Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2014 8:22 am Post subject: Why is "Net Neutrality" a good thing?
I never understood this. Why are so many people in favor of this?
I think a non-neutral Internet would be substantially better. There was a report that Netflix and YouTube now compromise 50% of internet usage -- why wouldn't you want better bandwidth for things like video?
Who is really upset that T-Mobile is allowing you to stream music from certain providers at no hit to your data cap? I haven't heard from one T-Mobile customer that they take issue with this. (That's a non-neutral net).
I think a non-neutral Internet, if properly managed, would be a much better experience than a neutral Internet.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35854 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2014 8:25 am Post subject:
What if Time Warner Cable decides they don't like a certain website and decide to make it super slow? _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Would they then proceed to push costs and henceforth access onto the consumers?
If you didn't have enough money to buy video access you wouldn't get to see websites with video..
It would become structured like premium TV?
Not necessarily.
Without needing incremental bandwidth, they could just "open up the pipes" for things like Netflix and YouTube, and then narrow them for things like Google searching. Never understood why the data pipe has to be the same size for Google.com as it does for Youtube.com.
Joined: 05 Jun 2006 Posts: 1946 Location: Caerbannog
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2014 9:26 am Post subject:
ringfinger wrote:
CandyCanes wrote:
What if Time Warner Cable decides they don't like a certain website and decide to make it super slow?
What if Time Warner was required to provide a minimum, acceptable level of bandwidth for all websites and then increase it for things like Youtube?
You wouldn't want that?
Why would they do that? They are a regional monopoly, they have no incentive to offer you better service. It's cheaper for the monopoly to create artificial barriers and then charge you to get back what you should have had in the first place.
The internet is one infrastructure where ISP's shouldn't be able to enact a toll on companies when the consumers are already paying for the bandwidth. Its double billing and sadly the telecommunications lobbyists have infiltrated the FCC so they will probably enact consumer unfriendly regulations.
What if Time Warner Cable decides they don't like a certain website and decide to make it super slow?
What if Time Warner was required to provide a minimum, acceptable level of bandwidth for all websites and then increase it for things like Youtube?
You wouldn't want that?
You don't actually believe the lies the telecommunications companies put out do you? With net neutrality defeated, the ISP's will be able to enact usage billing just like what they are doing with cell phones and visiting "premium" websites sort of like the cable model. Look for overages and data caps to be enacted.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35854 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2014 9:45 am Post subject:
NickF wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
CandyCanes wrote:
What if Time Warner Cable decides they don't like a certain website and decide to make it super slow?
What if Time Warner was required to provide a minimum, acceptable level of bandwidth for all websites and then increase it for things like Youtube?
You wouldn't want that?
Why would they do that? They are a regional monopoly, they have no incentive to offer you better service. It's cheaper for the monopoly to create artificial barriers and then charge you to get back what you should have had in the first place.
Exactly. I live in Ithaca, which is TWC monopoly territory. They are disgusting. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2014 9:48 am Post subject: Re: Why is "Net Neutrality" a good thing?
ringfinger wrote:
I never understood this. Why are so many people in favor of this?
I think a non-neutral Internet would be substantially better. There was a report that Netflix and YouTube now compromise 50% of internet usage -- why wouldn't you want better bandwidth for things like video?
Who is really upset that T-Mobile is allowing you to stream music from certain providers at no hit to your data cap? I haven't heard from one T-Mobile customer that they take issue with this. (That's a non-neutral net).
I think a non-neutral Internet, if properly managed, would be a much better experience than a neutral Internet.
The issue isn't that Netflix and Hulu would be paying to upgrade the infrastructure to increase their speed, the issue is that ISPs like Comcast were artificially throttling the bandwidth they did have the infrastructure for, and were hurting their consumers in the process. People like you and me pay for our bandwidth (and usually receive a fraction of what the ISPs promise us) and whether you know it or not, we are also subject to data caps that the ISPs can choose to enforce anytime, usually around 300 gigs a month or so. However we want to use that bandwidth should be up to us,and we should get whatever data we choose as fast as infrastructure allows. In the case of Comcast and Netflix, Comcast was deliberately slowing connection speeds and throttling bandwidth so the service became much less useable to force Netflix to pay to bring the speed back to normal and consumers like us weren't affected. So it was less Netflix paying for a fast lane, and more Netflix having to pay to get out of an artificial slow lane.
Basically ISPs are trying to double dip, and who ends up getting screwed are you and me. We pay ISPs, and they get insane profits from us, they don't get to try to double dip and slow down services that we pay for in addition to the fees we pay for our connections for more money. Because you know who Netflix and Hulu will have to pass their charges on down to? Us. ISPs in essence would be forcing us to pay twice for their service, and (bleep) that. It doesn't matter if video streaming comprises 50 percent of bandwidth use: if that is how we as consumers choose to use our allotted bandwidth, then that's how we use it. ISPs don't get to try to hurt our experience just for more money on top of already obscene profits.
And that's not getting into a whole other barrel of fish of websites and retailers having to pay to get access to customers, or of political ideologies being filtered according to the ISPs preference. Data should be equal on the web.
Unfortunately, I think the ISP's are going to get what they want...they have all the power, with the lobbyists.....the Republicans are heavily in favor because of their pro-corporate policies, while President Obama in his infinite stupidity managed to pay back a cable lobbyist for his donation efforts in his presidential campaign and made him the head of the FCC. So the deck is stacked against net neutrality.
What if Time Warner Cable decides they don't like a certain website and decide to make it super slow?
What if Time Warner was required to provide a minimum, acceptable level of bandwidth for all websites and then increase it for things like Youtube?
You wouldn't want that?
You don't actually believe the lies the telecommunications companies put out do you? With net neutrality defeated, the ISP's will be able to enact usage billing just like what they are doing with cell phones and visiting "premium" websites sort of like the cable model. Look for overages and data caps to be enacted.
Data caps have nothing to do with net neutrality. Most of us have caps right now and don't even know it, either because we never exceed it, or because the ISPs haven't chosen to enforce them (yet). That's a whole other thing that needs to be addressed as we move into the digital future and the limited data we have now becomes increasingly ludicrous.
In essence: if net neutrality stops being the norm, the only people who benefit are the ISPs. Everyone else, corporations and citizens alike, get screwed.
What if Time Warner Cable decides they don't like a certain website and decide to make it super slow?
What if Time Warner was required to provide a minimum, acceptable level of bandwidth for all websites and then increase it for things like Youtube?
You wouldn't want that?
You don't actually believe the lies the telecommunications companies put out do you? With net neutrality defeated, the ISP's will be able to enact usage billing just like what they are doing with cell phones and visiting "premium" websites sort of like the cable model. Look for overages and data caps to be enacted.
Data caps have nothing to do with net neutrality. Most of us have caps right now and don't even know it, either because we never exceed it, or because the ISPs haven't chosen to enforce them (yet). That's a whole other thing that needs to be addressed as we move into the digital future and the limited data we have now becomes increasingly ludicrous.
I disagree....
The ISP's implemented data caps in an effort to stifle streaming video services such as Netflix because they are their competition. What better way to make the user experience miserable and keep the subscribers hooked onto video services from the cable company.
What if Time Warner Cable decides they don't like a certain website and decide to make it super slow?
What if Time Warner was required to provide a minimum, acceptable level of bandwidth for all websites and then increase it for things like Youtube?
You wouldn't want that?
You don't actually believe the lies the telecommunications companies put out do you? With net neutrality defeated, the ISP's will be able to enact usage billing just like what they are doing with cell phones and visiting "premium" websites sort of like the cable model. Look for overages and data caps to be enacted.
That's not true.
Why does net neutrality being defeated, mean that ISPs can do whatever the heck they want?
A non-neutral net does not HAVE to equal free-for-all. Why can't there be an in between?
For example -- would it be good or bad if an ISP like T-Mobile split the 3GB data they give you between say 4G LTE (1.5 GB) and 3G (1.5 GB). And then, apps like Gmail would use up 3G bandwidth but apps like YouTube would use up 4G bandwidth.
Why do you need to use 4G LTE to play Words with Friends?
What if Time Warner Cable decides they don't like a certain website and decide to make it super slow?
What if Time Warner was required to provide a minimum, acceptable level of bandwidth for all websites and then increase it for things like Youtube?
You wouldn't want that?
You don't actually believe the lies the telecommunications companies put out do you? With net neutrality defeated, the ISP's will be able to enact usage billing just like what they are doing with cell phones and visiting "premium" websites sort of like the cable model. Look for overages and data caps to be enacted.
Data caps have nothing to do with net neutrality. Most of us have caps right now and don't even know it, either because we never exceed it, or because the ISPs haven't chosen to enforce them (yet). That's a whole other thing that needs to be addressed as we move into the digital future and the limited data we have now becomes increasingly ludicrous.
I disagree....
The ISP's implemented data caps in an effort to stifle streaming video services such as Netflix because they are their competition. What better way to make the user experience miserable and keep the subscribers hooked onto video services from the cable company.
Data caps were introduced because people were abusing it. That's why Costco ended their 'return forever' policy, that's why wireless carriers also had to implement data caps as well.
What if Time Warner Cable decides they don't like a certain website and decide to make it super slow?
What if Time Warner was required to provide a minimum, acceptable level of bandwidth for all websites and then increase it for things like Youtube?
You wouldn't want that?
You don't actually believe the lies the telecommunications companies put out do you? With net neutrality defeated, the ISP's will be able to enact usage billing just like what they are doing with cell phones and visiting "premium" websites sort of like the cable model. Look for overages and data caps to be enacted.
