Another blow for the people, another + for corporations (lobbyist, lobby, income)

[FinkieMcGee]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Translation: All my points and arguments have been reduced to ash, so now I'll slink away, but before I do, I'll just throw out the usual insults when on the losing end of the argument.

Nah, I don't like to argue with you since you operate in teams, and I do not. Go team red!

I mean you blamed Obama for this and chalked it up as a loss even though the FCC operated on this well before he was in office.

As I noted: uneducated minority, proven via your posting.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by WillysB

That's the FCC's goal. To control content... no more streaming cutsey UTube videos, no more anti-Obama blogs, no more porn on the web. But it will give government control over your bank access, your credit card transactions, read your email, cut your service off for not paying taxes.

You're giving in to paranoia here.

Originally Posted by WillysB

The businesses supporting net neutrality are google, amazon, others. Why? Why do these companies want FCC regulation?

Because they're smart, innovative and know that an open Internet is the engine that drives their business. Also because they know that the carriers are chomping at the bit to sell tiered bandwidth, which will add to their costs. And make innovation harder.

For that matter, why would a user want FCC regulation?

Because my interests don't coincide with those of my carrier.

You pay your ISP for a data speed. You get that data speed.

No, you don't. Have you ever read your TOS? I'll bet the words "best effort" pops up, but this is not about last-mile link speed..

What? you want the government to regulate that speed?

Nope. I want the government to stop my carrier, the carrier that provides the server traffic and any carrier in between from throttling my traffic.

Originally Posted by sanrene

So basically you're saying the providers will start charging you a premium for certain websites you frequent?

Utter hogwash.

That is certainly one money-making model. The means, the motive are there. It just takes somebody to break the ice.

Another, better model is to charge the major websites for premium access to the ISPs users. Of course, the websites will then pass the cost on to their users. And smaller sites, like thgis one, will have to fight for what's left of the bandwidth.

Of course, a lot of the cable providers are scared sh.tless that people will get their media content across the net. If you're in the cable TV business, Hulu and NetFlix is in direct competition with your pay-per-view service. Wouldn't it be awesome to be able to throttle the bandwidth to such pesky competitors?

Think of the telcos - their cash cow, long distance telephony, is under attack from VOIP. Wouldn't it be in their interest to downgrade the quality to competing VOIP providers? They're not really under any legal obligation not to, right?

Are they doing that now? What makes you believe that is their intent?

They have. That's what triggered the cease-and-desist letter.

Originally Posted by WillysB

And how is your service provider going to charge you for content? Will they monitor the IP address of your download source? Then what? Interrupt the download?

Well, doing so is trivial. But interruption is not needed. Just throttle a bit. If Hulu & netFlix are always slow, suddenly ComCast's PPVs service looks more attractive.

[doctorhugo]

I started perusing the comments on this thread before getting involved and came upon your comment #5 noted here:

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Rules against FCC and Obama!?!

Hell they have once again ruled against us folks in favor of mega corporations!

But of course you can see that because you are so blinded by your Obamaphobia.

Your reaction provokes a serious question from me.

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

I ask this as your first comment indicates that you are startlingly surprised, if not shocked, that the court ruling against the FCC is being hailed as a constitutional victory and thereby a victory for "the folks", which is who our Constitution protects. Remember ovcatto, we ARE talking about the US Constitution, not this version 1936 Constitution of the USSR, Part I , which champions the ruling elite who have totalitarian rule of the peasant, working class.

In the second remark you define yourself as one who views private industry in the form of "mega corporations" as the enemy of the people. Now a fair conversation will yield the reality that corporations, in this country, in the rush to flaunt the biggest bottom line are and do become greedy and it's an accepted responsibility of our government to place enough enforceable regulation on the books by Congress and actually enforce them. What enters this equation that ruins the outcome are politicians. More specifically, career politicians who become the willing co-conspiratorial corrupters, along with some corporate interests, and thereby make REAL ENFORCEMENT all but unattainable. Having acknowleged all that, which I know you as well as I understand is true, I wonder why you seek to use corporate greed as a 'tool' to demonize private industry. That strategem is an old Communist theology that goes way back. It's used to discredit having the means of production in private hands (Obama believes that though he won't state it, but his actions belie him.) It is the essence of why they along with the Marxists (like Obama) seek to control the "means of production".

Finally you lash out at those who disagree with you as being blinded "by Obamaphobia". I would suggest quite the contrary as I am in the opposing category. We are not blinded. We have been enlightened by what you say is Obamaphobia and by what I call a clear and present danger to the survival of this sovereign republic as a free nation. A nation whose power is vested to the people by a Constitution that Obama disrespects and abuses with regularity. You do appear, with like regularity, to agree with him.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by WillysB

Your ISP does one thing only. That is the DSLAM connection where your speed is controlled. From there your internet connection goes directly to the nearest ATM and from there on... IT'S THE WORLD WIDE WEB, BABY ! ! !

Eh? Most ISPs have a considerable routed infrastructure beyond the basic DSL access link you're describing. ATM is a layer 2 technology. The DSLAM merely terminates a number of DSL links on one ATM link, it will typically hand off the traffic on Ethernet. Your ISP is very likely to run direct, dedicated links to POPs, aggregate routes and then interact with peers and upstream providers through BGP peerings, typically across Ethernet links in IXs and MAEs.

(Yes, I have set up external BGP sessions on more than few default-less routers, even had a RIPE handle for a while.)

The ISP has got NOTHING to do with what you do on the web. NOTHING!

Having worked as a network engineer for an ISP, I can say with some confidence that you're quite a bit off, here.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

It would. But the subject is too complex for most of the "All government is bad, always" crowd.

It is a very complex issue and few people understand it. That means there are lots of ways for those with political interests and a desire to control web content to bring innocent seeming Trojan-horse reforms through the front gate of one of our last defenses against state media control. It's not so much that government is always bad as it is a carelessness on our part to protect the medium through which we exercise our free speech.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Good to know that the courts will give some smackdown when obama inevitably overreaches.

And blindly bashing Obama on an hourly basis doesn't impress me - especially when the bashing is as foolish as this one. You really think it's better for private companies to decide which bits of data deserve higher priority on the internet? You must not believe in freedom.

[HappyTexan]

There are enough backbone owners that there's still competition among them.

When we get down to a single backbone owner..then I'll get worried.
I'd be more worried about the government "taking care of the internet" and glad the court sided the way they did.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by momonkey

It is a very complex issue and few people understand it. That means there are lots of ways for those with political interests and a desire to control web content to bring innocent seeming Trojan-horse reforms through the front gate of one of our last defenses against state media control. It's not so much that government is always bad as it is a carelessness on our part to protect the medium through which we exercise our free speech.

As long as the backbone is spread among owners (AT&T, Verizon, Qwest, etc) there is still freedom. I think there's 5-7 owners currently.

Give it to the government and you've handed over total control..how's that for a monopoly ?

Like the way China runs their internet ????

[sanrene]

That is certainly one money-making model. The means, the motive are there. It just takes somebody to break the ice.

Well....what's been stopping them?

Please give us the information that ANY of the providers had or have any intention of doing what you and others claim.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by momonkey

It is a very complex issue and few people understand it. That means there are lots of ways for those with political interests and a desire to control web content to bring innocent seeming Trojan-horse reforms through the front gate of one of our last defenses against state media control. It's not so much that government is always bad as it is a carelessness on our part to protect the medium through which we exercise our free speech.

Well, for once we agree on something. There needs to be due diligence on our part to keep the watchdogs in check - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and all that good stuff - and if the FCC starts overstepping its bounds as regards content, I'll join the fight against them. This is important to me - it's what I do, among other things. And weirdly enough, as someone who is firmly involved with the carrier & transport side of things, I am 100% in the corner with the content providers (and consumers) on this one.

The thing with law and the FCC is this: At least we have an avenue for change. If it's important, we can influence lawmakers and political parties. If they overstep, we cna msack them down.

For all I know, in the larger scope of things, the FCC is the wrong way to go and we need to establish something new. But that's neither here nor there. The FCC did the right thing in slapping ComCast down. But they may have been the wrong people to do so.