities to BE ABLE to afford something... there is one thing for sure, everyone in this country has the ability to obtain continuing education through student loans... many chose not to..
So, I'd like to see your response to this one. | |
|
| | VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by fiberguy:I tend to side with the industry that the government IS in fact making a law establishing and controlling speech. As a lawyer myself, I just....I mean, I have to know....how exactly?
Be specific that is.....
Because there isn't a single, objective lawyer that I know that would even entertain the idea of something so incorrect....being debated openly | |
| | | chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| You do have a good point, but on the other hand this change is more akin to the introduction of roads and railroads where at one point the providers were extorting users and damaging the economy as a whole which did result in government intervention. What this all does boil down to is that most of these wires are being laid on, over and under public land which ISPs do not own and are given rights to by national, state and local governments.
So if it really comes down to a pissing contest of rights all you need is a simple bit of contract law which states that you if you want to be able to thread fiber through public lands as an ISP you need to follow a certain set of rules, and if not you can't keep it there. | |
| | | | Oxygen69Premium
join:2008-12-08
Madison, WI Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Can't Help But Agree with This I don't think I could have said it better myself. Who needs the FCC to change the "Rules-of-the-game", just mandate that fiber crossing public land or on public lands must follow these rules.. or go somewhere else.. Maybe space..  | |
| | | | | chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC | Re: Can't Help But Agree with This Don't forget, the airwaves are also considered public space as well and as such subject to government regulation. So even satellites can't get around this. | |
|
| | Can't skim the cream without also taking the dregs If they want to use that argument, they will have to concede that they are responsible for all of the viewpoints that they do choose to propagate. | |
|
1 edit |  I don't think any other comments are needed in this thread..
But if they want to play by those abstract rules a counter argument can arise from the US Constitution itself in the form of the Commerce Clause. So once congress, by the will of the people, passes this legislation authorizing the FCC to regulate Net Neutrality corporate and other state entities should shut their pie whole. | |
| | | | Re: I don't think any other comments are needed in this thread.. Is a business considered a person? | |
| | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: I don't think any other comments are needed in this thread.. said by Uncle Paul:Is a business considered a person? unfortunately, yes. some ruling from the 1880's gave corporations the right of an individual. | |
| | | | | | Re: I don't think any other comments are needed in this thread.. said by nasadude: some ruling from the 1880's gave corporations the right of an individual. And none of the responsibilities. | |
| | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: I don't think any other comments are needed in this thread.. said by TheWickerMan:said by nasadude: some ruling from the 1880's gave corporations the right of an individual. And none of the responsibilities. QFT. Can I get an Amen!
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | | | jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | Businesses pay taxes on income don't they? | |
| | | | | | | | Re: I don't think any other comments are needed in this thread.. nope their customers do | |
|
| | | | |
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | "....perhaps one may say capping would limit ones' freedom of assembly which is definitely covered in that amendment."
No one is doing that.. and an ISP is not the Government, to which the 1st applies.. an ISP is not telling you that you can't "say" what you want.. by the way, too many people REALLY go out of their way to stretch the 1st.. the stripper industry likes to play the 1st Amendment card all the time saying that nudity is a form of speech.. last time I checked, speech is something that comes from your mouth or is printed on paper, not your boobs. but I digress.
But, to your argument about capping.. that too I don't agree. Many ISPs have talked about a fixed amount of data use with overage fees... this is nothing REALLY that much different that the phone company has done for the majority of it's existence either. We have it now with out cell phone service.. you get so many minutes, and then you pay X amount over.. how is this any different? EVEN if they did say "you get 250 GB a month, and that's it" which they're not talking about, I still don't see how it's limiting someone's speech.. to "limit one's speech" is to control what is said.. not how much of it or charge for it.. there is a major difference.. | |
|
 NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | They're impinging on my free speech If they throttle my connection they're messing with my rights.
So where does that leave us..
oh right, the corporation has more rights than the individual. | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: They're impinging on my free speech said by NOCMan:If they throttle my connection they're messing with my rights. So where does that leave us.. oh right, the corporation has more rights than the individual. said by NOCMan:If they throttle my connection they're messing with my rights. So where does that leave us.. oh right, the corporation has more rights than the individual. How exactly is throttling your connecting messing with your rights?? What "rights" exactly are you talking about?
There is nothing in the constitution that says you can't have your connection throttled... they did it for years with dial up.. remember when you were on for an hour, they'd drop your modem and you had to call back? .. seriously, there is NOTHING illegal about throttling back your connection.. | |
|
Reviews:
·Charter
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| If anti-competitive behavior is a right... What other criminal activity is a right to these internet providers?
Asking a loaded question here, but would the cable industry try to argue that killing people in a competitive field would be a right?
And would they argue the same rights if another company used it against them...? | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: If anti-competitive behavior is a right... said by Metatron2008:Asking a loaded question here, but would the cable industry try to argue that killing people in a competitive field would be a right? Yes. Murder is my expression. | |
|
1 edit | Common Carriage vs. Private Carriage Cable is on very dangerous legal grounds here. There is plenty of Supreme Court case law that abridges private carriage mediums of an absolute 1st amendment right (broadcasting, cable). But the Internet looks more like a two-way common carriage medium. The end-game here could be full on common carriage for ISPs.
Edit: Also, if cable pursues this angle, their safe harbor provisions for kiddie porn and copyright are gone. They could see Brian Roberts in handcuffs for transmitting illegal content. They know this, which is why NCTA and their paid Puppet (with bad nose hair) Randy May trotting this line is a Machiavellian tactic -- they view the free speech argument as one of the pro-neutrality crowd's strongest. | |
| |  powerhogStinkin' up the jointPremium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK | Re: Common Carriage vs. Private Carriage I think you've said it best. Would be kind of interesting for the cable systems to "win" on this 1st Amendment front then face the consequences for transmitting illegal content.
Of course, we all know that they'll just have take spend some extra money to buy the necessary legislation to give them both 1st Amendment rights and common carriage protections.  | |
| | jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | So if you let somebody into your home and tell them not to make racist remarks, then since you've exercised your right to censor your property, you become liable for anything else they say? Doesn't make sense.
They are a safe harbor because they aren't responsible for what their users transmit. Doesn't mean they can't also block certain bits as they see fit. | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Declare the ISP's a common carrier! huh? What is so bad about an ISP wanting to move to a metered billing? What is so bad about being able to protect their own business models? I can see that some foundation needs to be laid when it comes to the ISP industry and it's going to be give and take on both sides, but I think this is getting a little too far.. You guys are screaming bloody murder.. we're NO where near that point, yet.. | |
| | | chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Declare the ISP's a common carrier! The concern here is that the claim isn't even metered billing. It's that this organization is arguing that ISPs ought to be allowed to censor and monitor all traffic going over their network. So if they don't want you to send out an email containing content critical of them you can't. If a site says something negative about them, they ought to be able to simply block it.
Heck according to this argument he is even saying that ISPs have the right to use deep packet inspect and selectively block any content they don't want. Since the internet is a global network regulation of it does fall to congress as it is used for trade and if you feel like cracking out the Constitution Article 1, Section 8 states that Congress has the power, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".
This is why congress was allowed to step in and start regulating railroads, and this is also why they have full authority to regulate public interstate networks such as (you guessed it) major ISPs. | |
|
 Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23
·Cox HSI
4 edits | Commerce clause says different Congress is granted by the Constitution explicit authority to regulate interstate commerce and you don't get much more interstate than the Internet. Must carry is a case in point. The government at multiple levels can can compel the cable operator to do anything they want including having 50 worthless public access channels. In my business I'm compelled to convey labor laws in the form of a labor law poster posted in a conspicuous place. I'm compelled to post my business license. I'm compelled to convey employee wage records to the state. I'm compelled to speak to county environmental authorities when they show up for inspection. I'm compelled to even allow the fire department to perform fire inspections without a warrant or notice.
Meanwhile having a cable system is not a Constitutionally protected right. Cable systems, like driver licenses, exist at the discretion of Congress and the several States and like all businesses can be regulated any way Congress sees fit.
With the NCTA's logic, they would not have to sell service to black people because that would violate their free speech (under the idiotic logic that they don't have to "speak" to black people). | |
| VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| What is the deal with so many being so ignorant as to what the Amendments actually say?
How many times have we seen cases where people scream an Amendment as some sort of excuses yet the Amendment doesn't say anything even slightly as to what they are talking about?
This 1st Amendment excuse is garbage and anyone that even went to a day of law school could tell you that. | |
| | | Paid too much... "cable-industry funded "think tank" Free State Foundation"
If this is the best a "cable-industry funded "think tank"" can come up with I would be looking for a refund or something cable-industry.
100% Weaksauce | |
| | | Why does a corporation even HAVE rights? Can a corporation send their child off to war? Can a corporation be sent to jail? If not, then why in the world do they think they have the same rights a CITIZEN has? The problem stems from the simple fact that we treat the corporation as a person, instead of a legal entity. A non-moral, non-ethical artificial person having the same rights as a REAL person, means that the artificial person, by definition, will NOT follow the same rules and morals that the rest of society follows, because it can't
--
Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so. | |
| |
See 12 replies to this post | |
| | haha ... well ... looks like the cable industry has gone off their rocker | |
| | | Net Neutrality's Not What They Think It Is The Washington Times article gives some examples of things that they think ISPs should be allowed to do which might violate a hypothetical network neutrality law. They claim that ISPs should have this as a "First Amendment" right.
To take the starkest example, suppose an ISP wants to offer a service that restricts access to Web sites promoting homophobic or racist views. This is perfectly fine in theory and doesn't violate Network Neutrality. Of course, in practice, I would hope that such a service was opt-in and that the list of blocked websites was able to be reviewed by a third party. Filters might raise other issues, ironically some First Amendment issues, but they wouldn't violate Network Neutrality.
Or suppose an ISP wants to prioritize the distribution of certain content such as video games or news feeds in order to make that content more attractive to consumers. This too is fine. Provided, of course, that they do it in a way that doesn't benefit one content provider above another offering a similar service. For example, an ISP shouldn't prioritize Washington Post's news feeds over CNN's news feeds. But saying that VOIP in general needs more bandwidth priority than web site surfing is just fine.
Or to provide certain service quality enhancements that would allow a new content provider to have a better chance to compete against an entrenched content provider, say, Google. Ah, now we get to a Network Neutrality violation. This is figuring that New Search Site X (let's call it "Bing"  ) enters into a deal so that traffic to and from their site goes faster than traffic to and from Google. This means that ISP customers see Google as the slower option and switch away. Unless Google pays the ISP for the "right" to faster speeds, of course.
This would mean that large websites would have a distinct advantage over smaller ones since large websites could afford to pay every ISP the Faster Service Fee. Small websites would be forced into "cattle class" speeds while large websites would be bumped to "first class."
Instead of giving new competitors a chance against entrenched websites, this type of ISP behavior would penalize newcomers and rewards the entrenched players. Unless an ISP had an ax to grind against an entrenched player and gave a newcomer a free "first class ticket", of course. This type of behavior from an ISP *definitely* should not be allowed.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause | |
| | | | Re: Net Neutrality's Not What They Think It Is said by Jason Levine:Or to provide certain service quality enhancements that would allow a new content provider to have a better chance to compete against an entrenched content provider, say, Google. Ah, now we get to a Network Neutrality violation. This is figuring that New Search Site X (let's call it "Bing" ) enters into a deal so that traffic to and from their site goes faster than traffic to and from Google. This means that ISP customers see Google as the slower option and switch away. Unless Google pays the ISP for the "right" to faster speeds, of course. This would mean that large websites would have a distinct advantage over smaller ones since large websites could afford to pay every ISP the Faster Service Fee. Small websites would be forced into "cattle class" speeds while large websites would be bumped to "first class." Kinda like the ISP's voice solution priority vs a third party's?
A lot of your views work fine with low cost to enter the market and healthy competition, but when you're choice of ISPs is pretty much singular in nature there are no market forces to dictate what should be prioritized. You simply take what the ISP will deliver. Thus, protections must be put in place to ensure the same level of priority for all traffic. | |
| |
2 edits | Heres an Idea that I think every one could go with
Issue a standard DSCP set of priorities
Make an RFC for it
then you can say all voip traffic must be marked between e0 and ef
then after setting in the rfc a set of what catagories should be in each dscp "zone" then all the program needs to do is set its dscp properly
to avoid abuse of this idea you could set only a guaranteed amount of bandwidth
ie a VoIP program would set its DSCP bit to anywhere between e0 and ef
then the isp set top priority on that
if a torent tries to use e0-ef then it wouldn't get much bandwidth
the in d0-df could be for gaming or such (more bandwidth but slightly lower priority)
00-0f could be for non-time critical data (ie not overly sensitive to lag)
then with all ISP's using the same set of dscp values they could even set voip to be able to use transit instead of a peering links if the lag is lower and torrents to stick to peers
it would be vendor nuetral so you could use any VoIP play any game
and I say use dscp in ranges so that it could be a gradient at it getts closer to 0f (so e0 would have more bandwidth than ef but ef would have less lag) | |
| | | | | Re: Net Neutrality's Not What They Think It Is The only problem with that is a LOT of consumer grade equipment doesn't know how to handle DSCP tags properly. DSCP only works well if every device on the network tags and interprets those tags properly.
--
Kilroy was here | |
|
| | so... under their idea of how the 1st works, me committing a "crime" is a right because its my expression, and the government can't take that away from me? humm | |
|  FreedomBuildWell done is better than well saidPremium
join:2004-10-08
Rockford, IL
·Comcast
| Quote from the past "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the Country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed."
Abraham Lincoln
Just wondering if anyone else see this happening today...
--
»www.freedombuild.net
Browse A lot - Sign In Little - Post Even Less | |
| |  SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Re: Quote from the past Politicians already act as if they are royalty. Look at the veneration of the President that even the Congress shows. These people have forgotten that they work for *us*, not the other way around. | |
| | | FreedomBuildWell done is better than well saidPremium
join:2004-10-08
Rockford, IL Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Quote from the past Apparently most of them are working for the highest bidder. Those high bidders are usually either directly or indirectly connected with major corporations.
--
»www.freedombuild.net
Browse A lot - Sign In Little - Post Even Less | |
|
| | | You're late by about 50 years. | |
|
 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| Ed Whitacre quote:
Still, nonsensical rhetoric has been a mainstay of the network neutrality debate since it really took off in 2005 with AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre insisting people who already pay for bandwidth should pay more to use his "pipes."
I am still wondering when Mr. Whitacre, now chairman of GM, will demand we pay extra to use his roads.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
| | | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: There's plenty of legitimate reasons.... "oppose network neutrality protections," not oppose network neutrality.
There are valid reasons to oppose network neutrality laws, including the worry that government might be too incompetent to create useful ones, or the fear that government is so corrupt, that industry lobbyists will shape the laws into something that actually winds up making things worse. | |
| | |  r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
| Re: There's plenty of legitimate reasons.... said by Karl Bode:including the worry that government might be too incompetent to create useful ones, or the fear that government is so corrupt, that industry lobbyists will shape the laws into something that actually winds up making things worse. In those cases it would not be network neutrality, but a law that restricts the internet.
--
Republicans: less fiscally conservative than that other party. | |
| | | | | | Re: There's plenty of legitimate reasons.... You've successfully lost me... | |
| | | | | r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX | Re: There's plenty of legitimate reasons.... Net Neutrality = unrestricted internet | |
| | | | | | chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: There's plenty of legitimate reasons.... Except we still need to allow for reasonable bandwidth management including QoS settings. Which is why it's important to make sure that the right laws pass and not something that either does nothing or is so draconian that it restricts further innovation by blocking out potentially fair QoS technologies. | |
|
1 edit | Commerce Clause is not what you all think it is. There is no justification in the U.S. Constitution for regulating in the sense that we regulate today. When the constitution was ratified, the word 'regulate' meant 'to make regular', which is quite different from the definition of the word we know today, which is 'to take control of'.
But virtually no large entity in the U.S., such as the telecommunications industry, wants to use this argument because this would reduce the barriers to entry that protect them from small, innovative firms.
The constitution spelled out no exceptions to the limitations placed on Congress for freedom of speech as written in the first amendment. The first five words make this clear: "Congress shall make no law..." (emphasis added). This means that all things followed can be controlled by the states.
The constitution also granted powers to Congress, meaning that Congress does not have unlimited power, and there is nothing in the constitution which grants congress the power to control the telecommunications industry.
--
Time... beckoning me. | |
| | chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Commerce Clause is not what you all think it is. As has been pointed out many times. Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce and commerce with other nations. The internet can fall under this granting them authority. It should also be noted that any company that spans multiple states must answer to congress and not just the states its a member of for this exact reason. Every major ISP falls into this category. | |
|
| | Ehhh well.... Network neutrality is a good idea at best just like most ideas. But if the government takes on the task of network neutrality then the government will mutate and sodomize the idea untill you no longer recognize it. They'll rename it something silly like Internet fairness for all and secretly it will give the government even more of a window into tracking where you go online. They screwed up universal healthcare and if given a chance they will screw this up as well. | |
|
| |
|
|
Declare the ISP's a common carrier!
Today's ISP's have the same attitude that the Railroads had in the 1880's. They engaged in discriminatory pricing practices. A number of newspapers were victims of the Robber Barron's when many Railroads refused to deliver newsprint to newspapers that wrote negative articles about them. If they did not like a customer or a customer's attitude or what the customer said about them in print they wouldn't carry the customers stuff. After the newspapers that were victimized by the Railroads wrote stories about the abuses, Americans finally got fed up with the Robber Barron's Crap and forced the US Government to take action and create the Interstate Commerce Commission. What the ISP's need is a backlash from consumers and a good dose of regulation. Unfortunately payola reins on K-Street and consumers have little hope for relief.
