Net neutrality finished in the United States?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: You know what's funny? The only people I've experienced arguing against Net Neutrality and against "Freedom Online" happen to be Republicans. I've yet to meet any "Useless Euros or US Liberals" who want to curtail your internet freedom. In fact, they're the ones who want to ensure that no one violates your freedom.com. There's more to freedom than being allowed to spend your money exactly how you want it. Like for example rules which prevent you from stepping on other people's rights. Thank you for all that groundless racism/nationalism. How about an apology?

Not likely. And from what I can tell "Net Neutrality" does NOT equal "Freedom Online." That's the whole problem here. The spinsters are spinning this on both sides.

I ain't no Republican, and I argue FOR net freedom and AGAINST rules making us treat all trash on the net equally and preventing us from paying for better or preferred net access.

Now I don't deny that Shamrock pointed out some concerns in the US and Canada where internet providers had acted like tools. I trust that the market is better to control that type of behavior than some bureauon.

And if you don't like my disdain for the European Socialist governments and their command-and-control style, then.... um... move?

[ 06-14-2006, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[PurpleXVI]

Not likely. And from what I can tell "Net Neutrality" does NOT equal "Freedom Online." That's the whole problem here. The spinsters are spinning this on both sides. I ain't no Republican, and I argue FOR net freedom and AGAINST rules making us treat all trash on the net equally and preventing us from paying for better or preferred net access.

But who decides what's trash and what's not? You? The government? The ISP's? What if some of the people in control decide that their competition is "trash"? Then the consumer will have a much harder time getting an idea of what's the best choice. You're not going to be the one deciding what's trash, the people with money and power are.

You just don't imagine that you'll be among the people screwed over.

How is it freedom that someone with money can get what the people without money can't? The people without money could be screwed by bad social conditions, poor parents or just plain bad luck, rather than a will to work. The people with money could simply have been born into it. Freedom to spend your money isn't freedom for everyone.

You just want freedom for yourself and the rich, not for all.

Sad.

Now I don't deny that Shamrock pointed out some concerns in the US and Canada where internet providers had acted like tools. I trust that the market is better to control that type of behavior than some bureauon.

The market does not strive for equality, freedom or any good thing. That's a patent lie. The market strives for profit. If you turn the market loose, if you think that it's going to "control" or "balance" itself, you're a fool.

At first, you'll see a benefit for the consumer as the various sellers fight amongst each other. Then as the number of sellers drop, they'll merge or ally for the purpose of pumping the consumer when there's no one to challenge them with better and more fair offers. Anyone new who arises, they'll just crush with money.

And if you don't like my disdain for the European Socialist governments and their command-and-control style, then.... um... move?

My issue isn't with what you think of our governments, racist, it's that you directly called us "Euros" useless(PS: It's Europeans, it's not that hard.). How is moving going to make me less of a European?

Come on, admit it, you're a racist. You know it. Deep down.

You complain about the Mexicans stealing your jobs, too, don't you? Well, guess what? That's the market! More cost-efficient work force!

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: quote: Not likely. And from what I can tell "Net Neutrality" does NOT equal "Freedom Online." That's the whole problem here. The spinsters are spinning this on both sides. I ain't no Republican, and I argue FOR net freedom and AGAINST rules making us treat all trash on the net equally and preventing us from paying for better or preferred net access.

But who decides what's trash and what's not? You? The government? The ISP's? What if some of the people in control decide that their competition is "trash"? Then the consumer will have a much harder time getting an idea of what's the best choice. You're not going to be the one deciding what's trash, the people with money and power are. [/QUOTE]There are laws in place that determine what you can say or show on television without the FCC fining you

You just don't imagine that you'll be among the people screwed over. How is it freedom that someone with money can get what the people without money can't? The people without money could be screwed by bad social conditions, poor parents or just plain bad luck, rather than a will to work. The people with money could simply have been born into it. Freedom to spend your money isn't freedom for everyone. You just want freedom for yourself and the rich, not for all. Sad.

not really, he wants things as they stand now to be standard, much like if you want cable speeds or DSL speeds you pay a premium over netzero's nearly free but highly restricted internet access, if you want better service then you have the option of paying more. If you can't afford to pay for 8MB cable internet, you can still get by on $10 a month from netzero or other discount providers, instead of whining about being born into poor circumstances that prohibit you from having the best access you could *gasp* work a little harder, and earn a little more to pay the difference.

quote: Now I don't deny that Shamrock pointed out some concerns in the US and Canada where internet providers had acted like tools. I trust that the market is better to control that type of behavior than some bureauon.

The market does not strive for equality, freedom or any good thing. That's a patent lie. The market strives for profit. If you turn the market loose, if you think that it's going to "control" or "balance" itself, you're a fool.

At first, you'll see a benefit for the consumer as the various sellers fight amongst each other. Then as the number of sellers drop, they'll merge or ally for the purpose of pumping the consumer when there's no one to challenge them with better and more fair offers. Anyone new who arises, they'll just crush with money.[/QUOTE]true enough, but that's why there are anti-trust laws, that's why Ma Bell isn't the sole phone provider in the states anymore, it's why the robber barons at the turn of the previous century had their monopolies broken up, it's what the gov't is trying to do to Microsoft (who is of course appealing everything and holding up the process). The laws are already in place to take care of that eventuality, they just need to be enforced.

quote: And if you don't like my disdain for the European Socialist governments and their command-and-control style, then.... um... move?

My issue isn't with what you think of our governments, racist, it's that you directly called us "Euros" useless(PS: It's Europeans, it's not that hard.). How is moving going to make me less of a European?

Come on, admit it, you're a racist. You know it. Deep down. [/QUOTE]I doubt that considering most white americans (of which Timber is one) are of european descent, so he's racist against his ancestors?? opposed to the moronic governments in place, sure, but that's not saying the people are worthless because they're from Europe.

You complain about the Mexicans stealing your jobs, too, don't you? Well, guess what? That's the market! More cost-efficient work force!

but the price of that cost efficiency is drasticly reduced quality of work, pushing those who are capable of higher quality out of business because people want a cheap house not one that will still be standing in 5 years. again the market will correct it eventually, but it will take a bit of time, just like everything in the market.

[Knightscape]

Net neutrality compromise proposed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060618/...eutrality_dc_1

From the article:

"Stevens has added a new section to his proposed bill aimed at preserving consumers' ability to surf anywhere on the public Internet and use any Web-based application..."

"However, the draft by the Alaska Republican does not include a ban on pricing content companies have demanded."


Protection for consumers while respecting the free-enterprise system. Seems like a good compromise to me.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: And from what I can tell "Net Neutrality" does NOT equal "Freedom Online." That's the whole problem here. The spinsters are spinning this on both sides.

The annoying thing here is that you usually have a point! [img]tongue.gif[/img] Now I don't feel particularly spun, but it's probably true to say I'm predisposed to be in favour of net neutrality. I tend to think that when it comes to issues of control, companies can take care of themselves and its the small guys that need protecting.

Perhaps we're talking about freedoms for two groups of people. On the one hand we have freedom for the carriers of information - the freedom for internet companies to charge what they want and (presumably in an imperfect market) possibly control their users.

On the other, you have freedom for internet users themselves; freedom for them to use the internet unhindered by any deliberate interference or obstruction.


The bit that still puzzles me (and why I still see this issue as fairly black and white) is what is unfair about the current situation to the companies.

At the moment, they already charge an amount proportional to the speed of internet access granted. If someone wants their ISP to give them a fast connection, they pay more. In effect getting 'preferential' treatment over someone who doesn't stump up the cash.

Furthermore, internet companies lease the use of their infrastructure and routers to the ISP's that use them, thus receiving a fair return for their investment.