Data caps have nothing to do with net neutrality. Most of us have caps right now and don't even know it, either because we never exceed it, or because the ISPs haven't chosen to enforce them (yet). That's a whole other thing that needs to be addressed as we move into the digital future and the limited data we have now becomes increasingly ludicrous.
I disagree....
The ISP's implemented data caps in an effort to stifle streaming video services such as Netflix because they are their competition. What better way to make the user experience miserable and keep the subscribers hooked onto video services from the cable company.
Data caps were introduced because people were abusing it. That's why Costco ended their 'return forever' policy, that's why wireless carriers also had to implement data caps as well.
Reading your comments, you either don't have much of an understanding of net neutrality or you are still naive to have faith in telecom companies to do the right thing.
What if Time Warner Cable decides they don't like a certain website and decide to make it super slow?
What if Time Warner was required to provide a minimum, acceptable level of bandwidth for all websites and then increase it for things like Youtube?
You wouldn't want that?
You don't actually believe the lies the telecommunications companies put out do you? With net neutrality defeated, the ISP's will be able to enact usage billing just like what they are doing with cell phones and visiting "premium" websites sort of like the cable model. Look for overages and data caps to be enacted.
Data caps have nothing to do with net neutrality. Most of us have caps right now and don't even know it, either because we never exceed it, or because the ISPs haven't chosen to enforce them (yet). That's a whole other thing that needs to be addressed as we move into the digital future and the limited data we have now becomes increasingly ludicrous.
I disagree....
The ISP's implemented data caps in an effort to stifle streaming video services such as Netflix because they are their competition. What better way to make the user experience miserable and keep the subscribers hooked onto video services from the cable company.
Data caps were introduced because people were abusing it. That's why Costco ended their 'return forever' policy, that's why wireless carriers also had to implement data caps as well.
Reading your comments, you either don't have much of an understanding of net neutrality or you are still naive to have faith in telecom companies to do the right thing.
Or, I believe there is a middle ground. Where I wouldn't have to have faith because the telecom companies would have a minimum level of rules they'd have to abide by.
There is the misconception that net neutrality protects us from ISPs going rogue. That isn't true, if you don't allow them to.
T-Mobile is already breaking net neutrality by offering you the ability to stream Pandora and Spotify without an impact to your cap. Have you filed a protest yet?
(And FWIW, I've worked for one of the big 4 carriers in their corporate headquarters. They were losing money on unlimited data plans because a number of people were using a highly excessive amount of data.) At no time was I ever present in any meeting where the reason was to find ways to gouge the consumer. It was always about how to stay competitive.
Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 17249 Location: In a no-ship
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:31 am Post subject:
T-Mobile is not breaking net neutrality because they're not degrading or fencing off any service to do what they're doing. You can still stream any music service you want and the quality of service is the same as their free tier. They're simply offering an extra to attract new customers.
T-Mobile is not breaking net neutrality because they're not degrading or fencing off any service to do what they're doing. You can still stream any music service you want and the quality of service is the same as their free tier. They're simply offering an extra to attract new customers.
Why does being non-neutral require degradation? It doesn't. Which is my whole point.
Not having net neutrality CAN be good if we approach it right.
Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 17249 Location: In a no-ship
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2014 12:08 pm Post subject:
ringfinger wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
T-Mobile is not breaking net neutrality because they're not degrading or fencing off any service to do what they're doing. You can still stream any music service you want and the quality of service is the same as their free tier. They're simply offering an extra to attract new customers.
Why does being non-neutral require degradation? It doesn't. Which is my whole point.
Not having net neutrality CAN be good if we approach it right.
There isn't really a single situation where not having neutrality is a good thing. It's a slippery slope and inevitably you'll see the same thing that happened to cable TV.
These companies are starting now with bandwidth caps when bandwidth is cheaper than its ever been. What use is a 1gbs connection when you're capped at 250gb per month? It reminds me of cell phone companies charging $20/month for text messaging. Absurd markup on a product that costs them pennies to provide.
Besides, we the public subsidized the building of the internet and all of the fiber that's been laid out. That's reason enough for me to keep it neutral.
T-Mobile is not breaking net neutrality because they're not degrading or fencing off any service to do what they're doing. You can still stream any music service you want and the quality of service is the same as their free tier. They're simply offering an extra to attract new customers.
Why does being non-neutral require degradation? It doesn't. Which is my whole point.
Not having net neutrality CAN be good if we approach it right.
There isn't really a single situation where not having neutrality is a good thing. It's a slippery slope and inevitably you'll see the same thing that happened to cable TV.
These companies are starting now with bandwidth caps when bandwidth is cheaper than its ever been. What use is a 1gbs connection when you're capped at 250gb per month?
Besides, we the public subsidized the building of the internet and all of the fiber that's been laid out. That's reason enough for me to keep it neutral.
You just pointed one out (with my help of course). T-Mobile. You can stream unlimited Pandora on your phone with no impact to your data allotment. But not SoundHound. That's not neutral ... at all in any way.
Why MUST the "pipe" to HD Videos on Netflix and YouTube be the same size as the pipe delivering my Words with Friends entry?
What if Time Warner Cable decides they don't like a certain website and decide to make it super slow?
What if Time Warner was required to provide a minimum, acceptable level of bandwidth for all websites and then increase it for things like Youtube?
You wouldn't want that?
You don't actually believe the lies the telecommunications companies put out do you? With net neutrality defeated, the ISP's will be able to enact usage billing just like what they are doing with cell phones and visiting "premium" websites sort of like the cable model. Look for overages and data caps to be enacted.
Data caps have nothing to do with net neutrality. Most of us have caps right now and don't even know it, either because we never exceed it, or because the ISPs haven't chosen to enforce them (yet). That's a whole other thing that needs to be addressed as we move into the digital future and the limited data we have now becomes increasingly ludicrous.
I disagree....
The ISP's implemented data caps in an effort to stifle streaming video services such as Netflix because they are their competition. What better way to make the user experience miserable and keep the subscribers hooked onto video services from the cable company.
Data caps were introduced because people were abusing it. That's why Costco ended their 'return forever' policy, that's why wireless carriers also had to implement data caps as well.
Reading your comments, you either don't have much of an understanding of net neutrality or you are still naive to have faith in telecom companies to do the right thing.
Or, I believe there is a middle ground. Where I wouldn't have to have faith because the telecom companies would have a minimum level of rules they'd have to abide by.
There is the misconception that net neutrality protects us from ISPs going rogue. That isn't true, if you don't allow them to.
T-Mobile is already breaking net neutrality by offering you the ability to stream Pandora and Spotify without an impact to your cap. Have you filed a protest yet?
(And FWIW, I've worked for one of the big 4 carriers in their corporate headquarters. They were losing money on unlimited data plans because a number of people were using a highly excessive amount of data.) At no time was I ever present in any meeting where the reason was to find ways to gouge the consumer. It was always about how to stay competitive.
1) I don't understand how T-Mobile offering music streaming service for free as breaking net neutrality.
2) Right now without net neutrality, telecoms are already restricting traffic and playing favorites. Ask Netflix users how they feel about Verizon throttling Netflix traffic to almost unusable speed despite the consumer paying for broadband speed.
If you want to talk about companies just trying to be competitive, maybe you should look from the consumer point of view. If I pay a company X amount of money for internet access, it's their job to simply provide that access. They have no business dictating which product (or website) I should get faster than others. Do you pay UPS ground shipping but leave it up to them to decide however long it takes to get your item to you?
Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 17249 Location: In a no-ship
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2014 12:31 pm Post subject:
ringfinger wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
T-Mobile is not breaking net neutrality because they're not degrading or fencing off any service to do what they're doing. You can still stream any music service you want and the quality of service is the same as their free tier. They're simply offering an extra to attract new customers.
Why does being non-neutral require degradation? It doesn't. Which is my whole point.
Not having net neutrality CAN be good if we approach it right.
There isn't really a single situation where not having neutrality is a good thing. It's a slippery slope and inevitably you'll see the same thing that happened to cable TV.
These companies are starting now with bandwidth caps when bandwidth is cheaper than its ever been. What use is a 1gbs connection when you're capped at 250gb per month?
Besides, we the public subsidized the building of the internet and all of the fiber that's been laid out. That's reason enough for me to keep it neutral.
You just pointed one out (with my help of course). T-Mobile. You can stream unlimited Pandora on your phone with no impact to your data allotment. But not SoundHound. That's not neutral ... at all in any way.
Why MUST the "pipe" to HD Videos on Netflix and YouTube be the same size as the pipe delivering my Words with Friends entry?
I think you think that the pipeline will always stay the same size it is now or grow bigger for new things. The reality is companies will keep the same size pipeline for new "premium" offerings and squeeze it for other things they don't approve of without neutrality.
Comcast and Verizon did this with Netflix to extort money. If you were one of their subscribers, the Netflix quality would be degraded (constantly buffering, etc). However, if you connected through a VPN, magically everything worked perfectly. You, the customer, were not getting what you paid for.
That's what will happen.
Quote:
Why MUST the "pipe" to HD Videos on Netflix and YouTube be the same size as the pipe delivering my Words with Friends entry?
Because it's all just data, and you're paying for data access and the company provides it. Think of it like a utility, because that's what it is (and what the current administration has asked for it to be classified as).
Last edited by DuncanIdaho on Mon Nov 24, 2014 12:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Next
Page 1 of 8
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
