Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-05-2014, 10:06 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,926,180 times
Reputation: 17863

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Ford View Post
From that same article - If net neutrality stays and the ISP's can't offer multiple tiers of service,
That's the thing, what are those tiers of service? Tiers of service where the consumer pays for X amount of bandwidth is not an issue, just like your water bill if you X amount of gallons of water you pay for X amount of gallons water.

What is an issue is tiers of service where they are packaging different sites or whatever like they do with cable. These comapnaies are losing a lot of money because they don't get a piece of the pie for the content and they want to revert back to something similar like they have with cable. That an't be allowed to happen because sites like this one an millions of others are going to get run over by the media bohemoths.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-05-2014, 10:12 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,926,180 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egbert View Post
Eventually due to bandwidth issues I think the internet will become like a utility
That's way it has to evolve if you want these companies to remain profitable and keep the internet wide open.

Quote:
Whether or not ISPs will control download speeds is a matter of lobbying. If the government lets them I think they definitely will.
We need to separate the download speed they are offering the consumer and how that is being utilized for content. If they want to offer 25mbps for X amount of dollars that's the way it has to be as long as every site or service you use is treated neutrally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2014, 10:16 PM
 
1,825 posts, read 1,416,212 times
Reputation: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
That's way it has to evolve if you want these companies to remain profitable and keep the internet wide open.



We need to separate the download speed they are offering the consumer and how that is being utilized for content. If they want to offer 25mbps for X amount of dollars that's the way it has to be as long as every site or service you use is treated neutrally.
I agree with both, with that said as you say there is a whole lot of potential money in content control and access so I think the ISPs will definitely try to exploit that. It is going to come down to lobbying and that is a fight that I think the ISPs could win since they already have a lot of legal and political resources.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2014, 10:23 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,956,012 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself View Post
Without Net Neutrality the cable company gets to decide which websites you can and cannot visit and they can slow down access to some sites in order to "encourage" people to visit the websites owned by the internet provider. No, thank you. I like the law as it stands where they have to treat every website the same and can't block websites I want to visit.
Try thinking for yourself, instead of repeating pure hysteria put out by liars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2014, 10:32 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,956,012 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself View Post
You're appallingly ignorant. All net neutrality says is that ISPs have to treat all websites the same so they cannot block or slow down access to some. What Time-Warner and other ISPs want to do is demand every website pay them a monthly amount in order to allow people to visit the website and if the website doesn't pay then they'll block the website so that you, the guy who is paying TW for internet access, can't visit it. Oh, and you'd better believe one of the first websites blocked will be competitors to TW so no more netflix or Hulu as TW wants you paying $100 per month for their cable TV.

Thanks, but I like the law the way it is where it is illegal for TW to run protection rackets like that.
I am not ignorant. YOU are ignorant.

I ran an ISP for 9 years, I know precisely what the government wants to do, and YOU will not benefit from it. ISP's, for the most part, run "dumb pipes", which, are precisely what you want, BUT DO NOT MEET THE DEFINITION YOU DEMAND.

Government's form of "net neutrality is a "managed", VERY expensive and costly and performance killing mechanism that reduces ALL access to the most distant, least accessible networks.

EVERY ISP has unequal peformance in terms of site access. Some have many more hops, are connected through OTHER backbones than the ISP is directly connected to ,and will perform less well. This is a FACT, an UNCHANGEABLE reality of how EVERY IP based network operates. It is simply impossible to change this, unless you socialize ALL the internet and then peer every network in existence at every common point. And that will still only marginally improve the situation - not create the government's definitions of "proven equality to all sites".

There is NO version of net neutrality offered by political hacks which accomodate this reality. So, to meet THEIR definition of net neutrality, all access will have to be increased in latency and reduced in bandwidth to the lowest one out there, which is usually some half baked stuff in Africa, China, or eastern Europe.

But you don't think for yourself, and you know NOTHING about how any of it works.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2014, 10:37 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,926,180 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
I am not ignorant. YOU are ignorant.

I ran an ISP for 9 years, I know precisely what the government wants to do, and YOU will not benefit from it. ISP's, for the most part, run "dumb pipes", which, are precisely what you want, BUT DO NOT MEET THE DEFINITION YOU DEMAND.

Government's form of "net neutrality is a "managed", VERY expensive and costly and performance killing mechanism that reduces ALL access to the most distant, least accessible networks.

If there is technical reasons for managing networks so be it but that is not what the ISP's are asking for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2014, 10:38 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,956,012 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself View Post

Thanks, but I like the law the way it is where it is illegal for TW to run protection rackets like that.
No ISP will EVER do that. Just like no cell phone company will prevent you from calling phones of their competitors.

The ISP's interest is in retaining customers. The moment the customer finds that their ISP is selectively blocking their access, the competitors will swoop in and their customer base will VANISH faster than the dot-coms with no plan to make money went broke.

All you will do is add vast amounts of cost with NO benefits, ANYWHERE to anyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2014, 10:40 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,926,180 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post

The ISP's interest is in retaining customers. The moment the customer finds that their ISP is selectively blocking their access, the competitors will swoop in and their customer base will VANISH faster than the dot-coms with no plan to make money went broke.
Very many parts of the country is still monopolized by a single ISP and that's not going to change anytime soon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2014, 10:40 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,956,012 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
If there is technical reasons for managing networks so be it but that is not what the ISP's are asking for.
Explain what you really mean here.

For one, I have no idea what you mean by "what ISP's are asking for". Because in my decade of being in the internet business, I have never met, nor ever heard of any ISP asking for anything except the freedom to be in business and manage their network to be the most cost effective possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2014, 10:41 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,956,012 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Very many parts of the country is still monopolized by a single ISP and that's not going to change anytime soon.
Nonsense. There's hardly ANYWHERE that's not got at least 2, if not up to 4 ISP's available to the public.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:01 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top