|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 9, 2015 14:32:55 GMT
If it aint broke, then no need for ISP's to "Throttle" back speeds unless you pay more. Thats the thing about Newt Neutrality.... So, the Govt have basically passed a law that stops people fiddling with it. Just sometimes, the Govt dun good?.... (It will also prevent the ISP's doing further damage.... well, we hope?... yeah, that was said sarcastically...) Hold on there. Think net neutrality is just about ISPs throttling speed? That may be your idea of net neutrality, but it's not the governments. Net neutrality is just the nice, proper sounding name the government has given to a program to take complete control of every aspect of the internet. Who could not want net neutrality? They're great at coming up with these wonderful sounding names. Let's see. There's the Affordable Care Act. Who wouldn't want affordable health care? Then there's the Patriot Act. What patriot doesn't want unwarranted searches, their cell phone records recorded, their driving routes tracked and being strip searched every time they pass through an airport? Of course we have the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) No problem reserving a few parking spaces for the disabled, but maybe there is a problem with forcing the corner family restaurant out of business because they can't afford a million dollar remodeling to add wheel chair ramps throughout their 80 year old building. So what does the government see in net neutrality? It sees being able to control how ISPs do their business. What rates they charge and who they charge those rates to. They see free internet service to those that can't afford it. Free internet to schools and public entities (think of the children) And by "free" they mean paid for by those rich people that can afford to pay for internet. They mean equal service at the same price for the guy that lives 50 miles from the nearest cross roads as the guy that lives in a population area of 7 million people. They mean free speech on the internet. As long as it meets their standard of content. To do all this, they need to set up a huge governmental bureaucracy paid for with a SMALL fee on each internet user. At least each internet user that isn't entitled to free internet service. After all, it takes a lot of people to control something as big as the internet. So there's the problem, Now here's the answer. Let free enterprise and open market solve the problem. Under that evil capitalistic system, the internet has gone from two computers transferring data at 75 baud over a copper wire to one of the greatest inventions mankind has ever devised. The entire infrastructure was created by free market companies and at their expense. All the protocols were established by voluntary committees that everyone agreed to follow the recommendations of. All this with very little support of any kind from the government. You can solve this ISP throttling problem by simply following the long held rule that you get what you pay for and pay for what you get. Why should the guy that uses 1GB of data per month, to send a few emails and checking a few web sites, pay the same amount as the guy that uses 100GB streaming movies day and night. Let the ISPs offer different tiers of service. No throttling, but the more data transfer you use, the more you pay. That sounds pretty net neutral to me. I don't mind paying for what I use. I do mind paying for what everyone else uses. And that includes paying for a government bureaucracy to manage the net for me. If we feel we need the government to rescue us from the nasty ISPs, let's debate that in Congress. Let the representatives, that we elected and are responsible to us, work on a law to solve the problem. But we should NOT let the government decree they have that power based on an 80 year old law that was meant to control land line telephone service before anyone even had TVs in their homes. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 9, 2015 16:13:13 GMT
If it aint broke, then no need for ISP's to "Throttle" back speeds unless you pay more. Thats the thing about Newt Neutrality.... So, the Govt have basically passed a law that stops people fiddling with it. Just sometimes, the Govt dun good?.... (It will also prevent the ISP's doing further damage.... well, we hope?... yeah, that was said sarcastically...) Hold on there. Think net neutrality is just about ISPs throttling speed? That may be your idea of net neutrality, but it's not the governments. Net neutrality is just the nice, proper sounding name the government has given to a program to take complete control of every aspect of the internet. Who could not want net neutrality? They're great at coming up with these wonderful sounding names. Let's see. There's the Affordable Care Act. Who wouldn't want affordable health care? Then there's the Patriot Act. What patriot doesn't want unwarranted searches, their cell phone records recorded, their driving routes tracked and being strip searched every time they pass through an airport? Of course we have the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) No problem reserving a few parking spaces for the disabled, but maybe there is a problem with forcing the corner family restaurant out of business because they can't afford a million dollar remodeling to add wheel chair ramps throughout their 80 year old building. So what does the government see in net neutrality? It sees being able to control how ISPs do their business. What rates they charge and who they charge those rates to. They see free internet service to those that can't afford it. Free internet to schools and public entities (think of the children) And by "free" they mean paid for by those rich people that can afford to pay for internet. They mean equal service at the same price for the guy that lives 50 miles from the nearest cross roads as the guy that lives in a population area of 7 million people. They mean free speech on the internet. As long as it meets their standard of content. To do all this, they need to set up a huge governmental bureaucracy paid for with a SMALL fee on each internet user. At least each internet user that isn't entitled to free internet service. After all, it takes a lot of people to control something as big as the internet. So there's the problem, Now here's the answer. Let free enterprise and open market solve the problem. Under that evil capitalistic system, the internet has gone from two computers transferring data at 75 baud over a copper wire to one of the greatest inventions mankind has ever devised. The entire infrastructure was created by free market companies and at their expense. All the protocols were established by voluntary committees that everyone agreed to follow the recommendations of. All this with very little support of any kind from the government. You can solve this ISP throttling problem by simply following the long held rule that you get what you pay for and pay for what you get. Why should the guy that uses 1GB of data per month, to send a few emails and checking a few web sites, pay the same amount as the guy that uses 100GB streaming movies day and night. Let the ISPs offer different tiers of service. No throttling, but the more data transfer you use, the more you pay. That sounds pretty net neutral to me. I don't mind paying for what I use. I do mind paying for what everyone else uses. And that includes paying for a government bureaucracy to manage the net for me. If we feel we need the government to rescue us from the nasty ISPs, let's debate that in Congress. Let the representatives, that we elected and are responsible to us, work on a law to solve the problem. But we should NOT let the government decree they have that power based on an 80 year old law that was meant to control land line telephone service before anyone even had TVs in their homes. and, again - this is not about making the guy who only uses it to check email on weekends pay as much for his connection as the guy who streams videos 24/7. this is about the company that rhymes with bombast not being allowed to charge Netflix an extra $10.00 per month per signal to allow the bombast customer to stream netflix in real time - thus making bombast's 9.95 per month video streaming service a guaranteed seller. and actually, the ROOTS of the internet were the military and public colleges/universities. certainly once it broke out into the commercial market, the subsequent development was through private business. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 9, 2015 16:25:16 GMT
and, again - this is not about making the guy who only uses it to check email on weekends pay as much for his connection as the guy who streams videos 24/7. this is about the company that rhymes with bombast not being allowed to charge Netflix an extra $10.00 per month per signal to allow the bombast customer to stream netflix in real time - thus making bombast's 9.95 per month video streaming service a guaranteed seller. Someone has to pay for all the infrastructure. Either the ISP charges the customers that are sucking high amounts of data, or the companies, such as Netflix, that are pushing that data. Netflix uses over 30% of the entire available internet bandwidth in the evening when usage is high. Sure, $8.95 is a great deal if you use their service, but that doesn't represent the true cost. So you either pay Comcast extra for handling the data, or Netflix charges more and pays for the data service. There is no free lunch and, one way or the other, the end user, who is ultimately the one responsible for the high data usage, should pay the price. Either to the ISP, or to Netflix. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 9, 2015 16:40:16 GMT
Someone has to pay for all the infrastructure. Either the ISP charges the customers that are sucking high amounts of data, or the companies, such as Netflix, that are pushing that data. Netflix uses over 30% of the entire available internet bandwidth in the evening when usage is high. Sure, $8.95 is a great deal if you use their service, but that doesn't represent the true cost. So you either pay Comcast extra for handling the data, or Netflix charges more and pays for the data service. There is no free lunch and, one way or the other, the end user should have to pay. so the end user should pay directly. because what we're talking about, to put it into your field of endeavor, is the same idea as if you priced your climate control systems directly to the customer - and then ambulance sellers back charging you for every ambulance sold with your climate control system in it - in order to force you to raise your prices. or in my line of work - it would be like me sending Sylvania a bill every time a customer bought sylvania light bulbs for me to install. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 9, 2015 16:48:50 GMT
so the end user should pay directly. because what we're talking about, to put it into your field of endeavor, is the same idea as if you priced your climate control systems directly to the customer - and then ambulance sellers back charging you for every ambulance sold with your climate control system in it - in order to force you to raise your prices. or in my line of work - it would be like me sending Sylvania a bill every time a customer bought sylvania light bulbs for me to install. So would it be justifiable for your fire department to charge a customer that constantly calls in false alarms an additional charge? I would thing so. Or should you just raise everyone's taxes to cover the costs of the gross violators. Again, somebody has to pay. I just feel it's more fair if the ones that are causing the high usage pay for what they consume and not everyone else. And do you install light bulbs for free? Of course not. You charge the end customer your time and labor to change the bulb. That's after they already paid Sylvania for the bulb. Now if Sylvania came to you and said they would pay you to install the bulbs and then added that price to the cost of the bulb, you'd have no problem with that. But the end user would still be paying for both the bulb and the cost of installation. Same as before. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 9, 2015 16:53:43 GMT
So would it be justifiable for your fire department to charge a customer that constantly calls in false alarms an additional charge? I would thing so. Or should you just raise everyone's taxes to cover the costs of the gross violators. Again, somebody has to pay. I just feel it's more fair if the ones that are causing the high usage pay for what they consume and not everyone else. absolutely. that would be like bombast charging the customer a higher rate for higher volume. what they currently want to do (and is forbidden by net neutrality) would be like charging Protection One a $250 per year alarm licensing fee and not charging Power Alarm the same fee. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 9, 2015 17:02:39 GMT
absolutely. that would be like bombast charging the customer a higher rate for higher volume. what they currently want to do (and is forbidden by net neutrality) would be like charging Protection One a $250 per year alarm licensing fee and not charging Power Alarm the same fee. I think we are agreeing but running in circles just the same. If the ISP is charging you for the additional bandwidth, that's fine. They shouldn't be allowed to charge anyone, including Netflix, for making that content available. I do not, however, think we need to give the government complete control of the internet to solve this problem. The government already has too many problem it can't seem to solve. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 9, 2015 17:09:59 GMT
I think we are agreeing but running in circles just the same. If the ISP is charging you for the additional bandwidth, that's fine. They shouldn't be allowed to charge anyone, including Netflix, for making that content available. I do not, however, think we need to give the government complete control of the internet to solve this problem. complete control, no. enough control to prevent an ISP from forming an effective monopoly in an area and abusing the monopoly, yes. the basic premise of net neutrality is: an ISP must allow their customers unprejudiced access to all content that may be legally accessed. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 9, 2015 17:36:02 GMT
complete control, no. enough control to prevent an ISP from forming an effective monopoly in an area and abusing the monopoly, yes. the basic premise of net neutrality is: an ISP must allow their customers unprejudiced access to all content that may be legally accessed. I have no problem with that aspect, but that is NOT all that "net neutrality" is about. They are just using that "basic premise" along with the idea of national security, to get complete and unrestricted control of the internet. You think your bill is high now? Just wait. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 9, 2015 17:45:42 GMT
I have no problem with that aspect, but that is NOT all that "net neutrality" is about. They are just using that "basic premise" along with the idea of national security, to get complete and unrestricted control of the internet. You think your bill is high now? Just wait. you forget that I'm already in the top cost bracket. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 9, 2015 17:57:00 GMT
you forget that I'm already in the top cost bracket. And you'll stay in the top cost bracket. It's just that bracket will be a little higher. If this is really a problem, then let congress pass a law that specifically address it. But on Feb 26th, the FCC is voting to give itself complete control of the internet by placing it under a phone company act that was passed in 1934. As if nothing has changed since then. (although some aspects of the 1934 act was updated in 1996) And if you don't think that will give the FCC unlimited control, just read what this act gives the FCC power to do. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 9, 2015 18:06:27 GMT
And you'll stay in the top cost bracket. It's just that bracket will be a little higher. If this is really a problem, then let congress pass a law that specifically address it. But on Feb 26th, the FCC is voting to give itself complete control of the internet by placing it under a phone company act that was passed in 1934. As if nothing has changed since then. (although some aspects of the 1934 act was updated in 1996) And if you don't think that will give the FCC unlimited control, just read what this act gives the FCC power to do. so I guess the key question is: is the FCC doing that with the phone company right now, and is it ruining our lives? |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 9, 2015 18:23:14 GMT
so I guess the key question is: is the FCC doing that with the phone company right now, and is it ruining our lives? No, not ruining our lives, but take a look at your wireless bill, your regular phone bill, your electric bill, your gas bill and any other public utility bill you receive. Zero in on the "additional fees" section. When the FCC gets to start treating the internet as a public utility, which they will do under the FCC, you will then see those same types of fees applied to your internet service. Here's an article from the Washington Post that summarizes some of the dangers of the FCC taking over the internet. I realize that this is a two sided issue and this is mostly a one side view, but it does offer some things everyone should be concerned about. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Feb 9, 2015 18:31:18 GMT
This is going to be a long-winded question. Sorry.
To ask this question, I am going to propose an analogy from history involving the U.S. Government, U.S. Businesses, and a public utility: the Los Angeles Highway system.
I hope I have the general facts correct on the highway system, otherwise we'll be spending time undoing my analogy rather than answering my question.
Anyway, on to the historical events as I know them that I hope will paint an analogy for the question: Back in the late 1940's to 1950's, the U.S. was establishing much of its Interstate Highway system throughout the 50 states. This included areas in and around large cities like Los Angeles. The initial idea was to establish subway and above ground rail to support highway systems coming into being; something like that then-found around New York city. So, L.A. was supposed to have commuter services something like that found in New York at the time: subways, rail, roads, highways, etc.
BUT... large automobile-related companies like GoodYear and whatnot, got the idea that it would be far better if L.A. abandoned its hopes for serious rail systems and instead, be the city of automobiles only. Rail companies objected of course, so it was a battle for Los Angeles, fought in city offices somewhere.
In my effort to establish the first leg of my analogy, I'd say that it would have been arguably reasonable to establish a wide-range of services in an effort to be effective and smooth-running for the public and not give any privately-funded service a monopoly. And, the government, one would think, would help to ensure this sort of neutrality. Instead, as so often happens with large utility situations, supporting businesses got the upper hand with their money and government basically jumped into their back pocket.
In other words, instead of building a reasonably-diverse infrastructure right from the get-go, businesses paid government officials to get their way. What resulted was a motorway for automobiles, shirking the call for supporting rail systems, and business boomed for Goodyear; regardless of the potential for horrific traffic jams ahead.
The analogy is that whenever a public utility is formed (which in some sense the overall internet is), the businesses involved in molding that utility lean on government. Then government fails to properly consider the needs of the general public, and the result causes something arguably unfair to take place.
So, my question is, using this analogy: Is net neutrality the proposition of making the internet protected from business monopolies? And, because the U.S. government is in the back pocket of some of these monopolies, the U.S. government is actually against the concept of net neutrality?
Or, is the U.S. for the concept of net neutrality (having first drawn up the proposed law) and is currently fighting certain businesses with this legislation, (something like antitrust suits)?
I am a bit lost as to who is on whose side and what each side really stands for.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 9, 2015 18:45:30 GMT
especially as Comcast publicly claims support for Net Neutrality - and yet the net neutrality proponents claim it will protect us from Comcast. the short description of public utilities is that our tax money buys us a service, and we must decide if we are getting our money's worth. for example, road taxes buy us the service of not having a toll booth on every major road; and a reasonable state of repair for most roads. FCC taxes buy us not having only two choices for our landline phones: buy an overpriced phone set from ma bell, or rent an overpriced phone set from Ma Bell.
so the question is, will taxes paid to the FCC prevent having bombast charge us monopoly prices, and set up virtual tollbooths on content coming from outside the bombast family of content generators to a sufficient degree to make it a worthwhile investment.
you'll notice I am leaving questions of snooping out of the debate - because internet providers are ALREADY snooping.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 9, 2015 19:04:02 GMT
you'll notice I am leaving questions of snooping out of the debate - because internet providers are ALREADY snooping. Yes they do. In fact, they are required to do so under the Patriot Act. But you're not allowed to know that because the Patriot Act forbids them from telling you that. Look, I defend your right to believe that more government control is the solution to this problem, but I tend to agree with Regan when he said "...government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Time will tell who's correct. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 9, 2015 19:11:03 GMT
you'll notice I am leaving questions of snooping out of the debate - because internet providers are ALREADY snooping. Yes they do. In fact, they are required to do so under the Patriot Act. But you're not allowed to know that because the Patriot Act forbids them from telling you that. Look, I defend your right to believe that more government control is the solution to this problem, but I tend to agree with Regan when he said "...government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Time will tell who's correct. I have trouble believing that the patriot act requires google to sell your browser history to Amazon, so amazon can place targeted ads in your google serch results. I defend your right to believe that letting businesses write their own rules is the solution to this problem, but I tend to agree with P.T. Barnum when he said, "there's a sucker born every minute, and two to take him." |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 9, 2015 19:21:59 GMT
And that's another reason I try to avoid Google whenever possible. But sometimes they're just so handy. Just a thought, would you pay for using Google's services if they didn't target advertising? Would you pay to watch over the air TV if there were no commercials? How about the radio? Maybe the government should also regulate those. Oh wait, they do.
I fully agree with Ike. But he wasn't referring to businesses, he was talking about war.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 9, 2015 19:38:34 GMT
And that's another reason I try to avoid Google whenever possible. But sometimes they're just so handy. Just a thought, would you pay for using Google's services if they didn't target advertising? Would you pay to watch over the air TV if there were no commercials? How about the radio? Maybe the government should also regulate those. Oh wait, they do. I fully agree with Ike. But he wasn't referring to businesses, he was talking about war. yeah, I changed quotes because of that. if you want an eisenhower quote, this one is a bit long, but I agree with it. coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.htmlI do use google's services despite the fact they trawl my searches to sell targeted advertising. I don't use facebook's services in which they reserve the right to claim control over any content I upload for the purposes of using it in whatever manner they feel will profit them. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 9, 2015 21:37:23 GMT
This is going to be a long-winded question. Sorry. To ask this question, I am going to propose an analogy from history involving the U.S. Government, U.S. Businesses, and a public utility: the Los Angeles Highway system. I hope I have the general facts correct on the highway system, otherwise we'll be spending time undoing my analogy rather than answering my question. Anyway, on to the historical events as I know them that I hope will paint an analogy for the question: Back in the late 1940's to 1950's, the U.S. was establishing much of its Interstate Highway system throughout the 50 states. This included areas in and around large cities like Los Angeles. The initial idea was to establish subway and above ground rail to support highway systems coming into being; something like that then-found around New York city. So, L.A. was supposed to have commuter services something like that found in New York at the time: subways, rail, roads, highways, etc. BUT... large automobile-related companies like GoodYear and whatnot, got the idea that it would be far better if L.A. abandoned its hopes for serious rail systems and instead, be the city of automobiles only. Rail companies objected of course, so it was a battle for Los Angeles, fought in city offices somewhere. In my effort to establish the first leg of my analogy, I'd say that it would have been arguably reasonable to establish a wide-range of services in an effort to be effective and smooth-running for the public and not give any privately-funded service a monopoly. And, the government, one would think, would help to ensure this sort of neutrality. Instead, as so often happens with large utility situations, supporting businesses got the upper hand with their money and government basically jumped into their back pocket. In other words, instead of building a reasonably-diverse infrastructure right from the get-go, businesses paid government officials to get their way. What resulted was a motorway for automobiles, shirking the call for supporting rail systems, and business boomed for Goodyear; regardless of the potential for horrific traffic jams ahead. The analogy is that whenever a public utility is formed (which in some sense the overall internet is), the businesses involved in molding that utility lean on government. Then government fails to properly consider the needs of the general public, and the result causes something arguably unfair to take place. So, my question is, using this analogy: Is net neutrality the proposition of making the internet protected from business monopolies? And, because the U.S. government is in the back pocket of some of these monopolies, the U.S. government is actually against the concept of net neutrality? Or, is the U.S. for the concept of net neutrality (having first drawn up the proposed law) and is currently fighting certain businesses with this legislation, (something like antitrust suits)? I am a bit lost as to who is on whose side and what each side really stands for. I can see the problem in an area where your choice of ISP is limited to one provider. I believe TLW is in that situation. Here, I have a choice of three hard wire high speed providers. Even more if you want to consider cell based wireless internet providers. There is competition and that's good. Out of the three hard wired providers, there is one that is not too bad. That's Wide Open West (WOW). They're a lot better than Comcast and AT&T. At least as far as customer service goes. WOW is a few dollars more expensive, but after personally dealing with AT&T and seeing what my friends and neighbors have to go through with Comcast, I'll gladly pay a little more. Maybe that's what is needed. Just more competition, not more regulation. |
|
