• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does anyone here actually oppose Network Neutrality?

What I'm wondering is whether this "change" to Net Neutrality is a matter of ISPs capitalizing on the obsolescence of other services.

For example, VOIP such as Skype and Teamspeak all use the internet to talk to each other (sound and/or video) which makes phone companies obsolete. For any Futurama fans out there, the episode "Attack of the Killer App" makes a stab at this. When the characters all get their "Eyephones", Fry inadvertently discovers that he's receiving a call and is shocked saying "The Eyephone is a phone too?!?!". It's funny but true in that you could rely on an internet connection and a VOIP to communicate. There's a quality of obsolescence to landlines.

And now with high data streaming services such as Netflix, and gaming services such as Playstation Now, these are innovations that make some forms of data storage such as gaming discs obsolete if the consumer has an internet connection that can facilitate it.

So I can kind of see arguments for and against net neutrality. The arguments for are easy to rally behind because we aren't invested in the infrastructure like an ISP is; we are essentially naive to them. So when we hear that they want to offer tiered speeds to the content providers (they already offer tiered "speeds" to consumers but that's a sham) it's easy to rationalize that as extortion. I mean it practically is a shakedown, and I'm sure we've all seen the graphic:

isp-speed.png


Comcast, Uverse, and others all jumped on the opportunity to alter Netflix's speeds after the courts said that ISPs aren't common carriers. Looks like discrimination to me.

Now, what about arguments that it's reasonable for ISPs to get more cash from data creators in exchange for faster service? Well if they are legally allowed to do it then companies will pay for it if they need to (high traffic services like Netflix and Playstation Now will have to) and that money goes into the ISP's capital. Now what I would expect from the ISP is to put that cash back into their business, hopefully with infrastructure that can accomodate an increase in traffic. If thy can handle more traffic then they can carry more data overall which means more people can use the higher-traffic services effectively.

The big worry is the artificial control an ISP already has over that though. I've mentioned in before but ISPs do not have to guarantee a speed to consumers. I pay for up to 30 Mb/s (roughly 3.2 megabits; enough to stream Netflix in HD) however I'll never actually GET that speed because I'm part of a large infrastructure that carries multiple customer's data already and my speed is controlled by the capacities of that infrastructure.

Now, what if this happened: Net Neutrality gets changed, ISPs get more cash but the demand for Netflix/Playstation Now is still high. An ISP would resort to making sure that they can guarantee a "minimum" speed that keeps me using them*. Thus they increase their infrastructure capacity, I get higher speeds, and maybe soon 30 Mb/s would be my minimum guaranteed speed. I mean seriously, imagine an ISP that could GUARANTEE a minimum speed of 30 Mb/s because their infrastructure was so robust. I'd flock to them immediately (if only my dental school choices included an area that had Google Fiber...).

* Now onto this asterisk. Unfortunately, most ISPs do not compete with each other and areas tend to have at most 2 major ISP choices. That reduces their incentive to increase their infrastructure capacity to me because I'm geographically isolated to them. It's them or nothing. That is a MAJOR problem for the argument for changing net neutrality and allowing ISPs to essentially cash in on obsolescence.

I'd be more excited about a tiered speed for data creators IF there was a healthy regional competition for ISPs which would give an incentive for them to invest FOR me. But there isn't anything like that.

So how do I feel? I wish I had invested in Comcast much earlier, especially of the tiered system becomes legal. Otherwise I'll gladly give up Netflix if its not valuable to me (costs too much; if I can't get reliable HD streaming I'll give up Netflix before I give up my only ISP...). That's DEFINITELY not fair for Netflix; ISPs will always win the value game and they know it. So yea...I wish I had a time machine to make some investments...
 
Get RCN if you can, Lowpro. If you're in our area. We've got a few test market areas where we're doing 110Mbps for $49.99. And that's not "110Mbps going on 10Mbps." If you're not getting the speed, call me. We're way stricter on that kind of thing.
 
Mister Earl said:
Get RCN if you can, Lowpro. If you're in our area. We've got a few test market areas where we're doing 110Mbps for $49.99. And that's not "110Mbps going on 10Mbps." If you're not getting the speed, call me. We're way stricter on that kind of thing.
Click to expand...

Heh I actually moved to Louisville, KY
 
Seems to still be working.

I'll quote some of it:

http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/

David Young, Vice President, Verizon Regulatory Affairs recently published a blog post suggesting that Netflix themselves are responsible for the streaming slowdowns Netflix’s customers have been seeing. But his attempt at deception has backfired. He has clearly admitted that Verizon is deliberately constraining capacity from network providers like Level 3 who were chosen by Netflix to deliver video content requested by Verizon’s own paying broadband consumers.

His explanation for Netflix’s on-screen congestion messages contains a nice little diagram. The diagram shows a lovely uncongested Verizon network, conveniently color-coded in green. It shows a network that has lots of unused capacity at the most busy time of the day. Think about that for a moment: Lots of unused capacity. So point number one is that Verizon has freely admitted that is has the ability to deliver lots of Netflix streams to broadband customers requesting them, at no extra cost. But, for some reason, Verizon has decided that it prefers not to deliver these streams, even though its subscribers have paid it to do so.

