 | | How it should be I would agree with all 3 points as they sum up the issue with net neutrality quite well. | |
|
 | | | Re: How it should be Yup. Sounds about right to me.
--Doug | |
|
| |
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  More Confusing The Issue
The third point, regarding the prohibition of companies from building their own dedicated pipes to offer content of their own choosing has no bearing on net neutrality. If people like the services offered on these new pipes, they will buy them, otherwise, they won't.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | | Re: More Confusing The Issue I wouldn't oppose a telecom building a "fast lane" for their own stuff (HDTV, Digital Phone, etc) so long as the general Internet connection doesn't suffer. Suppose an ISP decides that they should getting more revenues from Digital Phone and so they degrade down all Internet connections to make services like Vonage unreliable. I would classify that as being against the principles of Network Neutrality.
The problem is that, as ISPs move from being merely "pipe providers" to "pipe and content providers", they will run into situations where their own service, delivered on their own lines, competes with third party services on third party lines. The temptation will be very great to find some way of leveraging the line ownership to better compete with the service. | |
|
| |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: More Confusing The Issue I agree 100%.
Telcos/Cable Co's providing VoIP don't necessarily want apps such as Skype or Vonage competing.
Similarly, I suspect that YouTube and now Netflix online will be hitting road blocks.
ISPs are moving to the old AOL style where they sell it all, bundled, and will not want competition. Wireless has been like that since the start. Wireless won't allow for VoIP, streaming or anything outside of light browsing, unless its provided by them, and their content provider ... for a fee  | |
|
| |  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| said by Jason Levine:I wouldn't oppose a telecom building a "fast lane" for their own stuff (HDTV, Digital Phone, etc) so long as the general Internet connection doesn't suffer. Suppose an ISP decides that they should getting more revenues from Digital Phone and so they degrade down all Internet connections to make services like Vonage unreliable. I would classify that as being against the principles of Network Neutrality. As long as their "fast lane" does not take away from my service I am okay with it. If I am paying for a 10mbps speed and they throttle that down to 1mbps on outside connections so that they can deliver 10mpbs for "their" services then that would be against net neutrality principles.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
|  kyler13Is your fiber grounded?
join:2006-12-12
Arnold, MD | I'm assuming as it pertains to neutrality that point 3 is simply the same as point 2 except the network owner would be prioritizing it's own content instead of third-party content. Point 2 is more of an issue with de-prioritizing as in the case of P2P or VoIP. You're right that running a redundant and dedicated network would not constitute a neutrality issue, but unless your provider runs that network all the way to a second ethernet port in your house, somewhere along the line neutrality (or lack of) would come into play. | |
|
| bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by pnh102:The third point, regarding the prohibition of companies from building their own dedicated pipes to offer content of their own choosing has no bearing on net neutrality. Let's say there is a company out there that rents movies over the internet - you pay and you download them for a few days. Your provider does the exact same thing - you pay and you download them for a few days. The only difference between the two services is that your ISP has relegated the other service with the other internet data where load times are much slower, however, they create a separate VLPS on their network and allow you to download their movies two or three times faster. People notice this faster download speed and use the ISP service.
In the above example, which is what 3 opposes, they are using their position as an ISP to unfairly compete against the other video rental firm. The purpose of the separate pipe is so that their services can outshine other services.
Cheating, plain and simple.
Point 3 wold not, however, prohibit a company from seperating out its VoIP or Video-over-IP service from the internet for quality reasons though.
--
Prove it... | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | i have to agree if their special fast lane doesnt degrade my travel lane then i dont care.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| |  Michieru2zzz zzz zzzPremium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | Re: More Confusing The Issue The problem is that they will refuse to upgrade the original travel lanes and only expand their fast lane. Too the point that you are sick of it and decide to pay for the faster lane.
E.x:
I-95 three lanes variable at a max of 5 sometimes all the way down to 1 lane with many exits and entrances congesting traffic and the highway simply does not have much capacity for it's demand. Free to drive.
Florida's Turnpike - Two to five lanes construction is always pushed to the side and almost never close a lane and if they do it's the left lane only. Very few exits and entrances with higher speed limits, gas and resting stops with much merges with major highways at selected key points. You pay tolls, while you travel.
Congestion continues to grow on the I-95 but no construction has yet to be taken place to expand the highway and the state says it does not have enough funding or it's not required for them to do so.
State expands the turnpike from 5 lanes to 8-10 lanes and minimal congestion if any at all.
Eventually everyone will be forced to go to the Turnpike because the I-95 is simply congested and worn out asphalt make the ride noisy and extremely bumpy, while the Turnpike is smooth as molasses.
--
Duct tape, saving lives since 1942. | |
|
| | | I have to strongly disagree. These companies have and will be given tax breaks and all sorts of tax payer dollar type incentives that inevitably make part of the infastructure public domain if you will. As such they should not be able to have a separate lane for discriminating content, because then the old lanes will just never be upgraded and ignored. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | the fact is though that both Google and the person viewing google already pay for the connections.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
|  deadiPremium
join:2001-08-26
Perry, OH
 ·Windstream
1 edit | Again, I dont see the point of a second network when they cant keep up with the demand as it is. This is just an excuse for more revenue that will discriminate against how much money you are willing to spend on content. I think they need to take care of what is there already.
Besides, I have no issues receiving content as it is. Its all there and it works. Why do we need to change that?
--
We learn through the exchange of information, tell me more...... | |
|
|
| deadiPremium
join:2001-08-26
Perry, OH
1 edit | Re: CUSTOMERS already pay for their connection Agreed, we already have access to whatever we want. Why spoil it by allowing a seperate network and QOS then charging for it?
--
We learn through the exchange of information, tell me more...... | |
|
chef4231Chef423
join:2000-09-02
Springfield, IL | BitTorrent n Utube those 2 sites need to be SHUT DOWN. PEROID.
AGAIN, for the 100000th time, dont you people have anything better to do with your lives????
uTube = waste of time
BitTorrent = quit stealin content that you DO NOT have the rights to, PEROID. And thats allllll bitTorrent is. STEALING. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: BitTorrent n Utube you do realise that bittorrent has legit applications. the blizzard patcher for WoW is one exmaple of those legit apps.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | said by chef4231:those 2 sites need to be SHUT DOWN. PEROID. AGAIN, for the 100000th time, dont you people have anything better to do with your lives???? uTube = waste of time BitTorrent = quit stealin content that you DO NOT have the rights to, PEROID. And thats allllll bitTorrent is. STEALING. Nevermind that I use bittorrent to download patches, iso images of linux, and to download legitimate content (user submitted and created content), etc. etc.? | |
|
| | | Because you're not interested in watching amusing video clips on the internet produced by amateurs who can't afford their own hosting provider for a short 3 minute comedy sketch it should be shut down. I love the logic there. In fact, the entire internet is a waste of time. Lets shut it down.
Bit Torrent has many legit uses. Its not always people stealing content they haven't paid for. People think the internet = porn, and torrents = piracy. They're both far more than that. | |
|
| | | said by chef4231:those 2 sites need to be SHUT DOWN. PEROID. AGAIN, for the 100000th time, dont you people have anything better to do with your lives???? uTube = waste of time BitTorrent = quit stealin content that you DO NOT have the rights to, PEROID. And thats allllll bitTorrent is. STEALING. If that were true, then Podcasts like .NetRocks! would not be distributed via BitTorrent. There are legitimate uses for torrents, just as there are legitimate uses for the automobile, the gun, the computer, and so on. | |
|
| | | Bittorrent isn't a website you asshat. | |
|
|  AtlGuy
join:2000-10-17
Marietta, GA | Reading your ridiculous post was a waste of my time. Maybe you should shut off your internet account, and quit bitching about how the users here are wasting their/our time. Don't you have anything better to do with your life???
Seriously, as many have stated BitTorrent has many legitimite uses. I personally am not someone to view vids on YouTube, nor do I use BitTorrent much anymore, but when I did use BT I downloaded and shared legitimite non-copyrighted material. | |
|
| | Network Neutrality? What is the point of bitching about what should and should not be part of Network Neutrality?
This isnt an issue so why should we even care at this point? | |
|
| | Step 3 etc Isn't step 3 the same as google creating algorithms to have certain links pop up at the beginning of searches. Real search engines don't exist anymore i.e. server directory listings, ftp servers. I use to be able to put in »ftp://www.websitename.com and get a file listing, google WAS good to find anything and everything. | |
|
| | | Re: Step 3 etc What? Well first of all google isn't in a market that is a duopoly. It doesn't take much to be a search engine in terms of capital investment (being a good search engine is another story). The market isn't a duopoly, there are no serious government barriers, there are no telco lobbying swine to bypass in starting a search engine. The list goes on and on, but your analogy is ridiculous. | |
|
| | | | Re: Step 3 etc But would not a duopoly be the the 2 big dogs in the game? Google and Yahoo own it all now with maybe Msn being a distant 3rd only because of the operating system tie-in. There are tons of small telco/cable companies but they do not have the advertising dollars to be a real player. If you know of true blue search engine (all content connected to internet) let me know. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Step 3 etc If someone really wanted to put in the effort and create an awesome search engine it would be labor intensive, but most likely economically feasable. If someone wanted to start a large fiber provider AT&T, Verizon, TWC, or whatever the local connessieur of injustice is, would barrage it with legal obstacles, add to this the fact that it is far more difficult from an economics perspective to attain returns on investment with small investments in starting infastructure and you have yourself a formula for a doomed business. I'm not extensively familiar with how google prioritizes websites in their searches and what not, but to assume that their algorithim is purposely discriminatory is just blowing smoke. It is not about advertising dollars in telco land, it is about who owns the infastructure. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | the difference is nobody forces you to use google or Yahoo, however when it comes to broadband in most areas you have one telco and one cable co and that is your choices.
what i dont get is why does the ISP have to be a portal, id rather they give me faster speeds and much faster upload and just provide email and a dumb but reliable pipe(or tube if you are a Senator).
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | | Re: Step 3 etc Because that would cut into their profits. Honestly the companies that do this should be broken up into the sectors they represent like pipe providers and content providers. I don't see why this can't be done on the grounds of an anti-trust suit. I mean is this any different than MS or the railroad companies of old. (except here it is a very clear division of assets that can be done fairly) Don't give me the usual the government breaks more than it fixes bullshit. I sat on that mantra for a long time, but you gotta realize at some point it isn't a substantive debate unless you are actually giving specific examples of why the government would fail instead of hoping aboard the empirical examples prove it fails bandwagon. | |
|
deadiPremium
join:2001-08-26
Perry, OH Reviews:
·Windstream
| Thoughts on a fast lane: I see no point in building a fast lane. Our providers currently have pipes that do not meet the demand as it is. Some providers have invisible caps because the bandwidth is not there. Why not just take care of what they have already?
We most likely will end up paying for content. Once this gets started, there will be no stopping it. It is not in the best interest of our free internet. We are paying for access to it, nothing else. This just sounds more like the "AOL network" to me all over again. Didnt AOL claim "fast" once?
--
We learn through the exchange of information, tell me more...... | |
|
|
|
