Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21
  1.    #1  
    So I read this article and it looks like a good idea:

    FCC "Net Neutrality" Rules Are A Win For Consumers: FCC "Net Neutrality" Rules Are A Win For Consumers - Business Center - PC World

    Then I read the next article and Republican are trying to block it. Senate Republicans Aim to Stop FCC's Open Internet Proposal: Senate Republicans Aim to Stop FCC's Open Internet Proposal - WSJ.com
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  2. #2  
    Then again those people who are downloading are #@#$*& the system, only so much information can flow thru internet channels.
    Thus the defacto solution is slowing down the internet.

    Too bad the second link is a subscriber link, but I suppose I can imagine what those Republicans are asking or proposing or blocking.
  3.    #3  
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by philpalm View Post
    Then again those people who are downloading are #@#$*& the system, only so much information can flow thru internet channels.
    Thus the defacto solution is slowing down the internet.
    My feelings as well. I don't want the carriers and ISPs acting as gatekeepers but at the same time I don't want to subsidize gamers and BitTorrent users.

    What I'd like to see is a progressive price scheme, a formula that maintains a flat fee for most, doesn't discriminate against anything in particular but charges those 5% at the top.
    Palm Vx > Treo 650 > Centro > G1 > Pre > BlackBerry 9700
  5. #5  
    The more innocent proponents of net "neutrality" support it for the gimme-gimme factor: they're heavy bandwidth users who want to be subsidized by masses who don't use so much bandwidth.

    The less innocent politicians support it, like with everything else, because it means another set of decisions they get to make for people, another revenue source, another Bureau or Ministry or Czar, and another layer of control.

    The fact of the matter is there's no free lunch and instead of giving everybody awesome service for super cheap it will simply push us more toward the lowest common denominator. Net "neutrality" is the equivalent of banning the ability to buy overnight, 2nd day, or 3rd day shipping because all mail "deserves" to be treated equally, and hoping that as a result everybody's mail will magically be able to get there overnight. Naturally you'd just end up with everything taking a week.

    The reason a T1 line seems pricy is not for the modest bandwidth, but the fact that it's guaranteed, as opposed to cable that might be 6mb now and 512k with everyone on it. Certain applications need a guaranteed traffic channel because there can't be a packet delay. Email can be sent in whatever discreet units you want; real-time content cannot.

    When you have gov't step in and remove the ability to prioritize, that means when you're playing a game or trying to stream a high definition movie (or any number of future services that haven't been developed yet), the neighborhood's email packets will be fighting you for instantaneous delivery if the network gets busy.

    So now instead of adding a few hundred ms of latency to my email, your movie lags to the point of being unwatchable. Multiply that tenfold for the mobile networks. OR we could just keep the politicians from digging their claws even deeper into yet another area they have no business interfering in.
  6. #6  
    Well, on the other hand, I sure don't want AT&T deciding which new protocol they will sanction or reject. If ISPs had a say of what's running on their network we'd be in the stone ages. Look at wireless carriers until just recently. I sure don't want that kind of network. AT&T is dying to start charging for Skype phone calls.

    Being dictated to by government or big corporations makes little difference.
    Palm Vx > Treo 650 > Centro > G1 > Pre > BlackBerry 9700
  7. #7  
    Well guess you can delete my thread!
  8. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by jaguar717 View Post
    The more innocent proponents of net "neutrality" support it for the gimme-gimme factor: they're heavy bandwidth users who want to be subsidized by masses who don't use so much bandwidth.

    The less innocent politicians support it, like with everything else, because it means another set of decisions they get to make for people, another revenue source, another Bureau or Ministry or Czar, and another layer of control.

    The fact of the matter is there's no free lunch and instead of giving everybody awesome service for super cheap it will simply push us more toward the lowest common denominator. Net "neutrality" is the equivalent of banning the ability to buy overnight, 2nd day, or 3rd day shipping because all mail "deserves" to be treated equally, and hoping that as a result everybody's mail will magically be able to get there overnight. Naturally you'd just end up with everything taking a week.

    The reason a T1 line seems pricy is not for the modest bandwidth, but the fact that it's guaranteed, as opposed to cable that might be 6mb now and 512k with everyone on it. Certain applications need a guaranteed traffic channel because there can't be a packet delay. Email can be sent in whatever discreet units you want; real-time content cannot.

    When you have gov't step in and remove the ability to prioritize, that means when you're playing a game or trying to stream a high definition movie (or any number of future services that haven't been developed yet), the neighborhood's email packets will be fighting you for instantaneous delivery if the network gets busy.

    So now instead of adding a few hundred ms of latency to my email, your movie lags to the point of being unwatchable. Multiply that tenfold for the mobile networks. OR we could just keep the politicians from digging their claws even deeper into yet another area they have no business interfering in.
    Good points.

    Net Neutrality sounds good on the surface but when you get into the details, it appears it actually stifles competition in the wireless market. Also, I'm surprised so many people actually want internet regulations. I guess the "gimme gimme factor" is pretty strong indeed.
  9. #9  
    Well we have entered the Age of Entitlement.

    I'm just amazed so many people can so easily say "sure, let the politicians take that over too" because they think they're going to get a handout out of it. How many times in the past has that worked out?
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    So I read this article and it looks like a good idea:

    FCC "Net Neutrality" Rules Are A Win For Consumers: FCC "Net Neutrality" Rules Are A Win For Consumers - Business Center - PC World

    Then I read the next article and Republican are trying to block it. Senate Republicans Aim to Stop FCC's Open Internet Proposal: Senate Republicans Aim to Stop FCC's Open Internet Proposal - WSJ.com
    If you could choose and use any access provider, based on your location, then I'd be against this bill. I normally would want the government to stay out of businesses business, and I would just choose the company with the specific services I wanted. Very similar to the cell carriers - I have a choice, and the gov has no business telling Sprint what they can or cannot offer.

    But because cable companies have territories they dominate, most likely you're stuck with just one choice in your area. In my case, it's Time Warner. When I was in Florida, it was Comcast. In this case, I prefer a level playing field.... I'm in fact, forced to go against my normal principles.... what a paradox.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  11.    #11  
    I think it's because the wireless carriers are doing their best to block VOIP (voice over IP) applications, like Google voice and Skype. When you use VOIP, you don't use any of your minutes, just your data connection. VOIP is the future.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  12. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    But because cable companies have territories they dominate, most likely you're stuck with just one choice in your area. In my case, it's Time Warner. When I was in Florida, it was Comcast. In this case, I prefer a level playing field.... I'm in fact, forced to go against my normal principles.... what a paradox.
    I don't think you have to be. This bill is not the only thing that can be done to break up regional monopolies.
  13. #13  
    So the solution to failings caused by government (utility-style government-backed monopoly-that-isn't-technically-a-monopoly) is more government?

    How about go the other way for once, and instead of giving them more control over the internet, work on rolling back the initial problem? Drop the barriers to entry and let any provider, large or small, compete with Comcast (or whomever)?

    The politicians just want the same stagnant, locked-down approach. "You live in Chicago, well TV is provided by Comcast and that's just how it is, always has been so don't question it. Oh hey, now we have to set prices so that it's 'fair', and take our cut with 10 different fees!" Cut out the restrictions and the interference, and let companies compete while people vote with their wallets.
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by jaguar717 View Post
    So the solution to failings caused by government (utility-style government-backed monopoly-that-isn't-technically-a-monopoly) is more government?

    How about go the other way for once, and instead of giving them more control over the internet, work on rolling back the initial problem? Drop the barriers to entry and let any provider, large or small, compete with Comcast (or whomever)?

    The politicians just want the same stagnant, locked-down approach. "You live in Chicago, well TV is provided by Comcast and that's just how it is, always has been so don't question it. Oh hey, now we have to set prices so that it's 'fair', and take our cut with 10 different fees!" Cut out the restrictions and the interference, and let companies compete while people vote with their wallets.
    I guess its more complicated because the cable companies actually own the miles of wire in the ground. You can't just move in and "compete", like you could with the radio and cellular where you can just stick up a few towers.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15.    #15  
    It's funny, the city I live in had major problems with Comcast a few years back. Their cable internet would be as slow as a 56K modem in the evening. I finally switched to a DSL line. At least once every other month my cable TV would get incorrectly disconnected by a technician and I would be without cable for a couple of days. Their new installations to houses looked terrible with coax ran on the outside of houses.

    The city decided to bring in another cable company to compete with Comcast. They laid all new backbone wiring and people starting switching over to them. At that point, Comcast started offering free cable for 3 months to switch back and I think it got as high as free cable for 6 months on a one year contract.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    It's funny, the city I live in had major problems with Comcast a few years back. Their cable internet would be as slow as a 56K modem in the evening. I finally switched to a DSL line. At least once every other month my cable TV would get incorrectly disconnected by a technician and I would be without cable for a couple of days. Their new installations to houses looked terrible with coax ran on the outside of houses.

    The city decided to bring in another cable company to compete with Comcast. They laid all new backbone wiring and people starting switching over to them. At that point, Comcast started offering free cable for 3 months to switch back and I think it got as high as free cable for 6 months on a one year contract.
    .... and I bet they didn't "cut" any services once they had to compete.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. #17  
    Net neutrality is not a gimme gimme concept. It's a gimme what I pay for concept. If I pay my cell phone carrier or ISP for unlimited data, they should give me unlimited data, not data of the type that we deign to allow you to transmit up to an undisclosed bandwidth cap. If you're not going to give me unlimited data, don't tell me you're giving me unlimited data.

    An open letter to the enemies of Net neutrality | Networking - InfoWorld
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    It's funny, the city I live in had major problems with Comcast a few years back. Their cable internet would be as slow as a 56K modem in the evening. I finally switched to a DSL line. At least once every other month my cable TV would get incorrectly disconnected by a technician and I would be without cable for a couple of days. Their new installations to houses looked terrible with coax ran on the outside of houses.

    The city decided to bring in another cable company to compete with Comcast. They laid all new backbone wiring and people starting switching over to them. At that point, Comcast started offering free cable for 3 months to switch back and I think it got as high as free cable for 6 months on a one year contract.

    Competition works!

    Comcast is awful. I had their cable service and cable would drop almost on a daily basis. Granted, this was years ago but still, service was horrible. Went to Dish Network several years ago and have never had a problem.
  19. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Net neutrality is not a gimme gimme concept. It's a gimme what I pay for concept. If I pay my cell phone carrier or ISP for unlimited data, they should give me unlimited data, not data of the type that we deign to allow you to transmit up to an undisclosed bandwidth cap. If you're not going to give me unlimited data, don't tell me you're giving me unlimited data.

    An open letter to the enemies of Net neutrality | Networking - InfoWorld
    As far as I know, net neutrality is not about data limits but about preferential treatment for certain types of data and from certain applications. Am I wrong on that?
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    As far as I know, net neutrality is not about data limits but about preferential treatment for certain types of data and from certain applications. Am I wrong on that?
    Not exactly. It's about discriminatory treatment for certain types of data. IOW, if I pay my cell provider/ISP for unlimited data, Net Neutrality would require them to give me unlimited data no matter what type of traffic that data may be. Without Net Neutrality, they could discriminate against certain types of data (e.g. VoIP) even if my usage did not otherwise violate my ToS. It's not about data limits. It's about discriminating against certain types of traffic even if it's within the limits of what I pay for.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions