network neutrality

[JDay]

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]

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.

[Corbin Dallas]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You will likely see Calguns.net disappear.

Not on my watch.

[stormy_clothing]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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