How Important Is 'Net Neutrality' to You?

I want net neutrality. I make youtube videos which get seen around the world. (Google pays me a little money). Now, if service providers put up barriers, my video's will not be seen in as many places. Remember that these barriers are not just national or regional. They are corporate. Canadian tv companies are currently trying to stop netflix selling movies in Canada by charging a high per megabyte fee for downloads. But this will not just stop netflix. It also stops other canadian companies from doing the same thing. They claim net congestion but refuse to let anyone see how much dark cable they have. (It is a lot). The canadian board that regulates this stuff is very wishy washy and the government of canada may have ties or be forging ties to the cable companies. (They need loyal soft news coverage come election time. (So they might well give in to the big cable companies). No matter how many people want to watch my crappy videos, the cable companies are never going to carry them. So they are taking away people's freedom of choice.

Brian

Bandwidth comes at a cost, no argument. But with corporate ownership of significant bandwidth there's a monster lurking in the shadows.

Internet content must remain neutral, and outside the control of corporations and governments. The mainstream media already provides more than enough paid opinions, and bias. Certainly corruption in government should never be a concern.

If you require your content filtered, interpreted, and dumbed down... Just watch TV!

Content filtering=Censorship.

Just say no!

I think President Assad is a proponent of net metering too.

YES, to net neutrality! As perhaps the greatest advance in the dissemination of knowledge and information, since Guttenberg, I wish that the internet was free to all, but the fact that access is controlled by privately owned businesses should allow for charge, to the user for bandwidth. However, there should be NO control over content by the IPs or the government.

The OP conveniently misstates the issue at hand. Service providers are NOT in the business in site censorship, but certain governments do. Service providers have different level of thruput for different prices. If you do not like DSL, get a fiber link, or a dedicated T1 or better for a price. The sky is the limit. What you cannot have, is a Tbone steak dinner for a hamburger price, so to speak. It is not what I am saying, but economics 101: there is no free lunch out there.

Or maybe the government control idea tickles your fancy, OP? Like the chinese do it, OP? Shutting of access to what they deem inconvenient, OP?

It is neutral enough for me right now.

Sure there are different modalities that offer a variety of connectivity speeds, We all pay for the type of service we can best afford. My fear is that the loss of net neutrality will begin to affect the speed of sites within the different modalities base on payoff ( kind of like the music industry with their payola schemes ) or worse complete censorship of certain sites depending on the controlling body(s). When I search the internet I want to be able to see as many independent sites as possible, (sure Google tailors it results by the users but you can still use other search engines). I say keep the internet open, do not let anyone curb it.

Service providers ARE in the business of site censorship. In Canada, they have fought for (and nearly won) the right to have a low caps on monthly internet usage. This was a direct attempt to put netflix out of the game. Exactly the same as site censorship. I also am involved with a group that have ideas meetings in Victoria. There are programmers there who are trying to design a tool that measures how much throttling of specific parts of the internet the canadian ISP's are currently doing. They are doing this because consumer rights lawyers (also in the group) cannot get direct access to that throttling info. (Government could demand it but refuses to do so). However they (Lawyers) do have inside info that it IS happening and the companies are actively developing the infrastructure to be able to do it much better in the future. If developed, this infrastucture could then be aimed at any (commercial) enemy site that they chose to greatly slow down their signals. For those who are paranoid about government interference, I have this to add. There is no commercial advantage to them inventing this stuff if they cannot use them (net neutrality condition). This means that the most effective way to prevent the net becoming easily censored by future governments is to enforce net neutrality right now. Because once these tools are fully developed (by those wonderful capitalist cable companys) it will be very easy for those satin socialist governments to take over the tools and use them against us. Government is not capable of developing the stuff. So there is the scoop, dumb corporations are brilliantly developing censorship tools for commercial reasons and big brother government is just waiting for the right moment to take the tools and use them against us.

My approach is change the rules of competition so that it is not worthwhile developing the tools in the first place. Your approach seems to be to do nothing at all.

"Net Neutrality" is Government Double-Speak for Content Control. Keep the Government out of it. I would much rather put my trust in an organization with a clear mission- like a corporation with the intention of making money- rather than an organization that changes it's mission at random. At least if I understand the driving motivator, I can predict how the organization will act. Government is about control. Give them an inch, they will take it all.

I'm sure George Orwell pointed out most eloquently why we want net neutrality in '1984'.
Or maybe we should let it be controlled by...
a) Government
b) Banks
c) Chinese
d) Religious Zealots (pick your own flavour)
e) Squirrels
Vote now
Del

e- Squirrels.

For anyone that thinks it's a good idea to let government gets it's foot in the digital door, read about this.

Certain democrat members of congress currently are pushing to have it reinstated, largely to combat conservative talk radio. The President, (wisely), is against it. Not because of any concerns about the first amendment, but because he is smart enough to realize that this would open a Pandora's Box......................not one he wants opened, when he already has 90% or more of mainstream US media in his pocket.

O.K. I guess I'm confused. (what's new?) I thought Net Neutrality was all about NO ONE being able to diddle with the weight given to a search engine's results except the proprietors of the search engines, themselves. We don't know how Google, Ask, or any search engine "decides" what order to present the search results to to you. My understanding was the government was only trying to prevent vendors from being able to "buy" the front row seats there. I try not to use Google anymore, for a couple of reasons, but in the past, Google tried to maintain a non-business list as the main list, with "commercial" results off to the right. Seems to me that solves the problem of businesses being on the first page if they want, without contaminating the results that aren't trying to sell you something.

Very good answer. Unfortunately others see it as republican versus democrat. Here in Canada (there are other countries in the world too) the cable companies want to introduce net metering to establish a price for internet access by the megabyte or gigabyte. But because the cable company is an utility (They have the optical cables) and they provide the cable for many of their competitors too, this automatically raises the price that their competitors must charge AND squeezes their competitors. "Your signal is using MY Cable $$ ching ching. Each one of them have been caught slowing down the net deliberately. (I go to "ideas meetings" with computer geeks) some of which are very high up in organizations that are consumer watchdogs). So when they cause this fake net congestion, they claim that it is because of lots of peer to peer. Basically they can slow down any segment of the net that they like and they are working to become better at this.

The watchdogs are developing tools to measure the "cable company induced" slowdown.

The national body could demand the cable people to hand over internal measures of cable speed and volume but the companies have always refused and the government has never stepped in to demand that they hand the info over.

One of my friends has a web server, I am not technical, but he noted that they have blocked certain ports and he can no longer serve web pages from their service. In Canada, the cable companies are actively crimping internet access. For instance, if we get a 15 gig monthly limit, net flix would be included, youtube would be included in the 15 gig, but the cable company can still stream tv to your house in the same cable system (but outside of their 15 gig limit). It is great for them that they can do it, but why should cable remain dark and netflix go by by just so they can increase their profit? New Zealand has these limits with cable, must be nice for the cable companies. How many gigs is a tv signal? Is it more or less gigs per second than an internet connection? This is something that needs to be compared, I think. So net neutrality (to me) is me being allowed to browse the web at decent speed on every segment of the web. The companies do not want me to be allowed to do this.

Nope, not a republican versus democrat thing....................a government thing. Each side would love to be able to control what we see and hear.

What is the Fairness Doctrine? It's the government controlling "content" before the internet was even an idea.

I get internet from the phone company, and have a choice of internet speeds. Since I don't play online games or stream movies, I didn't get the premium package, and pay less money. What I have is plenty fast enough. I'm pretty sure if net neutrality is passed, my price will go up.

If the ISPs are intentionally screwing around with the speeds and content that people are paying for, it's wrong, and if they have any brains, they'll stop it.

Now, if the US government must get involved, I would think that a bill could be drafted to address the problem within maybe 20 pages. It won't be though......................it'll be 2000 pages, and filled with crap.

So no, not democrats or republicans......................them collectively.

I've seen the government's, "bait and switch", games, too many times to trust them.

This sounds a lot like one of them.

Bear in mind also, that if the government imposes net neutrality, they're going to have to set up a system to monitor all internet traffic, to make sure that it's being adhered to.............won't they? Yep, that's every ISP.

Be careful what you wish for.

The biggest cable internet providers in the US do the same thing. Comcast currently limits the basic user bandwidth to 250 GB.

oh...that's a lot, isn't it?

We also need to remember that bandwidth is finite. And guess who allocates it?

Yeah, they just want all of us to have super fast speeds...................right.

Who needs net neutrality? All they have to do is limit what these programs can do.......problem solved. Oh, parts of those programs are specifically written to control bandwidth in order to comply with federal regulations.

Nothing confusing here.

GA from me.

Once again I believe that the net should be open to all and that access to any sector of it should not have any limitations

Agreed.

Well, this short statement probably sums up users feelings about what "we" think of as Net Neutrality.

Posts 15 and 16 certainly give us a glimpse of the "behind the scenes" machinations that comprise the real picture of the battle for riding the Net highways.

In light of your expression of what we would all LIKE, and given the mentioned posts, do any of us think there is any chance of our wished for Net Neutrality? I don't.

Most of us are old enough to remember life before the Net (BN). We're so used to the advantages it offers we'd have withdrawal symptoms if we lost it. And in practical terms, we probably won't stop to be aware of any search results manipulations. Intentional slowing of traffic speeds might become a real pain, though.

Although not directly related to what politicians usually refer to as "Net Neutrality", the following link offers an illustration of how the Government sneaks more control in through the back door, once you let them have just a crack...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/s978-commercial-felony-streaming-act-could-it-land-artists-like-justin-bieber-in-jail/2011/10/25/gIQAnkfgFM_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_tech

True enough. But corporations and government are in bed so tightly that it really doesn't matter that much... and it's not even pick your poison, because that train left the station a long time ago and we can't see to stop it or get off.

I think the key here is that net neutrality means different things to different people. I want to choose what services I get from the internet. I don't do peer to peer but I do get updates to my linux system. Pretty often, and it even updates the entire os to a new version every 6 or 8 months. Currently, the cable companies can slow that that update service if they wish. (And I might never even know!). They can partially Jam one or other download server or lose a few packets (imagine if that happened with a netflix download! (and I will get annoyed and dump my linux and never know the real reason why I did it). Unfortunately the cable companies in Canada were allowed to get into this incredible conflict of interest situation. They own tv, video, phone, cell phone and internet services and they also compete with single service providers in all the above sections. I have already told about the guy with the net server. (A minute competitor with the shaw cable own service). His service was basically destroyed and they used the excuse that that port was a potential virus or trojan danger. (Shaw's own "personal" record on viruses and spam was then brought up!" Apparently it isn't stellar. Which begs the point, if your cable company is lax and has a bunch of spambots on the system, why should you pay the cable company for the spam? In an ideal world, no regulation of private companies is needed. But as we can see from the financial system, in the "real world" non regulation is not a recipe for an ideal world. There has to be some.

There has to be some oversight or they will screw the consumer like never before. Thats their job as companies (our job as consumers is to get internet for as low a cost as possible).

I don't trust companies or government. Sometimes we have to use our power as government to keep the companies from screwing us. We cannot easily change service provider because they are for the most part regionally based. We need to find out how much of their infrastructure lies idle to pretend that they must charge us more.

It's a shame. I haven't had any experiences with my ISP messing around with my speeds or content, but I'm sure it happens, and it's not right.

It's probably already too late. If the service providers refuse to clean up their act, the government will get involved. I can't help but think that the government is salivating at this opportunity................................if/when net neutrality is imposed, there's just no telling what the internet will become. I can almost guarantee that it won't be the same. I hope I'm wrong.

Perhaps on another direction here.

Is it possible that it is a bit late for this debate? I thought pointing to specific sites based on prior use (cookies) and soon demographic identification was a done deal.

A number of years ago a grant was given to a former internet guru to develop a pointing algorithm based on identification of the device (person) and the demographic information on file for that person. An example would be pointing a person such as me to a Popular Science type article instead of a peer review journal based on my ability to understand the content as well as need to know.

Information in all other types of media is a carefully calculated and controlled commodity; why would it be any different for the internet?

Gavilan

I don't know about others, but I clear cookies (including the LSO/Supercookies) off my system, as I move about the Net, especially at any new search... unless I'm so absorbed as to forget it, which does happen. But most of the time, I probably get the "default" results in any search.

A main trend from some I found amusing here, is:

1,. Companies (consisting of people, with human motivations) do not play fair, do not be trusted.

2,. Government (consisting of people, with human motivations) may not play fair, but to be trusted, to do right for us.

HOW COME?!!?

People are people, motivations are what they are. I have yet to encounter somebody as a devil coming from here and the very same, being an angel coming from there. That view is puerile and plain idiotic. People have their own motivations, no matter what organisations they operate in.

It seems to appear, as negotiations in the marketplace would be a strange concept to you. Well, when you look into the mirror, and are honest with iust iourself, you know to in the depth of your soul, that you make deals and bargains - maybe many times a day - and as long as you live. Mind it, you may be a leading light in your own speciality - good and fine - and still deficient in this.

You unconvinced?? Well, for the blind ones I have eternal examples. Try to have children (or try having NOT to have them) without serious, dragged out negotiations - that puts SALT into the kindergarden - and you and every other adult knows exactly I am talking about. Now, THAT is negotiation!

Compared to fundamentals, corralling ISP's and rating outfit is a walk in the park. Keep your sense of proportions, and do not let yourselves be corralled into planned and mindless reactions. Only politicians will be happy, for a short while.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

When a shark takes a big bite out, both the fish and the fisherman turns out be poorer.

"Compared to fundamentals, corralling ISP's and rating outfit is a walk in the park " Why do you think that? As consumers, We cannot tell if they are slowing down their competitors stuff. And the very point of my argument is that they ARE human and therefore cannot be trusted. And most of you are disciples of the Holy Free Market here. well, guess what, if both parties do not have full access to the real value of the transaction, doesn't that mean that it disobeys the first law of the Holy Market?

My "standards compliant" opera browser will not open certain sites so I say "fug it" and stop using opera. But supposing the certain sites have inked deals with firefox and IE just to fug over opera. Is that a valid free market tactic? (I have loyalty to opera because they introduced tabbed browsing and mouse gestures when I was on dial up). When site says "upgrade to IE" I think "are you fugging nuts?". The intenet is still very much in foggy wild west mode. A lot of killings and dark acts happen in this fog. In the Holy Free Market, there is no fog. If the companies have the ability to slow down the net, (they do) it is not good for society OR for the Holy Free Market. How does the Holy Free Market deal with regional monopolies? O that's right, it has its hands and feet and head cut off and does nothing.

I wish, you would reconsider.

And the point of the argument is, that they cannot be trusted, because they are human.Well, YOU are human, think it over. Why should anybody trust YOU?!? In anything, tell me, more exactly, tell us?? There is a fundamental problem with such circular logic. Mind it, paranoid thinking might well have anchoring in the real world, and it does, sadly, frequently enough, but.....

But, it does not do, as one's anchoring point for life. Thinking that way, mankind should have died long time ago. No relationship, no deal based on a handshake should ever be trusted. As importantly, no human relationship leading to family and descendants should develop. And mankind should have been extinguished.

Now, I do definitely not accuse you such heinous acts. On the other hand, talking without thinking thru, at the minimum, is in your lap.

By now, motivations of others did not even come up. They are meaningful only after clearing one's own motivations.

best regards

The bottom line is.........................when businesses behave badly, consumers and news outlets can usually bring them in line with complaints and bad publicity..............................when the government oversteps it's bounds, no such mechanisms exist. Whether they misled us or not, good or bad, the things they do tend to be forever.

Well, yes.

History, at least tends to be selfcorrecting on an ahhh so slow scale.

But, for the rest of us spending a limited time on God's green earth, that is cold comfort.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish to speed up Darwin a bit, nah, make that quite a bit!

when was that?

you mean like when the financial institutions were deregulated?

or don't you remember when AT&T was the only game in town?

what were the rates for long distance?

the only way to correct the government is be involved, there is no choice

When was that?? My memory is badly fading at events before a century or two!?

Financial deregulation? medieval times? Or not even that?

ATT was not the only game, it was MaBell (iust a bit facetious). A 10-15 tube microwave repeater was a small fortune. A traveling wave amplifier was a large fortune. At decommissioning I got one TWT as a gift. Zero value, except for memories. Technological advancement tend to do that. Now, you can get a fiber connection to your home with more capacity, than a main microwave trunk of MaBell of yesteryear.

Long distance rates dropped accordingly. That is a good thing. Isn't it?

The last note stumps me. What wazz that?!?

this is just the latest in a running conversation Kramarat & I have been having across multiple threads, so some of the context is missing

I think most [if not all] of what government does is in reaction to abuse of the commonly held resources

The semi free market can & some times does regulate itself. Other times there needs to be rules. the rules were relaxed for financial institutions to allow them to be involved with more & more areas, with less constraints. We are living with the result

Silence is acceptance

That was my fault. I got my threads mixed up.

My only argument, is that in most cases, government involvement does not equal good. The government was behind the housing bubble, which in turn, is largely responsible for the economic morass that we're in now......................with countless billions still propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and millions going to executive salaries and bonuses.

With the government's propensity to screw things up big time, I don't want them dabbling in the internet.

let the fox guard the henhouse then?

Letting the fox guard the hen house may be a more reasonable solution, in that the fox is only going to eliminate one chicken at a time, allowing the rest of them to reproduce at will. On the other hand, if one puts the socialist pig from Huxley's Animal Farm in charge, he is likely to redistribute all of the chickens until there are no eggs left to eat...

So, which is better- losing an occasional chicken in "payment" to your guard, or losing them all (and the eggs they produce) due to misappropriation and corruption?

I know government always bad, semifree market good

the best plan would have the telecoms acting responsibly, not holding their customers hostage, by surcharges & other methods of surpressing competition

When I first arrived in Panama, the Government was in the process of privatizing the telecommunications industry. This was before, of course, Internet was the defining issue. A single company was granted a limited-time monopoly in the major market (the primary urban center of Panama). Once that monopoly time limit was reached, the market opened up, with a lot of what I would consider dirty tactics and efforts by the dominant provider to block significant competition in their core market. However, the market has opened, and I have a significant number of choices available to address my communications needs. Overall, access to telephone service has espanded rapidly (in government-controlled days, it could take years to get new telephone service, even if the lines were already in place- today, nearly everyone, across the economic spectrum, has at least one cell phone, and I know of a number of people that carry more than one). I have multiple choices for Internet provider, and there are a number of different options provided by different carriers to meet various economic needs of their customers (including about two Internet cafe's per block on most commercial thoroughfares). I will admit that providers seem to compete more on quality of service rather than price, however. I use a pay-as-you-go cell phone service, rather than a monthly fee plan- it suits my needs more directly, and I am not paying for services I don't use.

Overall, opening the telecommunications market, from a Government-controlled system to one driven mostly by free-market competition has resulted in improved benefits for the bulk of the population. Of course the market is not fully open- the Government still sticks its nose in on certain issues...

Another factor- due to the high cost of entry into such markets, most of the major providers are extensions of international telecommunications companies rather than home-grown. In the US, the telecommunications market does not derive much benefit from internationalization (read the telecommunications section of the original NAFTA agreement to get a perspective on US Government definition of "free trade").

We haven't seen a free market in the US for a long time. A lot of people seem to assume that the term "free market" means no rules whatsoever..................I don't see it like that.

The way I see it, in a free market system, anyone should be able to compete in any business. There needs to be rules that everyone has to play by...........................the same rules. What the government has forgotten, and continues to forget, or simply ignores, is that their job is to stay on the sidelines and enforce the rules...........................period. A referee.................not a player.

Right now, our corrupt, runaway government is actively in the game. They target some companies, while climbing into bed with others. They manipulate markets with farm, ethanol, wind, solar, and other subsidies. They tell bar and restaurant owners that they can't allow smoking, (a perfectly legal practice), in the establishments that they own. They forced banks to make home loans to people that couldn't pay it back. They forced banks to accept TARP money when they didn't want it. They completely took over the student loan industry, and are attempting to do the same with healthcare.

You guys that rail against a free market system, have no idea what one looks like. Our government has been eroding ours for most, if not all, of our lifetimes. I for one would love to see the government get completely out of the way, enforce the laws and rules that make sense, equally, (not according to campaign donations), and let things take their course.

As far as the internet, and net neutrality is concerned...............the number of people that are online is going to hit a saturation point. The only way the ISPs are going to be able to lure new customers, is to beat the competition, and provide a better experience. Once one does it, the rest will have to follow, or disappear.

We can't say the free market doesn't work, when the government won't allow it to....................................and hasn't for decades. Every year, government involvement is worse than the last. We only need to look as far as Europe, and now the US, to see that it's not a good thing.

there has never been a free market in this country

the rules determine the winners & losers

always have, always will

OMG, What happened to the 7.2 billion that was allocated in 2009 for internet upgrades?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10317118-38.html

It all just makes me feel so warm, fuzzy and safe. The government will take care of us. We just need to trust them.

If you look at your link, you will see that the cable association designed the finished bill. All that means is that they have corrupted the process and bought off people YOU elected so that they could steal YOUR money. Why are you on the side of the corporations, again?

Against your own interests too.

I think you should attempt to elect more honest people.

Blaming the people YOU voted for is a cop out. Vote them out and vote in people with real beliefs and standards. Did you ever think to ask how the Koreans achieved high internet speed?

we do want those affected to be involved with the process of regulation

when one perspective dominates, the results are suboptimal

I put in a comment with the FCC a few months ago

as long as all the bandwidth [content] is treated the same, I support tiered rate plans

in the larger view [election time] is difficult, the choices tend to be very similar, very slight differences in the special interest groups funding the candidates,

the big players take a pragmatic position & back everyone...

be involved you never know, you could make a difference

Easy, they gave it to the corporations, the top execs looked at each other across their fences, smiled and took the money. Free money (grants) to big corporations is not going to speed them up. A better way is a mix of small incentives and penalties for not speeding up. I am not sure what point you are trying to make? How do you suggest we get up to Korean speed? Emigrate?

My point is, that we need to get government out of the business world, and business out of government.............................Have you ever seen a pair of snakes mating? That's what it reminds me of. They are writhing around in pure ecstasy in a sea of money that is provided by us.

People assume, that because I choose to rail against a sloppy, corrupt, inefficient, wasteful, ill informed government, that somehow I am advocating corporate malfeasance.................that's not true.

I happened to see this on Sunday night. It sums up the cesspool that our government has become, better than I can. You can watch the video segment at the bottom.

Believe me, I try to make sure my votes have an impact. They don't.

the corruption continues beyond the lobbyist, to what the candidates do with the money

saying anything to get re-elected

in general the focus is kept on peripheral issues

it's not possible to separate business & government, nor would we want to...

the decision making process for laws & regulations, needs to have more balance

you can't leave either of them on their own too much, they will get into trouble, we have to be the oversight for the overseers

Did you watch the 60 Minutes link?

Virtually every bill contains sneaky, backdoor, last minute junk, that is either designed to help or hurt a particular industry. That will include a net neutrality bill.

I'd be willing to bet, that a provision was snuck into some farm bill or something, by some congress person, that was specifically designed to allow the telecom companies to do exactly what they are doing now in regard to bandwidth and content.

Now the very same people want to introduce a net neutrality bill to protect us from the practices that they made possible.

it's not possible to separate business & government, nor would we want to...

I'll just have to disagree with that one. So, I guess you're completely comfortable with the Cheney/Halliburton connection, Al Gore/Apple, Obama appointing cabinet level positions to former executives from GE and Monsanto, congressmen and senators getting out of politics, and going straight to work for lobbying firms for 7 figure salaries. The list goes on and on.

I'm glad you're happy with the status quo.....................I'm sure not. To me, it all kind of resembles a gluttonous roman orgy.

you're describing corruption, not a healthy system of checks & balances

there is always going to be some amount of patronage, it's human nature

I'm not sure what you are suggesting we do, revert to warring tribes [the tribes being corporations]

I understand your point about

the needle & the damage done [Neil Young]

there is also the issue of liberty & free will

do we really want the government involved in which forms of recreation we choose to indulge in?

is supply side thinking the most effective method of suppression of harmful behavior?

I think we ended up with the "ones" that could do it and the ones that couldn't (AOL, Prodigy, WebTV, etc) are gone.

Now we bitch about them.

Commercial fishing is a good example of the fox guarding the henhouse. Also, I remember a fox taking 2 hens and killing (and leaving) all the rest. Domestic dogs are worse. When a pack comes together and kills sheep. I had a neighbour lose 35 or 40 sheep in one night.

The holey free market is a religion. Humans in the upper reaches of a company (and many near the bottom too) are just like stone age hunters hunting mammoths. They are ruthless, they are loyal to their leader and to their pack to the exclusion of any loyalty to their country and all competiton must be dealt with by hook or by crook. This is part of our mental heritage. All people act like that. How much cash is sitting in the banks of top companies in the USA right now? Billions upon Billions. Warehouses of the stuff. When will the hoarders tv program come knocking at their doors? They have so much money that they do not know what to do with it. In a smoothly running economy, this cash is the grease in the wheels. But it is all stored in vats and the gears are grinding down. If we had governments doing proper oversight, this would not have happened. Lobbying bought out our democratic (and republican) reps and turned them into company workers. I hope people get over their utopian views "holey free market" "trickle down", etc. "Sh*t floats" explains top management (and their crazy u turns), in lots of companies. HP, Nokia etc, Anybody see sanity in their moves in the last couple of years? Clearly, even within a company, you cannot be "friends" and still oversee the company properly. Government can provide oversight but only if it is at arms length. They are way too buddy buddy to do it right now.

What makes the average person think that they can tell a company what to do? Actually say..."HEY...you must not limit my bandwidth or I will cut off your nuts!".

They may listen if they want to make everyone happy and eventually stay in business, but in all reality they pretty much do what they want. In a free market economy a company does what it wants in order to make money and grow the best way it knows how.

If you don't like what that company has to offer, move on. The internet is not a god-given inalienable right (or godless, whatever).

what makes a ISP company have think they have a right to bandwidth on the internet?

it is a commonly held resource...

what should the requirements be for an ISP?

They don't have a right to it, they purchase it.

Just saw my deleted post....................I guess I got too religious.

Nothing political about net neutrality, eh?

Oh well, I reckon I'm done here. Either a moderator is anonymously imposing their opinion on here, or someone pushed the report button. Sqrew it.

& there are rules they need to follow

or shouldn't there be any rules?

Nothing happens by accident. The reason the ISPs are able to game the existing rules on content and speeds, is because one or more of our elected officials put the wording in some obscure bill to allow it. Bet on it.

any suggestions, for fixing the actual problem?

money is not free speech...

how to have access to government be possible, without having money dominate...

balance & moderation are missing from the process

Either the companies own the internet or the government does. Either way, if that entity owns the last hop that the user is logged into...that gives them the right to limit the bandwidth.

You are not connected to the "internet", you are connected to an ISP which "grants" access to the internet. You pay for access.

no problem limiting bandwidth

as long as all bandwidth is treated equally

Yes, I totally agree with that. I think that since Netflicks and their ilk stream such large amounts at each instance that the providers saw a way to improve their bottom line easily.

One thing to keep in mind is that not all hardware is capable of streaming/carrying all protocols. The hardware that can handle everything costs more and requires infrastructure and routing upgrades. Imagine how much it would cost to backfit Comcast's or Cox's entire network with compatible hardware. This is where some the "cost sharing" would come into play, by making the people who are using the content forcing the upgrades to pay instead of everyone.

Since the entire network is not compatible, bottle-necking and additional administration is necessary to properly route demand at peak times so as to not slow down the entire network when the east coast starts watching their Friday movies. This adds cost through hardware and personnel.

If I only look at email and do online banking then why should I pay for infrastructure upgrades for my neighbors who stream online content all night?

I am not completely on one side of the fence or the other, but I think we need to stay involved to ensure a fair outcome.

Net neutrality is not about limiting bandwidth. You pay for access but the isp,s are slowing down SPECIFIC PARTS of the internet for COMMERCIAL reasons. Does the company with the pipes to your house have the right to slow down specific parts of the internet? If you are a gamer, they slow down your game. If you are a peer to peer person, they limit your speed, (especially uploads for some reason). And in Canada, they do this slowdown whether or not there is congestion. You have a big gaming industry in the States, don't you? Well, think about it, if Canadian ISP's are slowing down gaming, they are making YOUR game companies less profitable. So if you are a game company share holder, your success or failure could be decided by a cable company, not the brilliance of your game company.

In other cases, a company will limit the speed of specific messaging services that compete with services of other branches of the provider. You are connected to the INTERNET. The service provider in my case provides me with the pipes and practically nothing else. If I had to use just their content, I would never go on the thing. Imagine what would happen if all the pipe owners all through the net acted in this way. Everyone would be at dialup speed!

And by the way, the cost of those pipes is tiny. They are making a massive profit on the basis of other peoples content. In Canada, (See above) one of our companies made an online game UNPLAYABLE! because they throttled it so much. Imagine what would happen if the execs from that company had shares in a competing game company? Indeed, maybe they do. Otherwise why pick on one game and destroy it?

Maybe I should just give up. It is like talking to 911 truthers.

It is fascinating to read somebody living in an alternate universe. Right here there is not a mythical beast called commercial company or government entity.Nor there is a mythical young user endowed (by G*d) by mythical rights. There are only contracts.

If I run either those outfits, nuisances like filesharers and gameplayers get slowed to the background. Nothing personal, but pain in the butt, the asocial ones. If they are that hot on their activities, they can individually or collectively get a fibre, rent a T1 or set up their own ISP.

End of sentence, end of story.

Bye, and get a life.

No, you're absolutely right gt. For ISPs to target specific sites or activities for slowdown is wrong. You'll get no argument from me on that.

Here's where things get scary for me:

In the US, the FCC has policies in place to prevent this already. Why aren't they enforcing them?

The tiered system works. I pay a lower price for volunteering to allow them to slow my speeds. Since I don't play games, it's still very fast for me.

Some games, content, etc. will always have to be slowed down to keep traffic flowing. It would just be random instead of intentional. I haven't read the entire net neutrality proposal, but in the US, they are implying that everyone should have super high speed. I don't believe that's possible over our current networks.

My real fear is, that in a government imposed net neutrality scenario, who would decide what gets blocked or slowed down? With our current system, everybody can't play games and stream movies at once.................it doesn't work.

So if certain things must be slowed to keep traffic moving, I could see an agency like this being reestablished to make that determination. It's a risk I'm not willing to take. The government needs to tell the ISPs to stop it. That's all it would take. Maybe a couple of fines imposed to show that they mean business.

I could also see a republican administration slowing liberal sites, and vice versa. The point is, that once the government is in......................there's no getting them out. We'll all have to live with the outcome. There will be no changing it.

In this discussion I find myself smackdab in Orwell's universe. Everything is political, as most things nowadays are, if they make sense or not. Reality, as in common sense, economics and technology is brushed aside, as unworthy, in a technology centric subiect, if there ever was one.

So, I will be a grinch, taking away make-believe candy from make-believe kiddypoos. And still keep my souls's equilibrium, without much effort. In plain english: I will not lose sleep over it.

YOU DO NOT LIKE ISP? BYPASS IT. PLENTY OF COMPANIES RUN WORLDWIDE ETHERNET AT MULTIGIGABIT SPEED ON EXISTING FIBRE AS THEIR OWN. NO RESTRICTIONS, AS IN NONE.

YOU, AS AN INDIVIDUAL CAN GET THE SAME ROUTE. A FIBRE CONNECTION IS A RICH VIDEO SPEED, TOPPING OUT AT 20 MEGABITS. DESIGNED FOR STREAMING DIGITAL VIDEO. BYPASSES ANY ISP LIMITATIONS, REAL OR IMAGINED. ONCE YOU ARE IN THE "BIG" PIPE, NO LIMITING CAN HAPPEN. OBVIOUSLY YOUR GAMING BUDDIES HAVE TO HAVE THE SAME ARRANGEMENTS TO MAKE IT WORK.

IT IS THERE, IT WORKS, MANY USE IT, TODAY. CAPICHE?!?

Anything else is trying to sponge off the system, or other false excuses. The gimme, you owe me, or I try to force to gimme is what geo sez.

You are limited by the power company by your service drop rating. You are limited by the water company by the size of your inlet. Both of those control the rate at which you can use the service.

Why can't your ISP limit your internet usage rate?

the senate sided with the FCC

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/10/net-neutrality-rules_n_1086530.html

why would your post be off topic?

I'm not especially thrilled with the way our government works either

we need to have rules, how are we going to get there?

it's somewhere between the extremes...

Yeah, that's not an off topic post.

Here's the problem:

I use the phone company and DSL, a middle of the road package. Not the slowest and not the fastest. The phone company wants me to upgrade to the premium package................movies, gaming.......you name it. Here's the hitch. In order to get me into those super fast speeds, my internet, TV, phone, etc. will run through cable, which is leased from the cable company, which also offers their own competing services with the phone company.

The bottom line is-- There simply isn't enough space to provide everyone with super high speed everything. There will still be log jams in which your movie, game or skype will freeze up or slow down, it will just be evenly distributed amongst all customers. Nothing will change, and it's possible that everything could become a lot more frustrating for everyone.

In a best case scenario, this is a case of stupid idiot politicians thinking that they can force companies to provide super high speed to everybody. In a worst case scenario, this is about the government getting a foothold in the digital domain. Controlling the internet would be the holy grail for the government, they'd love it. All they need is for us to give them permission. The best way for them to get it, is to promise us a better internet experience. I don't buy it.

you continue to misconstrue the issue

speed is not the issue

go ahead blame the government for comcast [others too] blocking competitors content

Exactly, how do you stop comcast and others from slowing down and blocking competitors content behind the scenes? And my friends at ideas meetings have proved that they are doing this. They are spending my 60 bux a month blocking ports that people use for webservers, and designing methods to slow specific web traffic. This is an act of vandalism. In soccer, you do not have to run so hard if you give your fleet footed opponent a sharp kick on the ankle. In soccer the referee stops you doing this all the time. But in this beautiful holy free market, there is no referee and it is dark and there is more than 2 teams. Nobody can see who dilivered the kicks. So people blame "other people downloading movies" in this thread for their slow internet and are willing to pay more to speed up again. But suppose it is NOT "other people downloading movies" that is causing your slow internet. Suppose it is YOUR own isp! or suppose it is some other isp along the line between what you want to access and you. If this is the case, You are really being screwed around, arn't you? And what proof do we have? Easy, other countries where the net is much faster. The evidence shows that your own isp is slowing down the net so they can charge YOU more money. I know people who did download a lot of stuff. They get cease and desist letters and by and large, they obey them. So that stuff about them slowing down the net is just Marketing. The cable companies HAVE the ability to identify them and give them stern letters. (But it is much easier for them to pretend that they are a huge problem, while slowing down the net behind the scenes and blaming file sharers for the slowdown). People are being played and that is fine in an unregulated free market. Stupid people WILL have their pockets picked. The isp's slow down the net because it is more profitable for them to slow down their competitors than to speed everything up. Only regulation can change this equation.

ISP's can get away with slowing down your speed only when there is not a competitor offering higher speed to the same customers. You do NOT have a free market- you have a monopolistic situation, if the ISP has that much control.

I happen to enjoy living in a free market, where I have real choice with regards to who I chose to do business with. I pay less than $40 per month for combined Cable TV (for the wife, not for me) and Internet. The wife also occasionally likes to catch movies or TV directly on the Internet. No problem with speed (but, then, I don't have do a lot of large file transfers and such, although I do occasionally run in to it). I'm sure I have several neighbors on the same ISP that do a lot more downloading than I do. Occasionally, I note significant drops in speed- usually in the early evening when I know others are home and using up bandwidth.

I am pretty sure the ISP is not playing with my bandwidth, because, if the ISP DID try to throttle my bandwidth to encourage me to "upgrade" to a more expensive plan, I have the option of switching to another carrier that won't play those games.

THAT is how a free market works. How long will it last? Until one carrier gains such a large market share that others can no longer afford to compete. Hopefully, that will be a long time into the future. Meanwhile, I know that service is far, far superior than what was offered when the Panamanian government was the monopoly holder...

I have limited choice of ISP's

the DSL I use doesn't do any funny things

I notice the same slow downs when all the neighbors are online

I sometime's I use comcast at a friend's house, they certainly slow down things like netflix

there is no problem if they would like to favor their own alternatives, it should be overt, say by speeding their's up, when paying for a certain amount of speed you should get it

if comcast [among others] acted responsibly, this wouldn't be an issue\

the patriot act is a different issue

My DSL doesn't act funny either, but I don't watch movies or play games on the internet.

Something about all of this doesn't smell right. Why would ISPs continue to behave badly, knowing full well that it will bring government intervention?

They wouldn't. It doesn't make any sense. If the network begins to get overloaded, software within the servers will automatically slow down traffic and speeds to prevent a complete lockup. I can't imagine the logic in blocking content though.

Is the government paying them billions of dollars to make people mad and demand intervention? Not beyond the realm of possibility.

you've never used comcast, they want to make sure you are using their products across the board

I did'nt know how intrusive they are until I started using another ISP

hey blazingly fast

try to use another mail program, the information is there, but hidden deep

you would just not be able to get to some places on the net, no error, just wouldn't work

my friend is in an area where for the price, not much else makes sense

when you are nearly the only game in town, there is nothing to keep you from pushing the envelope...

I did comment to the FCC & to my representatives about net neutrality

Well if that's what they're doing they deserve to get nailed. I still think that an across the board, government imposition of net neutrality is going to come with ramifications that none of us are aware of, will be happy with, and will be powerless to stop once it's in place.

I'm not the happiest camper in the world either. My choices are the phone company or the cable company.....period. Both of them are expensive. That said, I'll take it. The last thing I want is to have the government any deeper in the internet than they already are. They have the power to screw us harder and deeper than any ISP ever thought of.

so how would they get "nailed"

without laws?

or are they supposed to magically punish themselves?

If you're going to ignore my previous posts and links then this discussion has become pointless.

"Subject to the needs of law enforcement", says it all dude.

That one statement makes it very clear that they can and will take over the entire internet if it is deemed necessary.

The rules are in place. The punishment is whatever they decide.

So why is net neutrality such a pressing issue?

Let me give you a hint....................POWER WITH PERMISSION IS THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE

We've got citizens mad at ISPs. We've got citizens mad at banks. We've got citizens mad at wall st. We've got citizens mad at corporations. We've got a President that's egging it on.

All of them, ironically, are begging for more and bigger government to fix it.

WAKE UP MAN!!! This is the plan.

If we fall into a mindset of dependency and loose our freedom, we'll never get it back.

All joking aside.

If these people gain public support for shredding the Constitution and starting over with a kinder, gentler agenda, we will be entering a period of living hell.

The old, worn out, no longer pertinent Constitution, is the only thing standing between them and absolute control. I'm begging here to think about it. Please.

We're at a real number of about 17% unemployment. Foodstamp applications are at the highest ever. Highest on welfare. We're 15 trillion in debt. The justice dept has actively been supplying guns and ammo to the Mexican drug cartels, resulting in countless murders, Europe is going into meltdown............................and the news of the day is net neutrality and banning the incandescent light bulb.

If I'm completely insane here, please help me to understand what I'm missing.