Kevin, you seem to be somewhat confused about what network neutrality is and what it isn't. What you describe is, almost to the letter, what Quality of Service is for. QoS is a standard tool in networking (of which there are many - I don't think most people really realize just how advanced network management is these days), which would not be affected in any way by network neutrality.
QoS, simplified greatly, basically means voice communication has a higher priority than video, and video has a higher priority than normal browsing. This is done to ensure that services that require a minimised amount of disruption to work correctly can do so (as VoIP call degredation is very obvious, whereas a few milliseconds more for a browser page isn't). This is done irrespective of the source, and is practised by protocol.
Network neutrality bars discrimination by the source of data, rather than type of data. This seems like subtle difference, but it is an extremely important one.
I was of the belief that mandating NN would mean that providers could not discriminate based on QoS. Is this not the case?
No. Net Neutrality says it's ok to, say, prioritize Streaming Video over Email. It is, however, not ok to prioritize ComcastFlix over NetFlix.
Given how well the government manages our "free and open" interstate highway system why anyone would want them running rules of engagement for the internet is beyond me.
If you like limited bandwidth, packet loss and a free and equally shitty internet experience for everybody then net neutrality is for you.
Yeah, all that horribly limited bandwidth, terrible packet loss and shitty internet sure does suck right now. Thank god it's not just an attempt to extort content providers and provide built in advantages to the service provider's content providing new feature!
Seriously, the only thing wrong with ISPs is the same thing wrong with cel providers: they oversold their capacity in a large number of areas, and now are suddenly trying to blame content providers for the issues that causes. Not going "hey, we sold everyone 2mb connections, but we only have a 40mb pipe coming out of that town, logically we can only actually have 20 customers, but instead we have 400. GOD DAMN YOU HULUUUUUUU"
If it wasn't magical technology sigils and witchcraft, people would be seeing the actual problem: if I sold 5000 tickets to a baseball game with 500 seats, I don't think anyone would be taking MY side of the argument.
KevinNash is of the opinion that users should be able to buy same-speed connections who's only distinguishing feature is that they get ubiquitous QoS priority.
That is entirely allowed in a Net Neutrality world. Global QoS and some gold plated service would be totally okay.
Telling google they need to pay Comcast in order for Comcast subscribers to get to out of the QoS gutter to YouTube is what Net Neutrality is about: discriminating against the source of the packet and trying to tier the internet that way.
You want to roll an ISP that always QoSes up VOIP and streaming video but QoSes down gaming? Go NUTS. Want to run an ISP that hosts say, an OnDemand video service, and QoSes down all other streaming video? Go.. fuck yourself.
I thought this was debate and discourse. Not rah rah lefty echo chamber.
As someone who identifies as conservative I state this.
The internet is something that the government needs to provide and regulate.
It's so important to our society that it can't be handled by a business, because it needs to be provided to everyone, even if it's not profitable. It's the exact same reason why the government builds roads and manages water and electricity
The absurd thing is that there are conservative things which could be done to help create jobs. You could create some tax incentives to hire full time workers and so on. I don't know why the republicans aren't attacking there where their plans make a bit of sense to everyone rather than here where they are simply wrong. Yes, comcast thinks you are right but at least right now a lot of people can see the news online to see the problems with this bill.
The Republicans are hell-bent on not being Conservative. Reagan was a Conservative, an honest to God conservative.
Reagan granted amnesty to illegals, he imposed quotas and tariffs and made speeches about the importance of a trade strategy. He poked a bit fun at the INVISIBLE HAND OF THE FREE MARKET because he actually read Adam Smith's work and he knew what the man actually fucking said.
Reagan was actually a pretty good president and did a hell of a lot more for the budget than liberals credit him with, because he believed in actually governing. He stemmed the tide of outsourcing(codename:"tax evasion". Because it is. That is the sole reason they do it.), when everyone else was saying IT'S NOT ONLY INEVITABLE, BUT IT'S GOOD FOR YOU TOO!
And then, when Reagan was dead, the Majestic Council or whoever makes decisions for the Randian collective started writing historical fan-fiction.
I thought this was debate and discourse. Not rah rah lefty echo chamber.
As someone who identifies as conservative I state this.
The internet is something that the government needs to provide and regulate.
It's so important to our society that it can't be handled by a business, because it needs to be provided to everyone, even if it's not profitable. It's the exact same reason why the government builds roads and manages water and electricity
While I agree with your points, and they are valid points.
I would be against it on the grounds of them having far to easy access to browsing habits and other data, but then again this might be a mootpoint.
Well, if worries about government spying is a concern (and as an old fashioned government hating American I agree with them) the ideal way would be to treat it like we treat other utilities. Private companies contract out doing the service under hefty regulation, that way the government doesn't directly have access to teh datas.
You want to roll an ISP that always QoSes up VOIP and streaming video but QoSes down gaming? Go NUTS. Want to run an ISP that hosts say, an OnDemand video service, and QoSes down all other streaming video? Go.. fuck yourself.
This is basically the core of the issue. ISPs are a natural monopoly: there's a huge initial cost to laying down the fiber, to the degree where it's just not viable for there to be a competitive market. Having multiple sets of fibers laid down makes about as much sense as having multiple interstate highway systems.
So, being a natural monopoly, and monopolies being a Bad Thing, the government does what it's supposed to do: impose restrictions to prevent as many Bad Monopoly Things from happening. Namely, a big one of these is preventing the companies from using their monopolistic power in one sphere (internet service providing) to gain monopolistic power in another sphere (streaming video).
Microsoft got slammed for exactly this in the past. They had their Microsoft Windows operating system (no, really! You can look it up!) and were competing with other companies to have the dominant web browser. So, they withhold information on the Windows 95 API, so that they could have Internet Explorer developed and released before any other company was able to. See: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#vb.
And everybody hates Microsoft so we can all agree this is the best comparison.
I thought this was debate and discourse. Not rah rah lefty echo chamber.
As someone who identifies as conservative I state this.
The internet is something that the government needs to provide and regulate.
It's so important to our society that it can't be handled by a business, because it needs to be provided to everyone, even if it's not profitable. It's the exact same reason why the government builds roads and manages water and electricity
Profitability should often be removed completely from essential services. Them's my two cents.
The last thing we need, in my view, is the FCC serving as Internet traffic controller, and potentially running roughshod over local broadcasters who have been serving their communities with free content for decades.
At the end of the last Congress, some members of Congress sought a compromise on net neutrality that would give Washington temporary control of the Internet while we sort this all out.
As far as I'm concerned, there is no compromise or middle ground when it comes to protecting our most basic freedoms.
So our new majority in the House is committed to using every tool at our disposal to fight a government takeover of the Internet…
We're also going to do what we can to see that no taxpayer dollars are used to fund these net neutrality rules.
God, I hope the recent republican retardation gets them thrown back out.
Fuck them and their retarded bullshit. The internet needs rules to keep ISPs from curb stomping small businesses AND the people who pay for internet access.
I mean, how do we even fight this? The companies have all of the money and resources to make this happen.
The last thing we need, in my view, is the FCC serving as Internet traffic controller, and potentially running roughshod over local broadcasters who have been serving their communities with free content for decades.
At the end of the last Congress, some members of Congress sought a compromise on net neutrality that would give Washington temporary control of the Internet while we sort this all out.
As far as I'm concerned, there is no compromise or middle ground when it comes to protecting our most basic freedoms.
So our new majority in the House is committed to using every tool at our disposal to fight a government takeover of the Internet…
We're also going to do what we can to see that no taxpayer dollars are used to fund these net neutrality rules.
My highlighted parts suggest that Mister Boehner knows nought of the topic at hand.
The argument I have commonly with my boss at work on friendly terms, is that he thinks were destroying free market if we let the restrictions go in, and its potentially a step away from censorship from the government.
Generally the response to "if you provide oranges down a tube to your customers to buy from a bin, and your competitor starts putting oranges down the same tube, is it free market to have a machine that picks up those oranges and keeps them from hitting the bin?"(no loss on the loss orange per say) and " Or what if they say 'you have to pay us 5$ for every orange you send in OUR tube?'", the answer is "psssssssssht" or "FREE MARKET WILL FIX ITSELF, COMMUNIST". The name calling part is meant as a farce, but the rest is spot on.
I've changed the argument to "what happens when comcast, who owns NBC/CNBC decides that foxnews.com is blocked so you go to their networks news website instead, or decide to just redirect you? There isn't a viable competing service in this area, and noone will start one just so you can view conservative blog/news" And then theres a gigantic look of panic and terror, and he want to start to say antitrust/monopoly/whatever, but then realize that comes from gov't regulations. The arguments go nowhere, so I usually follow it up with "FREE MARKET, BITCH!" and run out of his office.
It's sort of telling that he doesn't care until it's the idea that a group would suppress a conservative outlet in order to pitch their own service. However if it's just suppressing non political sites, it's totally free market to him.
That's the problem with the GOP view of Net Neutrality in a nutshell. Well, that and the fact that their view of it being a tool for political censorship is totally not what the entire argument is about in any way, shape or form.
Basically it's putting an antitrust safeguard up. It's Net Anti Extortion.
JOINT RESOLUTION
Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communica-
tions Commission with respect to regulating the Internet
and broadband industry practices.
1
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives
2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Fed-
4 eral Communications Commission relating to the matter
5 of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry
6 practices (Report and Order FCC 10–201, adopted by the
VerDate Mar 15 2010
...and such rule shall
2 have no force or effect.
Yeah, baby, suck it net neutrality goons! As the representatives said: Net Neutrality WOULD COST JOBS. DO YOU WANT TO HURT THE ECONOMY?
BarcardiAll the WizardsUnder A Rock: AfganistanRegistered Userregular
edited March 2011
This whole issue seems moot as it won't pass the senate or the prez would veto it. Actually I wish he would veto something already. Just to prove a point.
Given how well the government manages our "free and open" interstate highway system why anyone would want them running rules of engagement for the internet is beyond me.
If you like limited bandwidth, packet loss and a free and equally shitty internet experience for everybody then net neutrality is for you.
The US government spent aprox. one trillion dollars on our internet infrastructure. I'm perfectly willing to cede complete control of it to corporations, but shouldn't they have to buy us out? Comcast and TW give us a trillion dollars and we'll call it even.
override367 on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
The last thing we need, in my view, is the FCC serving as Internet traffic controller, and potentially running roughshod over local broadcasters who have been serving their communities with free content for decades.
At the end of the last Congress, some members of Congress sought a compromise on net neutrality that would give Washington temporary control of the Internet while we sort this all out.
As far as I'm concerned, there is no compromise or middle ground when it comes to protecting our most basic freedoms.
So our new majority in the House is committed to using every tool at our disposal to fight a government takeover of the Internet…
We're also going to do what we can to see that no taxpayer dollars are used to fund these net neutrality rules.
My highlighted parts suggest that Mister Boehner knows nought of the topic at hand.
Given how well the government manages our "free and open" interstate highway system why anyone would want them running rules of engagement for the internet is beyond me.
If you like limited bandwidth, packet loss and a free and equally shitty internet experience for everybody then net neutrality is for you.
The US government spent aprox. one trillion dollars on our internet infrastructure. I'm perfectly willing to cede complete control of it to corporations, but shouldn't they have to buy us out? Comcast and TW give us a trillion dollars and we'll call it even.
No, you see you don't understand economics. We spent that money in the past, so it counts as positive money, money spent in the future counts as negative, so in fact we have to give Comcast a billion dollars so they will take it off our hands.
It all makes perfect sense you see. After all, there's no money to be made in the interwebs...
tbloxham on
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
The FCC has been stripped of its ability to enforce Net Neutrality? Game over, the end is here, cue ISP's cutting access to Netflix, Amazon, and the DNC website?
The FCC has been stripped of its ability to enforce Net Neutrality? Game over, the end is here, cue ISP's cutting access to Netflix, Amazon, and the DNC website?
There's still the Senate to go, which will probably block it, from what I gather.
The FCC has been stripped of its ability to enforce Net Neutrality? Game over, the end is here, cue ISP's cutting access to Netflix, Amazon, and the DNC website?
There's still the Senate to go, which will probably block it, from what I gather.
IP law is one of those few areas where every so often some rat with a big money donor puts forward a bill chock full of horrible. Normally the bill is always chock full of just enough horrible that it's impossible it'd ever make it into law.
What really worries me are things like ACTA, trade agreements that may not have to quite go into the same rigors as the rest.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Hard to get people to care about something they don't understand and don't see effecting them right now.
It's really easy to marginalize and eliminate this when the exact same people fighting against 'net Neutrality are the same people that literally own all mainstream media. I really wish we had stricter requirements for news services since I'm starting to feel like having accurate, timely, and informative news really ought to be considered a public good. It's easy to shape public opinion when literally no contrary opinion will ever be reported except in the most vilified and vile way imaginable that people would believe, anywhere most people will ever read or watch.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Does anyone know what would need to happen, procedurally, for the FCC to re-regulate the internet as a telecommunications service?
I believe the FCC can reclassify ISPs. Currently I think theyre in the same category as telephones, but if they were put in the category cable is in the FCC would be able to regulate them more stringently. So far the FCC has not attempted to do this.
Note: I know the ISPs are in a different category than other things regulated by the FCC, but Im not sure exactly what that category is, I also know there is another category that seems more appropriate but Im not sure what category that is and what other services fall within that category. Basically, I know what Im saying is true, but Im unsure of the specifics and um, my ISP wont let me look it up? Alright, I know what Im saying is true, Im just too lazy to look it up.
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Seriously why does that game always feel oddly prophetic?
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Seriously why does that game always feel oddly prophetic?
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Seriously why does that game always feel oddly prophetic?
Posts
No. Net Neutrality says it's ok to, say, prioritize Streaming Video over Email. It is, however, not ok to prioritize ComcastFlix over NetFlix.
Yeah, all that horribly limited bandwidth, terrible packet loss and shitty internet sure does suck right now. Thank god it's not just an attempt to extort content providers and provide built in advantages to the service provider's content providing new feature!
Seriously, the only thing wrong with ISPs is the same thing wrong with cel providers: they oversold their capacity in a large number of areas, and now are suddenly trying to blame content providers for the issues that causes. Not going "hey, we sold everyone 2mb connections, but we only have a 40mb pipe coming out of that town, logically we can only actually have 20 customers, but instead we have 400. GOD DAMN YOU HULUUUUUUU"
If it wasn't magical technology sigils and witchcraft, people would be seeing the actual problem: if I sold 5000 tickets to a baseball game with 500 seats, I don't think anyone would be taking MY side of the argument.
That is entirely allowed in a Net Neutrality world. Global QoS and some gold plated service would be totally okay.
Telling google they need to pay Comcast in order for Comcast subscribers to get to out of the QoS gutter to YouTube is what Net Neutrality is about: discriminating against the source of the packet and trying to tier the internet that way.
You want to roll an ISP that always QoSes up VOIP and streaming video but QoSes down gaming? Go NUTS. Want to run an ISP that hosts say, an OnDemand video service, and QoSes down all other streaming video? Go.. fuck yourself.
As someone who identifies as conservative I state this.
The internet is something that the government needs to provide and regulate.
It's so important to our society that it can't be handled by a business, because it needs to be provided to everyone, even if it's not profitable. It's the exact same reason why the government builds roads and manages water and electricity
The Republicans are hell-bent on not being Conservative. Reagan was a Conservative, an honest to God conservative.
Reagan granted amnesty to illegals, he imposed quotas and tariffs and made speeches about the importance of a trade strategy. He poked a bit fun at the INVISIBLE HAND OF THE FREE MARKET because he actually read Adam Smith's work and he knew what the man actually fucking said.
Reagan was actually a pretty good president and did a hell of a lot more for the budget than liberals credit him with, because he believed in actually governing. He stemmed the tide of outsourcing(codename:"tax evasion". Because it is. That is the sole reason they do it.), when everyone else was saying IT'S NOT ONLY INEVITABLE, BUT IT'S GOOD FOR YOU TOO!
And then, when Reagan was dead, the Majestic Council or whoever makes decisions for the Randian collective started writing historical fan-fiction.
While I agree with your points, and they are valid points.
I would be against it on the grounds of them having far to easy access to browsing habits and other data, but then again this might be a moot point.
The military in most cases. In minor cases of tiny offices in the middle of nowhere, a commercial ISP may be used.
This is basically the core of the issue. ISPs are a natural monopoly: there's a huge initial cost to laying down the fiber, to the degree where it's just not viable for there to be a competitive market. Having multiple sets of fibers laid down makes about as much sense as having multiple interstate highway systems.
So, being a natural monopoly, and monopolies being a Bad Thing, the government does what it's supposed to do: impose restrictions to prevent as many Bad Monopoly Things from happening. Namely, a big one of these is preventing the companies from using their monopolistic power in one sphere (internet service providing) to gain monopolistic power in another sphere (streaming video).
Microsoft got slammed for exactly this in the past. They had their Microsoft Windows operating system (no, really! You can look it up!) and were competing with other companies to have the dominant web browser. So, they withhold information on the Windows 95 API, so that they could have Internet Explorer developed and released before any other company was able to. See: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#vb.
And everybody hates Microsoft so we can all agree this is the best comparison.
Profitability should often be removed completely from essential services. Them's my two cents.
"government take over of the internet" for instance.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Fuck them and their retarded bullshit. The internet needs rules to keep ISPs from curb stomping small businesses AND the people who pay for internet access.
I mean, how do we even fight this? The companies have all of the money and resources to make this happen.
My highlighted parts suggest that Mister Boehner knows nought of the topic at hand.
Generally the response to "if you provide oranges down a tube to your customers to buy from a bin, and your competitor starts putting oranges down the same tube, is it free market to have a machine that picks up those oranges and keeps them from hitting the bin?"(no loss on the loss orange per say) and " Or what if they say 'you have to pay us 5$ for every orange you send in OUR tube?'", the answer is "psssssssssht" or "FREE MARKET WILL FIX ITSELF, COMMUNIST". The name calling part is meant as a farce, but the rest is spot on.
I've changed the argument to "what happens when comcast, who owns NBC/CNBC decides that foxnews.com is blocked so you go to their networks news website instead, or decide to just redirect you? There isn't a viable competing service in this area, and noone will start one just so you can view conservative blog/news" And then theres a gigantic look of panic and terror, and he want to start to say antitrust/monopoly/whatever, but then realize that comes from gov't regulations. The arguments go nowhere, so I usually follow it up with "FREE MARKET, BITCH!" and run out of his office.
That's the problem with the GOP view of Net Neutrality in a nutshell. Well, that and the fact that their view of it being a tool for political censorship is totally not what the entire argument is about in any way, shape or form.
Basically it's putting an antitrust safeguard up. It's Net Anti Extortion.
Yeah, baby, suck it net neutrality goons! As the representatives said: Net Neutrality WOULD COST JOBS. DO YOU WANT TO HURT THE ECONOMY?
Edit: Edited because I suck at linking.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
The US government spent aprox. one trillion dollars on our internet infrastructure. I'm perfectly willing to cede complete control of it to corporations, but shouldn't they have to buy us out? Comcast and TW give us a trillion dollars and we'll call it even.
not to mention "decades"
No, you see you don't understand economics. We spent that money in the past, so it counts as positive money, money spent in the future counts as negative, so in fact we have to give Comcast a billion dollars so they will take it off our hands.
It all makes perfect sense you see. After all, there's no money to be made in the interwebs...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41995498
The FCC has been stripped of its ability to enforce Net Neutrality? Game over, the end is here, cue ISP's cutting access to Netflix, Amazon, and the DNC website?
There's still the Senate to go, which will probably block it, from what I gather.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
I fucking hope so. : /
What really worries me are things like ACTA, trade agreements that may not have to quite go into the same rigors as the rest.
It seems nobody is putting information out there about it.
Hard to get people to care about something they don't understand and don't see effecting them right now.
It's really easy to marginalize and eliminate this when the exact same people fighting against 'net Neutrality are the same people that literally own all mainstream media. I really wish we had stricter requirements for news services since I'm starting to feel like having accurate, timely, and informative news really ought to be considered a public good. It's easy to shape public opinion when literally no contrary opinion will ever be reported except in the most vilified and vile way imaginable that people would believe, anywhere most people will ever read or watch.
I believe the FCC can reclassify ISPs. Currently I think theyre in the same category as telephones, but if they were put in the category cable is in the FCC would be able to regulate them more stringently. So far the FCC has not attempted to do this.
Note: I know the ISPs are in a different category than other things regulated by the FCC, but Im not sure exactly what that category is, I also know there is another category that seems more appropriate but Im not sure what category that is and what other services fall within that category. Basically, I know what Im saying is true, but Im unsure of the specifics and um, my ISP wont let me look it up? Alright, I know what Im saying is true, Im just too lazy to look it up.
Seriously why does that game always feel oddly prophetic?
whats this?
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri