Where does SECTalk stand on Net Neutrality? - Water Fountain - SECTalk.com

Jump to content

Welcome to SECTalk.com

Welcome to SECTalk.com -- The Home of 6 Straight National Titles!

You are currently accessing our site as a guest which means you can't access all of our features such as social groups, sports betting, and many more. By joining our free community you will have access to all of these great features as well as to participating in our forums, contacting other members, and much more. Registration only takes a minute and SECTalk.com is absolutely free, so please join today!

If you have any problems registering or signing in, please contact us.

Countdown to Kickoff
3322415
DaysHoursMinutesSeconds
Countdown Jersey Thread


Latest Topics


Latest News


Top High Fived

Top Bettors


Where does SECTalk stand on Net Neutrality?

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#1
TheRealBrave

TheRealBrave

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    23,969
  • Age:
    22
  • Joined:
    Nov 2008
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    6,322
Just curious. I don't think Net Neutrality is the solution. Regulation and the government being in the pocket of the Comcast/Time Warner etc. oligopolies already caused them to become massive. They haven't been private industries for quite some time now hence why they are the anti-christ of the corporate world (who doesn't loathe Comcast or Time Warner?)

If they were private enterprises (they aren't) than Net Neutrality shouldn't even be considered. If they were a private enterprise than an adult could make the decision to not use their services if they were having content blocked or throttled by their ISP. It becomes more complicated when the nanny state we have is funding and protecting them though.

Edited by TheRealBrave, 17 May 2014 - 07:30 AM.

Posted Image
MARK RICHT MAKES GOOD HIRE, HELL HAS FROZEN OVER

#2
smokeyone

smokeyone

    Descendant of a Lord of the Manner in Berkshire.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    9,027
  • Age:
    38
  • Joined:
    Jul 2010
  • Cash:
    75
  • High Fives:
    3,433
If you are utilizing services that eat up broadband at a higher rate wouldn't it make sense to tier up the service plan and pay more? Broadband is limited and when it reaches a cerian point it slows down. Just like the router in your home only pushes so much broadband into your home and when too many people do too much on it it bogs down. If an ISP throttles down high use products to save broadband from boging down the whole system how can that be wrong? The company charging the end user isn't paying the ISP for the high use on the broadband and it is impacting the whole system.


People might not remember this but in the 90s when the internet was just starting to show up in homes on dial up you could count on it slowing down when schools let out and more people got on. That changed when dial up died and more bandwidth was added and cable companies replaced phone companies as ISP providers. With the increased use of hulu+, Netflix, steam and like companies without another increase in bandwidth I am afraid we are headed to another predictable overall slow down during peak hours use. Most cable companies are now using bandwidth to push, TV service, On Demand video, telephone, home security and basic internet on their systems. With a limited bandwidth forecast when you have too many users going above that and over using their allotted bandwidth you slow the whole network in your area.

Redacted


#3
smokeyone

smokeyone

    Descendant of a Lord of the Manner in Berkshire.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    9,027
  • Age:
    38
  • Joined:
    Jul 2010
  • Cash:
    75
  • High Fives:
    3,433
A great example of the fix for this is Google as an ISP. They are utilizing their own infrastructure in Atlanta instead of using Comcast and will offer users great speed at a great price. Since they will be a dedicated ISP and not push other content they with not have mixed priorities in their service. Hopefully others will follow suit and make the investment in the necessary infrastructure so we can see a jump in service like the leap from baud rated modems on twisted copper phone lines to cable modems.

Redacted


#4
cocky4ever

cocky4ever
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    16,236
  • Age:
    32
  • Joined:
    Dec 2004
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    12,502
I've heard it mentioned a few times but I don't really know enough about it to have an informed opinion.

#5
The Doctor

The Doctor

    Wibbly Wobbley Timey Wimey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    4,646
  • Age:
    22
  • Joined:
    Aug 2009
  • Cash:
    400
  • High Fives:
    3,261

View Postsmokeyone, on 17 May 2014 - 09:33 AM, said:

If you are utilizing services that eat up broadband at a higher rate wouldn't it make sense to tier up the service plan and pay more? Broadband is limited and when it reaches a cerian point it slows down. Just like the router in your home only pushes so much broadband into your home and when too many people do too much on it it bogs down. If an ISP throttles down high use products to save broadband from boging down the whole system how can that be wrong? The company charging the end user isn't paying the ISP for the high use on the broadband and it is impacting the whole system.


People might not remember this but in the 90s when the internet was just starting to show up in homes on dial up you could count on it slowing down when schools let out and more people got on. That changed when dial up died and more bandwidth was added and cable companies replaced phone companies as ISP providers. With the increased use of hulu+, Netflix, steam and like companies without another increase in bandwidth I am afraid we are headed to another predictable overall slow down during peak hours use. Most cable companies are now using bandwidth to push, TV service, On Demand video, telephone, home security and basic internet on their systems. With a limited bandwidth forecast when you have too many users going above that and over using their allotted bandwidth you slow the whole network in your area.

The problem with tiered payment systems for the internet is that it essentially allows the large corporations to operate on a completely different playing field then start ups. If you care about small business and internet entrepreneurship at all, you should support net neutrality. It's one thing to pay more for more usage, that is already happening, but the new bills would allow bigger corporations to buy internet fast lanes that would put them at a higher playing field than small business and limit the success of internet start-ups. The internet is a utility and it should be treated as such. I am fully in support of it being reclassified as a Title II Common Carrier. This means they have to operate at cost, or slightly above cost. This is better for the consumer as opposed to the price-gouging we see with the current classification.

As far as the second bolded point, this wouldn't be an issue at all if ISP would stop dragging their feet about converting to fiber. The bandwidth is severely limited by Cable Companies insisting on staying with copper wired internet lines. The ISP are responsible for the slow downs, not the consumers and their habits. They are fully capable of supporting every bit of internet activity if they wanted to. They don't though, because that would eliminate their ability to squeeze extra dollars out of consumers by offering faster internet speeds.
Formerly known as rebelfan91

#6
The Doctor

The Doctor

    Wibbly Wobbley Timey Wimey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    4,646
  • Age:
    22
  • Joined:
    Aug 2009
  • Cash:
    400
  • High Fives:
    3,261

View Postsmokeyone, on 17 May 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

A great example of the fix for this is Google as an ISP. They are utilizing their own infrastructure in Atlanta instead of using Comcast and will offer users great speed at a great price. Since they will be a dedicated ISP and not push other content they with not have mixed priorities in their service. Hopefully others will follow suit and make the investment in the necessary infrastructure so we can see a jump in service like the leap from baud rated modems on twisted copper phone lines to cable modems.

Google has no interest in being an ISP. Google Fiber was basically a way to show that gigabit speeds are feasible and profitable. Google wants the rest of the ISP's to step up their game because it helps Google's bottom line, which is selling advertisement on their search engine. Faster internet means more people seeing more advertisement. I would be really surprised if Google throws themselves into the ISP game.
Formerly known as rebelfan91

#7
TheRealBrave

TheRealBrave

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    23,969
  • Age:
    22
  • Joined:
    Nov 2008
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    6,322

View Postsmokeyone, on 17 May 2014 - 09:33 AM, said:

If you are utilizing services that eat up broadband at a higher rate wouldn't it make sense to tier up the service plan and pay more? Broadband is limited and when it reaches a cerian point it slows down. Just like the router in your home only pushes so much broadband into your home and when too many people do too much on it it bogs down. If an ISP throttles down high use products to save broadband from boging down the whole system how can that be wrong? The company charging the end user isn't paying the ISP for the high use on the broadband and it is impacting the whole system.


People might not remember this but in the 90s when the internet was just starting to show up in homes on dial up you could count on it slowing down when schools let out and more people got on. That changed when dial up died and more bandwidth was added and cable companies replaced phone companies as ISP providers. With the increased use of hulu+, Netflix, steam and like companies without another increase in bandwidth I am afraid we are headed to another predictable overall slow down during peak hours use. Most cable companies are now using bandwidth to push, TV service, On Demand video, telephone, home security and basic internet on their systems. With a limited bandwidth forecast when you have too many users going above that and over using their allotted bandwidth you slow the whole network in your area.

How much things like Netflix streaming bogs down an ISP's infrastructure is vastly exaggerated by cable companies in the US though. The United States has the most expensive ISPs in relevant countries and for the slowest speeds. Throw on top of that them unnecessarily throttling usage do not eat up bandwidth such as online gaming (it's practically nothing compared to streaming - which is already an exaggerated bandwidth hog)
Posted Image
MARK RICHT MAKES GOOD HIRE, HELL HAS FROZEN OVER

#8
L.A.Hog

L.A.Hog

    Go Hogs,Pilgrim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    8,145
  • Age:
    57
  • Joined:
    Feb 2009
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    5,271
The future is in wireless.Fiber cables are being buried to cell sites and more towers are going up.Wireless interfaces are being trialed on some homes in Texas to operate all services.

The cost of maintaining wireless as opposed to wired plant is significantly less and will take much less manpower.

Hopefully there will be enough competition to keep the price down.



#9
TheRealBrave

TheRealBrave

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    23,969
  • Age:
    22
  • Joined:
    Nov 2008
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    6,322

View PostThe Doctor, on 17 May 2014 - 09:58 AM, said:


The problem with tiered payment systems for the internet is that it essentially allows the large corporations to operate on a completely different playing field then start ups. If you care about small business and internet entrepreneurship at all, you should support net neutrality. It's one thing to pay more for more usage, that is already happening, but the new bills would allow bigger corporations to buy internet fast lanes that would put them at a higher playing field than small business and limit the success of internet start-ups. The internet is a utility and it should be treated as such. I am fully in support of it being reclassified as a Title II Common Carrier. This means they have to operate at cost, or slightly above cost. This is better for the consumer as opposed to the price-gouging we see with the current classification.

As far as the second bolded point, this wouldn't be an issue at all if ISP would stop dragging their feet about converting to fiber. The bandwidth is severely limited by Cable Companies insisting on staying with copper wired internet lines. The ISP are responsible for the slow downs, not the consumers and their habits. They are fully capable of supporting every bit of internet activity if they wanted to. They don't though, because that would eliminate their ability to squeeze extra dollars out of consumers by offering faster internet speeds.

One could also make the argument that government regulation helped create the current ISP oligopolies by squashing out the little guy competitors. They also funneled billions of dollars into cable companies in the 1990's to develop the infrastructure which surprise surprise didn't happen. It's pretty interesting. Corporations like Comcast are a good example of government regulation and corporate welfare gone terribly wrong.
Posted Image
MARK RICHT MAKES GOOD HIRE, HELL HAS FROZEN OVER

#10
The Doctor

The Doctor

    Wibbly Wobbley Timey Wimey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    4,646
  • Age:
    22
  • Joined:
    Aug 2009
  • Cash:
    400
  • High Fives:
    3,261

View PostTheRealBrave, on 17 May 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

How much things like Netflix streaming bogs down an ISP's infrastructure is vastly exaggerated by cable companies in the US though. The United States has the most expensive ISPs in relevant countries and for the slowest speeds. Throw on top of that them unnecessarily throttling usage do not eat up bandwidth such as online gaming (it's practically nothing compared to streaming - which is already an exaggerated bandwidth hog)

Why not just regulate it like the power or water? You pay for what you use, that's it. The ISPs don't want these regulations. They want to be able to charge high premiums for fast pass internet lanes to those who can afford it, and stiff everyone else. I know that more government regulation is regarded as a bad thing, but this is one instance where I want them to step in. Make ISPs Title II common carriers, and end these ridiculous cash grabs by Comcast and Time Warner.
Formerly known as rebelfan91

#11
The Doctor

The Doctor

    Wibbly Wobbley Timey Wimey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    4,646
  • Age:
    22
  • Joined:
    Aug 2009
  • Cash:
    400
  • High Fives:
    3,261

View PostTheRealBrave, on 17 May 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

One could also make the argument that government regulation helped create the current ISP oligopolies by squashing out the little guy competitors. They also funneled billions of dollars into cable companies in the 1990's to develop the infrastructure which surprise surprise didn't happen. It's pretty interesting. Corporations like Comcast are a good example of government regulation and corporate welfare gone terribly wrong.

The problem is they aren't operated like cable and power companies. I have absolutely no problem with Comcast having a monopoly if it's forced to run at cost or slightly above cost like power or gas companies. I'm not talking about mom & pop cable companies being squashed by the big guys, because that is just not a useful or likely solution to our internet woes. I'm saying that if Comcast is allowed to give huge companies like Google, Apple, or whatever, the option to buy ridiculously expensive fast internet lanes, that will stifle what has made the internet so amazing. Small independent internet entrepreneurship will be killed if the ISPs are allowed to enforce price discrimination.
Formerly known as rebelfan91

#12
smokeyone

smokeyone

    Descendant of a Lord of the Manner in Berkshire.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    9,027
  • Age:
    38
  • Joined:
    Jul 2010
  • Cash:
    75
  • High Fives:
    3,433

View PostThe Doctor, on 17 May 2014 - 09:58 AM, said:


The problem with tiered payment systems for the internet is that it essentially allows the large corporations to operate on a completely different playing field then start ups. If you care about small business and internet entrepreneurship at all, you should support net neutrality. It's one thing to pay more for more usage, that is already happening, but the new bills would allow bigger corporations to buy internet fast lanes that would put them at a higher playing field than small business and limit the success of internet start-ups. The internet is a utility and it should be treated as such. I am fully in support of it being reclassified as a Title II Common Carrier. This means they have to operate at cost, or slightly above cost. This is better for the consumer as opposed to the price-gouging we see with the current classification.

As far as the second bolded point, this wouldn't be an issue at all if ISP would stop dragging their feet about converting to fiber. The bandwidth is severely limited by Cable Companies insisting on staying with copper wired internet lines. The ISP are responsible for the slow downs, not the consumers and their habits. They are fully capable of supporting every bit of internet activity if they wanted to. They don't though, because that would eliminate their ability to squeeze extra dollars out of consumers by offering faster internet speeds.

So your answer is to make all companies that provide internet access non profits? So much for innovation or advancement. And what do you tell the company shareholders? Sucks to be you? Governmental oversight kills enough innovation as it is. Why do you think start ups should be given equal footing with companies that have spent years getting where they are? That literally makes no sense. Most folks don't actually need or want more speed, most people are happy with 1-2 devices and a TV with internet on it in the home and never use the full forecasted amount of bandwidth allocated to them. Comcast doesn't buy limitless bandwidth, they forecast usage and buy bandwidth based on that. When people run 5-6 high bandwidth devices all the time then stream music and video all day while playing online games that generates bandwidth issues for the rest of us if enough people do it.

And pulling out the copper and going fiber from trunkline to feeder lines, then feeder lines to your house and then replacing the copper in your home with fiber is a bit expensive. And if you don't do it in your house its pointless. You will still be limited by the copper R6 cable in your home.

Redacted


#13
The Doctor

The Doctor

    Wibbly Wobbley Timey Wimey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    4,646
  • Age:
    22
  • Joined:
    Aug 2009
  • Cash:
    400
  • High Fives:
    3,261

View Postsmokeyone, on 17 May 2014 - 03:35 PM, said:

Why do you think start ups should be given equal footing with companies that have spent years getting where they are? That literally makes no sense

Because that has been what the Internet was about from the get-go. Without free and open internet, you won't see the rise of new Googles, or Facebooks, or whatever else. They were all small internet businesses and were able to reach where they are from the free and open internet. Aren't you the one always talking about how this country needs small business to recover from the financial collapse? What you are suggesting simply gives more power to huge corporations and helps stamp out the little guy. The internet is a utility and should be treated as such. Pay for what you use, no more, no less. Giving financial preference to those who can afford stifles innovation, not price control.
Formerly known as rebelfan91

#14
TheRealBrave

TheRealBrave

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    23,969
  • Age:
    22
  • Joined:
    Nov 2008
  • Cash:
    1,000
  • High Fives:
    6,322

View PostThe Doctor, on 17 May 2014 - 02:28 PM, said:

Why not just regulate it like the power or water? You pay for what you use, that's it. The ISPs don't want these regulations. They want to be able to charge high premiums for fast pass internet lanes to those who can afford it, and stiff everyone else. I know that more government regulation is regarded as a bad thing, but this is one instance where I want them to step in. Make ISPs Title II common carriers, and end these ridiculous cash grabs by Comcast and Time Warner.

You don't regulate it like power and water because it isn't essential to living. They don't want these regulations because they don't have long term benefits - they do not benefit us as citizens like many think either. I for one don't want the government telling ISPs what they can, can't and must censor or throttle. One step away from the government legally dictating what citizens can view on the internet like China.

Many are too blind to see the obvious implications. Think about it, would you want to give the FCC more power to regulate and censor television?

Edited by TheRealBrave, 17 May 2014 - 06:18 PM.

Posted Image
MARK RICHT MAKES GOOD HIRE, HELL HAS FROZEN OVER

#15
The Doctor

The Doctor

    Wibbly Wobbley Timey Wimey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    4,646
  • Age:
    22
  • Joined:
    Aug 2009
  • Cash:
    400
  • High Fives:
    3,261

View PostTheRealBrave, on 17 May 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

You don't regulate it like power and water because it isn't essential to living. They don't want these regulations because they don't have long term benefits - they do not benefit us as citizens like many think either. I for one don't want the government telling ISPs what they can, can't and must censor or throttle. One step away from the government legally dictating what citizens can view on the internet like China.

Many are too blind to see the obvious implications. Think about it, would you want to give the FCC more power to regulate and censor television?


http://www.wired.com...-a-human-right/

The UN seems to think it is a basic human right. I seems we disagree on the fundamental issue at hand. I personally see the regulations as a good thing. The ISPs being allowed to grant faster speeds to those who can afford it will only drive price up. The government is already watching our every move, they don't need internet to be a Title II common carrier for that to happen. Besides the basic tenant of Net Neutrality is free and open internet. No one fighting for the cause want more FCC control, and that is not what they are fighting for. It's the fast lane for big businesses that most see to be the big issue.

I plan to be involved in this issue moving forward. I don't want the government having more control over the internet, but his monopoly comcast is creating will ultimately bone consumers hard in their wallet, and fast lanes will stifle internet entrepreneurship.
Formerly known as rebelfan91



Similar Topics




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users