Reply With Quote
Of course You Tube would be possible. As long as it could generate enough revenues to finance the bandwidth they use (or find a philanthropist to subsidise it). I can't see a good reason to make those that don't care about Youtube to pay for it.
What subsidy? Both Google and Amazon already pay for their network access just like everyone else.
Of course You Tube would be possible. As long as it could generate enough revenues to finance the bandwidth they use (or find a philanthropist to subsidise it). I can't see a good reason to make those that don't care about Youtube to pay for it.
Yeah, but their usage is not like everyone's else.
But YouTube already paid for the bandwidth they used. At least what their ISP advertised and charged them for said bandwidth.
They sure don't exceed whatever bandwidth was sold to them by these same ISPs.
Hmm.. if it exits, why the need for new legislation? As it's frequently said, “net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.”
My biggest problem with this is why is the FCC doing something like this? This is something our elected officials should be doing, not some bureaucrat who was appointed by a president who has the lowest approval rating after one year in office.
I don't think most proponents of net neutrality legislation truly understand what they are defending and what legislative initiatives are being made under the banner of "internet neutrality". The scaremongering, instillating the fear of a hypothetical discrimination, was quite effective. Currently, the FCC have the power to prevent discriminations: see the Comcast/BitTorrent case. They want to avoid discrimination, with the riches getting a hyper-fast internet access and the poor classes condened to slow and innefective connections, when currently the internet providers offer different price plans to different consumers with different needs. Again, they want solutions for merely fictional problems.
Another thing that most proponents of net neutrality forget is that with their efforts to preserve "the internet" they're basically screwing the development of future architectures. Thank God the government didn't remember to regulate the internet 20 years ago. Do you also favour that the government prohibits the Postal Service to offer a "fast lane" in the name of fairness, non-discrimination and mail-neutrality?
FCC May Rip Up Your Cellphone Contract
Until recently, wireless network management has been of little concern to consumers or regulators. But with data usage booming thanks to Web-enabled phones and applications like games and video streaming, phone companies are having to consider reining in heavy users, a potential tactic the FCC wants to scrutinize.
Genachowski was studiously vague is his descriptions of the impending FCC regulations. The FCC will "analyze fully the implications of the principles of mobile network architectures and practices--and how, as a practical matter, these may be fairly and appropriately implemented," Genachowski said.
Still, if the FCC decides that wireless companies like Verizon ( VZ - news - people ) unit Verizon Wireless, AT&T ( T - news - people ) and T-Mobile must allow perpetually unfettered access to all Web applications, the phone companies will have to reconsider how they sell wireless access.
Most wireless providers have historically sold unlimited data service for a flat fee. This practice has been profitable and easy to manage, as people generally relied on their phones for low bandwidth applications like sending text messages and e-mail. Recently, the explosion of Web traffic has strained wireless networks to the point that customers in some big cities claim the quality of their phone calls has deteriorated.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/21/fcc...teglove_google
The problem with the FCC having the power as opposed to be written in law is that the FCC changes stances just as quickly as they appoint a new commissioner. Today, we have a guy that likes to preserve the current anti-discriminatory system, but tomorrow, you can have a guy that can flip entirely around.
I would actually like to see legislation that simply guarantees the equal access to the available resources.
Now I also understand your concern and share it, in that normally when legislation gets pushed, there's a lot of crap tacked into it that stinks.
Unfortunately, this is what politics amount to these days.
How so? Most every ISP providers I know are developing and installing new architectures. From FTH to 4G networks, innovation hasn't stopped one bit. Furthermore, all those guys are still making quite a chunk of profit WHILE they're building up their infrastructure...
The bolded part is actually not true. If you read the fine print on your wireless carrier data plan contract, you do have a usage cap. Yes, even for an 'unlimited' contract. Which actually takes us to another hot topic of this conversation: false advertising. Something ISPs have been doing and getting away with for the longest time.
I despair of trying to explain anything here. Google and Amazon already pay for bandwidth. Somehow idiots think they have free internet connections.
Yes, I know, hence the 3 dozen figure.
I don't know the latest standards. My quick guess of 500 was a touch high assuming you are correct. I worked with T3 via QAM 20 years ago. Thought they'd do better than 160.
Yep, wish I had fiber laid where I live. When I move, it will be to an area with fiber. Fiber is also upgradable as technology improves for the transmitter modulation and receiver demodulation.
As long as they allow different price structure for different priorities when the bandwidth is exceeded, I'm OK with insuring there is no favoritism by carrier or company. For a company to be favored more, they pay more.
If you think I'm wrong, then show me a scheme that allows everything to work fair when the demand for bandwidth exceeded the availability.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 09-26-2009 at 10:21 AM.
Yep. Nothing new is needed.
Please Sheeple. Don't request unnecessary regulation. Congress will always find ways to add strings!
does that include the whitehouse?
Nope. Two different markets. One is the actual person or en y that brings the internet wiring to your door. The other is who controls what goes over those same wires, and to what extent. To put it simply, in deference to you, it's like saying that there is one market for highways, when it's really an infrastructure company like VK Knowlton building the roads, and car companies that build what rides on it. Net neutraility keeps VK Knowlton from building roads that can exclude a specific brand of automobile. Your argument is that VKK should be able to limit the brands of automobiles driving, because that would make the highway market open? I don't think so. That's not "open market" by any definition I've ever heard of. Limiting or eliminating limitations by companies is what opens markets.
Right now, best practices, popularity, and desired product drive the internet. It should stay that way.
Last edited by exstatic; 09-26-2009 at 01:17 PM.
This grouping is kind of funny, and a measure of how unpopular it is to go against NN. This is all that Big Telecom could get as shock troops?According to The Hill, the co-sponsors are Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), Sen. John Thune (R-SD) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).
KBH - resigning to run for Guv
Brownback - resigning
Ensign - in trouble, infidelity and related campaign cash issues.
Vitter - in trouble, infidelity, pros ution
A year or two ago, sure.
So, why do you want to give more powers to FCC? Wouldn't that merely aggravate that problem?
Why have so much faith in a couple of bureaucrats? It always baffles me how people place so much trust in politicians and their employees, when they are so permeable to special interests. Wouldn't we be better served if the power remained disseminated among millions of consumers instead of concentrated in the hands of a few guys in DC if the goal is to prevent abuse from special interests groups?
That's extremely vague.
I don't see how is that relevant. Google and others service providers work with 80% gross margins. They also make quite a chunk of money. What's the point? If they're not taking advantage of anti-compe ive practices or government subsidies, I don't see the problem. Anyway, impose a one-tier internet and in the long-run you'll have a one-tier infrastructure.
Who thinks that here?
Funny, when the net neutrality movement started more than a decade ago, and I was part of it (I think I created the first european based blog dedicated to net neutrality), the primary goal was to avoid anti-compe ive practices from incubents. Now that it has turned into a scheme to provide corporate welfare, and pretty much the absolute negation of what it was, people are still using free-market arguments.
Yeah, VKK should be able to build highways for which riders pay a higher toll and other roads for which riders pay a smaller toll and free roads etc.
If it should stay that way, why is the need for new legislation? Nobody has yet provided a single real example that justifies that need. And that reasoning is the negation of everything internet is about. Net neutrality proponents seem to forget that by "staying this way" they aren't preventing bad things to happen in the future (in fact, they are encouraging it), but more probably that better things may happen. The internet has been driven by best practices and the consequence to extrapolate is that we need a huge regulamentary framework to change those practices? It's surreal.
Have people ever wondered why companies like BitTorrent are staunchly against net neutrality even though they're the ones that, according to the reasons presented here, would have the more to benefit from it while companies like Microsoft, which according to the same arguments should fear it are the biggest supporters?
I think a lot has to do with the name (that was a good fit to the original intents). If instead of a word with positive connotations like "neutrality" it was more accurately called "coercively imposed pay-all-you-eat one-tier internet with networks disagreements being solved by government officials" the general public view would be different.
I haven't done hardly any research and don't know who they are. However, nobody has, to my satisfaction, explained or shown me real language of what would be accomplished. Nobody has answered my question about paid for priorities.
How can any sane person, without the knowledge of important facts, support something? especially when it's in an authoritarian form?
The FCC already has the power. I actually want to take it away from the FCC by formally codifying the equal access into law.
Not vague at all. Simply codify the current system into law.
It is relevant in the sense that the status quo has not prevented building up the technology and infrastructure as you claimed.
I support keeping the status quo with the caveat that I want to take away the power from the FCC to enact a for profit multi-tier access system.
That last part I would like codified in law.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions