homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.190.232
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & lawman

Foo Forum

This 51 message thread spans 2 pages: 51 ( [1] 2 > >     
Net Neutrality. Are These New FCC Rules A Good Deal?
lawman




msg:4244708
 2:49 am on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

“Maybe you like Google Maps. Well, tough,” Mr. Franken said on Saturday on the Senate floor. “If the F.C.C. passes this weak rule, Verizon will be able to cut off access to the Google Maps app on your phone and force you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it is not as good. And even if they charge money, when Google Maps is free.”

[nytimes.com...]

<added> When this thread was started, the changes were pending. New rules have since passed </added>

[edited by: lawman at 11:48 pm (utc) on Dec 22, 2010]

 

PaulPA




msg:4244720
 3:31 am on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

This has the potential to be the top story for 2011.

lexipixel




msg:4244731
 3:54 am on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

Login needed on that link

Sgt_Kickaxe




msg:4244756
 6:06 am on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

Buh bye Verizon.

Verizgone! There are other options and we are still free to choose those.

runarb




msg:4244768
 6:27 am on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

> Login needed on that link
>

Works fine for me. I am in Oslo, Norway.

hugh




msg:4244784
 8:27 am on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

I want to know how the rest of the world reacts if these (nasty) laws are passed. Unless similar legislation follows abroad i think it's likely these laws would mean an exodus to overseas services and a real loss to US companies...

digitalv




msg:4244822
 12:42 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

How about we cross that bridge when and if it happens?

The last thing we want to do is give the government even MORE authority to regulate the Internet. Providers who restrict access will be dropped in favor of providers that don't, and their contracts will not be upheld in court because the service you agreed to when you signed it isn't the same service you're getting if they make a change.

So, in your example, if Verizon decided to disable the Google Maps app, my contract with them would be void and I could switch to another provider. I'd rather take my chances that private companies aren't going to make decisions that will cost them customers than give the government any more authority.

We don't need the government's brand of "net neutrality".

Besides, what ever happened to the rights of businesses and their owners? Most of us here run servers of some kind... Do you think we should be legally obligated to host #*$! sites or allow access to them through our networks? When you really get down to it, it isn't that much different... it's the government telling businesses what they can and cannot allow on the Internet, period. Where does it end?

And as for priority bandwidth, why not? Do you think a guy wearing a holter monitor that sends real-time EKG readings back to a medical datacenter through the Internet shouldn't be allowed to have priority bandwidth over you accessing your Facebook page? Net neutrality would prevent a carrier like Verizon from prioritizing the bandwidth to that medical data center.

It's not the government's place to tell Internet providers how to run their businesses.

HRoth




msg:4244834
 1:03 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

Well, yes it is the federal government's place to tell Internet providers how to run their business, because those providers are engaging in interstate commerce. That is regulated by the feds. If you don't want to be regulated by them, you don't have to participate in interstate commerce.

Big corporations are not in the habit of acting for the good of the customer. They have one clearly stated goal: make money for the stockholders and devil take the hindmost.

Webwork




msg:4244840
 1:43 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

Providers who restrict access will be dropped in favor of providers that don't


If the cost of new providers entering the market wasn't measured in billions of dollars the "free market will fix this" argument would fly. It doesn't. The barriers to entry are so high the existing entities get to act in monopolistic "we got the goods" ways.

It costs billions to build the type of infrastructure that net neutrality is meant to govern. The existing providers ability to raise billions in the past was only possible by virture of the quasi-monopoly rights and long-term grants of right given - BY governmental agencies - TO the "now large enough to succeed" providers. I know. I sat on a board that listened to the "if you don't pass this long term contract your residents will be denied our services . . but not by any malice" arguments.

So, it's great when we, the people - i.e., "the government" - enable monopolistic behemouths to exist and grow, but it's bad when that same government - us, the governed - say "Whoa! Not like that!"?

Bologna. We the people, a/k/a "the government by the people, for the people" - who fostered and enabled these behemouths to grow - get to vote and we have every right to "just say NO".

In case your legislator or senator hasn't heard from you it's time you, the people, vote so he/she knows who he/she is representing when voting, i.e., the people who will throw him/her out . . depending on which side has the greater heft-and-throw. :P

frontpage




msg:4244862
 2:45 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

The "net neutrality" rules, proposed by the Obama administration, would be the government's biggest foray yet into one of the Web's fiercest debates.

[cnn.com...]


"But approval at a meeting Tuesday is likely to enrage congressional Republicans, who have warned the FCC's Democratic majority not to enact any Internet regulations. And the regulations are expected to be challenged in court.

The issue, known as net neutrality, has drawn strong support from Democrats, online activists and large Internet companies such as Google Inc. that advocate more open access to the Internet.

On the opposite side, Republicans, free-market advocates and telecommunications providers argue that such regulation isn't needed and would squelch investment and limit innovations."

[articles.latimes.com...]

former AT&T engineer Joe Niederberger, a member of the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org. He asked Obama: "Would you make it a priority in your first year of office to reinstate Net neutrality as the law of the land? And would you pledge to only appoint FCC commissioners that support open Internet principles like Net neutrality?"

"The answer is yes," Obama replied. "I am a strong supporter of Net neutrality."

[news.cnet.com...]

Last week, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed strengthening the agency’s current guidelines on net neutrality by formally adopting them as regulation. He also proposed two additional rules, including one aimed at preventing Internet companies from discriminating against any traffic to certain types of content or services. In other words, all traffic would have to be treated the same.

Net neutrality was a cornerstone of Obama’s technology priorities during his campaign. Genachowski, his top campaign tech adviser, was a key architect behind those plans.

[thehill.com...]

frontpage




msg:4244873
 3:07 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

Do We Need FCC's Net Neutrality Order?

This morning, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) will vote on a Net Neutrality "Order", constructing rules for the Internet that many are still not sure it has the right to enforce. The commission is ostensibly designing this plan to protect consumers, however many are describing it as meddling (or worse) by a Big Brother-like entity. Even those who support it appear to be doing so almost unwillingly.


[pcmag.com...]

frontpage




msg:4244877
 3:13 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

Hands off tomorrow's Internet

On Tuesday, in a party-line vote, the three Democratic commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will adopt "net neutrality" rules.

The rules will give government, for the first time, a substantive role in how the Internet will be operated and managed, how broadband services will be priced and structured, and potentially how broadband networks will be financed. By replacing market forces and technological solutions with bureaucratic oversight, we may see an Internet future not quite as bright as we need, with less investment, less innovation and more congestion.


[washingtonpost.com...]

freejung




msg:4244902
 4:07 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

It's not the government's place to tell Internet providers how to run their businesses.

Bollox. Do their wires cross public land? Do they cross state lines? This position is nonsense. Tell you what -- let's revoke all of their federal licenses and their corporate charter and cut every fiber cable that crosses any public land or any state line, and then they can go ahead and do business however they damn well please.

The question we should be asking ourselves is, how much are we willing to pay for access to the "fast lane?" Big providers want to use their monopoly status as leverage to siphon off a share of your profits. That should be pretty simple to understand. Do you want them to have the "right" to do that?

glitterball




msg:4244945
 6:02 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

This is kinda related:
[bloomberg.com...]

Personally I think that this would cause internet companies (both small and large) to organise themselves and cut-off access to entire ISPs.

Google could just stick up a message to all France Telecom's customers explaining why their services are no longer available to France Telecom's customers.

But it would take something like that to make people change ISPs, otherwise the sheep would just continue as before and the telecoms companies could start blackmailing every website.

Just picture it - in 5 years time Mom and Pop's website gets a spam message that reads something like "For just $10 per month get priority access to AT&T's x million customers".

grelmar




msg:4244946
 6:06 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

Putting Net Neutrality into law is most likely to be a good step. What it means, in real terms, is enforcing by law what had previously been in place through what is effectively a "Gentleman's Agreement."

What we've seen over the past couple of years is that certain big players are anything but gentlemen, and the pressures of the quarterly balance sheets are prompting them to act for short term gain.

Anyone who tries to convince you that enforcing net neutrality will stifle innovation is blowing smoke. What they're afraid of is legislation that will limit their ability to soak short term profits at the expense of long term growth and innovation. They have their portion of the sandbox, and don't want other kids playing in it.

Demaestro




msg:4244959
 6:38 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

In related news the water utility companies have decided that water neutrality costs them money.

It will now cost you more for water used by your shower then by your dishwasher as showers tend to use more water, same with your garden hose.

We can't go on pretending that all water devices use the same amount of water, because 'somehow' certain devices cost us more to deliver to then others so we have to charge more for them.

frontpage




msg:4244972
 7:07 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

21 December 2010 - The Day The Internet As We Know It Died.

  • Get ready for higher costs.
  • Less availability of high bandwidth infrastructure.
  • More government regulation of your websites and content.
  • More taxes.
  • Less freedom of speech.

    It is ironic, two years ago the Patriot Act got people upset, now the the FCC regulates the internet by the fiat of 3 political appointees of the Obama administration and there is barely a wimper.

    Now due to Policy Enforcement and Charging every single query you make for data on the internet will be logged and assessed to determine if you will potentially be charged extra for accessing that bandwidth hogging data.

    Example Flow Chart:

    [observer.com...]

  • Demaestro




    msg:4244987
     7:38 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

    frontpage

    The scariest thing in that flowchart isn't the extra rates.. it is how vodafone is free and Skype isn't.

    It is scary because vodaphone is Skype's competition and isn't nearly as good, but has a seat with these big companies making decisions.

    Skype who has no say will buried by this type of anti-competitive behavior

    piatkow




    msg:4244990
     7:45 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

    Higher costs - too damn right, if you want bandwidth you should pay for it not expect somebody else to pick up the tab.

    frontpage




    msg:4245025
     9:54 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

    Higher costs - too damn right, if you want bandwidth you should pay for it not expect somebody else to pick up the tab.


    You missed the point.

    Most of us are already paying for bandwidth which we never consume. Now, we will have to pay a second fee to access certain websites.

    Want to watch Youtube, pay extra. Want to check Facebook, pay extra.

    These are fees additional to your 20Mb/s internet bill.

    This is equivolent of paying for telephone service and you don't use more than 300 minutes per month. Yet if you call a certain friend, you will be charged an extra fee by your phone company despite not using more minutes.

    Privacy Complaints? Forget it, stick a fork in them.

    Allot and Openet use multiple methods to figure out what you’re looking at including “methods like heuristic analysis, behavioral and historical analysis, deep packet inspection, and a number of other techniques.”

    Demaestro




    msg:4245032
     10:48 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

    if you want bandwidth you should pay for it


    Sure... but should 2mb of data from Youtube cost more than 2mb from Hulu?

    Why?

    wheel




    msg:4245037
     11:11 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

    Why should I pay for bandwidth? What's the $50 a month I'm already paying go towards again? That's right, I'm paying for a capped amount of bandwidth transfer.

    And I'm also paying for bandwidth for my website, to my colo provider. Now we have to pay twice, once on both ends? Nice system.

    The current system is working fine right now.

    digitalv




    msg:4245045
     11:43 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

    You guys are nuts if you think we need the government to babysit the Internet.

    thecoalman




    msg:4245056
     12:57 am on Dec 22, 2010 (gmt 0)

    Sure... but should 2mb of data from Youtube cost more than 2mb from Hulu?

    Why?


    You won't be paying it, youtube or hulu will, however your smaller site serving up a video will now be buffering as the youtube and hulu traffic goes through.


    [online.wsj.com...]

    They also would let broadband providers for the first time charge more to companies that want faster service for delivery of games, videos or other services.



    This is very bad rule for anyone with smaller site especially if you want to serve video or other high bandwidth services.

    Demaestro




    msg:4245057
     1:10 am on Dec 22, 2010 (gmt 0)

    You won't be paying it, youtube or hulu will,


    Maybe... maybe not, but it doesn't matter who pays it.. the question is why does 2mb of data cost more to transfer between me and Youtube then 2mb of data between me and example.com?

    Should a car wash pay more for a liter of water than a Zoo does?

    Should a Movie Theater pay more per kj then a Sports Arena?

    So why should a MB cost more if it is used by Youtube than by example.com?

    thecoalman




    msg:4245060
     1:25 am on Dec 22, 2010 (gmt 0)

    My position has always been to allow the ISP's to offer tiered but neutral service. Let the consumer take the hit on the cost whatever it is, if you want to run P2P 24/7 have a blast but be prepared to pay a hefty bill. Most importantly don't discriminate between content and service providers by allowing companies to pay for prioritized service to the ISP's customers.

    cmendla




    msg:4245064
     1:34 am on Dec 22, 2010 (gmt 0)

    November 2012..our last chance

    brotherhood of LAN




    msg:4245071
     3:08 am on Dec 22, 2010 (gmt 0)

    The bandwidth hungry/popular sites... e.g. YouTube, Facebook are all heavily marketed by the smart phone companies. Having recently shopped for one, all had a facebook/Youtube logo to show you how easy it is to use these services from your phone.

    I totally agree with 'pay for your bandwidth allowance' camp. If you pay for a service that offers 10GB of 3G traffic on your phone, then that's what you should be entitled to. And all traffic should be equal.

    I've never understood why mainstream ISP's and mobile co's do not charge per GB at a reasonable rate rather than offering an attractive bulk allocation of bandwidth. Why not price it like income tax bands, where heavier users pay more for their 'extra'.

    aleksl




    msg:4245072
     3:15 am on Dec 22, 2010 (gmt 0)

    It is not about youtube videos. What does it cost Verizon to send you youtube video vs. a bunch of other stuff of the same size? nothing.

    IT IS ABOUT VOIP.

    Voice over IP is destroying a FAT CAT'S BUSINESS. Fat cats, Verizon one of them, are OVERCHARGING arm and leg for phone access. Cost of land phone lines are insane. And if you consider business lines, any even small business has a bunch, end they are minimum $50/month a pop, and some have 5-10 lines. It is fat cat's money printing machine. And VOIP is killing them, because if you get a VOIP trunk, you can have something like up to 23 lines on one VOIP connection. CAN YOU COUNT? That's $30/month vs. $500 to fat cat.

    The VOIP revolution is here, fat cats know this. "Net neutrality" bull#*$! is not about youtube, it is about destroying cheap VOIP providers. It is about not letting small businesses off the hook on overpriced fat cat service.

    thecoalman




    msg:4245085
     4:54 am on Dec 22, 2010 (gmt 0)

    I've never understood why mainstream ISP's and mobile co's do not charge per GB at a reasonable rate rather than offering an attractive bulk allocation of bandwidth.


    For the same reason you have hosts marketing "ulimited" shared hosting accounts for $6 a month. It makes for good marketing. How many people do you think are out there paying $40 or $50 a month that check their email and surf a few pages each day?

    They aren't going to make money off them on tiered plans.

    This 51 message thread spans 2 pages: 51 ( [1] 2 > >
    Global Options:
     top home search open messages active posts  
     

    Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
    rss feed

    All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
    Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
    © Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved