PDA

View Full Version : network neutrality


easyeye
09-22-2009, 12:12 PM
Do you agree or disagree on this new FCC proposal? In short the proposal suggests that data packets should move impartially without interference from ISPs such as ATT, Verizon, Comcast etc.

POLICESTATE
09-22-2009, 12:22 PM
Awesome, I won't have to use as much encryption as I do now for some things if they do that.

sfwdiy
09-22-2009, 12:54 PM
Do you agree or disagree on this new FCC proposal? In short the proposal suggests that data packets should move impartially without interference from ISPs such as ATT, Verizon, Comcast etc.

ISPs should definitely not be able to prioritize traffic based on content. I should get the bandwidth I pay for, whether I'm bittorrenting the latest Ubuntu distro, making a VOIP call or reading VCC's cat threads in Off-Topic.

Prioritizing traffic will end up screwing the average consumer.

--B

lazyworm
09-22-2009, 1:40 PM
I voted "agree" However, I think some traffic prioritization based on
technology/technical reasons is important. For example, video usage
has been increasing the last few year and likely to continue to do so.
It would be perfectly fine with me to prioritize video traffic over other
less time sensitive traffic, e.g. email.

As long as the prioritization or interferences based NOT based on
business reasons and business relationship, it should be okay.

odysseus
09-22-2009, 1:52 PM
I would like to know more about the ground rules of the proposed QOS traffic prioritization. We could see it then become just another tool of marketing and an attack on traffic not deemed profitable to the ISP. For example say Verizon or ATT want to better stream VOIP, especially their VOIP product, or stream media - especially their media content packages at a cost to slowing non ISP web, mail, and peer to peer like torrents.

It's not a good premise, and while I of course understand the technical merits and needs of correct packet prioritization, I would not off hand back any policy for this unless neutrality of some type is also employed into this type of policy.

sfwdiy
09-22-2009, 1:58 PM
I voted "agree" However, I think some traffic prioritization based on
technology/technical reasons is important. For example, video usage
has been increasing the last few year and likely to continue to do so.
It would be perfectly fine with me to prioritize video traffic over other
less time sensitive traffic, e.g. email.

As long as the prioritization or interferences based NOT based on
business reasons and business relationship, it should be okay.

The problem with prioritization of certain traffic is that by definition it means de-prioritization of other traffic. Remember, it's the ISPs that are going to be deciding what traffic gets prioritized and you can bet that the only data getting fast-tracked is the data that generates a revenue stream for them.

This is in direct opposition to what is best for the consumer.

--B

easyeye
09-22-2009, 2:13 PM
I think a lot of it has to do with bit torrent. I'm actually OK if there is a cap/throttle on bit torrent usage.

lazyworm
09-22-2009, 2:27 PM
Giving this more thoughts...

I think the most ideal solution is to let the market sort it out itself.

For example, Comcast got caught for mucking with bit torrent traffic
2 years ago. There was an outcry from the tech world. Comcast didn't
want to be the bad guy so they stopped mucking with the traffic. Perfect
example that the market worked itself out.

If there has to be some legislation from the FCC, all traffic treated equally
is what I'd vote for. However, it's not without cons. For example, ISPs
despite their best efforts, run out of bandwidth at certain places from time
to time (bad capacity planning or equipment failure) when there is a
congestion, something's got to give. Prioritization planning could tell
the network gears what type of traffic to drop to maintain the best level
of service for all customers. But as others have pointed out above,
ISPs could use this as a business tool to penalize competitors, which I think
is the specific thing that the proposal should discourage.

odysseus
09-22-2009, 2:28 PM
I think a lot of it has to do with bit torrent. I'm actually OK if there is a cap/throttle on bit torrent usage.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The devil is in the details.

lazyworm
09-22-2009, 2:29 PM
The problem with prioritization of certain traffic is that by definition it means de-prioritization of other traffic. Remember, it's the ISPs that are going to be deciding what traffic gets prioritized and you can bet that the only data getting fast-tracked is the data that generates a revenue stream for them.

This is in direct opposition to what is best for the consumer.

--B

Only true if there is not enough bandwidth for both traffic types,
unless the ISP is artificially limiting one type of traffic.

sorensen440
09-22-2009, 2:29 PM
I am not for regulating the internet

sfwdiy
09-22-2009, 2:31 PM
I think a lot of it has to do with bit torrent. I'm actually OK if there is a cap/throttle on bit torrent usage.

Most of the data available from various bittorrent networks is also available through traditional server-client download methods, e.g. Rapidshare, Usenet bins, etc. Should this type of traffic be throttled as well?

Does it depend on the type of file being downloaded? Is it OK to throttle P2P when the data is likely pirated content? What about legitimate P2P traffic like linux distros? What if the traffic is encrypted, like most subscription Usenet services?

Should your ISP be allowed to inspect your traffic at this level in the first place?

Once you go down that road it gets sketchy in a hurry.

--B

berto
09-22-2009, 3:32 PM
Less govt involvement in the internet the better.

artherd
09-23-2009, 2:35 AM
Ideally we'd somehow have net neutrality without oppressive government involvement.

If we can't - it may be one of the few cases in which government regulation is a good thing(tm)

JDay
09-23-2009, 3:41 AM
I voted "agree" However, I think some traffic prioritization based on
technology/technical reasons is important. For example, video usage
has been increasing the last few year and likely to continue to do so.
It would be perfectly fine with me to prioritize video traffic over other
less time sensitive traffic, e.g. email.

As long as the prioritization or interferences based NOT based on
business reasons and business relationship, it should be okay.

That's not the same thing, the ISPs are against net neutrality because they want to make content that is provided by the competition run slower. Video isn't time sensitive either btw (it can buffer before playback starts) but things like VoIP and gaming are. You can always setup QoS on your home network to prioritize traffic if you want.

JDay
09-23-2009, 3:44 AM
I think a lot of it has to do with bit torrent. I'm actually OK if there is a cap/throttle on bit torrent usage.

So you're okay with a cap on the amount of ammo you can purchase in a month too?

JDay
09-23-2009, 3:46 AM
Giving this more thoughts...

I think the most ideal solution is to let the market sort it out itself.

For example, Comcast got caught for mucking with bit torrent traffic
2 years ago. There was an outcry from the tech world. Comcast didn't
want to be the bad guy so they stopped mucking with the traffic. Perfect
example that the market worked itself out.


FCC formally rules Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent was illegal (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10004508-38.html).

Corbin Dallas
09-23-2009, 9:51 AM
I think a lot of it has to do with bit torrent. I'm actually OK if there is a cap/throttle on bit torrent usage.

You do realize the technology that is a "Torrent" was originally developed for business to send LARGE files very quickly and with much more security.

So if you regulate "torrents" as a whole, you effectively bottleneck business.


Who's to tell if the file is a HD video, or the latest corporate sales figures from Goldman Sachs?

Is it OK for the ISP to "peek" the contents?

At what point is this an invasion of privacy?

nick
09-23-2009, 10:09 AM
Giving this more thoughts...

I think the most ideal solution is to let the market sort it out itself.

For example, Comcast got caught for mucking with bit torrent traffic
2 years ago. There was an outcry from the tech world. Comcast didn't
want to be the bad guy so they stopped mucking with the traffic. Perfect
example that the market worked itself out.

If there has to be some legislation from the FCC, all traffic treated equally
is what I'd vote for. However, it's not without cons. For example, ISPs
despite their best efforts, run out of bandwidth at certain places from time
to time (bad capacity planning or equipment failure) when there is a
congestion, something's got to give. Prioritization planning could tell
the network gears what type of traffic to drop to maintain the best level
of service for all customers. But as others have pointed out above,
ISPs could use this as a business tool to penalize competitors, which I think
is the specific thing that the proposal should discourage.

This only works if we don't have "regulated natural monopolies". While we have those, what market are you talking about?

nick
09-23-2009, 10:13 AM
Only true if there is not enough bandwidth for both traffic types,
unless the ISP is artificially limiting one type of traffic.

One of the issues our ISPs (the so-called 'regulated natural monopolies') agree on is not upgrading their infrastructures.

Eckolaker
09-23-2009, 10:32 AM
Really Net Neutrality is the "buzz word" used but in reality it has nothing to do with neutrality.

Basically this will allow ISP's to create tiered service for consumers, much like they do with cable tv packages. Companies will pay ISP's to prioritize what package their websites appear in, if the site you want is outside your package level you don't get access to the website.

Effectively this will destroy sites that are not able to afford the costs to have their sites traffic prioritized higher, plus limit the consumer to viewing those sites that are in the lower tier packages.

You will likely see Calguns.net disappear. I work for a small internet software company who relies on our online business generation and the ability for our clients to locate us online. Net Neutrality would prevent us from reaching a large majority of our target demographic and in turn will shut us down. Not to mention my clients add our services to their existing website platform, and I can assure that all of my clients except the top 1% will not be able to afford to have their websites prioritized higher. They will be lost to the larger corporate sites.

JimmyD
09-23-2009, 11:29 AM
Government regulation is necessary in enforcing net neutrality on natural monopolies. I live in an area where I only have access to 1 ISP. Without regulation, they could nickel and dime us and we can't do anything about it. AT&T says gaming is not part of broadband but an added service... really? I'm paying for connectivity and xx bandwidth. give me exactly what I pay for and treat all data I send equally

artherd
09-23-2009, 1:42 PM
You will likely see Calguns.net disappear.
Not on my watch.

stormy_clothing
09-23-2009, 2:47 PM
there are two bad sides here.

Comcast ect have spent so much money per home for connectivity that in some cases they can't recoup the actual costs for 50 years and are heavily leveraged in debt as a result.

The people that use those networks don't care about the costs or how much they use or how they open up Comcast to legal consequences for there file sharing. they are spoiled children who want everything for nothing.

Where the providers are grossly wrong is like in the case with ATT where it reaps ungodly profits and still does'nt upgrade the much cheaper network option of 3g or go to wimax or LTE like it has been saying forever.

Thats where the fed should get involved it should say OK ATT you've made 177 billion dollars profit we want you to take 75% of that and reinvest it into your network capability.

that will never happen but thats what should happen.

Eckolaker
09-23-2009, 3:03 PM
Not on my watch.

I hope not.

I have seen some of the proposed rates for websites, I work for a company that sells several million dollars a year in product, we can't afford it. I doubt the CGF draws in enough donations to cover these new expenses plus the continued Gun Lobby efforts.

Eckolaker
09-23-2009, 3:05 PM
Thats where the fed should get involved it should say OK ATT you've made 177 billion dollars profit we want you to take 75% of that and reinvest it into your network capability.

that will never happen but thats what should happen.

Unfortunately this sets a precedent for allowing the govt. to tell businesses how to spend their profit.

Rather communist.

stormy_clothing
09-23-2009, 3:20 PM
if att can make the argument that jail broken iphones constitute a threat to national security and therefore should be outlawed because of the additional network traffic they create the government should respond by forcing them to expand and secure that network.

you just cant have it work both ways.

the reality is they are a monopoly is many aspects and that will end up there downfall.

easyeye
09-23-2009, 9:00 PM
Most of the data available from various bittorrent networks is also available through traditional server-client download methods, e.g. Rapidshare, Usenet bins, etc. Should this type of traffic be throttled as well?

Does it depend on the type of file being downloaded? Is it OK to throttle P2P when the data is likely pirated content? What about legitimate P2P traffic like linux distros? What if the traffic is encrypted, like most subscription Usenet services?

Should your ISP be allowed to inspect your traffic at this level in the first place?

Once you go down that road it gets sketchy in a hurry.

--B

haha true, never thought about that.

M198
09-25-2009, 10:31 PM
Lets look a likely scenario. AT&T want's you to use their service in a way that best helps that company. So they decide to block or significantly decrease bandwith from Vonage so that you have to use their phone service. I think we can all see the bad side of this. Here's another example. Time warner (cable) owns CNN, so time warner throttles foxnews.com videos and boost CNN.coms videos. That way more traffic is drawn from Fox news to CNN and Time Warner makes a little more profit from their banner ads. These aren't even worse case scenarios. Time Warner could decide to crap out Hulu and netflix streaming because it represents a treat to their cable business. Or they might even decide to charge you a $20 Internet video package on top of your regular bill so that people won't completely shut off their cable. Cable companies are monopolies and they need to be regulated to protect us. Capitalism works on a "all things being equal" idea and the playing field is certainly not level when it comes to net neutrality.

rynando
09-25-2009, 10:41 PM
Lets look a likely scenario. AT&T want's you to use their service in a way that best helps that company. So they decide to block or significantly decrease bandwith from Vonage so that you have to use their phone service. I think we can all see the bad side of this. Here's another example. Time warner (cable) owns CNN, so time warner throttles foxnews.com videos and boost CNN.coms videos. That way more traffic is drawn from Fox news to CNN and Time Warner makes a little more profit from their banner ads. These aren't even worse case scenarios. Time Warner could decide to crap out Hulu and netflix streaming because it represents a treat to their cable business. Or they might even decide to charge you a $20 Internet video package on top of your regular bill so that people won't completely shut off their cable. Cable companies are monopolies and they need to be regulated to protect us. Capitalism works on a "all things being equal" idea and the playing field is certainly not level when it comes to net neutrality.

If you're unhappy with your ISP you can use another. That fact will keep ISPs from doing a lot of what you describe.

R

rynando
09-25-2009, 10:49 PM
You do realize the technology that is a "Torrent" was originally developed for business to send LARGE files very quickly and with much more security.

So if you regulate "torrents" as a whole, you effectively bottleneck business.


LOL, please. "Business" torrents . . .

Torrents are disruptive to networks (in a variety of ways) which is why ISPs hate them.

R

artherd
09-26-2009, 2:04 AM
I hope not.

I have seen some of the proposed rates for websites, I work for a company that sells several million dollars a year in product, we can't afford it. I doubt the CGF draws in enough donations to cover these new expenses plus the continued Gun Lobby efforts.

Don't underestimate the connections those behind CGN/CGF have...

That said, your points are entirely valid otherwise - pay-for content delivery could easily be the death of small business on the 'net.

Corbin Dallas
09-26-2009, 11:25 AM
LOL, please. "Business" torrents . . .

Torrents are disruptive to networks (in a variety of ways) which is why ISPs hate them.

R

Yes, business torrents.

I'll bet you have never attempted to transfer a 50TB file over an OC line from the main server site to an offsite backup warehouse. Over conventional methods, this would take DAYS to complete instead of hours. Not to mention 50TB is nothing when your server farm consists of 100 1.44PB storage blade racks.

So, LOL all you want. The torrent technology was originally designed to send very large files in designated chunks from a variety of locations.

I don't care what IS or IS NOT disruptive to ISP networks. 10 years ago nearly everything was done by dial-up, and the ISPs complained then. Not enough phone lines, too many people attempting to dial in and OMG, DOWLOADING FILES??? NO WAY!!!

So, back to your x86 PC my friend. As it was once said, who would EVER need more than 128MB of ram???? RIDICULOUS!!!!

:confused:

artherd
09-26-2009, 3:25 PM
suck my fiber!

Can'thavenuthingood
09-26-2009, 4:04 PM
I have a problem with Government regulating anything. It might start out all sweet and rosy but it all depends on the bureaucrat(s) running it.

The intent may be just the thing but its all the little gotcha's in fine print and behind the scene that later requires more regulations be developed to level the field.

All this ought to be left up to the free market forces, the competition for business and profits is fertile ground for innovation and invention. The social networking of Facebook and Twitter I'm sure eats up bandwidth but I'm certain the percentage of business usage increase's daily. Kinda like the golf course and business.

Keep the regulators out of it, they will only muck it up.

Vick

odysseus
09-26-2009, 4:19 PM
I'll bet you have never attempted to transfer a 50TB file over an OC line from the main server site to an offsite backup warehouse. Over conventional methods, this would take DAYS to complete instead of hours. Not to mention 50TB is nothing when your server farm consists of 100 1.44PB storage blade racks.

Most people haven't, and don't run fat OC directly to off site. But this sparked my curiosity (this is aside the discussion you are having with rynando), you are doing a single 50TB file? So one large contagious 50TB file? What is that? Are you running that off FC SAN? And also torrents need multi-node copies for faster distribution, and the advantage is of course helping across heterogeneous networks - I am curious just what and how you are using p2p for this?

pmrtruck
09-26-2009, 4:37 PM
Any governmental intervention, no matter how well intentioned, is difficult to move away from later down the road.

Business will sort it out if they get a chance to...

I can't help notice, how many people in this thread are FOR this governmental control.
Are they the same people who piss and moan at other governmental control?
What makes you folks believe this new set of laws will be any better than any other law which is being constructed as I write this?:confused:

I could be wrong, o.k. but lately, the way bad bills are being attached to good bills; I want congress to take a break from writing ANY bills until they slow down and check our wallets. They're empty and then some. This bill maybe about one thing and a complete different package could come to life from it.

Over the past several years, this governmental intervention has ratcheted up quickly, and not very assuredly. I don't want any more governmental controls, at this time.

We just can't afford their brand of help.

bbguns44
09-26-2009, 6:19 PM
"Business will sort it out if they get a chance to..."

No way. Big business, finance, oil, health, etc., is insatiable when it comes
to sucking money out of your pocket. There is no level playing field. There
are so many barriers to entry by new competitors that the basic assumption
of regulation via competition is no longer true. Democracy no longer works.

7x57
09-26-2009, 7:05 PM
No one has yet connected certain facts. One is that the net is the second major avenue of the non-monopoly non-dinosaur media that this administration regards as a bunch of rebel scum. Nor that the same party, at least, has advocated partisan censorship of the first major avenue, AM radio, in the name of "Fairness," establishing a desire for political censorship. Nor that they have demonized any dissent at all as being beyond the pale, whatever pale they can find. Believing the Constitution is racist. Believing in natural Rights is selfish and thievish. When is censorship not censorship? When it only aims at content "beyond the pale," of course.

The problem is, whose pale?

So far as I can tell, the greatest benefit to the government of a "net neutrality" bill is that it establishes a new power to regulate, "for our own good," something the government regards as dangerous. It does so in the proximity to a demonstrated a desire to politically censor a similar medium. I don't think it takes a great deal of cleverness to connect those dots.

Those issues need addressing in any defense of "net neutrality." Neutrality indeed--but whose neutrality?

7x57

Corbin Dallas
09-26-2009, 9:53 PM
Most people haven't, and don't run fat OC directly to off site. But this sparked my curiosity (this is aside the discussion you are having with rynando), you are doing a single 50TB file? So one large contagious 50TB file? What is that? Are you running that off FC SAN? And also torrents need multi-node copies for faster distribution, and the advantage is of course helping across heterogeneous networks - I am curious just what and how you are using p2p for this?

Actually, from what I know, the file is in the 100+TB size and the site has a dedicated OC12 line. The system is basically a giant RAID array (yes, FC SAN). They don't tell me all the details but I know we sent them 100 1.44PB storage racks. Each rack has 6-12 Compute or Head Nodes and 30-36 12-24TB storage blades per side (2x per rack)

They backup to another location and use a form of P2P to transfer the file.

pmrtruck
09-27-2009, 1:12 AM
"Business will sort it out if they get a chance to..."

No way. Big business, finance, oil, health, etc., is insatiable when it comes
to sucking money out of your pocket. There is no level playing field. There
are so many barriers to entry by new competitors that the basic assumption
of regulation via competition is no longer true. Democracy no longer works.

The fact that barriers are to blame and that a Democratic Republic no longer works is a bit of a stretch.
Most of the barriers come from governmental regulations. This is not what is supposed to be. Nor are political action groups or whatever...this country has failed at the political level ONLY!

JimmyD
09-27-2009, 1:40 AM
net neutrality is more than just P2P, why should the ISPs charge more for gaming or VOIP or streaming video over the same internet connection? What if your phone company charges you more if you spoke another language other than English over your line? Speaking in a different language doesn't cost them any more bandwidth than transmitting English. doing so is simply nickel and dimeing!

Bandwidth caps (which is fine by me) does not discriminate data and is similar to paying for a fixed number of minutes on your cell phone.

IDEALLY, there would be another company for you to take your business to if you don't like data discrimination practices of your ISP. Realistically this is not the case.

turinreza
10-22-2009, 9:41 AM
fcc rules today

Someoneelseok
10-30-2009, 4:38 PM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-19-2006/net-neutrality-act - July 2006

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-26-2009/from-here-to-neutrality - October 2009

Mute
10-30-2009, 7:17 PM
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust the government (especially the one currently controlled by Obama's crew) to not make this into the exact opposite of what it's supposed to be.

Scratch705
10-30-2009, 7:50 PM
there are two bad sides here.

Comcast ect have spent so much money per home for connectivity that in some cases they can't recoup the actual costs for 50 years and are heavily leveraged in debt as a result.

The people that use those networks don't care about the costs or how much they use or how they open up Comcast to legal consequences for there file sharing. they are spoiled children who want everything for nothing.

Where the providers are grossly wrong is like in the case with ATT where it reaps ungodly profits and still does'nt upgrade the much cheaper network option of 3g or go to wimax or LTE like it has been saying forever.

Thats where the fed should get involved it should say OK ATT you've made 177 billion dollars profit we want you to take 75% of that and reinvest it into your network capability.

that will never happen but thats what should happen.

bad example. ISP's are not responsible for what the end users do with the service. this logic would then make it so gun makers are responsible for all crimes committed with guns. and as we all know that is not the case, and there is even a bill that Bush signed in that put that to rest too to prevent all those frivolous lawsuits that people brought against gun makers.

If you're unhappy with your ISP you can use another. That fact will keep ISPs from doing a lot of what you describe.

R

and then what is to stop all the ISP's from adopting similar policy and plans?
once one ISP starts to see the extra profits that adopting a tiered/throttling system they will all start to do it. Especially now when they know the there are many people "addicted" to facebook/twitter/etc and will give in and fork out the additional money per month to get faster access to these sites. Sure there may be some small start ups that would pop up and offer unfettered internet, but one issue is that they will be local and not nation wide.

Someoneelseok
10-30-2009, 9:34 PM
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust the government (especially the one currently controlled by Obama's crew) to not make this into the exact opposite of what it's supposed to be.

But Congress writes the laws not Obama's administration. and EVEN if, I think the current administration probably favors having net neutrality the way it's supposed to be anyway.

Mute
10-31-2009, 9:48 AM
But Congress writes the laws not Obama's administration. and EVEN if, I think the current administration probably favors having net neutrality the way it's supposed to be anyway.

Congress may write the laws, but it's naive to think that a sitting president doesn't have any influence into how the law is written, especially when his party is in the majority. As to the current administration favoring net neutrality as it's supposed to be, his actions thus far when it comes to dissenting opinions certain suggest otherwise.

Can'thavenuthingood
11-02-2009, 8:35 PM
Given the governments propensity for taking over business entities I'd just as soon they stayed out of the internet stuff all together.
What ever the gov does will add another layer of cost to all of us. While it wil also cost more to the government, they will come to us and our wallets to recover those costs.

Keep them away.

Vick

Scratch705
11-03-2009, 12:05 AM
Given the governments propensity for taking over business entities I'd just as soon they stayed out of the internet stuff all together.
What ever the gov does will add another layer of cost to all of us. While it wil also cost more to the government, they will come to us and our wallets to recover those costs.

Keep them away.

Vick

but left unchecked, the ISPs will be charging us to death. unless all you do is forum surf and check email then it wouldn't affect you. but for those that use VOIP, online gaming, online video viewing (hulu, network sites to catch reruns) we would be stuck paying $50 a month to get 56K speeds b/c the ISP didn't get paid off enough to boost the content speed for the site i'm on.

Can'thavenuthingood
11-05-2009, 8:21 PM
but left unchecked, the ISPs will be charging us to death. unless all you do is forum surf and check email then it wouldn't affect you. but for those that use VOIP, online gaming, online video viewing (hulu, network sites to catch reruns) we would be stuck paying $50 a month to get 56K speeds b/c the ISP didn't get paid off enough to boost the content speed for the site i'm on.

Then wouldn't it be a viable plan for someone else to open an ISP with lower rates?
As in competition?

Vick

Scratch705
11-05-2009, 11:19 PM
as i said, in my previous postings, sure someone can open a new ISP, but how hard will it be to lay new lines nation wide, and have the capital to setup a new ISP, and also compete with the big 4 companies that are already established. plus anyone with that amount of capital to invest into a new ISP will also see that the practice of charging for different content will earn more money for them since it will allow them to alter behavior by making people not stream high data streams such as video/music over low stress streams such as email and websites.

that is like saying using ammo for example. hey there is a shortage, why don't someone open up a ammo plant in CA to offer more ammo supply to pre-obama rush? not as easy as it is to just type. there are many governmental paperwork to go through and the same goes for ISP. I'm sure dealing with the FCC is just as bad as DOJ.

bigmike82
11-06-2009, 6:37 PM
"Then wouldn't it be a viable plan for someone else to open an ISP with lower rates?
As in competition?"
This was true back in the dial-up days, which is why the price came down so quickly.

New broadband ISPs must use existing infrastructure...they can't build new ones (per local, state, and fed regulations). Which means that new ISPs are limited by the big guys on how much bandwidth they can offer. There's no motivation for the big guys to up their capacity because they have a monopoly over a certain area. At your house, you're basically limited to either DSL or Cable (Or FIOS, if you're one of the lucky few). Though you can get, generally, a few different DSL providers, they ALL run over the SAME telephone line. None of the providers compete to improve their infrastructure, because they don't own it. It's not a very healthy place for capitalistic competition to occur.

AJAX22
11-06-2009, 7:13 PM
"Then wouldn't it be a viable plan for someone else to open an ISP with lower rates?
As in competition?"
This was true back in the dial-up days, which is why the price came down so quickly.

New broadband ISPs must use existing infrastructure...they can't build new ones (per local, state, and fed regulations). Which means that new ISPs are limited by the big guys on how much bandwidth they can offer. There's no motivation for the big guys to up their capacity because they have a monopoly over a certain area. At your house, you're basically limited to either DSL or Cable (Or FIOS, if you're one of the lucky few). Though you can get, generally, a few different DSL providers, they ALL run over the SAME telephone line. None of the providers compete to improve their infrastructure, because they don't own it. It's not a very healthy place for capitalistic competition to occur.


Which is why CLEC's exist (in theory).... although in practice they tend to be subsidiary's of the primary carrier.

The government f's up everything they touch.

I would prefer they NOT f'up the internet any worse than they already do.

bigmike82
11-06-2009, 7:18 PM
"I would prefer they NOT f'up the internet any worse than they already do."
Agreed. And to do that, in this case especially, they need to enforce network neutrality.

AJAX22
11-06-2009, 7:30 PM
"I would prefer they NOT f'up the internet any worse than they already do."
Agreed. And to do that, in this case especially, they need to enforce network neutrality.

any time you create a large, governmental regulatory mechanism instead of allowing market forces to work you inevitably will NOT like the results.

net neutrality may be the greatest thing since sliced bread.... but it will have intense and negative long term effects if it is implemented by government.

increasing the scope of government = bad things will inevitably happen

decrease the scope of government = good things have the potential to happen.

EVERYTHING you don't like about government bureaucracies that you deal with today STARTED because people thought that the creation of that bureaucracy was a good idea that would make life easier/better/more fair/etc.....

There is ONE truth in politics... Bigger government BAD, smaller government GOOD

JimmyD
11-06-2009, 9:00 PM
you guys are forgetting that you are paying for internet connectivity, just like when you use your phone you are paying for connectivity to the phone network. you are paying for a pipe, what you do with that pipe doesn't matter, if you need a bigger pipe you pay more, that's it.

its not about government intervention, its about phone companies changing your contract at their will and people getting confused on what they are actually paying for (connectivity not content)

bigmike82
11-06-2009, 10:37 PM
"decrease the scope of government = good things have the potential to happen."
Generally speaking, yes.

This does NOT happen when you have a large, entrenched monopoly...which is what the case is right now. There are two companies that have a potential monopoly over your broadband internet access. It is either a single cable company, or a single phone company.

That's not the free market at work, bro. And the free market isn't going to come into play in a situation like this.

Telperion
11-07-2009, 11:35 AM
"decrease the scope of government = good things have the potential to happen."
Generally speaking, yes.

This does NOT happen when you have a large, entrenched monopoly...which is what the case is right now. There are two companies that have a potential monopoly over your broadband internet access. It is either a single cable company, or a single phone company.

That's not the free market at work, bro. And the free market isn't going to come into play in a situation like this.

Has it occurred to you that network neutrality will, in fact, entrench the status quo more effectively than any supposed monopoly? Ten years ago, if you wanted broadband internet, you could pay $150/mo for ISDN or hundreds more, plus thousands in setup costs for a T1. Depending on where you are, today you have choices of cable, DSL, FiOS, 4G wireless, satellite, municipal WiFi, and wide-area WiFi meshes. Technology marches on, and I expect we will have more choices tomorrow, unless we create a cartel through government intervention.

Could a network neutrality-free world lead to content constraints? Possibly, but much of it would happen to the consumer's benefit. I can imagine some twitchy gamers or day traders would pay extra for service that has priority, low-latency access to game servers or stock brokerages, respectively. On the other hand, consumers wield power too; many ISP took notice of the drubbing Comcast received after it tried to stealthily throttle P2P traffic. Some people would opt for metered, per-bit pricing, and content providers could partner with service providers to colocate their applications to reduce bandwidth costs for the consumers. Some other would want to pay for discounted internet service in exchange for viewing partnered ads before connecting to any website. These choices benefit consumers and reduce costs but would be impossible under network neutrality.

If you don't like the way broadband is structured today, with caps, limited speeds, and poor service, then you ought to consider that network neutrality will entrench the present situation permanently. Any innovation that involves rethinking network access will be met with resistance from content providers. Similarly, innovative content services that need bandwidth, and that would benefit from partnering with carriers will be shut out. You will have two large corporate lobbies, each vying to use the big stick of .gov against each other in order to protect their turf. The consumer and innovator will lose.

Ech0Sierra
11-07-2009, 11:46 AM
Isn't this regulation of the internet? Disagree. Competition will always be more effective than regulation.

Scratch705
11-07-2009, 12:25 PM
Has it occurred to you that network neutrality will, in fact, entrench the status quo more effectively than any supposed monopoly? Ten years ago, if you wanted broadband internet, you could pay $150/mo for ISDN or hundreds more, plus thousands in setup costs for a T1. Depending on where you are, today you have choices of cable, DSL, FiOS, 4G wireless, satellite, municipal WiFi, and wide-area WiFi meshes. Technology marches on, and I expect we will have more choices tomorrow, unless we create a cartel through government intervention.

Could a network neutrality-free world lead to content constraints? Possibly, but much of it would happen to the consumer's benefit. *1* I can imagine some twitchy gamers or day traders would pay extra for service that has priority, low-latency access to game servers or stock brokerages, respectively. *1* On the other hand, consumers wield power too; many ISP took notice of the drubbing Comcast received after it tried to stealthily throttle P2P traffic. Some people would opt for metered, per-bit pricing, and content providers could partner with service providers to colocate their applications to reduce bandwidth costs for the consumers. Some other would want to pay for discounted internet service in exchange for viewing partnered ads before connecting to any website. These choices benefit consumers and reduce costs but would be impossible under network neutrality.

*3* If you don't like the way broadband is structured today, with caps, limited speeds, and poor service, then you ought to consider that network neutrality will entrench the present situation permanently. Any innovation that involves rethinking network access will be met with resistance from content providers. Similarly, innovative content services that need bandwidth, and that would benefit from partnering with carriers will be shut out. You will have two large corporate lobbies, each vying to use the big stick of .gov against each other in order to protect their turf. The consumer and innovator will lose.

1st bold: That right there is just stupid. then lets relate it to guns/ammo then. i'm sure those shoot would love to pay extra fees to buy ammo b/c they would want to shoot. maybe at ranges, there will be an extra fee for every certain amount of rounds you shoot. that way those who shoot lots will have to pay more than those that go to shoot only 50 rounds.

stock brokers might be willing to pay for the "extra" (and this term is used very loosely) bandwidth but 90% of gamers will not. most likely the parents will pay those extra fees (since more tens game than adults), and those who don't live at home, will either slow their gaming online and thus affect the gaming industry to make less multiplayer enabled games (which is a step back to the 80s and early 90s before internet was born)

then you are also forgetting the personal agendas of the ISP. i'm sure they are mostly anti-gun and with this new throttling practice now legal, they can make all gun related websites/content slow to a 28.8kbs crawl and then make gun companies pay double the rates of other companies to make it "faster"

2nd Bold: yea because it was unthought of for ISP to throttle selective traffic. with what the ISP are fighting for is to make it legal to throttle traffic they deem "not important" and if you want to make it "important" to the ISP, you can pay a extra fee to get it faster.

3rd bold: I like my internet today. I have no caps (except my speed tier which i'm at basic since i can't afford the higher speed when my current speed is more than enough). my service is pretty decent. it works 99% of the time, and the only time it goes down is when TWC is doing service at 3am about once a month.

and you forget, other developed countries don't have their ISP yelling for net content control and they have way faster speeds, more coverage in their country, and better service than we do in the USA. so what you are saying is that Americans are too stupid to handle the internet? that we need ISP's to become our nanny and watch and control what we can see/hear/touch and only if we decide to pay more can we get the content that was put up for free for everyone to see? (disregarding piracy since there will always be piracy just like there will always be blackmarket)

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2007-06-25-net-speeds_N.htm The median U.S. download speed now is 1.97 megabits per second — a fraction of the 61 megabits per second enjoyed by consumers in Japan, says the report released Monday. Other speedy countries include South Korea (median 45 megabits), France (17 megabits) and Canada (7 megabits). just a snip from article to show how slow our internet really is. and this was from 2007. here is a link to a more recent study of average speed
http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0908/

top speed for home users (not companies/government) and in this link you can compare prices of broadband and speed given.
http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0711/

Isn't this regulation of the internet? Disagree. Competition will always be more effective than regulation.

it is regulating the companies that provide us the gateway to the internet, not the internet itself as that would be impossible. This NN bill is only on stand b/c 2 of the major ISP are arguing that throttling of internet speeds and also lowering of what constitutes as broadband speed should be done so they can provide to more rural and urban areas with existing infrastructure (ie they are too cheap to lay more lines down and invest in better technology to boost the capabilities of what is available). and what competition will there be when all the major ISP decide to move to internet control? there would be only a handful of people with the amount of money and power to be able to open up a new ISP and provide the same speeds as we have today (5mb/s minimum) and have it nationwide.

ISP have natural monopolies. There is no competition that they will have to compete with. In my area, TWC is/was the only game in town. Sure FIOS is making their crawl and more and more of the city is able to choose now between TWC/FIOS, but just last year no one would of had that choice. Plus Verizon is one of the two ISP arguing for more control of the internet, and lowering broadband standards (ie lowering the minimum speed to what is broadband)

Telperion
11-07-2009, 1:41 PM
1st bold: That right there is just stupid. then lets relate it to guns/ammo then. i'm sure those shoot would love to pay extra fees to buy ammo b/c they would want to shoot. maybe at ranges, there will be an extra fee for every certain amount of rounds you shoot. that way those who shoot lots will have to pay more than those that go to shoot only 50 rounds.

stock brokers might be willing to pay for the "extra" (and this term is used very loosely) bandwidth but 90% of gamers will not. most likely the parents will pay those extra fees (since more tens game than adults), and those who don't live at home, will either slow their gaming online and thus affect the gaming industry to make less multiplayer enabled games (which is a step back to the 80s and early 90s before internet was born)

So if the ISP misunderstands its customer demographic, its "gamer latency enhancement" product will fall flat. Whatever. You miss the point - there are certainly people and content providers who would pay for reliable low-latency links to each other at a lower cost than leased lines. Network providers can supply this demand, but not in a world of government-mandated network neutrality.


then you are also forgetting the personal agendas of the ISP. i'm sure they are mostly anti-gun and with this new throttling practice now legal, they can make all gun related websites/content slow to a 28.8kbs crawl and then make gun companies pay double the rates of other companies to make it "faster"


2nd Bold: yea because it was unthought of for ISP to throttle selective traffic. with what the ISP are fighting for is to make it legal to throttle traffic they deem "not important" and if you want to make it "important" to the ISP, you can pay a extra fee to get it faster.

ISPs are in the business of making money, not advancing politics. As it is, webhosting companies could charge gun-related websites more, but they generally don't, since they want business. Comcast throttled bittorrent traffic because a small number of people were using tons of bandwidth, not because they had ideas of some traffic being "important" or "not important". They way they went about doing network management was wrong and idiotic, and they richly deserve getting fined. If only there were a way to charge people for the bandwidth they actually use, and partner with high-bandwidth applications to build out infrastructure and deliver data at a lower cost ... well there won't be with network neutrality, so we'll have to live with caps and throttling.


3rd bold: I like my internet today. I have no caps (except my speed tier which i'm at basic since i can't afford the higher speed when my current speed is more than enough). my service is pretty decent. it works 99% of the time, and the only time it goes down is when TWC is doing service at 3am about once a month.

It's a shame you'd like to keep the status quo for everyone just for your benefit. I personally would like it if I could have a metered access plan. It's the fairest way to charge for access, and I won't have to subsidize the 5% that download a terabyte of porn and pirated movies every month. Since you mentioned speeds, in a metered world, there would be no need for speed tiers and ISPs would have a real incentive to offer their fastest speeds to ALL their customers. They get paid by the bit, and a fatter pipe means they can sell you more bits. Mo bits, mo money, goodbye speed tiers. As it is, you only get your money's worth at the higher tiers if you are acting as an abusive customer, which is why they are so expensive.

Trendkill
11-07-2009, 2:15 PM
At no time do I believe our government has our best interests or freedoms in mind....so.

Hell no...

bigmike82
11-07-2009, 4:50 PM
"Isn't this regulation of the internet? Disagree. Competition will always be more effective than regulation."
It's regulation that's keeping the internet open for everyone.

Telperion, you mention the progress that's been made. That progress has come about PRECISELY because principles of network neutrality have been strictly adhered to by the major providers.

"Possibly, but much of it would happen to the consumer's benefit."
Bull.

"These choices benefit consumers"
Oh yeah. More ads definitely benefit consumers. ;)

"The consumer and innovator will lose."
This is where you are 100% wrong. The internet was designed with an unspoken, unwritten rule of network neutrality built in. It was only when the big boys decided to violate that rule that this uproar started. The consumer wins when he or she has full access to every portion of the internet, not simply the part that chooses to pay your ISP for the privilege.

Telperion
11-07-2009, 6:11 PM
Telperion, you mention the progress that's been made. That progress has come about PRECISELY because principles of network neutrality have been strictly adhered to by the major providers.

"Possibly, but much of it would happen to the consumer's benefit."
Bull.

"These choices benefit consumers"
Oh yeah. More ads definitely benefit consumers. ;)

"The consumer and innovator will lose."
This is where you are 100% wrong. The internet was designed with an unspoken, unwritten rule of network neutrality built in. It was only when the big boys decided to violate that rule that this uproar started. The consumer wins when he or she has full access to every portion of the internet, not simply the part that chooses to pay your ISP for the privilege.

More choices benefit consumers. Some people would want lower priced service in exchange for advertisements. Others would welcome high throughput low latency access to content delivery networks. Google and Akamai can afford to replicate their servers across various geographic locations to get the best performance for their applications. Their smaller competitors cannot match this level of investment on their own but may be able to partner with service providers to speed access to their services. Network neutrality will foreclose on these possibilities, and protect the existing players in the market. The internet was designed without dogmatic positions on network architecture, and the enshrinement of "as it is, forever shall it be" will harm consumers and innovators.

bigmike82
11-07-2009, 6:18 PM
"More choices benefit consumers."
Which is what Network Neutrality provides.

"Some people would want lower priced service in exchange for advertisements."
You can have that now. There's no law that prevents an ISP from doing this. In fact, NetZero did precisely this during the dial-up days.

" and protect the existing players in the market."
Wrong again. Network Neutrality is what ensures that a small start up will have the same reach, from a network standpoint, as the big boys. There's a reason, Telperion, that all the big ISPs are proponents of NN.

"The internet was designed without dogmatic positions on network architecture"
Excuse me? Can you explain that while taking the entire RFC structure into account?

Scratch705
11-07-2009, 6:25 PM
So if the ISP misunderstands its customer demographic, its "gamer latency enhancement" product will fall flat. Whatever. You miss the point - there are certainly people and content providers who would pay for reliable low-latency links to each other at a lower cost than leased lines. Network providers can supply this demand, but not in a world of government-mandated network neutrality.


ISPs are in the business of making money, not advancing politics. As it is, webhosting companies could charge gun-related websites more, but they generally don't, since they want business. Comcast throttled bittorrent traffic because a small number of people were using tons of bandwidth, not because they had ideas of some traffic being "important" or "not important". They way they went about doing network management was wrong and idiotic, and they richly deserve getting fined. If only there were a way to charge people for the bandwidth they actually use, and partner with high-bandwidth applications to build out infrastructure and deliver data at a lower cost ... well there won't be with network neutrality, so we'll have to live with caps and throttling.


It's a shame you'd like to keep the status quo for everyone just for your benefit. I personally would like it if I could have a metered access plan. It's the fairest way to charge for access, and I won't have to subsidize the 5% that download a terabyte of porn and pirated movies every month. Since you mentioned speeds, in a metered world, there would be no need for speed tiers and ISPs would have a real incentive to offer their fastest speeds to ALL their customers. They get paid by the bit, and a fatter pipe means they can sell you more bits. Mo bits, mo money, goodbye speed tiers. As it is, you only get your money's worth at the higher tiers if you are acting as an abusive customer, which is why they are so expensive.

if you aren't using up all your bandwidth then downgrade. no one is forcing you to be on broadband. there are still dialup services out there. if you don't need the 5mb+ speeds a month and paying the $50 bill, you can get dialup for like $20 a month.

bold 1: what product? the ISP wants unlilateral throttling of content that they deem "high bandwidth". there is no new product, this is restrictions on what we get now. how are you not getting this? this isn't some add-on service that you can opt out of. if the ISP gets their way, it is restricted movement on the internet period. no ifs ands or buts about it. as for thinking "oh you can switch ISPs" how? if both TWC and Verizon adopt this crap assed content restriction and throttling, how the hell am i suppose to switch to another ISP? there is no other ISP i can contract to in my area. this isn't like a typical retail establishment. The ISPs has a NATURAL MONOPOLY. look up that word, since you can't seem to understand. just like your water, gas, electricity services. and we all know first hand how de-regulation of these services can lead to. (californians is still paying for the enron rip-off)

bold 2: that right there makes your arguement moot. you talk about how i want to keep the status quo for my benefit then you go and talk about how you would like a metered plan. so you only want to change the status quo for your own benefit. :rolleyes:

yea consumers sure are going to win, when the ISPs get to control how fast you access certain information on the internet.

as for the people and content providers that you keep touting that would love to pay extra to get what they have now already.... you are delusional. you talk about how the ISP are all about money, well the content providers are all about money too, why should they have to pay ISP more money to get their content to stream faster when they don't have to now.

and of course you skip the entire part of where other countries which have faster internet access than USA, don't even have this issue of "net neutrality". i wonder how that is happening? i thought having ISP control what you can access on the internet will further innovation and benefit everyone... :rolleyes:

you are just blinding yourself to the bigger picture because all you see if "government = bad". well in this case the corporation is the one being bad. they are the one that is now trying to control what you can access and how fast.

TurboS600
11-07-2009, 7:03 PM
Duh...What? :confused:

Mute
11-07-2009, 8:11 PM
I don't see how anyone can worry about ISP agendas and then turnaround and expect the government to be completely agenda free. Show me anytime where the government has stepped in to regulate businesses and not wind up making it worse.

Telperion
11-07-2009, 8:50 PM
Which is what Network Neutrality provides.

I've explained how network neutrality forecloses certain arrangements on network access. We both claim this as choice. But is mandating one way or other choice?


"Some people would want lower priced service in exchange for advertisements."
You can have that now. There's no law that prevents an ISP from doing this. In fact, NetZero did precisely this during the dial-up days.

Correct; this is really orthogonal to net neutrality.


Wrong again. Network Neutrality is what ensures that a small start up will have the same reach, from a network standpoint, as the big boys. There's a reason, Telperion, that all the big ISPs are proponents of NN.

It means they won't able to take advantage of some potentially cheaper ways of competing with Google, etc. other than building out data centers and peering with big ISPs like Google does. I see this as a barrier to entry that protects existing interests.


"The internet was designed without dogmatic positions on network architecture"
Excuse me? Can you explain that while taking the entire RFC structure into account?

It means exactly that. The internet is really about connecting networks, and the RFCs do not demand an adherance to a particular policy on how traffic is prioritized going between the backbone and edges. You correctly said the internet was originally application agnostic, but this need not necessarily be the case in the future.


bold 1: what product? the ISP wants unlilateral throttling of content that they deem "high bandwidth". there is no new product, this is restrictions on what we get now. how are you not getting this? this isn't some add

It was a hypothetical.


bold 2: that right there makes your arguement moot. you talk about how i want to keep the status quo for my benefit then you go and talk about how you would like a metered plan. so you only want to change the status quo for your own benefit.

I'd like the choice of a metered option, and not just for my benefit. I really like the idea of metered access because it renders net neutrality unnecessary. If an ISP is there to sell me bits, they wouldn't want to degrade the performance of competing services, althought they might price their own services preferentially. Their only interest would be serving up bits as fast as they can.


and of course you skip the entire part of where other countries which have faster internet access than USA, don't even have this issue of "net neutrality". i wonder how that is happening? i thought having ISP control what you can access on the internet will further innovation and benefit everyone...

They certainly don't have our idea of "network neutrality" in South Korea and Japan, oft cited examples. South Korean ISPs can block VOIP traffic that's not from their own service, and in Japan ISPs are allowed to run their own services at higher QoS than their competitors. Japan's telcos are more competitive than our CLEC/ILEC situation, that's something I'd like to see more of here.


you are just blinding yourself to the bigger picture because all you see if "government = bad". well in this case the corporation is the one being bad. they are the one that is now trying to control what you can access and how fast.

Likewise I think you're blinding yourself if you don't recognize that turning the FCC into a referee on internet architecture is actually going to make it the target of regulatory capture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture), either by the telcos or content providers.

bigmike82
11-07-2009, 10:11 PM
"I've explained how network neutrality forecloses certain arrangements on network access."
It prevents them only from routing preferentially to their paid 'partners'. Nothing currently prevents them from combining infrastructure in places so that customer service is faster.

"Correct; this is really orthogonal to net neutrality."
Okay, so why did you bring it up?

"I see this as a barrier to entry that protects existing interests."
Potentially cheaper? You seriously think it's going to be cheaper for Mom and Pop's webshop to pay Comcast access fees than it is for them to set up a site now? The way the system is now, all they have to do is set up a website, and they're good to go. In the non NN system, they now have to pay access fees to compete with the big boys.

"but this need not necessarily be the case in the future."
Doesn't need to be, sure. I'm not opposed to changing how the internet operates IF the proposed changes are beneficial. Net Neutrality is harmful to the consumer, and to the network as a whole.

I find your focus on metered internet strange. Nothing currently prevents those companies from metering your internet service. Net Neutrality, as I understand the concept anyway, is *solely* concerned with preventing ISPs from favorably routing the contents from one provider over another because of fees paid to that ISP. Nothing currently stops providers from peering with that ISP at certain locations, nor to locate their infrastructure closer to the backbone access points.

Telperion
11-08-2009, 11:42 AM
"I see this as a barrier to entry that protects existing interests."
Potentially cheaper? You seriously think it's going to be cheaper for Mom and Pop's webshop to pay Comcast access fees than it is for them to set up a site now? The way the system is now, all they have to do is set up a website, and they're good to go. In the non NN system, they now have to pay access fees to compete with the big boys.

I don't understand the subtext with "Mom and Pop" and "the big boys". If you're talking about a small business that wants a web presence, their bandwidth needs are small and they wouldn't bother to pay for extra access. I'm talking about bandwidth hungry upstarts that will consume 1+% of global network traffic and be in the same league as Google, Limelight, eBay, Facebook, etc. These companies build server farms wherever they can find cheap power, dark fiber, or both and then peer with big ISPs. Replicating this infrastructure is a barrier to entry. Would partnering with telcos to outsource some of this infrastructure management be a win-win for both parties? That's the big question and I don't think we should be so hasty to answer "no".


I find your focus on metered internet strange. Nothing currently prevents those companies from metering your internet service. Net Neutrality, as I understand the concept anyway, is *solely* concerned with preventing ISPs from favorably routing the contents from one provider over another because of fees paid to that ISP. Nothing currently stops providers from peering with that ISP at certain locations, nor to locate their infrastructure closer to the backbone access points.

Your understanding of net neutrality meshes with mine, but others in the pro-neutrality camp have introduced legislation to preemptively outlaw usage-based retail broadband billing (HR 2902). Metered access is interesting because it avoids the network neutrality question. If the ISP is just charging based on bits transferred, why would it want to preferentially route one vendor's service over another? Its interest is sell more bits, and it doesn't achieve this by degrading bandwidth the customer is already paying for.

bigmike82
11-08-2009, 12:49 PM
"Your understanding of net neutrality meshes with mine..."
Okay, we're basically in agreement. As long as the big ISPs (especially the telcos) are forced to open their last-mile infrastructure to competitors (like the case with DSL now), I think that legislation is probably a bad thing. I'm not firmly saying so because I haven't studied it, but in principle, it does seem to be a bad thing.