Interesting read!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINIO...ty/index.html?hpt=C2
Yes, Comcast is evil!
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
What drivel. Please point me to all the actual people who have been harmed by the absense of net neutrality. There aren't any. This is a non-existant, made-up problem that politicians invented to try to gain support from a frightened public so that they could open the door to regulating the only place where the First Amendment still means something.
I think you are mistaking what the term net neutrality means. It's in effect right now. That is, anyone can setup shop and compete. The way that Comcast and several other companies want to make it is that you'll have to pay them first before you get total full access to everyone. People are fighting to make sure nothing is changed and it's in your best interest.
What I truly do not get is that people who in one breath can say that they want the free market to decide on everything, but on another say they are perfectly fine if they have to pay a ton of people off to do it properly. Do you seriously want the internet to become like cable service is now where you basically get only what they deem appropriate, and you have to pay extra for any new service that comes along?
What I truly do not get is that people who in one breath can say that they want the free market to decide on everything, but on another say they are perfectly fine if they have to pay a ton of people off to do it properly. Do you seriously want the internet to become like cable service is now where you basically get only what they deem appropriate, and you have to pay extra for any new service that comes along?
quote:What I truly do not get is that people who in one breath can say that they want the free market to decide on everything, but on another say they are perfectly fine if they have to pay a ton of people off to do it properly. Do you seriously want the internet to become like cable service is now where you basically get only what they deem appropriate, and you have to pay extra for any new service that comes along?
Excellent post! How dare someone make sense on here! Making sense is only allowed for the "diamond package" subscribers at Comcast.
quote:I think you are mistaking what the term net neutrality means. It's in effect right now. That is, anyone can setup shop and compete. The way that Comcast and several other companies want to make it is that you'll have to pay them first before you get total full access to everyone. People are fighting to make sure nothing is changed and it's in your best interest.
They aren't supposed to run their business in my best interest. It would be in my best interest if I didn't have to pay for anything. If they need to charge more for more bandwidth (or whatever) that's fine. And, it certainly has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
quote:What I truly do not get is that people who in one breath can say that they want the free market to decide on everything, but on another say they are perfectly fine if they have to pay a ton of people off to do it properly. Do you seriously want the internet to become like cable service is now where you basically get only what they deem appropriate, and you have to pay extra for any new service that comes along?
I've never had to "pay off" anyone. I buy what I want, and don't buy what I don't want. What's wrong with cable right now? I get a ton of channels for a price that I think is fair. If I didn't, I wouldn't pay. If I want a new service, I'll pay for it. If I don't, I won't. How is having to pay for goods and services your shinning example of free market failure? Are you of the impression that because "free" is the name "free market" that everything is free?
quote:I've never had to "pay off" anyone. I buy what I want, and don't buy what I don't want. What's wrong with cable right now? I get a ton of channels for a price that I think is fair. If I didn't, I wouldn't pay. If I want a new service, I'll pay for it. If I don't, I won't. How is having to pay for things your shinning example of free market failure? Are you of the impression that everything is because "free" is the name "free market" that everything is free?
OK I see your point but what if you want a comparable provider in Florence? ( I've had satellite it's not a fair comparison)Where I lived last 3 cable providers existed giving me a choice and making cable rates much cheaper due to competition. I agree that you buy what you want but you don't have the choice of who you buy it from in this town. It would be similar to the area powers that be, deciding there is only room for one pizza delivery service to me.
Still completely went over your head what I was saying. Let me create a story for you on starting a business when net neutrality does not exist.
Let's say that you invent a new product that enables a 3d video phone call that requires internet access. You've gotten the capital to setup your network and you are ready for users but Comcast decides to not allow their internet users to connect to your servers unless you pay them $5 million a year, Charter will allow their members to connect, but only at half the speed you need for your product to work unless you give them a cut. Google won't list you in their engine unless they get a cut, and on and on. So your choices are to come up with a extra 30-40 million a year to have access, immediately sell off to someone who can or not compete.
Net Neutrality is about preserving the free market where if you can get it built the consumer decides if you live or die, not some media empire.
Let's say that you invent a new product that enables a 3d video phone call that requires internet access. You've gotten the capital to setup your network and you are ready for users but Comcast decides to not allow their internet users to connect to your servers unless you pay them $5 million a year, Charter will allow their members to connect, but only at half the speed you need for your product to work unless you give them a cut. Google won't list you in their engine unless they get a cut, and on and on. So your choices are to come up with a extra 30-40 million a year to have access, immediately sell off to someone who can or not compete.
Net Neutrality is about preserving the free market where if you can get it built the consumer decides if you live or die, not some media empire.
quote:OK I see your point but what if you want a comparable provider in Florence? ( I've had satellite it's not a fair comparison)Where I lived last 3 cable providers existed giving me a choice and making cable rates much cheaper due to competition. I agree that you buy what you want but you don't have the choice of who you buy it from in this town. It would be similar to the area powers that be, deciding there is only room for one pizza delivery service to me.
I don't really know what to tell you. It's pretty common for smaller areas to have limited services. There's not enough demand to justify extensive competition. That has nothing to do with net neutrality.
quote:Still completely went over your head what I was saying. Let me create a story for you on starting a business when net neutrality does not exist.
Let's say that you invent a new product that enables a 3d video phone call that requires internet access. You've gotten the capital to setup your network and you are ready for users but Comcast decides to not allow their internet users to connect to your servers unless you pay them $5 million a year, Charter will allow their members to connect, but only at half the speed you need for your product to work unless you give them a cut. Google won't list you in their engine unless they get a cut, and on and on. So your choices are to come up with a extra 30-40 million a year to have access, immediately sell off to someone who can or not compete.
Net Neutrality is about preserving the free market where if you can get it built the consumer decides if you live or die, not some media empire.
So we need more regulation based on fictional accounts non-existent problems? I'll go back to my original point, please provide all the example of this sort of thing happening, or of documented plans to implement such things.
This is opening the door for full-blown government regulation of the internet, and it's proponents are in favor of it baecause they want to fix a problem that doesn't exist. This is not a free market issue, yet. This is not a First Amendment issue, yet. The only way to guarantee free market abuses and First Amendment abuses is to allow the government to get involved.
quote:I don't really know what to tell you. It's pretty common for smaller areas to have limited services. There's not enough demand to justify extensive competition. That has nothing to do with net neutrality.
I'll reply with a quote.
quote:Net Neutrality is about preserving the free market where if you can get it built the consumer decides if you live or die, not some media empire.
quote:please provide all the example of this sort of thing happening,
AT&T has been doing it for years or "BellSouth" whatever they buy out and rename it in whatever region to please the government. Google it and research a bit and I'm sure you will agree.
quote:AT&T has been doing it for years or "BellSouth" whatever they buy out and rename it in whatever region to please the government.
1) Doing what? Selectively charging for bandwidth use?
2) Regardless, the old phone companies have government protection, so it's not a free market abuse. It's an example of what will happen if we let the government get involved with the web.
quote:Regardless, the old phone companies have government protection, so it's not a free market abuse.
You really believe that the local cable provider isn't protected by our local Gov.?
The area that I last lived and listed has fewer people then the Shoals as well. Please don't mistake my debate as total disagreement with your opinion. I actually agree with your position just not on a local level. 
Good topic and sensible debate here, refreshing to see for a change.quote:Originally posted by dolemitejb:
I'll go back to my original point, please provide all the example of this sort of thing happening, or of documented plans to implement such things.
When vonage was getting started in the early 2000s they often would get complaints from various ISPs, but mostly Comcast users of bad sound quality or dropped calls, enough that it was starting to give the company a bad name. The problem was hard to trace, they had enough bandwidth, the equipment was configured properly so they shouldn't have had any issues.
A few years later, Comcast started it's own digital phone service which worked fine. The consensus was that they had an advantage because they owned the network (this cannot be avoided, and is not a problem) But while this was accepted, another service called bittorrent started to become popular, and people reported similar problems where connections lagged or dropped while the service was in use.
People begun to research it, and it was determined that Comcast had engineered traffic shaping onto their network where they could throttle connections or protocols at will, however for the longest time they never admitted to doing it and blamed the user for the problems until it was later proven through research. the FCC got involved, Comcast admitted to degrading traffic on purpose under certain circumstances and stated that they would stop shaping access. A lawsuit Hart. Vs. Comcast was started and was recently settled (Wikipedia does not reflect this) and people who were affected by this can receive a $16 refund of service.
Ok, after looking at what Wikipedia provided, I still don't see a case for any broad government regulation of the web. If Comcast is guilty of false advertising, that's one thing and should be remedied accordingly. However, torrent sharing consumes significant bandwidth. If any internet provider wishes to limit that, or charge more for excessive use, that is perfectly fine. They just can't claim it's unlimited. I don't see that example as a reason we need government enforced net neutrality.
quote:You really believe that the local cable provider isn't protected by our local Gov.?
I don't know, so I can't comment. If it exists on some level, I highly doubt it's to the point that competition would be completely blocked. Even still, that's not a reason for more government involvement. It's a reason to limit government involvement so that local governments can't prohibit competition.
Yes, they can do normal things like ban people from using the service if they are using too much bandwidth, or state a proper bandwidth cap, like they did after the FCC inquiry. (although they still advertise it as unlimited) You don't go about it trying to make others look bad, or saying it's your problem when you are actively doing it.
I don't think anyone is saying that it has to be government enforced, but there should be a system in place where shady actions like they did are investigated. Even if it's a independent system it would be better than assuming that everyone is just going to play nice.
I don't think anyone is saying that it has to be government enforced, but there should be a system in place where shady actions like they did are investigated. Even if it's a independent system it would be better than assuming that everyone is just going to play nice.
quote:Originally posted by dolemitejb:quote:Still completely went over your head what I was saying. Let me create a story for you on starting a business when net neutrality does not exist.
Let's say that you invent a new product that enables a 3d video phone call that requires internet access. You've gotten the capital to setup your network and you are ready for users but Comcast decides to not allow their internet users to connect to your servers unless you pay them $5 million a year, Charter will allow their members to connect, but only at half the speed you need for your product to work unless you give them a cut. Google won't list you in their engine unless they get a cut, and on and on. So your choices are to come up with a extra 30-40 million a year to have access, immediately sell off to someone who can or not compete.
Net Neutrality is about preserving the free market where if you can get it built the consumer decides if you live or die, not some media empire.
So we need more regulation based on fictional accounts non-existent problems? I'll go back to my original point, please provide all the example of this sort of thing happening, or of documented plans to implement such things.
This is opening the door for full-blown government regulation of the internet, and it's proponents are in favor of it baecause they want to fix a problem that doesn't exist. This is not a free market issue, yet. This is not a First Amendment issue, yet. The only way to guarantee free market abuses and First Amendment abuses is to allow the government to get involved.
Net Neutrality means NO regulation. The internet is the only place left where there is true free speech on an equal playing field. The corporations are the ones trying to change that.
quote:Net Neutrality means NO regulation. The internet is the only place left where there is true free speech on an equal playing field. The corporations are the ones trying to change that.
"No regulation" means no government involvement, and a corporation can't stop free speech.
quote:Originally posted by dolemitejb:
"No regulation" means no government involvement, and a corporation can't stop free speech.
On the Internet they can.
'quote:Originally posted by dolemitejb:quote:Net Neutrality means NO regulation. The internet is the only place left where there is true free speech on an equal playing field. The corporations are the ones trying to change that.
"No regulation" means no government involvement, and a corporation can't stop free speech.
Why, you are right, it's not like that corporation could block access to information on competitors, or websites that it doesn't like. That would NEVER happen. The FCC doesn't want the internet to turn into what satellite television has. Incredibly tiered service, limited access etc.
Tech Crunch Article
This is how it starts.
When big companies start getting on board with the regulation of their own industry, you can bet it's only because they know the regulations will ultimately reduce the threat of competition. You will notice that Verizon calls for flexibility to add, and charge for, newer, more advanced services. At the same time, they call for heavy fines for those who prioritize basic web content. In other words, they can legally prohibit smaller start-ups from competing via difficult, government-imposed barriers to entry. Once they've succeeded at blocking competition, they can charge more for their new services. You cannot trust the government to set up any laws regulating the internet. There is a 100% chance those laws will favor the big players and ultimately hurt the end user.
This is how it starts.
quote:Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg made clear that there would be “no prioritization of traffic that comes from Google.” Although he does want to leave open the ability for Verizon to charge for prioritization on both existing and yet-to-be determined services which go above and beyond the existing Internet, such as Verizon’s FIOS service which combines broadband Internet with phone and TV or healthcare monitoring, smart grid, or education services.
quote:The proposal also calls for transparency to consumers about net neutrality policies on the part of ISPs and the government. In light of the recent court ruling hobbling the FCC’s broadband enforcement authority, it also proposes a “new enforcement mechanism” for the FCC to impose fines of up to $2 million on a case-by-case basis for any companies who violate these open Internet principles.
When big companies start getting on board with the regulation of their own industry, you can bet it's only because they know the regulations will ultimately reduce the threat of competition. You will notice that Verizon calls for flexibility to add, and charge for, newer, more advanced services. At the same time, they call for heavy fines for those who prioritize basic web content. In other words, they can legally prohibit smaller start-ups from competing via difficult, government-imposed barriers to entry. Once they've succeeded at blocking competition, they can charge more for their new services. You cannot trust the government to set up any laws regulating the internet. There is a 100% chance those laws will favor the big players and ultimately hurt the end user.