This is my problem - the current situation that has arisen from net neutrality appears to be fair to the ISP's - they are not having to provide different levels of service for the same consideration. A packet of data from a webpage costs no more to transmit than a packet of data from a video stream, it's just the quantity that matters. ISP's already employ bandwidth restrictions to ensure that heavy users pay more - in other words, quantity of traffic is taken into account when they price.


In light of this, the only remaining benefit to ISP's of blocking net neutrality is that of control.

They can already charge different amounts to different levels of usage (thereby making the video-watching customer pay more than the person who checks their email once a week).

By giving them the power to say one packet of data is preferred over another, we give them the power to discriminate against particular types of traffic, rather than simply charge based on how much data is transmitted.

Since the quantity of data is what determines their costs, I simply cannot see an advantage of looking at what each packet is unless it is to allow them to exercise control over us.

I cannot see a wrong being righted, or any other economic advantage beyond the potential to use it for nefarious means.

Am I any closer to convincing everyone, or should I just give up? [img]tongue.gif[/img]


Thanks for the link there Knightscape, it's nice to see that there is some sort of compromise going on [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 06-19-2006, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: Sorry to disagree, but... I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. I admit, that if this were only ISP's, then a problem wouldn't exist. The big telecom companies however, physically own huge swathes of internet infrastructure, leasing the use of it to individual ISP's. The capability to create a two speed internet is certainly within their power. Of course, their defense is that enough bandidth exists for all and it wouldn't make market sense for them to do so in any case. However, with the principle of neutrality rapidly disappearing from US law, we have no guarantee that when it does make market sense to discriminate that they won't do so. The exact wording of the amendment was: Even if net neutrality is a "solution looking for a problem" as the teleco's allege, it's an amendment that any reasonable person would agree was in the public's interest. But if there are dissenting voices, I'll edit the title to be a little less definitive Edit: Lots of 'em as I think I misunderstood Bungleau

Long time no talk Sham, just out of idle couriousity do you own any phsyiclly? do you want the government or others dictating what you can do with what you own? If you own things that the government and others can and do dictate to you what you can do with them how do you like it? Why should the telecomunications industry be any differant then you?

Second paragraph in the background article:"The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation is considering making changes to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and one of the ideas being floated is that network providers should be allowed to offer preferential service to some of their customers instead of providing a neutral data carrier service."
Big whoppty doo! So somebody else want to give their customer preferential treatment, "Hale" if anybody out there works for a living they ARE allready doing that. If one of your customers wants something you do your best to deliver or you lose them as customers. If they are not your customer the ONLY reason you MIGHT give them preferential treatment IS in hopes you can make them your customer.

EDIT: I couldn't pass this up, from the same background info.: "Those in favour of "network neutrality" and keeping the current model of the internet as just a data conduit include big hitters such as Google, eBay, Amazon and even Microsoft.

They know it will cost them more if they have to pay to get their video delivered to users.

The phone and cable companies want to be free to charge for new services and make more money, and they argue that it's not up to the government what they do with their networks."

HMMMMMMMMMM it seems that it's NOT ok for the phone and cable guys to make money, but is ok for MIRCOSOFT not to have to spend more money? Rule#1 in business "Money in MUST excede money out!" if not you don't make money. So microsoft is ok to make money by trying to lower money out, that's ok. "HALE" I'll bet dollars to donuts the writer of the article was several years ago piss'n & moun'n about microsoft and anll the money it's making, now he/sge wants to hold microsoft up as something to be admired? Well spank my rear end an paint it purple.

[ 06-21-2006, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Lucern]

Sorry, can't help it

But this issue is far too important to not be consulting...a ninja.

http://www.askaninja.com/news/2006/0...net-neutrality

and Sham, as far as I can tell, the ninja agrees with you

[shamrock_uk]

Good to see you again John D [img]smile.gif[/img]

Lucern - that link is totally crazy

[machinehead]

John D why would you want a purple ass???

[robertthebard]

Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: Originally posted by shamrock_uk: Sorry to disagree, but... I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. I admit, that if this were only ISP's, then a problem wouldn't exist. The big telecom companies however, physically own huge swathes of internet infrastructure, leasing the use of it to individual ISP's. The capability to create a two speed internet is certainly within their power. Of course, their defense is that enough bandidth exists for all and it wouldn't make market sense for them to do so in any case. However, with the principle of neutrality rapidly disappearing from US law, we have no guarantee that when it does make market sense to discriminate that they won't do so. The exact wording of the amendment was: Even if net neutrality is a "solution looking for a problem" as the teleco's allege, it's an amendment that any reasonable person would agree was in the public's interest. But if there are dissenting voices, I'll edit the title to be a little less definitive Edit: Lots of 'em as I think I misunderstood Bungleau

Long time no talk Sham, just out of idle couriousity do you own any phsyiclly? do you want the government or others dictating what you can do with what you own? If you own things that the government and others can and do dictate to you what you can do with them how do you like it? Why should the telecomunications industry be any differant then you?

Second paragraph in the background article:"The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation is considering making changes to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and one of the ideas being floated is that network providers should be allowed to offer preferential service to some of their customers instead of providing a neutral data carrier service."
Big whoppty doo! So somebody else want to give their customer preferential treatment, "Hale" if anybody out there works for a living they ARE allready doing that. If one of your customers wants something you do your best to deliver or you lose them as customers. If they are not your customer the ONLY reason you MIGHT give them preferential treatment IS in hopes you can make them your customer.

EDIT: I couldn't pass this up, from the same background info.: "Those in favour of "network neutrality" and keeping the current model of the internet as just a data conduit include big hitters such as Google, eBay, Amazon and even Microsoft.

They know it will cost them more if they have to pay to get their video delivered to users.

The phone and cable companies want to be free to charge for new services and make more money, and they argue that it's not up to the government what they do with their networks."

HMMMMMMMMMM it seems that it's NOT ok for the phone and cable guys to make money, but is ok for MIRCOSOFT not to have to spend more money? Rule#1 in business "Money in MUST excede money out!" if not you don't make money. So microsoft is ok to make money by trying to lower money out, that's ok. "HALE" I'll bet dollars to donuts the writer of the article was several years ago piss'n & moun'n about microsoft and anll the money it's making, now he/sge wants to hold microsoft up as something to be admired? Well spank my rear end an paint it purple. [/QUOTE]*Gets can of purple spray paint*...Actually, I do lease a domain, and I have content up for people to browse, and hopefully buy. Some have, BTW. I already pay to have the domain hosted, and to be able to provide the content. Now, along comes the telecom companies saying, "OK, you can only get guarenteed hits on your site if you pay us too". Why? I'm no where near e-bay, or Yahoo, or Microsoft for income, but this would cause me to have to pay whoever to make sure that when people click the link to my site that they actually get there? Hey, I realize that you have to spend money to make money, but I sure shouldn't have to spend more money than I make. The fact is, people that lease bandwidth from the telecom companies are already paying to get their information out there, and now the telecom companies want more. The problem is, where does it end? Am I going to have to shut down my site because I can't afford to pay 5k a year to guarentee hits when people click an existing link, to an existing site? If that's the case, it's going to bring places like this, YouTube, and other sites that provide free entertainment/information to a stand still. No more Wikipedia? People that don't have the money to pay to guarentee the stuff they have already paid to host gets hits will quickly die, virtually anyway. My site included. If they doubled my current plan price, I'd have to shut down. What would happen to IW? I've donated when I can to help keep it running, but what happens if the costs double?
So, while it may seem to be a harmless piece of legislation, it can actually do a lot of harm to a lot of "little guys", because we won't be able to compete. I don't know how much competing I really do right now, but I do know that if you click the link in my sig, you will get to my site. If the telecom companies get their way, you'll get a 404 error, even if I do still have my site up, because I couldn't pay them to be sure you got directed there.