  MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Consumers Who else do they think is going to pay? Wake up and smell reality. | |
|
 |  jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
1 edit | Re: Consumers so this would hamper the small company s from competing against the large business effectively thwarting competition resulting in more of a monopoly style competition.
also seen here
»www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techp···ge_N.htm
--
www.LakeSemaJ.com
Help me get free trades.3 free if you sign up, $7 after. PM Me | |
|
| |  roc5955Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY
1 edit | Re: Consumers said by jgkolt:so this would hamper the small company s from competing against the large business effectively thwarting competition resulting in more of a monopoly style competition. WTF do you expect from this administration? Do you think they would actually stand up for WE THE PEOPLE, or the corporations?
Something tells me that the DOJ of Bushco, Inc. is going to favor big business EVERY FRIGGIN' TIME!
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." | |
|
| | | |
| | | | roc5955Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY
1 edit | Re: Consumers I agree it's about the money, but the current morons administration, is surely in favor of it, as some sort of payback, no doubt. Don't forget, Gonzo isn't out the door quite yet. I think he leaves on the 17th.
I am sure that there are some Dems who are all about the money as well. Just as I am sure that there are more than a majority of legislators who haven't a clue as to WTF these "internets" are.
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." | |
|
| | | | |  ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | Re: Consumers I really, really, really doubt that the torpedoing of network neutrality wouldn't have gotten to where it is today without bipartisan-ly greased wheels. I mean, do you remember the DMCA sellout that was completed while Clinton was at the wheel? Having a changing of the head guard won't do much of squat when both sides of the political equasion are already bought & paid for. | |
|
| | | | | | roc5955Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY | Re: Consumers said by Thaler:Having a changing of the head guard won't do much of squat when both sides of the political equasion are already bought & paid for. Well you can always get out and vote the ones who are 'bought and paid for' out, now can't you?
If you don't like the way things are, YOU are responsible for changing things, and YOU have the power of the vote to do so.
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." | |
|
| | | | | | | ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | Re: Consumers said by roc5955:If you don't like the way things are, YOU are responsible for changing things, and YOU have the power of the vote to do so. Well, barring a people's revolution on capital hill, I still think you miss the point. Blaming the head moron for actions incited even outside his own party just shows that defending corporate interests isn't a party/administration-line issue.
All I'm saying is that flushing away our digital rights has never been a soley Bush venture. The trend started long ago...its just the current congress and administration combined have been making heaps of ground in the matter. | |
|
|  shollingPremium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
kudos:1 | I wonder how many "consulting" gigs that piece of propaganda is costing the incumbents. | |
|
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | D.O.J. ...
Department of Jesters? Are they serious? Someone looking for some lobbyist $$$. Get back to work. The F.C.C. is already screwing this up enough without the DOJ's help. | |
|
| | DOJ? Who cares what the DOJ thinks? I've hardly seen them dish out any "justice", so perhaps they should shut up about broadband and do what they're supposed to.
--
Charter 5M | Windows XP MCE SP2 | Mobile AMD Athlon 64 4000+ | 1.5GB RAM | ATI Mobile Radeon X600 128MB | 120GB HDD | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: DOJ? THANK - YOU ! I was reading this tread BEFORE posting your very sentiments... I'm sorry, but we have a body of law makers who we elected and represent us. (well, supposed to at least) and if ANYONE is going to spout up on these issues, it should be the people's representation.. not the DOJ. The DOJ just needs to shut up and dole out the "justice" (sic) in the boundaries of the laws HANDED TO THEM...
I'm sorry, on a side note, it just seems that everyone in government believes they are lawmakers.. last time I checked, our congress made laws... not every other department.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| this is simply in keeping with the politicization of the entire govt by this administration. since big business is against network neutrality, that means the entire govt is against network neutrality.
wouldn't surprise me if DOD is next to put out a press release speaking against network neutrality.
and if they're still worried, expect one from the State Dept. too. | |
|
| |  woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | Re: DOJ? Yes the admin is politicizing the government, but congress is still just about letting them do what they want...It is going to be a long hard road reigning them in, if ever....JMT 
--
BlooMe | |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  Best points made by Justice
The agency said providing different levels of service is common, efficient and could satisfy consumers. As an example, it cited that the U.S. Postal Service charges customers different guarantees and speeds for package delivery, ranging from bulk mail to overnight delivery.
"Whether or not the same type of differentiated products and services will develop on the Internet should be determined by market forces, not regulatory intervention," the agency said in its filing. It works elsewhere in the business world. So why should the internet get a pass on letting the marketplace decide the rules instead of slow moving ass-backwards regulators?
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| roc5955Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY | Re: Best points made by Justice said by Linklist:It works elsewhere in the business world. So why should the internet get a pass on letting the marketplace decide the rules instead of slow moving ass-backwards regulators? And the Internet is JUST LIKE the rest of the business world!
NOT!
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." | |
|
|  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | The more relevant question is, "What does this have to do with the department of justice?" And why do you feel like the DOJ should be spending our tax dollars writing these ridiculous press releases that have nothing to do with their core mission of law enforcement. | |
|
| | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: Best points made by Justice said by vpoko:The more relevant question is, "What does this have to do with the department of justice?" And why do you feel like the DOJ should be spending our tax dollars writing these ridiculous press releases that have nothing to do with their core mission of law enforcement. Because Justice decides issues of anti-trust, which comes in to the whole area of whether internet access is a monopoly or not. The Justice Dept says it isn't and therefore regulation isn't needed.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Best points made by Justice "Regulation" is defined as administrative law, meaning the Justice Department takes whatever laws Congress passes and implements them through regulations. Net neutrality (which I actually oppose, but that's beside the point) would come into force only if a new law were passed, and it's not the job of the justice department to lobby Congress. | |
|
| | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: Best points made by Justice said by vpoko: it's not the job of the justice department to lobby Congress. Well, whether it is or isn't, that is how things work in the real world. And I submit that since the Justice Dept is part of the Executive branch and part of the administration, they have every right to lobby who they want.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | | | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Best points made by Justice This is different from the administration. The people writing this statement, reviewing it, and releasing are working on a taxpayer's dime. Your dime and mine. Given the type of person you've shown yourself to be on these forums, if that doesn't outrage you it's only because you agree with their message. | |
|
| Just BobPremium
join:2000-08-13
Spring Hill, FL | said by Linklist: The agency said providing different levels of service is common, efficient and could satisfy consumers. As an example, it cited that the U.S. Postal Service charges customers different guarantees and speeds for package delivery, ranging from bulk mail to overnight delivery.
"Whether or not the same type of differentiated products and services will develop on the Internet should be determined by market forces, not regulatory intervention," the agency said in its filing. It works elsewhere in the business world. So why should the internet get a pass on letting the marketplace decide the rules instead of slow moving ass-backwards regulators? Using the Postal Service as an example? As in first class rate increases to support cheap delivery of junk mail courtesy of the Direct Marketing Association? | |
|
| kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL | If the DOJ is going to go along with the incumbent line, then they at least need to be honest and drop the neutrality vs deployment argument. No amount of free market capitalism is going to spread broadband access to every American. | |
|
|  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by Linklist:It works elsewhere in the business world. So why should the internet get a pass on letting the marketplace decide the rules instead of slow moving ass-backwards regulators? It works elsewhere because there is actual competition. Most people have at most TWO isps to choose from. That's not competition. I live in a very rual area and if I want a cheeseburger I have at least a dozen places whithin 2 miles from my house to choose from. That's why they don't charge $10 for one. COMPETITION. | |
|
| | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Best points made by Justice said by BF69:Most people have at most TWO isps to choose from. Actually, I'd hazard a guess that "most" people have more than two ISPs to choose from. I assume you meant infrastructure choices and not ISP choices. If so, then don't count out cable, DSL, dial-up, satellite, wireless, cellular, etc.said by BF69:I live in a very rual area and if I want a cheeseburger I have at least a dozen places whithin 2 miles from my house to choose from. I'm sorry, but that's definitely not a "very rural area". | |
|
| |  deadiPremium
join:2001-08-26
Perry, OH
 ·Windstream
| I agree, this is not a competitive broadband market. The government started the internet (DARPA), the government made it available to the public, the telcos jumped on the bandwagon and want more then anything to turn everything about it into a money making machine.
Its free and should remain that way. If I felt an increase in my monthly broadband bill will go to infrastructure upgrades, better service and happy employees I would pay it. I pay for access only, not content restrictions.
What was the name of that provider that promises no content regulation? Oh wait, not available in my area....pfft
--
We learn through the exchange of information, tell me more...... | |
|
| | | It works for crap in the real world... | |
|
| | | I'm not an expert on the net neutrality issue, but staying with the US Postal Service example this is my concern...
Let's consider the US Postal Service a service provided by the government. I think for this discussion you could consider the government the "ISP" and they also control the means of delivery (Dept. of Transportation - highways, airways, waterways). If the government suddenly started charging DHL, Federal Express, and UPS fees just to use these means of delivery how would that be beneficial to the consumer? So maybe those big businesses could foot the bill for the fees, but what about Joe Average's Bicycle package delivery service?
Again with the US Postal Service. I get tons of crap I have no interest in receiving because the sender pays for the service. Thus the sender is largly in control of what types of commercial junk I get delivered to me. With the internet, I pay for my internet access and therefore I believe that I should be able to choose what content I want to receive. If the US Postal Service only delivered mail that the recipient paid to receive, then your mailbox would not be full of all the trash it currently is.
It's all about money. The ISP's want to double dip and charge the end user (consumer) as well as the content provider. My personal opinion is that a path such as that would have a huge negative impact on the internet. The paradigm of charging the consumer an access fee and keeping the playing field level for ALL content providers seems like a more logical approach. This allows the CONSUMER to choose from a wider variety of content and thus truly allows the market to make decisions. | |
|
| | deadiPremium
join:2001-08-26
Perry, OH Reviews:
·Windstream
| Re: Best points made by Justice The comparison to the Postal service is a lost cause. The internet for the most part, has replaced a lot of what the postal service does. Email has replaced writing a letter. Newspapers are also being replaced by the internet. I dont subscribe to any newspaper, never did. But! I am a avid internet user and read my news on the WWW.
I think there is a lack foresight by these entity's in regards to keeping up with the times.
The question is, with Net Neutrality gone, will my provider interfere with the delivery of the websites I enjoy in favor there own news site or a site that they favor?
Sounds like a conflict of interest to me.......
--
We learn through the exchange of information, tell me more...... | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
2 edits | said by Linklist:So why should the internet get a pass on letting the marketplace decide the rules instead of slow moving ass-backwards regulators? Because it isn't a freely competitive marketplace.
Imagine this: One day, you realize you aren't getting all your mail. Some bills are missing, as well as some ebay packages you were expecting. So you go down to your local post office to inquire what the problem is, and you are told thus:
"We need additional money to improve and expand services. If you expect to gain "access" to your mail, we're going to demand extra from you. If you don't pay us a special extortion fee, we'll start loosing most your mail, Permanently. You have to pay us $5 every day to "guarantee" reliability of your mail delivery service. Hey, it's the market dictating the rules, not us."
So you switch to the other mail carrier. Oh wait... there isn't one.
"Let the market dictate pricing" always assumes that customers and consumers have the choice to go to a competitor if they don't like the level of service or the high expense of their current choice. If there are little or few competitors, the market isn't free to do anything, including come up with fair pricing. It's just a recipe for abuse. | |
|
| ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | said by Linklist: The agency said providing different levels of service is common, efficient and could satisfy consumers. As an example, it cited that the U.S. Postal Service charges customers different guarantees and speeds for package delivery, ranging from bulk mail to overnight delivery.
"Whether or not the same type of differentiated products and services will develop on the Internet should be determined by market forces, not regulatory intervention," the agency said in its filing. It works elsewhere in the business world. So why should the internet get a pass on letting the marketplace decide the rules instead of slow moving ass-backwards regulators? The internet moves slow today because the ISPs aren't going to put money into something that they can milk w/o further investments for years to come. Simply charging more for "guaranteed" services will cause ISPs to invest in prioritizing software/hardware solutions in order to bilk a new revenue base...but not actually address the problem of slow pipes to begin with.
...that, and the original article is making a poor analogy of connecting ISPs to the postal service. Last I checked, we don't pay an explicit fee for the "luxury" of a mailbox and a mailman visiting our boxes. This base performance cost is subsidized through taxes - connection to the internet requires a connection fee even before potential priority tiering can begin. In short, to make the comparison work, the postal service would need to start charging a monthly fee for simply providing you the luxury of mail delivery up and beyond the fees you pay for the varying postage amounts. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | i still dont get the reasoning for a tiered internet, i pay for my end and Google pays for theirs. why should google have to also kick something extra to comcast so i can view their content.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | Re: Best points made by Justice said by Kearnstd:i still dont get the reasoning for a tiered internet, i pay for my end and Google pays for theirs. Exactly. There isn't any "freeloading" as the ISPs would have you believe. Everyone's paying at their end...why do we need extra fees for something we're already paying for?
Seriously, if such internet giants are "hurting" their networks in terms of use...why don't they just increase the connection fees at the appropriate ends to compensate? | |
|
| | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: Best points made by Justice said by Thaler:Seriously, if such internet giants are "hurting" their networks in terms of use...why don't they just increase the connection fees at the appropriate ends to compensate? Of course there is. Not much now, especially with MS, Apple, Amazon, etc who use huge pipes to feed their customers.
But there already is freeloading by web sites using P2P to offload the network load from their connections to the internet to the ISP's network. And as P2P traffic continues to grow, the load has to be picked up by the ISP's networks. In effect, the P2P web sites can buy very small pipes and the ISP need grows more and more. The ISPs want to be able to start prioritizing traffic so that these leaches can either pay something or have their traffic de-prioritized.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | | | ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | Re: Best points made by Justice said by Linklist:But there already is freeloading by web sites using P2P to offload the network load from their connections to the internet to the ISP's network. And as P2P traffic continues to grow, the load has to be picked up by the ISP's networks. In effect, the P2P web sites can buy very small pipes and the ISP need grows more and more. The ISPs want to be able to start prioritizing traffic so that these leaches can either pay something or have their traffic de-prioritized. Again, they should just increase their rates if residential broadband use is above and beyond what they speculated it would be. Don't charge one fee just for the "thrill" of being connected, and then another to actually use the service you paid for in the first place.
ISPs are already making out like bandits with increased fees for customer's rizing need of data bandwidth. I somehow doubt that an additional tiered fee system (for services that should've already been rendered) would now suddenly make it into network infrastructure costs. | |
|
| Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Seriously? Is this a rhetorical question? You still don't get it? | |
|
2 edits | What BS The DOJ has no business chiming in on this. It has absolutely nothing to do with them. It's blatantly obvious they're doing it as more payback for AT&T, etc. allowing them to spy on voice and data traffic so easily. Pathetic.
Anybody recall the ending of Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor? I'm thinking it's not such a bad idea. This country needs a mulligan. | |
|
| tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL Reviews:
 ·T-Mobile US
·Speakeasy
| Re: What BS said by Jim Kirk:The DOJ has no business chiming in on this. It has absolutely nothing to do with them. It's blatantly obvious they're doing it as more payback for AT&T, etc. allowing them to spy on voice and data traffic so easily. Pathetic. I agreed.. the DOJ has no business telling our judicial branch what level of censorship/access is ok and what is not. The courts will decide these issues, especially since any cases that arise will be civil maters between non-governmental bodies. | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | said by Jim Kirk:Anybody recall the ending of Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor? I'm thinking it's not such a bad idea. This country needs a mulligan. Yep. Nailed em all in one fail swoop, except for the Good guy. 
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Hey, great, the DOJ Maybe the FDA would like to chime in, too?
The DOJ should stick to its mandate and stop trying to get in bed with AT&T. | |
|
mobbo
join:2005-04-13
Denton, TX | Remember when? Remember when the government used to work for The People? Good times. | |
|
| vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Remember when? said by mobbo:Remember when the government used to work for The People? Nope, and I bet neither do you, that free ride ended long before any of our times - if it ever existed to begin with. Everything looks better in history books. | |
|
 MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | DoJ? Why is this an issue the DoJ is taking up? | |
|
|  batageekSlave To The DuopolyPremium
join:2003-01-25 | Re: DoJ? Perhaps they'd rather have to deal with fewer companies for wiretapping orders? Less competition, less hassle?
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com | |
|
| | "Expanding consumer choice" If Comcast or AT&T decides to block or degrade a competing VoIP or video provider, just remember that this is "expanding consumer choice" and providing "differentiated service", in the words of the DOJ. Just like mail delivery! (If the Post Office extorted money from businesses in exchange for allowing them to receive mail). And this will stimulate investment because investers like the excitement of not knowing if their services will be permitted by the CEO of AT&T. | |
|
| | there goes my ping i have a feeling the standard service may get neglected (to what extent is debatable) eventually. if they are going to allow broadband providers to screw the consumer out of more money, they better setup goals and regulations so that the standard service (and others) aren't neglected (as in measurable improvements are made over time). they also need to ensure that better networks are being built and not some software is limiting bandwidth or artificially adding latency.
i'm for net neutrality. i already have to pay by the speed of the connection (which makes sense), and now they are trying to tie in latency into the paying scheme. in my opinion, the people making decisions should understand and have a background in that particular area to make better decisions, but that is a highly opinionated subject related to politics. | |
|
| openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: there goes my ping said by cornelius785:they also need to ensure that better networks are being built and not some software is limiting bandwidth or artificially adding latency. That's what the marketplace is for.said by cornelius785:in my opinion, the people making decisions should understand and have a background in that particular area to make better decisions, but that is a highly opinionated subject related to politics. Feel free to use your right to vote for your legislators...the only ones writing and passing actually laws for the president to sign. | |
|
 intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK
·Cingular Wireless
| I dont want to hear it.. I don't want to hear one more government motherfucker talking about neutrality being a threat to infrastructure upgrades to "reach more americans" until there is a complete overhaul in the Universal Service Fund.
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!" | |
|
IPV55
join:2005-08-19
Bryn Mawr, PA | Search Neutrality Internet search is such a big part of the Internet and where people go for services, I think we should have the government own the search portal and then allocate fairly search queries to the available search engines. Each search engine would have to meet minimum requirements, but it would allow new startup search engines an ability to enter the market without being disadvantaged by a single large search engine monopoly of the market. Government could then regulate who gets searches and do it fairly and impartially. | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
| | Awesome video! LOL!!! That was just the strangest collection of weirdos! I know a few more that could have been on there but hey, you have to keep it clean! Right? | |
|
 plkLil' Duffer Burger BarnPremium
join:2002-04-20
Ogden, IA | we need examples I sure wish I knew how to build web sites effectively.
We need examples showing how the Internet might behave w/o some sort of neutrality.
Do a search for US Senate and it says "waiting to load" but a pop up loads right away saying "connect to the Democratic party right now" I think Congress will then "get the picture"
I can think of all kinds of examples of what would probably happen if this happens.
I agree: Every time I read the news I see where some big company is getting a leg up at the consumers expense. 700mhz auction was the chance for a viable 3 provider. They sold us out again. Imagine that!
I think the election should be done by lottery tickets. I have more faith in the average joe or jane or even the below average joe in running this country then what we have. Least they probably give a damn.
10 to 1 some homeless man as President wont stand for seminars on How not to hire Americans.
--
Thermaltake 2000a/Asus P4C-e/p4 3.4/ocz3500 2x512/WD.2x200g/raptor2x74 raid 0/ATI 9600/APC sua 1500/Logitech z-680/ Samsung 213t LCD/MX 1000 | |
|
| | The real definition Network neutrality (equivalently "net neutrality", "internet neutrality" or "NN") refers to a principle where large Internet content sites (e.g. Google, Yahoo, MSN) do not pay anyone for Internet bandwidth. This in turn requires residential broadband networks, and potentially to all networks to pass on these costs to the consumer.
Someone has to pay for the bits and it will end up being us. | |
|
| |
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | said by devnuller:Network neutrality (equivalently "net neutrality", "internet neutrality" or "NN") refers to a principle where large Internet content sites (e.g. Google, Yahoo, MSN) do not pay anyone for Internet bandwidth. This in turn requires residential broadband networks, and potentially to all networks to pass on these costs to the consumer.
Someone has to pay for the bits and it will end up being us. FALSE. Large Internet content sites DO pay for access, and they pay for the bandwidth that you and I use when downloading their content. THEY PAY FOR IT.
Network Neutrality is all about stopping the incumbent telecommunications giants from charging them TWICE, or THREE times, or just plain trying to run them out of business.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | deadiPremium
join:2001-08-26
Perry, OH Reviews:
·Windstream
| Re: The real definition I agree, My family's business website pays so much for a certain amount of bandwidth per month. Where did they get the per month ratio? By doing a cost analysis. The bandwidth used is paid for already and then some. The "then some" is profit for the host.
I go home and pay to access the internet and visit the site there to.
--
We learn through the exchange of information, tell me more...... | |
|
| ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | said by devnuller:Network neutrality (equivalently "net neutrality", "internet neutrality" or "NN") refers to a principle where large Internet content sites (e.g. Google, Yahoo, MSN) do not pay anyone for Internet bandwidth. This in turn requires residential broadband networks, and potentially to all networks to pass on these costs to the consumer.
Someone has to pay for the bits and it will end up being us. LOL, please tell us what site you Googled to pick up that amount of turd polish. | |
|
| |
|
 viperpa33sWhy Me?Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL | Bad analogy I do agree that DOJ used bad analogy comparing the post office to the net neutrality issue. The DOJ is correct in saying let the market dictate the issue. If a ISP wants to charge more for a faster connection, let them. It's up to the consumer whether they want to pay the extra money for the faster speed.
I also believe we are all in agreement that no ISP should degrade a websites connection because they won't pay the extra money. | |
|
| ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | Re: Bad analogy said by viperpa33s:I also believe we are all in agreement that no ISP should degrade a websites connection because they won't pay the extra money. ...which is what will happen anyways. | |
|
deadiPremium
join:2001-08-26
Perry, OH Reviews:
·Windstream
| Geez, "Incumbent operators (and their think tanks) defeated the push for network neutrality laws by arguing they would result in no infrastructure investment and a bandwidth apocalypse"
Did anyone ask what we want?
Because it looks to me the telcos will find any excuse not to invest unless they get there way.
I find it hard to believe..... well maybe not, that our representatives in congress are likely to be influenced by lobbyists over a savvy group of internet users like the ones that visit this forum and others. We voice our opinions but appear to be ignored.
Where is the representation? It would be nice to see a representative speak in a forum like this. (just me dreaming)
--
We learn through the exchange of information, tell me more...... | |
|
|
| | network neutrality I am in Houston. I had been using broadband with Time Warner for a few years. In my neighborhood you have a choice of 2 types of ISP dial up or cable. There is only one provedier for cable. It was Time Warner -just finished changeng over
to Comcast in the last 6 weeks. The Cable lines, infrastructlure etc , empoloyees , nothing changed however Comcast in its takeover lowered the connection speed the average joe was getting compared to Time Warner- I know because I asked Comcast tech support and sales locally. To get to the connection speed I had had before with Time Warner I had to pay more. Comcast offers at least 3 or 4 tiers of connection speed and payment service where Time Warner offered one. But Comcast lowered the speed and level that Time Warner had given for a higher price yet. Crazy. On top of that I started looking into and shopping around for website fees because I just started web design classes and wanted to put a site together. And yes, the prior commentary was correct, you pay for higher bandwidth, storage, how many hits your website gets, etc. The next level and this is where the neutrality issue comes in worse is that on top of all this that they are already doing and just starting to do, they want to double charge ( nothing to do with market when you have only one or two max companies that provide the broadband for an area) by charging additional fees to website developers and blogging/podcast/forum websites over how fast or slowy they will load or block or facilitate users being able to access their website where currently users can freely access the different websites according to user choice.
What will happen to tech support, schools, public libraries, nonprofits, etc that don't have that kind of money but are there to educate and help support. develop and inform the infrastructure of our communities. As more schools and libraries have turned toward subscribing to electronic databases what will happen when there access to those are blocked or signficantly slowed down to being almost dysfunctional because they are not meeting the high profit concept of the market for being put into the fast or medium moving information lanes? That will impact education and training for future workforces for our entire country in a negative fashion. And how are emergency services market profitable? This is why we already have some network management to keep things flowing smoothly for the smooth flow of information but not for market type profit via controlled access. Turning it over to the telecoms would create a monopoly for their profit and harm our country's infrastructures.-definitely educational and possibly municipal, county, state and emergency as well. That would impact your children and future workforces and then indirectly negatively impact companies. That does pose a problem. And all to keep to the pure concept of market economics that are not truly at work here in the first place and to line the pockets of the telecoms? Yes I have a problem with that. | |
|
|
|
·
·