. . .

Verizon has confirmed that everything between that router in their network and their subscribers is uncongested – in fact has plenty of capacity sitting there waiting to be used. Above, I confirmed exactly the same thing for the Level 3 network. So in fact, we could fix this congestion in about five minutes simply by connecting up more 10Gbps ports on those routers. Simple. Something we’ve been asking Verizon to do for many, many months, and something other providers regularly do in similar circumstances. But Verizon has refused. So Verizon, not Level 3 or Netflix, causes the congestion. Why is that? Maybe they can’t afford a new port card because they’ve run out – even though these cards are very cheap, just a few thousand dollars for each 10 Gbps card which could support 5,000 streams or more. If that’s the case, we’ll buy one for them. Maybe they can’t afford the small piece of cable between our two ports. If that’s the case, we’ll provide it. Heck, we’ll even install it.

. . .

To summarize: All of the networks have ample capacity and congestion only occurs in a small number of locations, locations where networks interconnect with some last mile ISPs like Verizon. The cost of removing that congestion is absolutely trivial. It takes two parties to remove congestion at an interconnect point. I can confirm that Level 3 is not the party refusing to add that capacity. In fact, Level 3 has asked Verizon for a long time to add interconnection capacity and to deliver the traffic its customers are requesting from our customers, but Verizon refuses.
Click to expand...

Verizon could speed up delivery of Netflix content for a trivial cost, but they won't.
 
Here's another link that might work:

Verizon caught throttling Netflix traffic even after its pays for more bandwidth

In other internet news, Republicans are against allowing municipal broadband:

The FCC wants to let cities build their own broadband. House Republicans disagree.

This week, the House of Representatives approved legislation from Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) that would make it harder for cities to build publicly-owned broadband networks. The proposal is a shot at Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler, who wants to remove state-level restrictions on municipal networks; Blackburn's legislation would forbid the FCC from removing those restrictions. This is the latest escalation of a long-running war between municipal broadband supporters and incumbent broadband companies that have relentlessly opposed municipal broadband proposals.

Right now, only a few communities have municipal networks. But supporters argue that they provide a model that could give more of us faster and more affordable internet access in the future.

How does municipal broadband work? And why has it become so controversial? Read on to find out.

What is municipal broadband?

In most parts of the country, people get their internet access from a private company such as Comcast or AT&T. But in a few municipalities, broadband service is available from a publicly-owned utility.

Two of the most famous examples are Chattanooga, TN, and Lafayette, LA. Both services offer internet speeds of up to 1 gigabit per second — 10 to 100 times faster than what's available in most parts of the country — at relatively affordable prices. Some tech experts, like Susan Crawford, think municipal broadband systems should be massively expanded:
Click to expand...

Why do they want the little people to be at the mercy of companies like Comcast and Verizon, which will urinate on you and then tell you it's raining?
 
Puppycow said:
Why do they want the little people to be at the mercy of companies like Comcast and Verizon, which will urinate on you and then tell you it's raining?
Click to expand...

What else do you think trickle-down economics means?
 
Puppycow said:
Here's another link that might work:

Verizon caught throttling Netflix traffic even after its pays for more bandwidth

In other internet news, Republicans are against allowing municipal broadband:

The FCC wants to let cities build their own broadband. House Republicans disagree.



Why do they want the little people to be at the mercy of companies like Comcast and Verizon, which will urinate on you and then tell you it's raining?
Click to expand...

Comcast and Verizon long ago realized that Congressmen and Senators were a far better business investment than communications infrastructure.
 
Upchurch said:
Sorry for necromancing this thread, but they're still at it.



It's been nearly four years. Is anyone still unclear what Network Neutrality or why it is such a phenomenally bad idea for everyone who doesn't own an ISP?
Click to expand...

Uugh, I was linked to this thread to check out. Saw this video. Seriously, I am surprised I am not headed to a hospital with a hernia. What. The. ****.
 
bobtaftfan said:
Ok, let's get a few facts straight here.

One, "net neutrality" means the federal government would get to start regulating Internet access.

Two, some big Internet providers support NN because they hope to influence the regulations and profit therefrom.

Three, NN would stifle innovation on the web.

http://www.cato.org/blog/net-neutrality-unintended-consequences

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...lity-rules-still-a-threat-to-internet-freedom

http://www.cato.org/events/dangers-network-neutrality-regulation

My Internet bill has gone DOWN over the last several years, and I have a faster speed.

So, no, I don't see any burning need to let the federal government essentially take over Internet access.
Click to expand...

I am going to call it what it is: A big fat LIE. Especially what I bolded.

Either your internet bill went UP, or else you lost speed. (Or both.) No way has your bill gone down, AND your internet gained speed.

And even if I DO grant you that may be true for you, that is certainly false across the nation. It has been indisputably proven that speeds have been dropping, as prices are rising.
 
Network Neutrality = Government control of the Internet

The free market is a much better regulator of the Internet than the government.

And, I, too, have a faster speed than I did 5 years ago and am paying virtually the same price I was paying 5 years ago.

Is there ANYTHING liberals don't want the government to control? (Ah, yes, homosexual relations, pornography, and our border with Mexico!)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom