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.
There's really two sides here and everyone is talking about only one side.
Agreed. It's the telcos and ISPs versus the consumers and content providers.
Quote:
The sources that are in favor of it (like Amazon, Yahoo, You Tube, etc.) have everything to gain by it.....this is from the link you supplied:
It is the status quo. It is the model that gave us businesses like Amazon and Google. Don't you think Verizon would prefer you buy books from VerizonMall, your one-stop online shopping venue?
Quote:
The FCC's new rules would prevent ISPs, for example, from blocking or slowing bandwidth-hogging Web traffic such as streaming video or other applications that put a strain on their networks or from charging different rates to users.
I hope you're not thinking that Amazon pays the same as you do for their access. The letter is an obvious oversimplification of a complex matter.
What would be disastrous would be if, say, Verizon entered into a "strategic alliance" with Barnes and Nobles rather than Amazon, allowing traffic B&N to get preferential treatment. That hampers competition and makes it much harder for new players to enter the marketplace.
Quote:
Here's a quote from Verizon's CEO Ivan Seidenberg (the link to it follows the quote):
Of course Verizon is against NN - there's a ton of money waiting to be made if the Internet could be made tiered. It's just not in the consumer's interest. And the carriers are obviously going to yell how the sky is falling. They were asleep at the wheel when the Internet become serious businesss, and now when others have blazed the trail and taken the risk, they want to change the game in their favor?
The Internet neutrality that was always the intention and a necessity from the begining, was when we had 14.4 dial-up connections and no streaming videos from Internet sites like YouTube.
The content will always expand to fll the capacity. It did in the 14.4 days and it does in the age of FiOS.
Is this what we want the Internet experience to be like?
Agreed. It's the telcos and ISPs versus the consumers and content providers.
No, it's not the Telco's and ISP's vs. the consumers.....if anything it's the Telco's, ISP's and the Internet companies (content providers) vs. the consumer. They all offer and solicit us, the consumers various products and services (and they all profit by doing that). In a sense the argument for neutrality puts the content providers with the consumers (as though they're victims like the consumer), instead of with the Telco's and ISP's who profit from us, the consumer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
It is the status quo. It is the model that gave us businesses like Amazon and Google. Don't you think Verizon would prefer you buy books from VerizonMall, your one-stop online shopping venue?
Of course they would but, that doesn't mean they don't also have a legitimate beef with what the neutrality law will do to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
I hope you're not thinking that Amazon pays the same as you do for their access. The letter is an obvious oversimplification of a complex matter.
What would be disastrous would be if, say, Verizon entered into a "strategic alliance" with Barnes and Nobles rather than Amazon, allowing traffic B&N to get preferential treatment. That hampers competition and makes it much harder for new players to enter the marketplace.
Of course Verizon is against NN - there's a ton of money waiting to be made if the Internet could be made tiered. It's just not in the consumer's interest. And the carriers are obviously going to yell how the sky is falling. They were asleep at the wheel when the Internet become serious businesss, and now when others have blazed the trail and taken the risk, they want to change the game in their favor?
They took the risk? You're rufusing to recognize both sides of the problem. The Telco's and the ISP's also took "the risk" by investing billions to expand capacity and speed so that "consumers" can watch videos all day on YouTube.....it's a double edged sword....it works both ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
The telcos pretty much own McCain.
You can say that about every politician if you want to....do you thing the content providers have never made any campaign contributions to anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
The content will always expand to fll the capacity. It did in the 14.4 days and it does in the age of FiOS.
Bingo! Exactly the point and how will it continue to be able to if the Telco's and the ISP's are the ones that have to invest all the money in order for it to be able to do that? There's much less of a reason to have an interest in investing in something when it gives everyone else unlimited financial benefits, while giving you only limited financial benefits.
The point I was making was that neutrality was fine when there was little difference viewing one page from another because of the limited connection speed users had. You couldn't fill a page with animated ads that ran on FlashPlayer....there was no YouTube to watch streaming videos.
You failed to comment on this part of my post:
-- "As the FCC's Broadband Task Force said recently, it could take $350 billion to build next-generation broadband across America, and most of that money will have to come from the private sector and companies like Comcast. We continue to hope that any rules adopted by the commission will not harm the investment and innovation that has made the Internet what it is today and that will make it even greater tomorrow." -- Statement from David Cohen, executive vice president at Comcast
Why should they rush to invest $350 billion so that software engineers can design new applications, that everyone will be profiting from at their expense? How much incentive is there to even consider bandwith when it's going to have less of an impact the profit you're going to be able to make? Shouldn't that be a factor in the neutrality law....that would stimulate innovation to design programs that used less and less bandwith and still get the desired results.
The point is if they're going to have a neutrality law, everything needs to be considered in it to be fair. If not having it will allow Telco's and ISP's to block traffic to sites that compete will businesses they're in alliance with, then make a law that makes that illegal to do. I'm sure there are details that would need to be worked out but, what I'm saying is that there are other alternatives....both sides don't need to fight over it and just ignore what the other is concerned about (because that's what seems to happening all the time these days).
What McInsane? Stifle innovation?? That's the very thing net neutrality protects you idiot! Though I wouldn't expect you to get that since you still haven't figured out how to turn ON a computer.
Beck you kinda take pity on; he has been in character since auditioning for Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four screen adaptation, but ostensibly didn't get the rejection letter a number of years ago...
These two should write a book entitled: Douche-bag as a lifestyle
You couldn't fill a page with animated ads that ran on FlashPlayer....there was no YouTube to watch streaming videos.
Well if that's the issue, the telecom companies can simply raise data transmission rates across the board. That means heavy users (like video sites) will end up paying more anyway, since they are the biggest users of traffic.
Danno3314, Do you work in the internet business or somehow stand to gain financially if net neutrality is blocked? I can't imagine why anyone would be against net neutrality otherwise.
Danno3314, Do you work in the internet business or somehow stand to gain financially if net neutrality is blocked? I can't imagine why anyone would be against net neutrality otherwise.
I thought he explained it quite clearly, it will reduce the incentives for service providers to invest in their networks. That will mean consumers don't get the latest and greatest technology and the US may fall far behind other countries as a result of the lack of investment.
Network neutrality itself is a good concept, but for the most part it exists naturally as a result of free markets. Getting the government involved and having them tell ISPs how to provide their service seems like the complete opposite of what is best.
Well if that's the issue, the telecom companies can simply raise data transmission rates across the board. That means heavy users (like video sites) will end up paying more anyway, since they are the biggest users of traffic.
Maybe, I don't know....can they raise only those rates and make up any lose they will have to absorb or would that make those rates absurd. I'll bet they (sites like YouTube) are not counting on that being the case, if they were and it would be coming out of their pockets instead of the Teleco's and the ISP's, they wouldn't be in favor of it any more.
Again, the point is....there are two sides to every story....they both have to be considered by all parties involved. The other side of the story isn't that McCain and all the others opposing it are just too old and dumb to understand it or too corrupt....that's just what one side would like you to believe the other side of the story is (along with all those that oppose anything a conservative/republican has their name on).
Last edited by Danno3314; 10-25-2009 at 04:35 AM..
Danno3314, Do you work in the internet business or somehow stand to gain financially if net neutrality is blocked? I can't imagine why anyone would be against net neutrality otherwise.
Yeah, you guessed it....you figured me out.....you're just too smart for me....if I can stop it by leaving a post here on CD explaining that there are two sides to every story, I'll be getting millions in pay offs from big business.
That's sarcasm (which I rarely do but, you deserve it with that reply to me). Who says I'm opposing it? If you bother to read what I wrote, I'm explaining that there are two sides to the issue and that those if favor of it (like you) refuse to acknowledge what the other side is saying.....you'd rather ignore it and pretend there's only one side.....yours.
I don't know if you read what I wrote but, I specifically wrote this part:
The point is if they're going to have a neutrality law, everything needs to be considered in it to be fair. If not having it will allow Telco's and ISP's to block traffic to sites that compete will businesses they're in alliance with, then make a law that makes that illegal to do. I'm sure there are details that would need to be worked out but, what I'm saying is that there are other alternatives....both sides don't need to fight over it and just ignore what the other is concerned about (because that's what seems to happening all the time these days).
For those that insist on doing EXACTLY what you just did when you replied to me.
I mean, has it ever really been an issue that an ISP has censored things people have tried to do?
Hahahahha, most certainly. I could write a paper on it! See: Legal History for a mere taste. The elimination of net neutrality suits the ISPs very well. Besides someone mentioning Cox, did yo not hear about how they once tried to discipline VPN users? What about ATT? Once upon a time, they said WiFi constituted theft of service and a federal crime. Comcast outright blocked VPN ports in the state of Washing. More recently, the recent uber-low Internet data caps that TWC attempted to put into place in TX earlier this year, and ultimately in the entire country. We're talking plans starting at 5GB in select non competitive markets to which ATT planed to follow. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what the next step of that madness would be. Maybe... excluding their own streamed multimedia i.e. VOD from that cap? No conflict of interest there right?
Net neutrality is good for the internet through and through and puts a monkey wrench into the devious plots of America's shady ISPs. There's nary a single IT personality that's against Net Neutrality and it's been discussed for years now. Just ask Leo Laporte
The stifling of net neutrality is all about forcing unnecessary, egregious costs upon the consumer. It's about misleading people into thinking it's necessary for them to remain highly profitable when in actuality it is not. The numbers just don't add up.
Go McInsane!
Last edited by tekka-maki; 10-25-2009 at 09:55 AM..
Maybe, I don't know....can they raise only those rates and make up any lose they will have to absorb or would that make those rates absurd. I'll bet they (sites like YouTube) are not counting on that being the case, if they were and it would be coming out of their pockets instead of the Teleco's and the ISP's, they wouldn't be in favor of it any more.
Again, the point is....there are two sides to every story....they both have to be considered by all parties involved. The other side of the story isn't that McCain and all the others opposing it are just too old and dumb to understand it or too corrupt....that's just what one side would like you to believe the other side of the story is (along with all those that oppose anything a conservative/republican has their name on).
Yeah, there's a logical side and a dumb side. Yes I'm biased as I think the counter argument is idiotic, there I said it. You are presenting a baseless argument about the telcos 'spending all this extra money' in capital investments and being the poor losers in the net neutrality debate. Boo-hoo, except, it's not true. Factually incorrect.
Look at Time Warner, one of the biggest proponents against net neutrality,; the company that just tried to screw people over with ultra low data caps at egregious rates.
According to Time Warner’s 2008 earnings reports, it’s high speed data costs declined by 12%, while subscribers increased by more than 10%, and high speed data revenues increased by 11%. If anything, the increased use of the Internet seems to have been extremely good for Time Warner’s bottom line.
Data caps, and traffic prioritization don't fix network congestion, yet it is exactly what some ISPs are attempting to convince us of, and why people should stand behind network neutrality. They are simply one trick ponies seeking to re-monetize a (mostly) fixed based cost industry.
Fact: Internet backbone bandwidth is cheap or free (and plummeting in cost annually to the tune of 50 percent a year.
Fact: As traffic increases, traffic costs on major Internet backbones have been decreasing by 50 percent a year—an obvious market signal that capacity is plentiful at the core and in no danger of "browning out". ISPs may be building out (some much slower than others SEE: TWC) but there's already a huge ROI! Plus, many expenses come from taxes and Gov't subsidies.
The costs for infrastructure – fiber, routers, IT staff - are fixed costs, and ISP variable costs have nothing to do with how much data users download over the Internet.
Let's use TWC as a litmus test:
A heavy user does not necessarily cost Time Warner more than a light user to subscribe, maintain, or service.
Stay on their fiber, same cost. Travel outside their far reaching backbone to the many 'Peered' (i.e. contract) networks (which are the majority): no cost once link is set up and same cost whether you download 5GB or 5KB. Only time TWC pays transit costs is on networks which they don't have an arrangement and this is an extremely small cost of their overall budget. See page 83 of their annual report: High Speed Data Connectivity. Linkage
In fact, if you really get down to the nitty gritty, you'll see that TWC Internet bandwidth contracts in 2009 are actually 10 times less than those for its digital phone service, and are one of the smallest budget expenses at a mere 40 mil. for 2008.
Lastly, in your argument about 'more govt' regulation' is a bad thing, you presuppose that elements of net neutrality aren't already in place. I suggest you read the same legal history link that I posted above, you will see that the FCC has been utilizing proposed net neutrality principles since 2005, and to very good effect.
Last edited by tekka-maki; 10-25-2009 at 10:10 AM..
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.
