Do You Like Having the Ability and Freedom to Surf to ANY Site on the Internet? (Representatives, Rockefeller)

[Frankie117]

Elimination of net neutrality would be the end of e-commerce. Kind of hard to do business when only those with "exclusive" internet access can view your site..

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by mikeym81

Some companies have started it, and if those companies are successful, all ISPs will follow. For most areas, this isn't as simple as you make it sound to switch ISPs. Most local providers have a virtual monopoly over areas, and in cities, ISPs can take over the wiring in buildings. Unfortunaltley for the people who dont know much about telecom infastructre they have no idea why NN could help them in the long run. This isn't like sneakers, where you think Nike are cheap, so you try Reebok. Reebok are uncomfortable so you try Adias...etc

Oh I am aware, I lived in one of those areas for quite some time. It is a pain in the rear for sure, but it eventually changes and the more oppressive the business is in their policy only comes to bite them when it does.

I remember first we only had dial up (ISDN was too expensive and pretty much just for businesses). Broadband was still a very new thing, so we didn't have it. The TELCO obviously had DSL as a technology for years, but never implemented it. They didn't need to, it wasn't cost effective.

The cable company was first to come out with broadband in our area. Because they were the only one, the prices were very high. There wasn't a huge interest in broadband and so there was no incentive to compete in the consumer market. This left the consumers to the whim of the cable companies. It really sucked and I didn't bother with them because of it.

Over time though as broadband became a big hit, the TELCO decided to get into the market and started offering residential DSL. It was a bit slow at first as the obvious technical limits of distance until they got equipment installed around the area to extend its range, but immediately they decimated the cables market hold. So much, that the TELCO shortened their time-line to extend it so they could pull in the market. The result? Since the local cable company had not planned for this and took a very poor attitude to their customers needs, they lost so much of the market that the local office was changed ownership several times and they never really recovered from it to compete very much (though some 3rd parties began coming in doing some competition).

This over time even opened up other technology companies who wanted a piece of the market because once the TELCO had pretty much most of the cable companies market, they slowed down extending their lines even further. So, wireless companies came into the picture which created more competition. When I left California, there were 4 types of access methods and several companies all competing to offer service at dirt cheap prices.

The point is, yes... some areas do not have that "selection", but it is a limitation of living in some areas. It would be like complaining that there is only one grocery store in your area and complain about how their policies are terrible. It is simply a result of living in some areas. In time, as there becomes a market for it, this will change too. The only reason there aren't companies rushing to compete in those areas is because the cost of starting up and competing with an already established competitor is not profitable. This always changes in time.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Frankie117

Elimination of net neutrality would be the end of e-commerce. Kind of hard to do business when only those with "exclusive" internet access can view your site..

You mean like it is now? Oh wait, we don't have any major regulation of such and we can still buy where we want, go where we want, etc... So this regulation is being purposed to save us from... what "could" happen?

Edit:

Also keep in mind this. There is nothing stopping content providers from doing the same? In fact, this has been a growing occurrence over the years. Notice how Google has its hands in everything now? What if Google decided to take all of its companies and subsidiaries, bundle them in specific controlled domain and then demand payment for anyone to enter. Think of it as a virtual mall that charges an entrance fee. Net Neutrality will do nothing to stop that and I am sure Google would be upset if we attempted to regulate them that they could never do such don't you think? Yet we think nothing of such when we are dealing with the company that links the two together? This legislation is playing people for fools.

[mikeym81]

Originally Posted by Nomander

I trust neither, but would rather have the market open so that someone who does think they are screwing people can create their own company and compete. That is the entire point of free market and exactly what I was pointing out concerning the failures of the cable company. Government changes this as I mentioned with the energy companies in California. There is no competition, its owned by the big 3 who are closely tied with the politicians. Upstarts don't have a chance because the regulation is only bearable to the large companies who already have a solid infrastructure and they use lobbying to get special deals with the government.

Free market has no absolute control. They can apply pressure, and use tactics to cut off their competition, but in the end they have no control over the customer and that is the one thing that keeps them from controlling everything. The only way a company can have complete control is to introduce government and government then dictates to the consumer what they can and can't have by regulating the companies under the eventually direction of company lobbies. Trusting the government is a sure way to get the short end of the stick.

I'm taking this from my apove post, becuase Im too lazy to reword it . While I would agree with free markets in most cases it doesnt apply here. For most areas, this isn't as simple as you make it sound to switch ISPs. Most local providers have a virtual monopoly over areas, and in cities ISPs can take over the wiring in buildings. This isn't like sneakers, where you think Nike are cheap, so you try Reebok. Reebok are uncomfortable so you try Adias...etc. By me I have 2 options, Cablevision or Dialup. I really dislike cablevision, but what am I gonna do? I have no other option for a dedicated line.

Originally Posted by Nomander

Of course they are shaping traffic, why wouldn't they? Torrenting has become a huge issue and the current models for dealing with traffic were not designed for the average consumer to have their connections hogging bandwidth 24/7 (and this is a big issue more with cable and the way they handle segmentation). That is what was considered business based traffic. People are getting exactly what they paid for. They bought a connection that had an "up to", but could be limited to a much lower rate if traffic is congested. They can not supply everyone that level of bandwidth at the same time, its unreasonable to demand such at the cost people are paying for their connections. Other companies apply different plans to lessen the problems with this, but in the end, it all comes down to the need to cut back some traffic if it is taking up too much bandwidth. If people want to torrent 24/7, they can easily pick up plans that guarantee them a certain level of bandwidth, but it will be pricey because they are setting that aside for you.

Also think about those that they do that for. You buy your 3/1.5 connection at a consumer value. It rates as speeds "up to" that. You get it and start maxing that rate 24/7 and another customer has a much higher plan that they pay a lot more for to insure their traffic gets priority. So your "ideal" rate is reduced if there is extensive traffic to guarantee the person who pays more their priority. You get free extra bandwidth when it is available at no additional charge, but now you want it all and for prices to be the same? See the problem when the number of people hogging the bandwidth on these plans do? What about spam? They do a lot of limiting of that as well, should they also open up the pipes to let that have equal priority as well? Remember, everyone has the right to equal traffic, you can't pick and choose. There is no reasonable means to this. .

What I think you are missing here is they where shaping traffic with or without congestion. I'm sure Comcast is policing the traffic on the PE when a customer is requesting too much, but why only do it to one type of traffic?

As for spam, there is no limiting, they block customer computers or rouge email servers from sending it, buy blocking port 25. I think the biggest difference is blocking a security threat (spam) compared to shaping bandwidth for no reason. Spam can contain a virus and is sent to thousands of computers in one shot, and those computers did not request the data. With a torrent, it goes to one machine, and that machine requested the data.

Don’t forget, Comcast has stopped the shapping, with no effect to the network, so it’s not like this shaping was ever needed.

Originally Posted by Nomander

If your SLA is specific in that it guarantees that rate, sure, but does it? I have read several contracts that specify a best effort for your SLA, but not a guarantee. Those plans with guarantee are pricey and usually something reserved for business. Many SLA's will list a CIR as what they guarantee and then provide a maximum you can obtain. .

Sorry, I should have been more clear. The CIR would be 15/5 lets say. If I’m not using the link for anything else, don’t I have a right to use the full link to download a torrent if I choose?

Originally Posted by Nomander

The problem is that it never is a conspiracy in the start. It is simply good intentions that result in the fulfillment of the conspiracy. That is, corruption takes control and then its too late to do anything about it. The best thing we can do is apply reactive case legislation for actual offenses and let the courts determine them on an individual basis. Regulation is simply a tool for the corrupt. .

I guess this is where we differ. I don’t want to wait for a reactive case. That could take years to resolve. I just want my last mile to be used at my discretion.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by mikeym81

You got a QOS problem. Do you really have all of this data running across a residential ISP connection? If so you may wanna think about other options.

I have business lines, running into a residential home, hence the reason for the costs.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by Jill61

Then you must support Net Neutrality!

We can't allow our government to take away our right to access information freely. PLEASE contact your representative in Congress and demand that they support Net Neutrality! This site will give you the ability to send a message to your Representative, as well as giving you their contact information.

I just called Jane Harman's office. Have you called your Congressperson?

Don't let people like Glenn Beck, and big corporations like AT&T win this one!

Is there a chance that the words Net Neutrality are seen as meaning something different by the administration and many of we users of the net? I surely think there is and you and I don't agree on what the administration thinks the words mean. Sorry, but that is how it is. They want net neutrality to give them control over the very freedom you want to keep.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by mikeym81

I'm taking this from my apove post, becuase Im too lazy to reword it . While I would agree with free markets in most cases it doesnt apply here. For most areas, this isn't as simple as you make it sound to switch ISPs. Most local providers have a virtual monopoly over areas, and in cities ISPs can take over the wiring in buildings. This isn't like sneakers, where you think Nike are cheap, so you try Reebok. Reebok are uncomfortable so you try Adias...etc. By me I have 2 options, Cablevision or Dialup. I really dislike cablevision, but what am I gonna do? I have no other option for a dedicated line.

There are some limitations, also a lot has to do with state/city influence and regulation among them. I agree it is unfortunate, but there are always options. Moving is an option. Is it practical in every situation, nope, but it is a form of control the consumer has. We are apartment living while shopping for homes and one of the criteria we use for home selection (even apartment for that matter) is the type of access to service available. If it is a location where a company I dislike has control, I weight whether I am willing to accept using them or not. So we still have a choice. With regulation, choice goes out the window. I can't object to the results of the regulations effect and pick a provider who doesn't follow them, I mean, after all, the government becomes the dictator, not the consumer.

Originally Posted by mikeym81

What I think you are missing here is they where shaping traffic with or without congestion. I'm sure Comcast is policing the traffic on the PE when a customer is requesting too much, but why only do it to one type of traffic?

I think it is situation dependent as well as specific to the structure of their network. There may be a reason for a specific type, there may not. It really is a situational issue.

Originally Posted by mikeym81

As for spam, there is no limiting, they block customer computers or rouge email servers from sending it, buy blocking port 25. I think the biggest difference is blocking a security threat (spam) compared to shaping bandwidth for no reason. Spam can contain a virus and is sent to thousands of computers in one shot, and those computers did not request the data. With a torrent, it goes to one machine, and that machine requested the data.

Don’t forget, Comcast has stopped the shapping, with no effect to the network, so it’s not like this shaping was ever needed.

True, part of the problem is that not all spam is "dangerous" exactly, how can we choose what an be blocked and what can not be and still be in accordance with the proposals? They are very unclear about these details which leads to the possibility of some traffic being let through because the law doesn't understand the technical aspects of the issue.

The fact that they may have done it without needing to doesn't necessarily mean there wouldn't be cases where they would need to. Personally, I would rather that be left to them to decide rather than some suit in Washington who calls their case a CPU and thinks knowing how to use word makes you computer literate.

Originally Posted by mikeym81

Sorry, I should have been more clear. The CIR would be 15/5 lets say. If I’m not using the link for anything else, don’t I have a right to use the full link to download a torrent if I choose?

Absolutely you should, if you are guaranteed such, and in setups like that though, your packets are likely flagged for priority in such cases. If they are limiting that, you have an "I win card" by simply pointing to the contract and holding them in breech. They are very careful about that when you are setting up SLA at corporate level, if it is in your contract at a consumer level, they are wrong, you win, they go directly to jail, do not pass go.

Originally Posted by mikeym81

I guess this is where we differ. I don’t want to wait for a reactive case. That could take years to resolve. I just want my last mile to be used at my discretion.

For those dealing with the problem currently, reactive seems the best choice. Though for those who aren't, reactive is the best choice. It gives the most freedom to the consumer and it keeps from too many laws mucking up the processes in business which always come back to the customer. Imagine if the government was running the ISP. It would have all the restrictions you were worried about, cost 10 times as much and would run at a snails pace. Also, if you had a problem, it would likely take months to resolve and there would be no way for you to escalate the problem to resolve it. You would simply be... out of luck.

Less government involvement is ultimately better for everyone, even with the situations that pop up from time to time.

[mikeym81]

Originally Posted by Nomander

There are some limitations, also a lot has to do with state/city influence and regulation among them. I agree it is unfortunate, but there are always options. Moving is an option. Is it practical in every situation, nope, but it is a form of control the consumer has. We are apartment living while shopping for homes and one of the criteria we use for home selection (even apartment for that matter) is the type of access to service available. If it is a location where a company I dislike has control, I weight whether I am willing to accept using them or not.
So we still have a choice. With regulation, choice goes out the window. I can't object to the results of the regulations effect and pick a provider who doesn't follow them, I mean, after all, the government becomes the dictator, not the consumer.

I think moving just to get another ISP is a bit extreme. In your case it works because you know ISPs, and your house hunting. What about the person who has no idea, only to buy a house and find out his traffic is being altered, I know I'd be upset.

I live in Northern NJ, about 20 miles from NYC, a highly populated area. We are slowly starting to see 2 options for ISPs in my area. If its taken Telcos 10 years to fully cover Northern NJ, how long will it take them to cover rural areas? Not to mention what do I do if both telcos start to shape traffic? I’m back to square one.

Originally Posted by Nomander

True, part of the problem is that not all spam is "dangerous" exactly, how can we choose what an be blocked and what can not be and still be in accordance with the proposals? They are very unclear about these details which leads to the possibility of some traffic being let through because the law doesn't understand the technical aspects of the issue.

The fact that they may have done it without needing to doesn't necessarily mean there wouldn't be cases where they would need to. Personally, I would rather that be left to them to decide rather than some suit in Washington who calls their case a CPU and thinks knowing how to use word makes you computer literate.

Difference is spam goes out to thousands of people who didn’t request it, with the added bonus of a possibly containing a virus. Not to mention people who install mail servers on their link and have no idea how to secure them, so all they do is send spam. Bit Torrents only go to people who request the data and can’t take over anyone’s server and start sending data down everyone’s throat like spam would.

Shaping because of a CPU load or bandwidth issue is different then what we are talking about. Would I rather my ISP be in charge of capacity planning? sure. But I’d rather have the government telling the ISP no shaping/policing on my line. I work for an ISP, and I can tell you the people making the calls here are some suit who calls their case a CPU. To me no difference neither know what they are talking about.

Originally Posted by Nomander

Absolutely you should, if you are guaranteed such, and in setups like that though, your packets are likely flagged for priority in such cases. If they are limiting that, you have an "I win card" by simply pointing to the contract and holding them in breech. They are very careful about that when you are setting up SLA at corporate level, if it is in your contract at a consumer level, they are wrong, you win, they go directly to jail, do not pass go.

Agreed, and lets say for example this happened with Comcast, as we can see they still passed go.

Originally Posted by Nomander

Imagine if the government was running the ISP. It would have all the restrictions you were worried about, cost 10 times as much and would run at a snails pace. Also, if you had a problem, it would likely take months to resolve and there would be no way for you to escalate the problem to resolve it. You would simply be... out of luck.

I agree 100 percent about a government run telcos, but the problem is we are not talking about that. (I‘ve worked with MTNL in India, and it’s awful!) All this really comes down to is a ISP not being able to police/shape/block your traffic when the bandwidth is available. Why is it so bad to make a law saying ISP cant do that?

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by mikeym81

I think moving just to get another ISP is a bit extreme. In your case it works because you know ISPs, and your house hunting. What about the person who has no idea, only to buy a house and find out his traffic is being altered, I know I'd be upset.

I understand why people would be upset, I just don't think we have a right to dictate to businesses how they run and the services they provide. If my only store choice is one that I dislike or disagree with, it is unreasonable for me to run to the government to dictate to that business how I think it should run. If enough people agree, they can petition a business to open up shop by claiming they will do business with them if they do. This is reasonable, not legislating because the area you might live doesn't serve your desire or agreement. This is just a line I don't think we can cross and then still hold the position that we care about the protections of freedom.

Originally Posted by mikeym81

I live in Northern NJ, about 20 miles from NYC, a highly populated area. We are slowly starting to see 2 options for ISPs in my area. If its taken Telcos 10 years to fully cover Northern NJ, how long will it take them to cover rural areas? Not to mention what do I do if both telcos start to shape traffic? I’m back to square one.

Some places take a while and it depends on a lot of things. Its a drag to be in an area that doesn't have healthy competition, but honestly, it isn't a right to have the service the way you desire. A business has just as many rights as the consumer does. They offer a service and you decide if you will accept the terms. If enough people accept it to be profitable, then that is what the terms are. If you want them to offer better terms, then encourage them to change. The only reason they do not change is because people are too lazy or don't care about it enough to make an issue out of it. If they did, everyone would stop using their service and demand that the company service their needs. This is how the market is supposed to function. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way. As I said, many people really don't care and you have to ask yourself, if most of the people don't care, then does the minority really have a valid case?

I think these mini-marts are stupid in their prices of many goods. They are designed to catch people in positions of convenience where they will pay 2 and even 3 times the value of a product. I think it is a rip off, unethical and underhanded, yet... People buy from them all the time and its enough to keep them going. Do I have a right to demand that the government come in and regulate their prices? No. Like I said, if you have enough people that complain, and enough people "willing" to actually put their money where their gripe is, they can put pressure on a company to change. This is how it should be done, without... bringing in government.

Originally Posted by mikeym81

Difference is spam goes out to thousands of people who didn’t request it, with the added bonus of a possibly containing a virus. Not to mention people who install mail servers on their link and have no idea how to secure them, so all they do is send spam. Bit Torrents only go to people who request the data and can’t take over anyone’s server and start sending data down everyone’s throat like spam would.

You are putting a condition now. See what I am talking about? You rationalize which traffic you think should be allowed and which should not. Why shouldn't spam mail be allowed? It is allowed in the physical mail, the post office doesn't stop it from coming to your box because some random person might send you a bogus investment mail concerning the bank of Nigeria? Torrents use the same pipe. They are excessive traffic that is consistent and never breaks. I know people who torrent thousands of gigabytes a day and they are always seeding or leeching something. The bandwidth is always on. Even corporate lines pay based on excessive use depending on contract, why should consumers all of a sudden get a free ride? They already get bandwidth dirt cheap, they certainly can't expect to have a 24/7 pipe guaranteed max throughput unless they are willing to pay for it.

As I said, I can get a business SLA that guarantees me the exact bandwidth I wish, but I will pay a lot more for it. Consumers should consider it a bonus to be able to suck up far above their CIR for most cases.

Originally Posted by mikeym81

Shaping because of a CPU load or bandwidth issue is different then what we are talking about. Would I rather my ISP be in charge of capacity planning? sure. But I’d rather have the government telling the ISP no shaping/policing on my line. I work for an ISP, and I can tell you the people making the calls here are some suit who calls their case a CPU. To me no difference neither know what they are talking about.

Well, you mentioned that for instance in the case of Comcast, they were shaping traffic when there was no cause for it. That the lines could handle the extra traffic without having an effect on those with a higher CIR. In those cases, yes, this is wrong, but it isn't illegal or even nefarious. It would be like complaining that the pizza delivery boy was late to your house because he rushed 30 pizzas to a corporate customer first. They may have said the time was take a certain amount, but unless they specifically contracted it as such, you simply got a cold pizza from a company that manages its deliveries poorly. Honestly, the government has no right to interfere. They are stepping over bounds they should not be.

Keep in mind though as we discussed, the rate people are given is not an exact promise, nor is the guarantee of their throughput in a timely manner. As I said before, AT&T's model works fairly well, is a fair model IF the person knows what their actual CIR is and understands that in good times, they will get up to the cap of the SLA, but "may" be reduced to that of their actual CIR if traffic gets heavy in order to insure delivery to higher CIR plans.

Honestly, I just can't see using the government here, this isn't a crime and its an issue to be honest that only those who understand really care anything about and those that don't simply blame every slow down on their connection as responsible for it. Those who do know, like you and think its an issue, well... I disagree, I just don't think people have the right to dictate how they are served when they have the power to choose not to have the service. Until they are forced to have it AND lack the option to pay more for what they desire, well... I just can't agree.

Originally Posted by mikeym81

Agreed, and lets say for example this happened with Comcast, as we can see they still passed go.

And if they violated a contract they would be liable. At that point, no regulation is going to change a thing. Its like applying a law to someone who already disregards them. If you aren't dealing with their previous violations, then what good will regulations do?

Originally Posted by mikeym81

I agree 100 percent about a government run telcos, but the problem is we are not talking about that. (I‘ve worked with MTNL in India, and it’s awful!) All this really comes down to is a ISP not being able to police/shape/block your traffic when the bandwidth is available. Why is it so bad to make a law saying ISP cant do that?

Regulation is a form of government run. They dictate the parameters and the company is free to act within them. There is the problem though of a point where the parameters place weight on the businesses ability to properly function. You see this all throughout businesses today. The proposals on this issue are not simply "don't cheat people", or "you will be fined if you do cheat people", but they are specific policies and limitations to the management of the network which has an effect on how the networks are designed and maintained. Putting someone in a cell and saying they are free to move as they like is the problem here. Its a play on words. They aren't free, they are only free to do as the government allows them to do. It might as well be government run.

You are right though about the agree to disagree, I think the issue here is really our positions on private business and so no matter how much we discuss, we will always end up coming to this difference. We can agree and concede on some inner working aspects of the discussion, but it is the our core position that I think is driving us to different results.

Anyway, thank you for the discussion.

[TigerLily24]

Originally Posted by Nomander

You mean like it is now? Oh wait, we don't have any major regulation of such and we can still buy where we want, go where we want, etc... So this regulation is being purposed to save us from... what "could" happen?

Looks more like what will happen:


Timothy Karr: The Fate of the Internet -- Decided in a Back Room