How Important Is 'Net Neutrality' to You?

Take the prescription from this old coot Doctor. And repeat after me, many times a day: I am not God, I am not God, I definitively am not God.....Damn their thick hides.

Then you take your siesta, for the constitution.

Then you contemplate.

Then you rest.

And think.

And think, and then talk.

You think, I am mocking. NO, not at all. Mohatma Ghandi had a long and brilliantly successful life. And how many remarks are attributed to him? Not that many.

I do not elevate you there. Rather, it is an example to be followed, to be effective.

best regards

I think the "Patriot act" says it all

an opportunistic power grab, that has spawned countless secret agencies, off the official budget

we need not bigger government, but better government, effective efficient government

Absolutely correct.

Part of me can understand the reasoning behind the patriot act. But to follow it up with political correctness, a refusal to profile, patting down blue haired old ladies and infants just to show the world that we don't target any particular group, belies a severe mental deficiency on the part of our supposed leaders.

They are far more concerned with presenting the apppearance of being good, than they are with solving any problems. It's a dangerous smoke and mirrors sideshow.

One of the primary concepts that I had to grasp when I first started running large jobs, is that, if one person can finish a project in 40 hours, it does not mean that 40 people can do it in an hour. It's a concept that still escapes our government.

given the right organization

40 people can do that task in 1/2 an hour

whereas 40 government people would take around 2 hours, due to their 50's style management structure

union people 1 1/2 hours, the division of labor is there, but not in a good way

those Blue hairs scare the shyt out of me, full cavity searches as far as I'm concerned

I'm not misconstruing anything. Once again, you and some others are angry and confused, and looking to big brother to make it better.

This is from the FCC's Internet Policy Statement: Found here.

• access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
• run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
• connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
• competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

Sounds pretty self explanatory to me. So now we must ask ourselves, 'Why isn't the FCC, (government), enforcing these policy guidelines?

Why would the government be pushing for net neutrality, when a simple cease and desist letter to the ISPs would do the trick?

Your blind faith in the government is touching, and you are a good citizen. Unfortunately, I don't feel the same. I will never trust their motives. They've proven themselves to be unworthy of my trust too many times.

It seems to me, that Gaia does not care to understand, that bandwith does not grow on trees. And that no amount of govt. interference will fertilize that. More likely, that fertilizer will smell, well, like fertilizer.

It seems to me, that Gaia does not care to understand, that he signed a Service Contract. And, that it does mean some limited bandwith most of the time, some more limited bandwith some other time.

He need not like it. He can start up an ISP, and enioy all the bandwith that provides. Oops, that is not unlimited either. But, at least it keeps a man busy, out of trouble.

And that file sharing spots are a darned nuisance, not a God's given right for anybody who had the grace to be born. You want to share? No problem. Do it slooow, in the background, with good manner. There is no special preferences section in a service contract for bandwith hogs. You are really burning up for sharing? There is CD or DVD and snail mail.

You really, really have to, got to share right now, yesterday? Get a fibre connection for somewhere $100. Now you will hit the average thruput at 10-20Mbits instead 1-2Mbits. Congratulation.

You do not like to pay any? Go to your local library at off times, and use it as permitted. Oh, there are limitations too? Oh, well. It seems, no matter which way we turn, this world is full of limitations. Darn.

There ain't no free cheese anyplace, I could look.

I totally understand that bandwidth does not grow on trees. Do YOU understand that some other countries are making the USA look 3rd rate on bandwidth? Are they somehow just better countries? Or maybe their governments prevent the cable companies from slowing down the net?

Also, nobody has told me yet how the cable companies can feed hdtv signals through the exact same cables and NOT be affected by this slowdown. How come? It is digital signals going through the same digital cable as the digital signal from the internet. How come it does not get slowed down too?

Anyway, there is lots of bandwidth. They just prefer not to make it available.

Think of a company selling rice in a famine. Do they get more money by selling it all in 2 days as a glut of food or by metering it out at a high price till the very end and making it (and the famine) last?

We know that cable companies have the technology to slow down other people's signals. We know they use this technology. And we certainly know that it is a competitive advantage. But it is not a fair advantage. It is cheating.

Net neutrality is about preventing them from cheating. Here is the deal, the cable company provides movies, and netflix provides movies, so if they slow down netflix and youtube enough or provide a cap that is low enough, the result is no more netflix or youtube competing with them.

How do you as an informed consumer deal with this? (I know that currently you deal with it by refusing to become informed). You prefer to believe that your fellow consumer is the problem and you yourself are all virtue. (And of course the Cable company is all virtue too).

You will have probably 2 choices of internet provider in your area and they will be almost exactly the same price. How do YOU get best value for your money? (Both of them are using the slow down technology to cripple their rivals). How can YOU possibly get better value as long as there is no oversight?

I cannot look down the wires and see how the cable company cuts my friends web server. But I know they did it because it stopped working and they told him it was to prevent viruses and spambots. What is funny about this? He is an internet security expert. His job is all about preventing virus attacks. Type in Shaw cable and spambot in your search engine and you can get lots of hits. Because? A lax policy from them about shutting down spambots slows down the internet but doesn't slow down their cable tv. They prefer you sitting in front of the tv watching their stuff instead of being in front of the computer watching (and paying for) other people's stuff.

If people do not fight for net neutrality, we could be transported back to the "walled garden approach from internet providers. Is that something that appeals to you?

gaiatechnician-

You appear to be ignoring the point that I have been trying to express based on my experience in Panama where we have a TRUE free market, where competition between providers where competition is the driver. A true free market will be self-regulating as competitors compete to win customers. I receive TV and Internet over the same cable. If I am unhappy with the service provided by my service provider, or the price being charged, I have the option to switch providers- I have about five major choices, any one of which would be more than willing to take my business. I have the option of selecting different providers for TV and Internet if I chose. This is what free market is all about. It seems that in parts of the US this is not the case. I doubt seriously that more regulation is going to change your situation. What would change the situation would be if the regulations were relaxed such that competitive providers were not being denied access to the market through the high entry cost that results from excessive regulation. If your monopolistic provider choses to continue "unfair practices" in the face of serious competition, they will not survive.

No amount of regulation or monitoring is going to improve your situation. Why? Primarily because those responsible for writing the rules and monitoring the service haven't a clue as to how the system works. So they turn to the providers to help them define "appropriate" rules. If a provider has a monopoly hold on the market, are they going to advise the rule writers and governing authorities rules that benefit potential competitors, or are they going to promote rules and regulations that preserve their market?

You need more options, not more government interference. It works quite well in Panama.

is there a valid comparison to be made between Panama & the US?

1million vs 95million

I would rather make a geographical comparison, as a west coast outfit will not compete with an east coast outfit for the same business.

Panama city and environs, Boston, Charlotte, Nashville, Miami etc. are on the same scale. So, let's rethink. Why is in the first possible and real to have competition, and in none of the latter?

It must be the latitude! No, that is not.

It must be cooler air! No, That is neither.

.............

.............

Their evil companies are better, than our evil companies. Oh, yeah, that must be it!

That govt. might to do something with it? perish the thought!

Like handing out monopoly licenses?

It got to be those evil companies for not refusing the monopoly handed to them!

It must be, it must be!

How long does it take the Congress to lift rules? Less than a day.

So, why not? Follow the money. Campaign, not outright bribery.

A comparison by contrast. Panama, the country, is a little over 3,000,000 people. Panama, the city, is maybe 1.3 million. All of Panama is about the size of a small (not anywhere near the top 20) metropolitan regions of the US. Panama the city is fairly small as an urban center by US standards. Yet, multiple service providers (telephone, Internet, TV) compete successfully for a segment of the market. The Government demands that, if a carrier wants to compete in the main market, they also must provide service in one of the less-populated areas of the country, insuring at least some coverage for them.

Now, the current telecommunications industry evolved from the privatization of a government monopoly. Similar to the break up of AT&T. the former telecommunications monopoly in the US. Only, the break up of AT&T did NOT result in true competitive markets- AT&T was broken up into the Baby Bells, each of which maintained a monopoly in their respective geographic regions. True, the break up also allowed for competitors to enter the long distance market, but, back then, that was not the main revenue source for telecommunications. Instead of a large, national monopoly, you wind up with a lot of localized monopolies.

Now the interesting contrast: this small time urban center supports a number of competing service providers. Why do you not see similar developments in markets many times the size of this one? In my opinion, it is because the monopoly holders have been able to manipulate the government regulation writers to drive the cost of entering the market to the point where no profit can be realized by a new comer. Therefore, potential competitors to the monopoly holders seek more lucrative markets elsewhere (for example, Bell South expanding into the Panamanian market).

As long as the industry is structured to block free trade, you are not going to see competitors show up that can offer better service. Therefore, the monopoly holders have no incentive to offer better services or competitive pricing.

Free markets work, where they are given a chance.

Yet, multiple service providers (telephone, Internet, TV) compete successfully for a segment of the market. The Government demands that, if a carrier wants to compete in the main market, they also must provide service in one of the less-populated areas of the country, insuring at least some coverage for them.
the key phrase being
The Government Demands that!
huh effective regulation is possible

we need enough rules to keep things on the up & up

The real failure is the election/campaign finance system

it is hard to do good work when all the managers are temps

You have 5 sets of cable coming to your house? I don't think so. I am happy for you that you live with the illusion that you have a free market.

Actually, there are, I believe, 3 sets of cables. The carriers share in some cases. I think it goes something like, "hey, you can share my cable in my part of town if I can share your cable in your part of town." I don't know who owns the cables. Five different providers will deliver service to me from one of the cables.

We have not even begun to talk about the wireless service available- in some parts of the city, free, government-provided hotspots (the government keeps promising free Internet for everyone, but inevitably, some bureaucrat steals the funds and the projects never quite get finished).

Free market an illusion? You are probably right, if you want to haggle over "absolute" style definitions. It is not free in that, say, I decided I wanted to enter the market as a purely Panama-based company. Not possible- the bar to entry is too high. All of the players are arms of international corporations- Cable and Wireless, Bell South, companies from Spain, Colombia, and I believe Mexico (it is really hard to keep track- they keep selling out out other international corporations).

But I can say that I enjoy the benefits that I expect to derive from a free market scenario (choice, reasonable prices, etc.). Will this always be true? Most likely not.

Thanks for the last 2 comments. Currently in Canada, the owner of the cable going the "last mile" has an enormous advantage. Generally there are just 2 competitors in any market here who own that cable. (And Canada is enormous). Here some former dialup operators have become cable resellers to give the illusion of competition. They have become tiny players which offer great technical service but slower speed. (Nowadays with dialup in the towns nearly dead, they just rent cable time from a cable company). I think you make a very good point about the relationship between competition and the size of an area in which the companies are engaged.

"...subject to the needs of law enforcement."

Of COURSE we want to give law enforcement full access to everything we do. We have nothing to hide, right? Until they change the law, and decide you shouldn't have access to certain "politically sensitive" content, like that radical forum site CR4.

The purchasing public will end up with a watered down glass of lemonade that is adequate, but not as good as either from the original stands.................................and we will live with it. Not to mention the fact that it will take thousands of government workers to insure that each glass is the same as the last. So it will go with the internet. Trust me.

I enjoyed the ramble. Nice how you tied it into our present and one of the possible futures.

Thanks. It's a shame that option #1 has been removed from the table in so many instances, never to return.

In the case of the internet, I'd like to give option #1 a try, before jumping straight to #2. The fines can be raised until cheating no longer pays off.

I'm not anti government, I'm pro responsible government. That includes a minimal role in our day to day lives.

if option 1 worked we wouldn't be having this discussion

why don't we work on ways government can be more responsible [efficient] the rest will fall into place

get the money & influence out of elections

more voter involvement

In many cases the government skipped option #1, and jumped straight to #2.

We have a multiplicity of overlapping agencies in place that could easily handle verifying a complaint and issuing a fine. No court, no lawyers, no appeals, no nothing. If you screw up, you pay up. The rules are in place.

Elections aren't a huge part of the problem. It's really the only place that Joe Shmoe has any power at all...............as well as the rest of us.

A good place to start would be to eliminate all lobbyists. The people in Washington would have to represent each of us equally. Which is what they are supposed to be doing right now, and aren't. The "bring home the bacon" days need to end. There's no bacon left. We're feasting on the bacon of the next two generations.

They also take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. Many of them are also ignoring that responsibility, or they simply haven't read it, or don't understand it.

More voter involvement would be nice, but it can't be forced. I just don't want to hear the one's that sat out, bitch and complain about the outcome.

how can you expect equal representation with the amount of free speech money that is required to win an election? fix repair the election process & many of the lobbyists will cease to have a in

I'm not suggesting that we force anyone to participate, we can make it easier to give relevant input, we need to get past the talking points & sound bytes

There's only one way to fix it that I can think of. Each federal candidate gets a set amount of money from the federal coffers to spend on their election. They can use it any way they see fit. When they run out, they're done campaigning.

In order for anything like that to happen though, we would need a flush of extremely honest people from both parties to both be in power, and implement it. Ain't gonna happen.

Did you happen to watch that 60 minutes episode? Insider trading is only legal for members of congress...................no one else. They can set policy in the morning, get out of the meeting, and call their brokers to make buys based on what they just talked about. They aren't going to change that either.

We're all being gamed by both parties, each using a different tact. Sad part is, that most of us don't realize it.

I'd also be interested in discussing the drug legalization issue, but it's worthy of it's own thread. I think admin may be realizing that sometimes engineers enjoy talking about something besides engineering. What a concept.

There are those of us that perceive "sitting out" of an election as a vote for "none of the above". It seems to me that far too many Americans are voting "none of the above". How do you propose modifying the system so that a real choice is offered during an election?

Revolution.

The same thing that made America great once, can make America great again.

America was born from the misuse of power by the ruling class politicians........................................and so will come the rebirth.

Violence............................NO

They will step down in shame. It can be easy, or it can be difficult. Their choice.

I'm not personally doing anything to bring this on..............................but somethings coming. I don't know what it is..................but it's coming.

Just to verify..................this is not a threat or anything else. I'm talking about a shift. It's a shift that must take place to move forward. That's all I know. And the reason I talk about it, is that I don't want it to get here. I want us to self correct. It's not happening, and it worries me.

BTW- A vote of none of the above, is the same as a vote for any of the above.

They have all proven that they will screw us if given the opportunity. Votes count.

Yeah, but that "American" revolution was voted for and run by the government. I seem to recall from history that an awful lot of impressing went on and the people didn't want to fight. Most of the taxation was on business owners who sided with the colonial government to fight the motherland.

The "Civil" war was the one where people formed their own internal government to fight the big government. We know how that turned out.

Well, I don't think it will be an internal war. But as the government continues to spend, waste, print, and borrow money, while continuing to grow larger and more powerful, and at the same time people are losing jobs, running out of unemployment, etc..................something is going to have to give. I don't know what it will be, but we can't keep going like this.

Part of the problem will sort itself out. If consumers are paying directly for the both the quantity and speed of data, then it is most profitable for an ISP to let the consumer use as much as quick as possible (thereby getting closer to charging extra and making more $).

I think I see what you're saying though... The other part of the issue that would still need to be resolved is the thru-traffic that an ISP's servers routes outside of its customer base (stuff that is just routed to another server instead of one of its customers). So, if I'm on ISP "A" some of my traffic might be routed through ISP "B" who would slow it down...

I'm not an expert on the architecture of the net, but doesn't it allow for congestion? ie. I thought if there was congestion, the traffic would be redirected through a different server? Or is that how ISP "B" actually accomplishes a slow down in "A's" servers (by redirecting traffic through them)? If it is, perhaps there is an underlying philosophy in the architecture that could change to help with this before we hand anything over to corporations or the government. Maybe an engineer could take a look rather than an architect!

You raised an issue missed by most all in the discussion entirely. ISP's are nothing, but the interface between customers and Network Proper. Network Proper consists of routers learning and rearranging advantageous routes all the time. That is not done for your pleasure (you do not see it anyway), but for unannounced failure and recovery (imagine such a novel concept), unannounced reconfiguration, unannounced upgrade. It was that way, since inception.

Get your own ISP, then you set the conditions in it.

Rent a bare channel, then you get what you pay for it.

Get an upgrade, same.

Wait long enough, until capabilities grow and prices drop enough.

Good luck to the complaining in the meantime.

This may be outside the realm of the topic here... but who is complaining?? I've had internet service through about 5 different companies (I've lived in 3 different states). I never had capacity issues with any of them (I do stream stuff all the time, radio and Netflix mostly). I always got what I paid for.

Just curious, who is the voice of the complaint on this issue? Is it the ISP's, big companies, the government, or the actual users?

It definitely is not you. But gaia and a few keep complaining about real and imagined shortchanges. Sometimes, I endeavour to straighten some. Limited luck, as yet. I did found my balance between price and speed long time ago.

Best regards

Leveles refuses to see a problem. I have links in post 108 about specific complaints from a wide range of competing companies and users in Canada.

Unfortunately the head in the sand "I found my balance between price and speed long time ago" method does not work. ISP's are actively engaged in throttling the speeds. (post 108 has links with details). ISP's are actively engaged in improving their throttling methods. (making them more precise and less detectable). Basically many of the isps are cable companies who accidently became internet service providers. Now their s**tty cable channel choice comes under threat from people watching the internet and canceling cable. Even worse, it comes under threat from netflix and google providing movies through the internet. These people have never been innovators. Their biggest "innovation" is giving you cable packages that miss or leave or out 1 or 2 preferred channels so you have to buy an extra package of ten s**tty channels just to get one that you really want. So we know it, they are naturally predisposed to screwing people over.

Kinda soviet union style economics from the cable companies turned isp's. "You want great tv? well you will get good tv as long as you pay for s**tty tv too.

They are thinking, "If we can screw up the internet, people will start watching our cable tv again, but we got to do it in sneaky ways". Now, how do they manage to get their high def tv signals (80 channels) through the exact same cables with no congestion? Just wondering. Nobody has told me the answer.

*This comment was edited to remove bad language, please see CR4 Rules of Conduct #3. CR4 Admin

Unfortunately the head in the sand "I found my balance between price and speed long time ago" method does not work. ISP's are actively engaged in throttling the speeds. (post 108 has links with details).

This prompted me to (drudgingly) read through my ISPs service agreement (admittedly for the first time ). They plainly state in mine that they can limit my capacity to "manage their network". They also state that my capacity is based on the tier of service that I have agreed to pay for. This makes sense. I'm paying for a certain speed and a certain amount of data (although all the plans say "unlimited"), but it still makes sense.

I'm not saying this IS the case, but is it possible for a Canadian user to pay for a higher tiered service to gain more capacity? I don't know for certain, but I fully expect that if I ran into a throttling issue because I was transferring huge amounts of data and I talked to my ISP to discuss it, the resolution would be to simply pay for additional capacity (or live with less bandwidth after a given amount of usage).

I stream movies and tv so I don't have an issue paying an extra $5 or $10 for my service. Is it possible the complaining users do?

Pity (for you) that you did not bother read the links.

One of the "complaining users" was a voip fone company whose users lost connections. Thats putting a competitor out of business. This has implications for you by the way. They just delayed some of the packets to screw up the calls.

Make no mistake, you are a competitor and that is how they see you. (And they are more than happy to charge you an extra 5 or 10 or 50 bux for your faster tier.) The people who get your movies will also pay that, I presume. Maybe some of them will not, which is not exactly good for your bottom line. (They do not all have money to burn).

Also, did you read if they can unilaterally change their terms of service? Because if they can, your streaming tv can disappear at a whim. Thats what happened to my friend with the web server.

Also, have you considered that your isp controls your speed of upload but their isp (your viewers isp) controls their speed of download. So if THEIR isp decides to throttle, you still go tits up and there is not a thing you can do about it.

Ready to invest more under those conditions?

Gaiatechnician-

Have you read the content of the laws being considered in Congress? Even more disturbing than net neutrality is what is called "SOPA" in the House of Representatives or "Protect-IT" in the Senate. Both would allow ANYONE, not just the government, to shut down ANY website or IP address ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD on the SUSPICION that they are trafficking in illegal (i.e., pirated) content. The web site can appeal, but, even if they win the appeal, they are still liable for the legal costs of the appeal- the complainant suffers no penalty for issuing a malicious complaint.

Imagine some disgruntled participant issuing a complaint against CR4 (where copyright violations do occasionally get through the filter)...

Now, the only way the government can assure compliance with anything like "net neutrality" is if they are monitoring net traffic. Oh, by the way, CR4 puts up too much politically-incorrect content (rebuttals of such things as over-unity schemes, "intelligent design" or "global warming")- we better shut them down before the disease spreads...Or, at least, throttle them back, so the politically correct views can hold sway.

Exactly the point I've been trying to make.

I truly believe that the government will use net neutrality to embed themselves in everything that has to do with the internet. Contrary to what some people believe, they are very interested in gaining control over what we see and hear. As well as monitoring our communications.

I'm not naive enough to believe that the cable companies and ISPs are simply going to behave themselves. However, the governmet already has a muliplicity of overlapping agencies and laws to take care of any bad behavior.

Would you guys agree that what the ISPs are doing would fall under current antitrust laws?

Before we start begging for government imposed net neutrality, I think it's important for us to ask ourselves why they aren't enforcing the laws that are currently on the books, and are specifically written to go after this type of activity.

It doesn't pass the smell test.

Option #1 from my rambling post above, is in place, and being ignored. WHY?

Maybe my lack of "fear" of the government comes from the fact that I have worked for the government for right around 25 years. I have been to so many anti-government sites on the net that I couldn't count them all and have never heard a peep from anyone. I visit sites like that to do research and get the information from the horses mouth, so to speak.

I have always just assumed that the gov't is watching me...not very closely...but watching nonetheless. If you don't do anything wrong (i.e., breaking the law) then you have nothing to worry about. If you are breaking the law and trying to not get caught, then you deserve to be scared.

The only thing you have to fear is fear itself.

I don't visit anti government sites. They tend to be occupied by delusional people.

If you don't do anything wrong (i.e., breaking the law) then you have nothing to worry about.

I really don't ever want to hear that sentence again. Human history is loaded with dead and abused people that were told the same thing........................or are you a Holocaust denier.

I'm never going to buy into the idea that the government should be able to do anything they want, and that I just need to shut up and make sure I'm not doing anything wrong.

The US Constution was specifically written with the knowledge that government, any government, left unchecked, will eventually abuse the power that has been granted to them.

Here in the US, there are antitrust laws to prevent/stop this kind of activity. If an ISP is targeting certain sites or content, start with a call to your state's attorney general's office. They will/should either look into it or tell you who to report it to.

If they do nothing, they should be fired. Also, if they do nothing, another net neutrality, government agency will do nothing either, and if they do, it won't be to benefit you, it will be to benefit them.

That's the problem with government bureaucracies, they seem to have forgotten who they are here to serve. They only seek to grow larger and serve their own self interests. It's time that WE matter again!

"If you don't do anything wrong (i.e., breaking the law) then you have nothing to worry about."

Until the government changes the law, and makes your perfectly legal, non-abusive activities which have absolutely no impact on anyone else illegal. Like deciding which church you should not attend, or labeling CR4 a hotbed of dissenters...

That's the way of things...the "government" doesn't own the laws...the people can change the laws if you focus on what is really important. That's kind of the crux of what I have been discussing here.

Things I used to be able to do are now illegal. I see it a little more every day. But, at the same time...things which were once illegal are now legal. It's a beautious thing.

I may have not communicated clearly, when I say I stream movies and tv it is as a user not as a business (and again I'm happy to pay the extra $ to do this).

I see the point of the links you provided, but I also stick to the philosophy that we get what we pay for. How many dropped calls did we have when we paid for our long distance by the minute??? There is no such thing as a free lunch. Do we agree on this point?

Maybe the ISPs could clear up the air by publishing their thresholds for uploads/downloads for a given subscription. eg, for the cheapest package "A" you get 500MB of data at the standard speed, so it is likely your VOIP service and WOW subscription is going to work great for about 20 hours of use after which you'll experience dropped calls and slow games; for the upgraded package "B" ... 40 hours... etc etc.

If I'm not mistaken, there is language in my ISPs contract that says that if I do things they don't like, they can slow or block my connection.

This typically applies to people that use bit torrent, music swapping sites, etc., in which their computers are always on and connected, and they are using far more bandwidth than what would be considered normal.

Yep, end users too will try to game the system.

Please, PLEASE leave my bit torrent out of this! I do not use it for anything ignoble! Mostly I use it for downloading large disc images (OpenSource only!) or old reference books that are no longer in print (and for which I have been assured the copyright issues are resolved, either by permission of the copyright holder, or due to the fact that the copyright has been allowed to expire). Never knowingly access anything that could be considered pirated (never movies or music, either), although it is possible that I have been misinformed as to the copyright status on occasion.

Also, I am not all that concerned about speed when using bit torrent- usually have it running in the background, or over night. So it takes a few hours to complete- that is not a major problem for me.

Just because there might be some users out there that take advantage of bit torrent for nefarious reasons does not mean the basic concept of bit torrent should be associated with the bad guys. Or the bandwidth problem.

Why should you be treated special? Divide and conquer seems to work for the ISP's. You have you dirty little bit torrent, someone else uses games, someone else is a speed reading news junkie with 5 tabs open all the time, and someone else is targeted with spam. Why should the gamer be slowed down all day and all night? He or she pays their money too. Seems everyone here is willing to throw stones. Peer to peer. Not just for perverts, don't scientists use it to share data too? Well in some places uploads of peer to peer is slowed down all the time. Seems to me that the music industry has way too much influence on the direction of technology. And it seems to me than none of us should be claiming special privileges. How do they target the gamers? Seems to me that this targeting is a very dangerous technology to be developing. It could be used brilliantly for censorship or worse. If you want a market based internet, it will cause a host of problems. You guys are engineers and scientists, the music industry is artists, worse even, you are letting overpaid, drugged up, hippy MUSICIANS dictate how the internet is run! Stand up for yourselves for a change.

1. My post about bit torrent was intended somewhat to be tongue-in-cheek, but with the underlying concept that it is not the technology that causes the problem, but, rather, the way the technology is abused. Read carefully- my use of bit torrent is NOT bandwidth-sensitive. I can (and do) tolerate slow download speeds. I am not asking for any special privileges- only that I been given a chance to access content that interests me (at any speed).

2. Targeting any market segment, like gamers or VOIP or entertainment is a very, very dangerous concept. Note in my previous posts here a concern over CR4 being shut down because some of us post politically incorrect ideas.

3. Musicians are not trying to dictate how the Internet is run. It is music Publishers that want to dictate how the Internet is run. In reality, most musicians derive very little revenue from their copyrighted music (there are, of course, some outstanding exceptions to this generality, but they are the exceptions, not the rule).

I thought you were tongue in cheek but wasn't sure. I was also somewhat tongue in cheek,( hippy musicians, etc). Frankly, I fear the technology that is being developed. It could be fine tuned (by other more political beings) as an instrument to watch and control people.

I've used it too, to get a hold of outdated manuals, etc. I also disable it when I'm done. I wasn't accusing you of anything. My point is, that when people sign up with an ISP with a basic consumer account, and then use their machines to spread spam, generate junk email, swap music files, etc., and their computers are hogging bandwidth 24-7, I think the ISPs are justified in having a problem with it.

I was only referring to the bandwidth use that's involved.

My cell phone service provider recently sent me an advertisement that hits directly to the point of getting what you pay for.

They're offering a mobile card for laptops that uses their cell service. It was the price that caught my attention. I buy the hardware for $25 and only $5/month for "unlimited" service, also, 2 other plans were available.

The only fine print is that it says explicitly that and P2P services or services that require streaming data will not function. So if you only need the internet to check news, email, check your facebook, CR4, etc this sounds like a fantastic deal. They're meeting the needs of certain customers and yes, they're excluding certain functions, but they're up front in doing so.

Now if this doesn't work for you and you need to stream things... guess what you can pay an extra $10/month (and get some additional capacity before they slow you down as well).

The third plan was another $10/month with more capacity (all of which was spelled out... NICE!).

Nothing shady and no government meddling required.

I like to believe that in a free market, honest companies will ultimately get the business. They will also force the dishonest ones to either, be honest, or go out of business.

Nobody can say that the free market doesn't work, when the government intervenes and won't allow it to play out. The government needs to stop jumping into the fray when one or two companies behave badly. At this point, none of us has any idea how badly the government has damaged the free market with their meddling.

How would anyone know that the free market doesn't work?

The government has been screwing with it for years.

you are still under the illusion that there ever was a free market

there are going to be rules, always have been

we need rules that make sense

the more that the semifree market acts responsibly, the less oversight required

contrary to what is often said, the relationship between regulators & regulated, need not be adversarial...

I'm not under any illusions. A free market economy is not one without rules.

Oh, I see where you're coming from. Free market is different things to different people, and has had various meanings over the course of history. No I'm not suggesting that we eliminate laws against fraud, antitrust, theft, etc. I'm under no illusions that some businesses will cheat if given the opportunity.

No wonder we've been bumping heads on this for so long. Of course there needs to be a set of rules that businesses have to adhere to. Government's job is to enforce the rules, not embed itself in the actual business, which I feel net neutrality would be.

we're well down the slippery slope, always have been

there wouldn't be the ability to access one of the largest consumer markets in the world, without a certain amount of infrastructure

agencies like the FCC, EPA, SEC... didn't appear spontaneously, they are a reaction to companies acting badly or otherwise abusing the shared resources

we could do away with all the agencies, that wouldn't cause any sudden epiphanies negating the need for rules & laws

there is no way to go back to some mythical better time, there is only forward

that doesn't mean more government but better government

Exactly. I like option #1. Government as referee. Punish and fine the wrongdoers, but stay on the sidelines. When the government decides that they want to referee the game, and play in it, it's bad for everybody.

Just to elaborate:

As far as I'm concerned, things like bailouts, guaranteed loans, subsidies, tax breaks for some businesses and not others, pseudo government agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc., all need to go away...............including getting out of the student loan and healthcare business.

Nobody can convince me that government manipulation of certain markets hasn't played a huge role in our current situation. It is they that have poisoned the well.

Re: #66 Gaia.

While I tend to differ with Gaia, he brings his own views to the table, that is not OFF as far as I can tell.

I disagree due his lack of economics101. A company, any company builds a network, and that is its capital investment. It needs, nay, it is required to make positive return on it: meaning no losses, much rather some profit. That is, what I mean with economics101. The profits are reinvested in part, paid out to investors, in part. Until now I did not have to imagine anything, humanistic, nefarious or otherwise. Profits are nothing, but the visible results of the value added activities of human beings. A recent example on the threads is the rare earth magnets. Whatever the raw material is worth, the finished magnet sells for 50x to 80x higher. That is an unusual multiplier, for sure. But, it shows credibly the multiplier effect of the human effort and contribution.

He wants cheap Skype connection. Yeah, I do too. Today's choices are smaller, lower resolution pictures. Heck, a few years ago it would have been no pictures with no resolution. Long term you can encourage exponential growth of the outfits, resulting in exponentially better grade connections.

Did I say, somebody's big boots is part of this picture? Not any more, than inviting the mafiosi to a birthday party. And for the same reason.

Economics 101? I pay 60 bux a month for my internet. That goes directly to the cable company. I don't even watch tv so I am not getting a bigger plan. My 60 bux doesn't go to skype or youtube. Youtube pays me money based on adverts in my videos. If my isp slows down signals from youtube, or your isp slows down youtube or blocks youtube, I get less money because people will not watch my videos. And yes, believe it or not, that is one of the technologys my isp is working on. They already use it to block file sharers and my friends web server. (Even though my isp (Shaw cable) has a really bad record on stopping spambots on their OWN network.) Net neutrality is about PREVENTING this behind the machines minipulation of how you use the internet. Lets call slowing down someone else's signal what it is. SABOTAGE. And it is really hard to prove this sabotage but it is happening and sabotage tools are being refined. This is bad for economics, bad for political freedom and bad for ordinary people. I do realize that speed cannot be infinite but that comment about fibers being dark is really true. Much of the net congestion is not real. Lots of things need to be addressed. Should I pay for spam? I sometimes go to "ideas meetings" here in victoria. There are lawyers defending public right to neutral networks there and they have an impossible time getting info about net trottling from the isp's. The group has programmers who have been working on tools to measure trottling to help these lawyers. But you can imagine how hard it is to design the tools. Basically the government of canada can easily demand that info but they refuse to do so. (So similar to the States, bedfellows in large industry and in Government are easy to find.) Now, because the isp's can work on trottleing specific parts of the net, they are working on it a lot. This will help extreme right and extreme left governments to shut down their opposition at a whim. If net nutrality is inforced, the isp's will have not economic motive to work on this tech and will instead work on useful stuff. Think about it, they have an economic motive to slow down their OWN service! How the hell is that going to help the US and Canada into teir 1 of internet countries in the world? Imagine a car company that puts automatic cruise control to cut in at 30 mph on all their vehicles. BUT if you pay extra, they give you a monthly code to disable the cruise control. That is what the cable companies want to do. Thats what they ARE doing.

There is a lot more to a network than just the fibers or coax or twisted pair or whatever, that will impact speed. There are modulators, multiplexers, repeaters, and finally basic electromagnetic physics that will ultimately have an impact on how much bandwidth a system can handle. The existence of dark fibers is not a very good measure of how much bandwidth an ISP is capable of supporting. Each of those fibers require a pretty substantial investment in endpoint hardware before they can be incorporated into the network. Someone has to pay for that hardware. No one is going to pay for that hardware if they cannot realize a reasonable return on the investment. If you do not have a free market, the carrier has no business incentive in improving the available service- the government sets the rules, the government sets the rates, the government defines the "appropriate" profit for the monopolistic provider. And the government insists on the right to monitor traffic to make sure everyone is "playing fair".

In a free market, the provider is driven to enhance service, because if he doesn't, the competition is going to run all over them because the competition is willing to settle for a little less short-term profit in order to expand market presence.

Free markets, if they are truly free, and not just declared free by some overarching government, work. Excessive government involvement does not. It has been proven time and again throughout history.

Left or right?!? Huh, since when? Dense is as dense does. Too bad.

Sorry, you are too cryptic for me. No idea what you mean. (Even if you are agreeing with me) What most people do not get in this is that it is a multi team game. Also much of the game is carried out behind closed doors. Cheating and blaming the other players works great in such a situation. Currently, the cable companies can slow down the other guys, and blame "file sharers" and nobody can do a thing about it. And slavish believers in non regulation come to the cable companies defence against their own best interests! If the government does not regulate this, who will? And if people chose to never regulate it, this slow intenet situation could easily last 20 years. Might this affect the credibility of the USA as a tech leader? Might this have negagive effects on USA competitivity? Or productivity. By the way, (economics 101) this is a classic situation. Docks in small countries end up making millionaires of the dock owners and the union workers who load and unload while the entire country wait for goods to arrive. Slow work doesn't make them poorer, it just raises the price of goods for everyone else. Whatever "the market can bear". But it does slow down the rest of the economy. If you had a truely free market, you would have toll roads everywhere, no public transport, poor people and their kids would have no health insurance and would not be allowed near a hospital. The police would only work for the highest bidder. From the romans on and even earlier, people made a compromise with reality and limited the "holy free market" with REGULATION so that the economy as a whole would work much better.

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2011/07/12/NetNeutrality/ and http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2011/11/08/Net-Neutrality/ demonstrate the Canadian situation. We do have a body to enforce net neutrality but it is a complex issue with many players. Basically they ARE throttling other people's signals, people have been caught throttling competitors telephone signals, upstream peer to peer is always throttled! even if there is no other traffic! and misbehaving seems to be the order of the day.

And that is in a Regulated market! Examples from the links are below. (To save people from lots of reading). I personally do not care about the rights of online gamers or peer to peer sharers, or one specific voip provider but I don't see why an internet provider should be allowed to disable a game that someone payed hard cash for or ruin the phonecalls that someone makes on another network. It just seems petty.

" While Bell says its network congestion has been reduced, its retail throttling practices have remained unchanged, throttling peer-to-peer applications from 4:30 p.m. to 2:00 a.m." " Rogers will be the first Internet provider to face enforcement actions, the result of painstakingly detailed complaint over the throttling of online games (thereby rendering some unusable) by the Canadian Gamers Organization."

and "Meanwhile, Rogers and Cogeco continuously throttle all upstream P2P (peer to peer) traffic. Both providers admit that the limits on their service occur on a 24 hour, seven day basis, regardless of whether the network is actually experiencing any congestion"! And

"There has been only one complaint that led to a clear change in provider policy. In January 2010, ExaTEL, an Ontario-based Internet phone company, filed a complaint against Barrett Xplore, a satellite Internet provider. ExaTEL alleged that Barrett Xplore was degrading Internet telephony traffic, creating an unfair advantage for its own phone service.

The CRTC ruled that there was no undue preference, but that the throttling of time-sensitive traffic violated its guidelines. Faced with the prospect of changing its practices or seeking special approval from the CRTC, Barrett Xplore changed its throttling approach to ensure that Internet telephony was unaffected."

Realistically, this whole argument is probably pointless. Regardless of which way it ends up, changes are coming that we won't like.

The internet is still in it's infancy. Governments like control for the sake of power. Big corporations like control for the sake of profit. For any of us to think that we were going to be able to just continue doing whatever we want on the net without being screwed with by someone, was/is probably a naive fantasy.

Like most anything else, it will be us, (the end users), that will be forced to make sacrifices, regardless of how it turns out. It was fun while it lasted.

This will turn into a battle between big business and big government. There will be wins and losses on both sides. What we want probably won't even come into play.

I've been following this great discussion and I can contribute one personal example of a point that I don't think has been brought up. One side argues that holy free market is the goal. Perhaps on paper it is the best, but as many places have learned there really is no such thing. Think of the states that have moved from regulated utilities to open markets. I could cite sources here, but how many would you like? Google "power prices before and after deregulation" and see how many free market people are still shocked at what happens when you deregulate.

So government meddling (aka regulation) is best for the consumer right? Where I live, the ISP's cannot just charge whatever they will on the services they provide, it is regulated like any other utility in any other state. If the utility wants to charge more, they make the application to the board and justify a rate hike. However, what happens when the ISP wants to LOWER rates? One company figured out a way to significantly reduce their costs to still produce the same profit. So they applied to have their rates lowered... and were denied. The governmental oversight said that the cuts would provide them an "unfair advantage" over their competitors and would allow the company to operate above what was considered a fair margin. (My friend who works for them said the cut would have dropped prices ~40%)

So in the end, the people people are paying the government to "look out for their interests" and paying the ISP twice what they should.... a double whammy.

I realize this debate isn't so much about regulating the costs, but the philosophies still hold. I've seen that neither way works... there is no free market so if the corporations have all the cards, guess who's going to lose the game.... and handing power over to the government doesn't work either.

I don't have the right answer. My gut tells me that somewhere, it is "big business" that is always in control and it's just a matter of whether they pay another company directly to gain advantage or play with politicians. There has to be another option.

So, let me paint a simple picture, at least for myself.

We sit accross the table to a 100pounds chimp, and do not quite like its behaviour.

Therefore:

We invite the 500pounds gorilla to sit on it, to make it behave.

A simple question:

Where does the 500pounds gorilla sit?

Answer:

Wherever it wants to. Including on you and me. As long as it wants to.

While gaia boy stands around in a daze wondering, where his free govt. high speed went along his free govt. cheese.

Yeah, that's how it should be!

I think you have the weights of the chimps and gorillas all wrong. There is an army of chimps., and just one gorilla. I have a lot more input into what the gorilla does than what the chimps do. Do you vote, leveles? My ideal world is the chimps and gorilla all fighting each other in a big long stalemate. By the way, your version of a beautiful free market did exist, in caveman days. Who needs laws when you have the bigest club? Answer? Eveyone else. And that meant that the guy with the biggest club ocasionally ended up in the cooking pot. I wonder where the people who believe in absolutely no regulation grew up? Eden? Utopia? Cali? Or somewhere out of that movie. Deliverence? What did the romans ever do for us? I think you missed the bit about roads, and sewers, and piped water. Nasty laws and nasty tax collectors are necessary if we want these wonderful things. Where is that country where companies live in perfect harmony and there is no government? Book me a flight now. Lets all move to Anarchania.

" I wonder where the people who believe in absolutely no regulation grew up?"

I grew up in a US military family, most of my formative years (i.e., grade school/highshcool) in various locales in the US midwest, although some exposure to overseas cultures. My adult life spent in various states of the union, until the election of Hillary's husband as president of the US...

At that point, I decided there had to be a better option. So, I bought a sail boat, and here I am in Panama.

I am not necessarily a proponent of absolutely "no regulation", but experience/observation has taught me that the less government one has, the better. I have also observed over the years that the best way to convert a temporary problem into a permanent problem is to invite the government in...

Well I re-read posts and it is kinda funny, there is a lot of common ground here. Even between me and people I "strongly" disagree with. And between others who strongly disagree with each other too. So apologies for my tone, etc. Maybe next time I will do better. Most of us do seem to want net neutrality, we are just at odds over how to achieve it. I certainly do not blame people for distrusting governments. I hope we can somehow "rig the game" so nobody wins.

We do tend to come from different angles and yet somehow have a thread of agreement. Lets face it...............lively debate is fun.

The answer is really quite simple:

1) No manipulation of content by ISPs or targeting specific sites for slow down.

2) Government tells them to stop it. If they don't, they get fined. Policing will be done by users, who will report infractions.

3) No government involvement in the internet. Government involvement will stop at the ISPs, which will be treated like any other business. If they behave badly, they get punished. Otherwise, they are left alone.

you can't have both #2 & #3

enforcement of rules is involvement

shouldn't government be involved with stopping illegal activity on the web?

I probably file a report once a month with the FBI, over some spammy email I get that appears to be from Career Builder

there is certainly a list of things happening on the web, most of us could agree are criminal & should be investigated & prosecuted

Perhaps "involvement" was the wrong term. I should have said, no government "control" of the internet.

Sure they should bust criminal activity. We just have to remember that the internet isn't the criminal. The criminals are flesh and blood, and reside in physical structures.

If the internet is used to perpetuate a crime, (theft, fraud, slave trading, exploiting kids, etc.), the crime needs to be punished.

Right now the internet is like a telephone. It can be used in the commission of a crime, but we can say anything we want to over it..............bad or good. The bad isn't necessarily illegal, just in bad taste.

I want to see the free flow of information, (bad or good), continue on the internet.

My fear is, that by letting the government in, they will want to treat the internet like they currently treat radio and television. The FCC controls content. They control the images that can be displayed, and the words that can be uttered.

I could easily see them saying that the broadband spectrum is in the public domain, and therefore needs to be controlled just like radio and television. Lets face it..........................that would suck.

I don't want to even give them the opportunity to exercise that kind of control. Like I keep saying.........................once they're in...........there will be no getting them out.

I think everyone here knows full well, that what I'm saying, isn't just the baseless paranoid rantings of a madman. The reality of the possibilities is staring us in the face.

I could easily see some President, (from either party), on television, saying, "Gone are the days that the internet is just a wild west free for all. We have just passed legislation that will bring law and order to this previously untamed wilderness".........................................and be waiting for a standing ovation. Screw that.

what makes you think the government isn't already "IN"?

that ship sailed from day one...

afterall who set it up & where did the money for the original R&D come from?

They may be "in", but they're not controlling it. I fear that net neutrality would give them a vehicle through which to exercise the same control that they have over radio and television, which I think is wrong. It eliminates my choice of what I want to see and hear, and gives that role to the government. They will do the same with the internet if we let them.

I respect your thinking that the government knows what's best for us.......................I just happen to disagree.

In Canada, there is a new rule that allows small ISP's to rent capacity from the larger ones at reasonable prices. (The large ISP's still make a profit on this rental). Hopefully, this will open up the market a bit so we have a bit more choice.

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2011/11/22/Net-Providers-Freedom-to-Compete/

Being just a dumb consumer I would expect to get the data rate and volume that I pay for.

Is that totally unrealistic?