Net Neutrality?

[lordofthereef]

I disagree; they have a lot to do with QoS measures. QoS comes into play when Comcast decides that Netflix isn't going to be allowed the percentage of bandwidth it may use on their network and they implement a policy that holds Netflix streaming bandwidth back where the traffic enters their network, because Comcast sells their own VOD services and doesn't like the competition. This is just a hypothetical, but similar things have been said by AT&T and Verizon in the past, such as implicating that Google is somehow robbing their bandwidth when the people they already collect monthly service fees from use the bandwidth they paid for to reach Google.

It isn't all about pay walls, if that's what you're suggesting.

I don't necessrily disagree with you in principle, but have you seen how remarakably little bandwidth it takes to stream netflix? At max quality I can say with absolute certainty it is using far less than 1Mbit. If they are throttling something like netflix, they are definitely abusing their power. I can be doing plenty of things that hog many times the bandwidth of netflix on my home network and not have any issues.

I'd also like to ask, why provide the user with a certain speed, but then not allow us to use that speed consistently. There is a certain point at which a web page just won't load any faster. So are we suggesting allowing the user to pay for, say a 100Mbit line, but be able to stream nothing at its full potential? I ask you then, what's the point of paying for such speeds if we can't use them?

 

[lordofthereef]

So what about this: if Comcast (just because they have been mentioned throughout this thread) discovered that large numbers of people are downloading movies, perhaps some sort of restriction should be placed on those folks. Either increased costs or slowing down their speed. Can you tell me why this is wrong? Seems fair to me. You use more, you should pay the costs.

When you sign up for Comcast, what if their terms clearly state how much bandwidth you can consume? If you agree, then do they not have the right to charge you more if you exceed the level you contracted for? They darn well do have that right in my view. They have the right to stop your service for illegal activities, and they should have the right to charge heavy users heavier dollars. Is that fair?

If it is within the contract, they are within their right, certainly. I can't speak for comcast's contracts, but with mediacom where I am there is no such limit. That said, it shouldn't really matter WHAT you are downloading. If they give you a 20 gig cap for the month, they should have the right to limit you. They shouldn't have the right to say that this is 20 gigs OR any downloads which fall under the movies/music/media category. Why else would we be paying for 10,20,50+ Mbit lines? Most people aren;t running servers from their homes after all. Let's say I am not streaming, I am just downloading a large file. How will this file be governed. Are they going to be sniffing through all of the data coming across my network to try and decipher if it is a movie/media file, and if so, throttle me? At what point is this an invasion of privacy?

 

[Bob Maxey]

If it is within the contract, they are within their right, certainly. I can't speak for comcast's contracts, but with mediacom where I am there is no such limit. That said, it shouldn't really matter WHAT you are downloading. If they give you a 20 gig cap for the month, they should have the right to limit you. They shouldn't have the right to say that this is 20 gigs OR any downloads which fall under the movies/music/media category. Why else would we be paying for 10,20,50+ Mbit lines? Most people aren;t running servers from their homes after all. Let's say I am not streaming, I am just downloading a large file. How will this file be governed. Are they going to be sniffing through all of the data coming across my network to try and decipher if it is a movie/media file, and if so, throttle me? At what point is this an invasion of privacy?

I might agree with that. A limit is a limit and it should not matter if it is video or what. Unless it is in your agreement. Then Comcast would suffer when the public learns that you cant DL video or music using Comcast.

I am not sure if it is an invasion of privacy. That said, countless court cases (well many, perhaps) have ruled that personal email sent over a corporate network belongs not to the employee, but to the company.

They have a right to read those messages and track your use. Perhaps Comcast (and other providers) also have a right to keep a watchful eye. That is for another court case to decide.

Bob Maxey

 

[knivesout]

have you seen how remarakably little bandwidth it takes to stream netflix? At max quality I can say with absolute certainty it is using far less than 1Mbit.

Not that this is essential to the debate (as I'll point out shortly), but it is higher than 1mb/s:

Slide show | DSLReports.com, ISP Information

If they are throttling something like netflix, they are definitely abusing their power. I can be doing plenty of things that hog many times the bandwidth of netflix on my home network and not have any issues.

I'd also like to ask, why provide the user with a certain speed, but then not allow us to use that speed consistently. There is a certain point at which a web page just won't load any faster. So are we suggesting allowing the user to pay for, say a 100Mbit line, but be able to stream nothing at its full potential? I ask you then, what's the point of paying for such speeds if we can't use them?

It's always been that way, because there's never been enough WAN bandwidth on the Internet to support saturating every residential connection sold. Usage patterns are very useful. Everyone doesn't use the Internet at the same time, but there are times when many more of your users are using bandwidth, and you've got to have enough to allow everyone to have a decent experience at peak times, even if they aren't getting their full subscribed rate of speed (which they have clauses for).


Which gives us a good segue into the Netflix streaming argument. Sure, it doesn't saturate the subscribed bandwidth my ISP provides me with, but if a million of us are doing it all at once in an urban area, that's a lot of backbone bandwidth the ISP needs to keep everyone's Netflix stream chugging along at an acceptable rate, hopefully without buffering pauses. Enter the mind of a Comcast executive:

"I provide video services."
"I provide video-on-demand services."
"I sell movie rentals via VOD."
"Netflix provides VOD services for a monthly fee."
"People who use Netflix may not need to use my VOD services."
"I'm losing money to Netflix."

Now, let's turn it into a madlib:

"I provide ________ services."
"________ provides ________ services for a monthly fee."
"People who use ________ may not need to use my ________ services."
"I'm losing money to ________."

Providers/Services:
Vonage/VoIP
Skype/VoIP
PSN/VOD
XBOX Live/VOD
YouTube/VOD
Hulu/VOD
DirecTV/Sunday Ticket To-Go
Comedy Central/VOD

I could go on and on, but you get the point. There are two incentives for Comcast to limit bandwidth to any of the service providers external to Comcast you might patronize:

1) They're losing a potential sale to ________.
2) They're having to ramp up backbone bandwidth to support everyone's use of ________ service.

And a 3rd point, somewhat metabolized from both:

3) They're losing customers to next-generation providers permanently, unless they innovate or compete, which means expenditure.

Guess what kills both birds with one stone? Limiting bandwidth to services outside your network. Enter the mind of a manipulated consumer:

"Man, Netflix really sucks lately. The buffering never ends!"
"Huh, I guess I'll just keep my cable subscription. It's not viable to discontinue service with Comcast, because I can't rely on the other companies to provide me with reliable video feeds."

To me, this is in large part what Net Neutrality is about. Another (probably more important) factor in Net Neutrality is your 1st amendment right. Sure, you signed a contract, and the ISP can do what they want with your connection - but I believe that the necessity of access to the Internet in our era needs to be evaluated further, and perhaps this sounds extreme, but we need to have the right to it (not free, don't take it the wrong way), and it should be tacked on to our 1st amendment right to free speech. One only needs to look at what happened in Egypt to see how we've come to rely on the Internet.

 

[EarlyMon]

Content control is already easy with any technology.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

Content control is already easy with any technology.

Yes, but what I had read this gives them LEGAL content control, up to and including the ability to censor anything they want.

 

[EarlyMon]

Well - we should take it up in the Net Neutrality thread - Schmidt's keynote where he said content throttling was still net neutrality, as the same worn-out excuse for quality of service when it's not, made my blood boil - 'nuff said.

Anyway - here's what I want out of 4G: a world phone standard - and I want it on the Evo 2, even it means more multiple radios in the device.

This push for the ultra-slim handset when we could just have the radios we need to live outside the little box just gripes me.

 

[BlackDynamite]

Yes, but what I had read this gives them LEGAL content control, up to and including the ability to censor anything they want.

Content control is totally legal for wireless networks. The net neutrality rules the FCC imposed a while back gave wireless providers the ability to filter/tier/throttle content as they see fit. It doesn't matter if they are using Wimax or LTE.

 

[BlackDynamite]

Great thread. I read most of it before I couldn't resist anymore and just had to respond. Here are a few points...

1: What Comcast did has not gotten the attention it deserves. That should pretty much end this debate. Comcast was blocking/throttling/slowing/whatever bit torrent packets. They repeatedly lied and denied it until someone actually proved it. Why is this important? Because Directv On Demand uses a Bit Torrent technology to download their On Demand. Comcast was blatantly disrupting this service, while actively denying it, claiming their own On Demand was just that much better, and trying to switch all of their internet customers to their tv service.

2: The FCC stepped in and ordered Comcast to stop this blatant violation of net neutrality. Comcast sued the FCC, claiming they didn't have authority to tell Comcast to stop. They won their lawsuit. This is why the FCC started working on the net neutrality policy that we have today.

3: Wireless broadband should fall under the same rules as wired. If the free market doesn't want to play by those rules, then let the government handle this vital infrastructure. I'm quite positive it would never come to that.

4: There is a misconception about bandwidth, spectrum, throttling, etc. While yes, there is a finite amount of spectrum, no one single user has unlimited bandwidth. Sprint, for example, has their 4G capped at 10 meg downloads and 1 meg uploads. So if I am limited to 10 megs, what does it matter what I do with it? I should not be punished for Sprint over selling their service.

5: Another reason wireless should not be treated any differently from wired is it stifles innovation. There may be a finite amount of spectrum, but there are infinite ways on how that spectrum can be used. There are ways we have not even imagined yet that will get many more users on a tower, with way faster data speeds. If we give the wireless providers special treatment, they have no incentive to innovate and further the technology.

6: It's pretty lame that our national broadband plan is almost exclusively based on wireless, and we're abandoning net neutrality for wireless providers. If wireless is so precious that we can't afford to have net neutrality with it, then don't make it the main focus in our official plan for nationwide broadband access. Lay fiber all over the place and be done with it.

7: I agree that the infrastructure providers should not also be the retailers. In fact, I would even be happy to see the government compete. Lets see the feds roll out a nationwide fiber optic network, and a nationwide 4G network. Let them set the standard. All the private companies can compete against them. Then they can be as unregulated as they want (assuming the government owned services are all net neutral and available everywhere). We'd be guaranteed to have competition then so in an ironic twist, it would actually be a free market.

8: All you people who don't trust the government- how can you put more faith in these huge corporations? At least the government pretends to be acting in your best interest. Verizon makes no bones about it- they don't give a crap about you. They care about their bottom line, and that is it. They readily admit this. So how can you prefer them to be in charge of your vital infrastructure instead of the government that is sworn to be acting in your interest (and elected by you)?

 

[EarlyMon]

Bill Summary & Status - 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) - S.J.RES.6 - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

[cipher6]

Ok, I get all the arguments about companies trying to block access to rival companies content... that shouldn't happen. But what aggregates me about the net neutrality issues, is how often it becomes a, "I have the right to do anything" sounding issue.

I've never heard about DirectTV using torrent technology, but 9 times out of 10 when torrents and net neutrality come up, its someone that basically doesn't want to loose the ability to easily pirate movies and music.

4: There is a misconception about bandwidth, spectrum, throttling, etc. While yes, there is a finite amount of spectrum, no one single user has unlimited bandwidth. Sprint, for example, has their 4G capped at 10 meg downloads and 1 meg uploads. So if I am limited to 10 megs, what does it matter what I do with it? I should not be punished for Sprint over selling their service.

I see this like water or electricity or gas in your home. Yeah, your SPEED might be capped at 10mbs but running that 10mbs 24/7 puts more stain on the network than running 10mbs every once in a while. That strain creates cost, and I don't think someone who uses their connection once or twice a week should have to help absorb the cost of someone running it 24/7.

If companies want to charge heavy users more, (because they create more cost) they should be able to.

If an ISP has a bunch of torrent users pirating stuff, clogging the networks and making other peoples connection run slow, they should be able to throttle that traffic, to make things fair for everyone.

Now, with that, companies can do other things, to prevent their competitors from getting their content to people... that shouldn't be allowed.

I just hate it when 'net neutrality' becomes code for, 'you can't stop my torrents.'



Also, I'm a heavy torrent and LARGE data user, but I can also say whats fair is fair.

 

[BlackDynamite]

Ok, I get all the arguments about companies trying to block access to rival companies content... that shouldn't happen. But what aggregates me about the net neutrality issues, is how often it becomes a, "I have the right to do anything" sounding issue.

I've never heard about DirectTV using torrent technology, but 9 times out of 10 when torrents and net neutrality come up, its someone that basically doesn't want to loose the ability to easily pirate movies and music.



I see this like water or electricity or gas in your home. Yeah, your SPEED might be capped at 10mbs but running that 10mbs 24/7 puts more stain on the network than running 10mbs every once in a while. That strain creates cost, and I don't think someone who uses their connection once or twice a week should have to help absorb the cost of someone running it 24/7.

If companies want to charge heavy users more, (because they create more cost) they should be able to.

If an ISP has a bunch of torrent users pirating stuff, clogging the networks and making other peoples connection run slow, they should be able to throttle that traffic, to make things fair for everyone.

Now, with that, companies can do other things, to prevent their competitors from getting their content to people... that shouldn't be allowed.

I just hate it when 'net neutrality' becomes code for, 'you can't stop my torrents.'



Also, I'm a heavy torrent and LARGE data user, but I can also say whats fair is fair.

1: You hadn't heard that the main complaint against Comcast and their torrent filtering was Directv On Demand being blocked (and Comcast lying about it, thus making their users think it was an inferior service to their own On Demand)? Well have you at least heard about Comcast recently threatening to block Netflix?

2: It's not just torrent users who want to pirate stuff. There are plenty of legal services who use torrent technology. I already cited the Directv On Demand, but many companies use this same technology to get data to their employees. Even Microsoft uses it on Xbox Live. It's a very popular technology.

3: When Homeland Security shut down all those torrent sites just to keep them from distributing the wikileaks data, that was an example of where this is headed. That wasn't a bunch of pirates trying to download the latest movie. That was the government censoring information. Now just imagine if Comcast had legal authority to do that.

4: Remember a few years ago when Verizon was blocking the text messages of an abortion rights group? Whether you agree with abortion or not, it has to scare you that someone like Verizon is being legal authority to censor information.

5: If me using the bandwidth that I am sold and pay for actually hurts the network, then they either need to enhance their network or not over sell it. This mentality of "there is nothing we can do" is a bunch of bull. We have already come a long way since the first days of analog cellular service. Compare 4G to that and it's night and day. If they want to over sell the service, then they better be in the labs working out how to make use of it. Selling me a service and then saying I am not allowed to use it "for the good of the network" is ridiculous.

 

[EarlyMon]

If companies want to charge heavy users more, (because they create more cost) they should be able to.

I've not heard anyone on the pro-neutrality side argue otherwise.

Whether by total data over time, or by peak data usages, that's reasonable.

As soon as it ties to a protocol, then it has nothing to do with data rates.

Torrents may get legislated out of existence - the movement for that is already afoot.

You're accurate in your assessment that many of the unwashed-entitled are hiding behind neutrality's skirts to continue copyright infringement.

But it's equally accurate that the other side is using that for an excuse to let the camel stick his nose into the tent - and neither the protocol nor content camels belong in our tents.

Volume, or peak volume - sure. Throttling by user or by time of day or by lesser-built regions or by volume standards is reasonable and logically self-evident.

The moment protocols or content enters into it, it's no longer neutral to quality of service.

What's in a packet header, or what's in the bitstream in a packet, has nothing to do with volume or mass.

Schmidt said in his keynote that movies caused clogging, needing throttling, it's all still net neutrality.

Dead wrong. We're all not one iota stupid. We all know what causes data slow-downs. Except for the unwashed-entitled, we can all live with charges by usage and limits by contract - no need to pretend to need to educate us about movie downloads as an veiled excuse to do evil while claiming otherwise.

 

[cipher6]

You hadn't heard that the main complaint against Comcast and their torrent filtering was Directv On Demand being blocked (and Comcast lying about it, thus making their users think it was an inferior service to their own On Demand)?

Not much, got any links?

Well have you at least heard about Comcast recently threatening to block Netflix?

Yes, and its not as nefarious as you make it sound... some in the industry actually think Level 3 (netflix side) dosn't have much of an argument:

FCC looking into Comcast / Netflix blocking threat, Level 3 responds as analysts chime in -- Engadget

It's not just torrent users who want to pirate stuff. There are plenty of legal services who use torrent technology. I already cited the Directv On Demand, but many companies use this same technology to get data to their employees. Even Microsoft uses it on Xbox Live. It's a very popular technology.

Yes, but i'd say 80-90 % of that popularity is pirating.

3: When Homeland Security shut down all those torrent sites just to keep them from distributing the wikileaks data, that was an example of where this is headed. That wasn't a bunch of pirates trying to download the latest movie. That was the government censoring information. Now just imagine if Comcast had legal authority to do that.

You got some links? what sites did they shut down?

4: Remember a few years ago when Verizon was blocking the text messages of an abortion rights group? Whether you agree with abortion or not, it has to scare you that someone like Verizon is being legal authority to censor information.

Never heard that one either... and thats honestly getting harder to believe. What would a cell phone service provider care about censoring abortion messages? Got any source for that info?

5: If me using the bandwidth that I am sold and pay for actually hurts the network, then they either need to enhance their network or not over sell it

This is what really gets me. Enhancing their network costs money, since your high use is the source of their need to enhance the network, YOU should have to cover a higher cost, not grandma who maybe sends 2 emails a week.

I mean, if you use more water than your neighbor you pay more right? Would you say, if me leaving my hose on 24/7 uses up too much water, then they need to enhance their utility... NO, if your using more, and creating more costs that have to get passed on to someone... the one using the service more, creating the cost, should have to pay for it.
I have no idea how you think its fair one person can use 10-20 times more data than someone else, but everyone should share the cost.

I might agree with you on 1-4, if your reporting facts correctly, and its as cut and dry as you make it seem... but number 5 is what really pisses me off... and I'm a heavy data user. To think the cost incurred by a small amount of heavy users should be distributed to everyone is really a butthole position.... To me it seems nothing more than a selfish attempt to get others to give you something without paying for it.

 

[cipher6]

I've not heard anyone on the pro-neutrality side argue otherwise.

Whether by total data over time, or by peak data usages, that's reasonable.

refer to BlackDynamite's #5 above.

But it's equally accurate that the other side is using that for an excuse to let the camel stick his nose into the tent - and neither the protocol nor content camels belong in our tents.

Volume, or peak volume - sure. Throttling by user or by time of day or by lesser-built regions or by volume standards is reasonable and logically self-evident.

The moment protocols or content enters into it, it's no longer neutral to quality of service.

I can agree with that.

 

[byteware]

3: Wireless broadband should fall under the same rules as wired. If the free market doesn't want to play by those rules, then let the government handle this vital infrastructure. I'm quite positive it would never come to that.

Disagree, because of Number 4

4: There is a misconception about bandwidth, spectrum, throttling, etc. While yes, there is a finite amount of spectrum, no one single user has unlimited bandwidth. Sprint, for example, has their 4G capped at 10 meg downloads and 1 meg uploads. So if I am limited to 10 megs, what does it matter what I do with it? I should not be punished for Sprint over selling their service.

At some point there comes a time when the number of users doesn't allow you to each have 10 Mbs at the same time. Eventually, there will be so many users that you won't all be able to have 1 Mbs at the same time.

Say the spectrum will only support 10 Gbs at one time... (imaginary example number I pulled out of my arse).

After 1,024 people have started using their 10 Mbs at the same time, no one else CAN without reducing everyone's speed.

After 2,048 people are using it, the speed is down to 5 Mbps. After 10,240 people, it's 1 Mbps. After 20,480 people, it becomes 521 Kbps.

The more people using it, the slower it gets for EVERYBODY... now if you slow down MOVIES, and make that much much slower, then that huge data hog can free up bandwidth for people to get their email.

5: Another reason wireless should not be treated any differently from wired is it stifles innovation. There may be a finite amount of spectrum, but there are infinite ways on how that spectrum can be used. There are ways we have not even imagined yet that will get many more users on a tower, with way faster data speeds. If we give the wireless providers special treatment, they have no incentive to innovate and further the technology.

Here is where we disagree... Infinite ways to use a finite resource = problem that must be dealt with.

6: It's pretty lame that our national broadband plan is almost exclusively based on wireless, and we're abandoning net neutrality for wireless providers. If wireless is so precious that we can't afford to have net neutrality with it, then don't make it the main focus in our official plan for nationwide broadband access. Lay fiber all over the place and be done with it.

Unless we develop a technology that allows for much better use of our wireless bandwidth, then we don't really have much of a choice "LONG TERM".

8: All you people who don't trust the government- how can you put more faith in these huge corporations? At least the government pretends to be acting in your best interest. Verizon makes no bones about it- they don't give a crap about you. They care about their bottom line, and that is it. They readily admit this. So how can you prefer them to be in charge of your vital infrastructure instead of the government that is sworn to be acting in your interest (and elected by you)?

Verizon's bottom line involves keeping customers moderately happy. Enough unhappy people and Verizon will get a bad reputation. Then they will lose customers and then their bottom line will suffer. The Government (unfortunately) doesn't have the same incentive.

 

[byteware]

Ok, I get all the arguments about companies trying to block access to rival companies content... that shouldn't happen. But what aggregates me about the net neutrality issues, is how often it becomes a, "I have the right to do anything" sounding issue.

I've never heard about DirectTV using torrent technology, but 9 times out of 10 when torrents and net neutrality come up, its someone that basically doesn't want to loose the ability to easily pirate movies and music.



I see this like water or electricity or gas in your home. Yeah, your SPEED might be capped at 10mbs but running that 10mbs 24/7 puts more stain on the network than running 10mbs every once in a while. That strain creates cost, and I don't think someone who uses their connection once or twice a week should have to help absorb the cost of someone running it 24/7.

If companies want to charge heavy users more, (because they create more cost) they should be able to.

If an ISP has a bunch of torrent users pirating stuff, clogging the networks and making other peoples connection run slow, they should be able to throttle that traffic, to make things fair for everyone.

Now, with that, companies can do other things, to prevent their competitors from getting their content to people... that shouldn't be allowed.

I just hate it when 'net neutrality' becomes code for, 'you can't stop my torrents.'



Also, I'm a heavy torrent and LARGE data user, but I can also say whats fair is fair.

I absolutely agree with you IF (and here is the IF, and it's very very important).

They are selling you a block of data, instead of an internet connection. They are currently selling an internet connection, with a never achieved, but promised speed.

They aren't selling you a block of data.

It's like rent. You don't pay rent based upon how much you're home. And if you have roommates, you don't vary your rent based upon who's home the most that month.

If they want to move to a utility type of fee, that's fine. I don't like it, but that's fine. At least they are honest, but that is unacceptable the way that they are currently marketing their products.

 

[EarlyMon]

Referring to Homeland Security's DNS takedowns -

You got some links? what sites did they shut down?

Holy cow - srsly, you didn't hear about that???

OK - I'll handle that one. I've got mondo to do today, but I'll happily get back to you on this one - it was draconian.

Keeping an RSS open to slashdot.org is possibly a good idea if you'd like to keep abreast of some of this, by the way.

As for BlackDynamite's #5:

Another reason wireless should not be treated any differently from wired is it stifles innovation.

No, I can't refer to that to discuss my point and I'd prefer you didn't.

I've made clear, consistent statements backed by fact since joining this thread and with an eye to educate on what net neutrality is and is not.

I made a statement of fact with regard to legal supporters of net neutrality - I can't be held accountable for opinions of others who agree with the overall position.

When I said no one reasonable believes that net neutrality ought mean that volume or mass need not enter neutrality equations, I meant it.

I also meant it that volume and mass are quality of service issues and pricing issues and not neutrality issues.

I meant it many posts ago when I said that wireless and wired ought be treated the same: neutrally. That _never_ meant that the same contractual issues or volume / mass inflections points need be the same between the two technologies -- only that equivalencies exist. Wired isn't magical and neither is fiber - pipes are limited, content is distributed, and operating costs exist.

None of it has one iota to do with what a packet header says nor has anything to do with the content in the bitstream.

Streaming and torrenting are being propped up as valid issues - and they're absolutely not.

Streaming exists because no one's put the right thought into buffering with content protection. These same bozos that decided to slather DRM over everything, then fear a temporary buffer being cracked are the same ones that advertised to the uneducated that the fantasy of everyone everywhere being able to push a button and watch video on demand, immediately, instantly, with HD quality is a reality.

It's not a reality. In network terms and technology, that instant on-demand nonsense is the equivalent of perpetual motion - it can never happen.

But - holding that it somehow is reality, those same bozos are now successfully conspiring to warp the neutrality discussion as their shortcomings are something we ought be sympathetic to.

I'm not having any.

These guys want to deliver bulk content like video - figure out a system that works, and advertise it truthfully.

Industry: don't hind behind your own lies and tell us to believe that actions against protocols or content is in any way neutral - some of us know better.

cipher6 - my position is now clarified?

 

[cipher6]

I absolutely agree with you IF (and here is the IF, and it's very very important).

They are selling you a block of data, instead of an internet connection. They are currently selling an internet connection, with a never achieved, but promised speed.

They aren't selling you a block of data.

It's like rent. You don't pay rent based upon how much you're home. And if you have roommates, you don't vary your rent based upon who's home the most that month.

If they want to move to a utility type of fee, that's fine. I don't like it, but that's fine. At least they are honest, but that is unacceptable the way that they are currently marketing their products.

As I understand it, some elements within the neutrality proposals would prevent them from charging utility like fees.

 

[cipher6]

cipher6 - my position is now clarified?

I think so... your saying service providers should be free to deal with traffic on their networks in a way that works, as long as its not protocol based? From what little I know about the issue that seems fair.

 

[byteware]

As I understand it, some elements within the neutrality proposals would prevent them from charging utility like fees.

Not at all.

Look at it this way... When your water company provides you water... they PAY for that water.

What companies would really LIKE to happen is this...

You are paying a company to provide you with "water". We'll call this company NetFluidX.

You pay the water company to have access to the waterways to get your water from NetFluidX.

The water company gives you access, but won't allow NetFluidX to send you the water, unless NetFluidX pays them for their ability to do so...

So, since you can't get access to NetFluidX's water, you cancel your monthly subscription and are forced to purchase a subscription from the water company on top of the fee you are already paying to have access to the water ways.

 

[BlackDynamite]

Not much, got any links?



Yes, and its not as nefarious as you make it sound... some in the industry actually think Level 3 (netflix side) dosn't have much of an argument:

FCC looking into Comcast / Netflix blocking threat, Level 3 responds as analysts chime in -- Engadget






Yes, but i'd say 80-90 % of that popularity is pirating.





You got some links? what sites did they shut down?



Never heard that one either... and thats honestly getting harder to believe. What would a cell phone service provider care about censoring abortion messages? Got any source for that info?




This is what really gets me. Enhancing their network costs money, since your high use is the source of their need to enhance the network, YOU should have to cover a higher cost, not grandma who maybe sends 2 emails a week.

I mean, if you use more water than your neighbor you pay more right? Would you say, if me leaving my hose on 24/7 uses up too much water, then they need to enhance their utility... NO, if your using more, and creating more costs that have to get passed on to someone... the one using the service more, creating the cost, should have to pay for it.
I have no idea how you think its fair one person can use 10-20 times more data than someone else, but everyone should share the cost.

I might agree with you on 1-4, if your reporting facts correctly, and its as cut and dry as you make it seem... but number 5 is what really pisses me off... and I'm a heavy data user. To think the cost incurred by a small amount of heavy users should be distributed to everyone is really a butthole position.... To me it seems nothing more than a selfish attempt to get others to give you something without paying for it.

1: There were many reports of Directv On Demand not working correctly on Comcast a few years ago. Here is one such complaint (posted in a Comcast forum, with the expected Comcast fanboys defending the service):
[Speed] Comcast throttling DirecTV On Demand? - Comcast HSI | DSLReports Forums

2: Some in the industry may not have thought they had an argument, but under the new net neutrality rules Comcast would not be allowed to block Level 3. So those that thought they didn't have an argument have already been proven wrong.

3: You think 80-90% is pirating, but you're wrong. By your own admittance, you had never heard about the Directv On Demand issues. And I know for a fact my job (which is a fortune 100 company with over 60,000 employees) uses bit torrent technology every day to distribute all kinds of files to employees. This is common at most businesses that have to distribute files, by the way.

4: Homeland security seized 70+ torrent websites right before the wikileaks was going to be released:
Homeland Security Seizes 70+ Websites for Copyright Violations

5: Verizon blocked pro abortion group text messages:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/27verizon.html

6: I have no problem paying more for higher usage. Where did you ever get the idea that I was against it? I have no problem with AT&T offering a 200 MB plan for cheaper than their 2 GB plan. My problem is when you start filtering my data/content. If Verizon wants to charge the little old lady who only uses the net for email once a month just as much as they are charging a heavy user, then don't blame the heavy user (and start filtering his content) when that business model fails.

 

[BlackDynamite]

Disagree, because of Number 4



At some point there comes a time when the number of users doesn't allow you to each have 10 Mbs at the same time. Eventually, there will be so many users that you won't all be able to have 1 Mbs at the same time.

Say the spectrum will only support 10 Gbs at one time... (imaginary example number I pulled out of my arse).

After 1,024 people have started using their 10 Mbs at the same time, no one else CAN without reducing everyone's speed.

After 2,048 people are using it, the speed is down to 5 Mbps. After 10,240 people, it's 1 Mbps. After 20,480 people, it becomes 521 Kbps.

The more people using it, the slower it gets for EVERYBODY... now if you slow down MOVIES, and make that much much slower, then that huge data hog can free up bandwidth for people to get their email.



Here is where we disagree... Infinite ways to use a finite resource = problem that must be dealt with.



Unless we develop a technology that allows for much better use of our wireless bandwidth, then we don't really have much of a choice "LONG TERM".



Verizon's bottom line involves keeping customers moderately happy. Enough unhappy people and Verizon will get a bad reputation. Then they will lose customers and then their bottom line will suffer. The Government (unfortunately) doesn't have the same incentive.

1: Slowing down movies is not the answer. If everyone's data is slow, so be it. The free market will win out and people will move to other providers that aren't slow. Providers will be forced to keep their networks up to date in order to prevent this from happening. AT&T went years without upgrading their network. So did T-Mobile. Forcing these providers to adhere to net neutrality would not only force them to keep their networks up to day (which allows for more users at higher speeds) but it also forces them to develop better technologies (which allows for more users at higher speeds). Your whole argument that "there is a limit to how many people can be on the network using a certain amount of bandwidth" is flawed. How so? Because it assumes the data usage will grow and the wireless technology will never improve. I already gave the example of comparing today's 4G mobile networks to the analog networks of 1993. If the providers keep innovating and improving the technology, then the numbers you cited are obsolete.

2: Infinite ways to use a finite resource also means the finite resource can support more and more users and data. There are better ways to stretch that finite resource that have not been discovered yet. And there are technologies to replace that finite resource that have not been discovered yet.

3: We will never develop a technology that makes better use of our wireless bandwidth if we allow the providers to limit what we do with it, instead of forcing them to innovate and improve it. Can you imagine what would have happened if the government would have let AT&T keep their landline network locked down? No broadband internet, no fax machines, no dial up internet, etc. Once the copper lines didn't have the required bandwidth, there was innovatio and now we have fiber optic lines. Same thing with the wireless networks. Once the old analog service wasn't good enough, there was innovation and today we have 4G service. That doesn't mean 4G is the end of the line (which is what you seem to be assuming).

4: Verizon is not at all concerned with keeping customers happy. They are concerned with keeping shareholders happy. They lock customers into contracts so they get paid whether you are happy or not. All they care about is getting you to initially choose them. Once you have a Verizon phone (which can only be used on their network) they could care less if you are happy or not.

 

[EarlyMon]

I think so... your saying service providers should be free to deal with traffic on their networks in a way that works, as long as its not protocol based? From what little I know about the issue that seems fair.

You're almost home - yes, in a way that's neither protocol nor content based.

And it is incredibly fair and simple isn't it?

Everything else on net neutrality is FUD - and it's been successful FUD. Sadly, smart people are buying trees instead of avoid a very bad forest.

Here's a history story to show what the real truth is today:

Once upon a time we had the internet.

And we also had AOL and CompuServe. AOL and CompuServe were their own private networks. Many with those services actually believed they were on the internet when they were not - because the service providers lied to people in their advertising, overtly and implied.

One day, CompuServe first and AOL second opened portals to the actual internet. And those portal usages cost extra.

Many of their users came screaming in telling us to follow AOL rules. Those rules were in place to protect the AOL network so we better comply!

Forum rules prohibit me from reminding what we explained the letters AOL meant back then.

Those users quickly settled down, learned what the internet truly was, what its true costs were - and those private-network services died.

Today - we have the internet.

Now - we have network providers that want people to believe that broadband has new and unique problems and that they have a solution - to control that for us, based upon who we buy from. They're calling the targeted end result the internet. It will have an extra-cost portal to get to that "outside" internet. It will have special rules, to protect the network.

Now - does it sound familiar???

These nefarious moves by the various neutrality enemies are jockeying to take us back to the dark ages, with various networks that are essentially private with internet portals.

But this time - they're trying to legislate it.

Dial-up, DSL, or moonbeams from outer space for all I care - you get to charge and you get to control based on volume and mass with respect to your infrastructure.

Anything involving protocols or content is not neutral and not fair.

Unless you want to advertise the truth and let people decide what they want, as in: Hi! We're the new AOL and if you hated it before, you'll love it today!

FUD, compadre - pure, unadulterated FUD.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

Content control is totally legal for wireless networks. The net neutrality rules the FCC imposed a while back gave wireless providers the ability to filter/tier/throttle content as they see fit. It doesn't matter if they are using Wimax or LTE.

I can understand throttling and tiering to an extent, but filtering amounts to censorship, yet another example that we are slowly waking up in a socialist country. If the American Sheeple don't snap out of it soon you might as well change the name to "The Peoples Republic of America".