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.
The internet was created by the US government. You wouldn't have the internet, if it wasn't for the government. If you hate things that the government is involved with, then leave the internet now.
And while you are at it, please stop using all other government services that you hate so much. For example, public roads.
Haha....you mean the public roads that are paid by my tax dollars, but I still have to PAY A TOLL TO USE?
Was Netflix "bullied" by Comcast, or was Netflix sapping Comcast's bandwidth?
"sapping"? ComCast is (supposedly) an ISP/carrier, and their entire reason for existence is (should be) to provide bandwidth for their customers to use whatever service the customers like. Comcast's customers liked Netflix and bought movies. ComCast gets pouty because they have to actually deliver the goods they promised their clientele. So, Comcast decides that they should make more on moving a Netflix IP packet than an IP packet containing an amusing cat picture. And so Comacast scr.ws with Netflix's speeds until Netflix pays up.
Obama has nothing to do with net neutrality and certainly wasn't close to starting the movement. Nobody in the government started the net neutrality movement.
I must confess to having a jaundiced eye at *anything* this Presidential weasel turns into a cause celebre, and not without reason.
Ultimately, I think the Internet is still growing and evolving too fast to turn it into a regulated monopoly utility *just yet*, if ever.
If we reach a point with the internet that we did with telephones in the 1910's, then perhaps we will want a regulated monopoly "Ma Bell" for the internet, treating it as a utility.
But even *that* monopoly had to change to technology, as happened when MCI (remember them?) emerged in the 1980's (or late 1970's?)
Last edited by NickB1967; 11-13-2014 at 04:20 PM..
"sapping"? ComCast is (supposedly) an ISP/carrier, and their entire reason for existence is (should be) to provide bandwidth for their customers to use whatever service the customers like. Comcast's customers liked Netflix and bought movies. ComCast gets pouty because they have to actually deliver the goods they promised their clientele. So, Comcast decides that they should make more on moving a Netflix IP packet than an IP packet containing an amusing cat picture. And so Comacast scr.ws with Netflix's speeds until Netflix pays up.
This is what happened.
"sapping", seriously.
Given how much more aggregate demand that Netflix IP packet takes than an IP packet containing an amusing cat picture, should they perhaps?
As stated above, I honestly think the Internet is still growing and evolving too fast for the slow and stodgy hand of government to turn it into a regulated monopoly utility *just yet*, if ever.
There may come a day when will want a "Ma Bell" for the internet, but I am not even sure about that just yet, or exactly how that should be set up without stifling innovation.
Gee, a competitor *wouldn't* speed things up and reap the windfall of new customers away from its competitors? It would be the first time a whole industry deliberately throttled itself.
Before getting snarky, kindly see below for the definition of an oligopoly.
Oligopoly: the market condition that exists when there are few sellers, as a result of which they can greatly influence price and other market factors. - Oligopoly | Define Oligopoly at Dictionary.com
Ironically, we don't even have that when it comes to ISPs in the US as the cable companies don't compete against each other...
I don't recall *any* corporation ever able to tax you or force you to do something at the butt of a gun, do you? The history of statist abuse of power is well documented, and it makes any real or imagined abuse of corporate power look amateurish.
So long as there is anti-trust law (and that is well established in this land, ask the once mighty but now humble IBM about *that*), let us be realistic about what corporations can and cannot do.
I'm not going to opine on your fear of the government as it's neither my concern or worth my time. I can, and will comment on your apparent faith in our anti-trust laws and the silliness of citing an example from 45 years ago (IBM's unbundling of software from services took place in 1969).
The anti-trust laws in this country have been beaten to a bloody pulp. In many industries, we are down to oligopolies. Like I said in an earlier post, the cable companies have divided the continental US into territories so that they will NEVER compete against each other.
While I sympathize with the cable companies to some degree with regards to the capital expenditures; as a consumer, this arrangement is far from being in my best interest. Fortunately, Google Fiber is entering the fray and forcing the cable companies to improve service and possibly reduce rates, which just goes to show how unhealthy the competitive market was for this service prior to Google Fiber.
It is, but some folks have a knee jerk reaction whenever Obama's name is invoked. They'll always find some way to criticize. He could find the cure for cancer, and they would accuse him of an evil plot to put oncologists out of business.
People are fed up with all the lies Obama has told over the years, so they rightly do not trust him. So even if some do have a knee jerk reaction to him(i.e. mistrust his motivation), it is well justified. I wont even bring up things like all the current scandals, rather just look at all the policy changes he has instituted to where he said one thing, and then did another.
Two glaring examples would be guns & homosexual marriage
It may be worth pointing out that keeping the government's sticky fingers off of the Internet was a position championed by the Clinton administration and it worked well, so this is not as partisan Democrat vs. Republican as we may thinnk.
I don't want to hear this anymore. You rich people must want to silence the voice of the common working man and woman, make it more difficult for the lonely college student to have a life, and stifle innovation and creativity. I'm not even interested in the terms anymore, don't even call it "net neutrality," just call it "keeping things the same." Vote to keep things the way they are. I can't figure out why you would want to allow the internet providers bully us into paying higher prices for inferior services or having to submit to censorship that the internet world has never faced. I don't even understand how this is an issue, and I almost feel like calling every representative I have and demanding that they make the things I fear concerning internet control an impossibility.
Right now:
I could start a YouTube channel if I wanted without having to worry about paying extra
I can tweet or blog about what is going on in the world without paying extra
I can use Google Scholar to do light research on topics of interest without paying extra
I can watch Netflix for only a few dollars per month; I do not have to buy an expensive cable package to get my favorite shows / documentaries.
I can send and receive content, even videos, via email.
I can look up lesson plans and interactive whiteboard activities for free.
I can subscribe to services, like Skype, that allow me to make phone calls via the internet.
I could call someone in China via Skype and pay nothing!
I can post pictures and videos on Facebook.
In short, I can find and do almost anything I want on the internet right now!
Why do you want that to change? There's a good chance that if ISP's are allowed to treat different content differently that they will use it to their advantage, such as blocking websites that haven't paid for entry, introducing pay-per-play systems, and generally taking control of things that they have no right to control. Right now, they just provide the service and have no power over the content. Why do you want that to change? Why do you want them to have power over the content, too? Why do you want to silence the voices of those who don't have enough money to enter the game?
The internet is our window to the non-biased world. Everyone has a voice here. It's a means of communicating with people I would otherwise not get to see. It's a means of having my voice heard. Why would anyone want to take that away?
Last edited by krmb; 11-13-2014 at 08:54 PM..
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.
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.
The history of statist abuse of power is well documented, and it makes any real or imagined abuse of corporate power look amateurish.
