Wave goodbye to Internet freedom

[elbe]

Thankfully, it's dead on arrival

You do know that network neutrality has been the status quo so far, right? The legislation is just looking to prevent ISPs from screwing up a good thing - which they're really good at. They aren't interested in providing the best product to the consumer, they're interested in increasing their profits.

ETA: If I'd read further I would have seen the Ayn Rand stuff. I mean, if you're not going to take this seriously...

 

[Newtons Bit]

Then fix that problem, not something else. As above. As other countries--most typically more socialist than the US--have done.

How do we do that? In the US, the last-mile connection of broadband is owned by the cable company or the phone company. And those are the only two real broadband connections available. Should the State nationalize that infrastructure?

 

[Upchurch]

This contradicts what you claimed it was in post 103 (where you said it was regulation to compel cable owners to allow other ISPs to use the cables),

You misunderstood what I said and jumped to incorrect conclusions. What I meant was that network neutrality would prevent ISPs from taking unfair business advantage of their mono/duopolies.

and it is a softening of what you said it was in post 47 (where you thought NN regulated against content tiering):

Now is your turn to clarify. How does anything I said suggest that network neutrality wouldn't prevent content tiering?

Especially as you appear to have tacitly admitted that you only want these laws to supposedly "correct" for bad competition policy in your telco sector (post 74). Perhaps you can confirm this.

What I said was:

Woulda, shoulda, coulda. It's true that network infrastructure developed differently in the US than in the UK. It is to be expected, even, given that each place had its own challenges. Unless you have a nuclear-powered Delorean that can take us back in time 14+ years, there is nothing that can change that. The fact is that we are here and now and must address the current state of affairs.

I didn't say how network infrastructure in the US was a mistake. I said it was different from how it developed in the UK because they had different challenges. Different from the UK does not mean it is a mistake, just different.

Now, what decent argument do you have for what you're proposing?

The very best argument for preventing content tiering, in my opinion, is that content tiering absolutely stifles innovation and creates a much higher barrier to entry for new companies.

For example, if some comp sci major comes up with a great alternative to, let's say, YouTube, how many people would use it if it loaded half as fast as YouTube because Google can afford to a video surcharge to Comcast and At&T and Verizon, etc.?

Then you don't need an ISP at all do you? You can make a file of 1s and 0s and just rearrange it how you like.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. It certainly doesn't address your gas metaphor, which proves my point nicely. If data were like air and the internet is like the currents that move the data around, then you will note that currents don't differentiate between the elements that compose it. It doesn't care that it is 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen or 75% nitrogen and 25% oxygen.

Likewise, why should ISPs care that these bits represent a video and those bits represent a game?

 

[elbe]

Likewise, why should ISPs care that these bits represent a video and those bits represent a game?

They do, actually, at least to some degree. Different applications can require different types of reliability. A normal website can deal with packet loss without too much trouble, it just fetches the data again, but streaming data (like, say, an MMO) wants a more consistent stream. Sure, it can request data again - and does - but then it affects the end user if the game is "lagging" which can affect the profitability of the product.

So it's not just quantity that's at issue, it's quality.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I can't believe that those of us who understand what Net Neutrality and are trying to defend the legislation are having to present real world examples of it's application over and over, but here's another that might, possibly, if they think about it for a second, placate the wingnuts who think it's an Internet version of the Fairness Doctrine...

Comcast is currently in the process of buying NBC - including MSNBC. Comcast is an ISP as well as being a cable provider. Comcast decides it likes MSNBC's liberal oeuvre so it dedicates bandwidth to MSNBC downloads, but restricts download speeds of Foxnews or any site like Pajamasmedia, Freerepublic, etc.

Would that be "the market in action" or would that be something that would warrent legislation ensuring fairness to access - which is what this whole bill is about? Forget the trangental issues of providers, sources, general questions of content and let's get down to the brass tacks of what the legislation is actually addressing. How would you feel if an ISP decided it didn't like the political content of Fox, et. al. and enactd restrictions on the download bandwidth of those sites while allowing full bandwidth access to MSNBC, huffingtonpost and democraticunderground?

 

[rwguinn]

Where would all this cable be laid in Libertopia?

Under the ground?

The easements are not owned by the company that owns the infrastructure. If Comcast doesn't get regulated, then I can dig up their infrastructure that runs through my backyard.

Not if it isn't on their property, or isn't their cords.



Under ground.

So, exactly how are they going to get that cable underground if I decide that I don't want people watching that nasty pornography stuff that is all the internet is about?
I am not letting them put the line through my property!

 

[WildCat]

So, exactly how are they going to get that cable underground if I decide that I don't want people watching that nasty pornography stuff that is all the internet is about?
I am not letting them put the line through my property!

TFian assures me there's a free market solution to this problem... I'm sure he'll get back here shortly to illustrate one such solution.

 

[Francesca R]

How do we do that? In the US, the last-mile connection of broadband is owned by the cable company or the phone company. And those are the only two real broadband connections available. Should the State nationalize that infrastructure?

Gee, I wonder how any other country has ever done it?? Yes it must be beyond the wit of humankind. Just like universal health insurance.

Hint: Go back and check the PDF I linked in post 54.

Another hint: You seem to know how federal regulators would impose service requirements on incumbent ISPs in the US already (in order to favour your network neutrality preference). It's not so different from that, just less competition/innovation stifling.

 

[Francesca R]

How does anything I said suggest that network neutrality wouldn't prevent content tiering?

I got that from your allusion to video from one source and another in post 105, as though you recognised that speed-sucking streaming content was not "network neutral" with respect to, say, e-mail traffic (and thus, content that can be validly tiered, and which would be a market distortion not to tier)

I didn't say how network infrastructure in the US was a mistake. I said it was different from how it developed in the UK because they had different challenges. Different from the UK does not mean it is a mistake, just different.

It is a mistake. You disagree now?

The very best argument for preventing content tiering, in my opinion, is that content tiering absolutely stifles innovation and creates a much higher barrier to entry for new companies.

Except you have not shown this to be true. Market power of an ISP is what can do that.

Likewise, why should ISPs care that these bits represent a video and those bits represent a game?

Because (i) the customer and (ii) the content provider both care.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Gee, I wonder how any other country has ever done it?? Yes it must be beyond the wit of humankind. Just like universal health insurance.

Hint: Go back and check the PDF I linked in post 54.

Another hint: You seem to know how federal regulators would impose service requirements on incumbent ISPs in the US already (in order to favour your network neutrality preference). It's not so different from that, just less competition/innovation stifling.

I'm not going to do the research for you. Either provide a page number of don't reply. How hard is it to actually back up a position when called on it?

 

[WildCat]

I got that from your allusion to video from one source and another in post 105, as though you recognised that speed-sucking streaming content was not "network neutral" with respect to, say, e-mail traffic (and thus, content that can be validly tiered, and which would be a market distortion not to tier)

It is a mistake. You disagree now?

Except you have not shown this to be true. Market power of an ISP is what can do that.

Because (i) the customer and (ii) the content provider both care.

You seem to be confusing tiered service with network neutrality.

 

[Francesca R]

Nope. Tiered service (which includes content by type) was exactly what I said "there were decent reasons for" and is what I was challenged on.

 

[Francesca R]

I'm not going to do the research for you. Either provide a page number of don't reply. How hard is it to actually back up a position when called on it?

I have done the research and supported the position. If you are too idle to read it you're on your own.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I have done the research and supported the position. If you are too idle to read it you're on your own.

I'm not going to read 68 pages of garbage to find whatever sentence you're referring to. If you have a position, SAY IT.

 

[Nosi]

So is slavery, loan sharking, and unsafe working conditions.

Capitalism for capitalism's sake isn't a convincing argument.

Note the "" in my comment. That indicates I do not approve of this argument. "Arguments for content tiering are from an ISP's point of view: Youtube's streaming video eats bandwidth like a cow eats your lawn. Walmart.com doesn't eat so much bandwidth, especially if your ISP blocks the flash or other bling on the bottom tier. Middle tiers may allow flash or bling on buying sites."

I was speaking from an ISP's point of view. Some of them have delusions of being the Robber Baron of old, so of course they like the idea of squeezing more out of the costumer if they can.

You would note that my personal opinion (and my wallet's) are above the ISP's and the capitalist's. I was responding to a poster who was asking for confirmation of understanding on what net neutrality is.

The responsible answer from the ISP's to the cows/modems eating grass/bandwidth that they paid for is to put aside a portion of business budget for laying down more fiber so the cows won't need to go hungry and not oversell their bandwidth in the first place.

 

[Upchurch]

I have done the research and supported the position.

Supported with evidence that we have both agreed makes assumptions that are not applicable in the US.

 

[Upchurch]

I got that from your allusion to video from one source and another in post 105, as though you recognised that speed-sucking streaming content was not "network neutral" with respect to, say, e-mail traffic (and thus, content that can be validly tiered, and which would be a market distortion not to tier)

An incorrect inference on your part.

It is a mistake. You disagree now?

I disagreed then and now. "Mistake" implies that it was the wrong solution, period. It was probably the best solution for the needs at the time. It was not the best solution for this particular situation. That doesn't mean it was a mistake, just a different situation.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/29/...ations-square-off-over-video-streaming/Except you have not shown this to be true. Market power of an ISP is what can do that. [/quote]
I don't know why you insist on denying evidence that has been provided throughout this thread. It is intellectually dishonest.

Because (i) the customer and (ii) the content provider both care.

Evidence?

 

[Upchurch]

Note the "" in my comment. That indicates I do not approve of this argument.

Fair enough. My apologies.

However, I stand by my response to that argument.

 

[TFian]

You do know that network neutrality has been the status quo so far, right?

Then there should be no reason to legislate it.

The legislation is just looking to prevent ISPs from screwing up a good thing - which they're really good at.

You mean the government right? They screw up everything they touch. You want the Internet to be like the DMV?

ETA: If I'd read further I would have seen the Ayn Rand stuff. I mean, if you're not going to take this seriously...

It's a shame she goes way above your head. She really had it all right.

 

[Upchurch]

Then there should be no reason to legislate it.

Except that Comcast and Verizon, for example, are attempting to change the status quo. It is not in the ISPs' best interest to work in the best interest of their customers.

You mean the government right? They screw up everything they touch. You want the Internet to be like the DMV?

Or the military? or freeing the slaves? or giving the vote to women?