Azalin Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 I'm not up on this at all but was the government regulation of the internet decided by 5 people? Yes. Only three people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 ISPs absolutely do provide content. Have you ever heard of AT&T's Uverse? It's digital television piped over the internet. You're also forgetting that voice calls are now mostly done across the internet. With ISPs like Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner (with their own digital television and digital voice service), and any of the other big companies, you have a perfect example of an ISP using their own network to deliver their own product. Big deal. How are they any different than any other content provider? They should be afforded special rules and self-favoritism because they're supplying the consumer-paid pipe? If not for this vote, what would keep them from giving themselves the primo bandwidth while slowing down all the other voice and video streaming data. Either way, it's a moot point now. Try to catch up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Yes. Only three people. I didn't want to say that it was too depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 Either way, it's a moot point now. Try to catch up. The fact that you understand little of this issue isn't so easily masked by your smarmy reply. You're right, it is moot now. You may now sleep better at night knowing that your government has imposed itself once again into your life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 I thought of another analogy. Let's say I lease a Hummer and you lease a Prius. Let's also say that the roads we drive on are privately owned. You and I pay a flat fee to the private road provider company. We also both pay a fee to the companies we are respectively leasing from. The private road provider company decides that my Hummer is causing more damage to their roads than your Prius. Instead of charging me more directly for the added wear and tear my choice of automobile causes their roads, the private road company issues an ultimatum to GM: pay us more for the vehicles your customers are using or we will restrict your access to the roads we own. Currently, GM and Toyota have no direct relationship with the private road company. A settlement cannot be reached between GM and the road company. Hummers are blocked from the roads. I, the consumer who has no say in any of this, suddenly cannot drive the vehicle I purchased on these private roads. There are no other reasonable options to use another company's private roads because, well, the private road company holds a virtual monopoly on providing roads in my area. I got screwed. Screw your Prius and please, for the love of god, think of the Hummers! Your analogy is misplaced. The new regulations do not cover the cost of ownership of the content by the end user, nor its creation. But it does throw a monkey wrench into distribution. So to fix your analogy, think of auto dealers (ISPs) who need to stock cars for their customers, and the dealers are the ones who are responsible for making sure that they have enough cars on their lots to satisfy their customers. The new regulations say that no matter what cars the customers want and by extension what cars the automakers produce, the dealers have to send the exactly same trucks to each auto manufacturer, regardless of demand or volume. So if you're in the business of selling F-150, you have send the exact same number of car loaders and charge exactly the same amount to Ford, as you would to Suzuki. Yeah, that makes sense in any other industry. The main problem is that Internet was never designed in the same way as the 1850's railroads or the 1900's telephone lines, so what moron thought it would be a good idea to apply common carrier regulations to a web of interconnected IP networks with wildly asymmetrical traffic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 The fact that you understand little of this issue isn't so easily masked by your smarmy reply. You're right, it is moot now. You may now sleep better at night knowing that your government has imposed itself once again into your life. Oh, just stop with the fear mongering. Please enlighten me on what I don't understand here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Oh, just stop with the fear mongering. Please enlighten me on what I don't understand here. The entire premise of net neutrality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Your analogy is misplaced. The new regulations do not cover the cost of ownership of the content by the end user, nor its creation. But it does throw a monkey wrench into distribution. So to fix your analogy, think of auto dealers (ISPs) who need to stock cars for their customers, and the dealers are the ones who are responsible for making sure that they have enough cars on their lots to satisfy their customers. The new regulations say that no matter what cars the customers want and by extension what cars the automakers produce, the dealers have to send the exactly same trucks to each auto manufacturer, regardless of demand or volume. So if you're in the business of selling F-150, you have send the exact same number of car loaders and charge exactly the same amount to Ford, as you would to Suzuki. Yeah, that makes sense in any other industry. The main problem is that Internet was never designed in the same way as the 1850's railroads or the 1900's telephone lines, so what moron thought it would be a good idea to apply common carrier regulations to a web of interconnected IP networks with wildly asymmetrical traffic? No, not really. The ISPs are not auto dealers. They are providing access to the auto dealers (content providers) via a finite pipe. Their mutual customer base can get to whatever dealer (content) they like through this pipe. I pay a subscription to Netflix. I (am forced to) watch ads on Youtube. These companies create content on their own and figure out how to make money off of that content. They also pay for that content to be hosted based on bandwidth usage as determined by their hosting provider. The consumers decide what they're going to do with the bandwidth they purchase from their ISPs. The entire premise of net neutrality? Oh, NOW I get it. Thanks for that enlightening sentence. Based on your ISP auto dealer analogy, I think we stop this particular conversation. I'm worried about becoming confused by your confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) Oh, just stop with the fear mongering. Please enlighten me on what I don't understand here. One minute you're saying that ISPs don't provide content, then when I explain that they most certainly do, you reply with 'Big deal. How are they any different than any other content provider?'. That kind of dancing back & forth makes it appear as if you're defending government imposition on what I suspect is a partisan, or at least philosophically biased, position. This whole back & forth between content providers, ISPs, and public demand has been going on since the inception of the internet, and all issues have been resolved through the market and advances in technology brought about by market demand. There is absolutely no reason for the feds to insinuate themselves into a regulatory role in any of this. No reason whatsoever. The entire premise of net neutrality? Bingo. Edited February 26, 2015 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 No, not really. The ISPs are not auto dealers. They are providing access to the auto dealers (content providers) via a finite pipe. Their mutual customer base can get to whatever dealer (content) they like through this pipe. I pay a subscription to Netflix. I (am forced to) watch ads on Youtube. These companies create content on their own and figure out how to make money off of that content. They also pay for that content to be hosted based on bandwidth usage as determined by their hosting provider. The consumers decide what they're going to do with the bandwidth they purchase from their ISPs. Oh, NOW I get it. Thanks for that enlightening sentence. Based on your ISP auto dealer analogy, I think we stop this particular conversation. I'm worried about becoming confused by your confusion. This clearly demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. The ISPs are like the dealers because they are your gateway to the product. You don't have a direct connection to Netflix' & Youtube servers. You need an intermediary to take your cat video order, process it, send it to the content owner and deliver it back to you. That's what the auto dealer does. In your misapplied analogy, the auto dealer is actually the one who owns the road and the truck that delivers the cars to you. Net neutrality has nothing to do with what and how you consume the content, but everything to do with how you get it, and very soon, how much more you are going to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 Net neutrality has nothing to do with what and how you consume the content, but everything to do with how you get it, and very soon, how much more you are going to pay. This is exactly right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Net neutrality has nothing to do with what and how you consume the content, but everything to do with how you get it, and very soon, how much more you are going to pay. Which will only further the divide in the country along class lines between those with information and those without. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Which will only further the divide in the country along class lines between those with information and those without. It's not going to kill the Internet, but according to the eternal law of unintended consequences you will certainly have the haves and the have nots. Until the progressives recognize their folly and impose a high tax on the haves to redistribute the internet. All because they proposed a fix to something that isn't close to being broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 This clearly demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. The ISPs are like the dealers because they are your gateway to the product. You don't have a direct connection to Netflix' & Youtube servers. You need an intermediary to take your cat video order, process it, send it to the content owner and deliver it back to you. That's what the auto dealer does. In your misapplied analogy, the auto dealer is actually the one who owns the road and the truck that delivers the cars to you. Net neutrality has nothing to do with what and how you consume the content, but everything to do with how you get it, and very soon, how much more you are going to pay. They are not, because they do not stock product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 It's already materialized in the power struggle between cable companies and cable content providers many, many times. Maybe the monopoly argument isn't completely true anymore, but you're making the consumer chose content based on the ISP they choose. The consumer is locked into contracts with the ISPs, who you think should be allowed to restrict access to whatever content they choose whenever they like. Internet Service Providers should provide internet service - that's it. They do not produce the content. They simply benefit from the service demand which stems from the content. Content providers are already paying to have their content served up by hosting providers. End users are already paying for service from the ISPs. Why should the ISPs be allowed to double-dip and/or restrict access to something they neither produced or payed for? It's insanity. Your argument is that there is not a monopoly? Ok, fine. You think I support a federal power grab over the "whole internet"? Bullschitt. I support no restrictions whatsoever. It's up to these ISPs to decide how to make a profit within an unrestricted system, IMO. Net Neutrality is simply about making private companies unable to censor, restrict or otherwise impede access to content. That's it. If you want restrictions, move to China you !@#$ing commie! That last line made me chuckle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 They are not, because they do not stock product. What in the world does that have to do with it? This is about distribution. Imagine a dealer that doesn't maintain inventory, and calls you to pick up your car as soon as it arrives on the truck. Does your analogy still hold up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Is there a good article on exactly what the negative impact of the new regulations will be? And what are the taxes? Everything I've read about Net Neutrality seems like it's a no brainer protection from local monopolies for consumers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Balanced account from WSJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 What in the world does that have to do with it? This is about distribution. Imagine a dealer that doesn't maintain inventory, and calls you to pick up your car as soon as it arrives on the truck. Does your analogy still hold up? I suppose the dealer analogy holds up in that circumstance. Now that I understand what you were getting at with this: So to fix your analogy, think of auto dealers (ISPs) who need to stock cars for their customers, and the dealers are the ones who are responsible for making sure that they have enough cars on their lots to satisfy their customers. The new regulations say that no matter what cars the customers want and by extension what cars the automakers produce, the dealers have to send the exactly same trucks to each auto manufacturer, regardless of demand or volume. So if you're in the business of selling F-150, you have send the exact same number of car loaders and charge exactly the same amount to Ford, as you would to Suzuki. However, there are some differences here: 1. The dealers do not have to send the exact same number of car loaders to Ford and Suzuki. They simply have to meet customer demand, just like in the real world. 2. Real life dealers do not receive a monthly subscription fee from their customers. They make their profits off of the margins. 3. Consumers have many more choices when buying a car (as opposed to simply relying on a couple of Ford dealers in their area), keeping costs reasonable and choices unrestricted within the car market. Balanced account from WSJ. Restricted! (lol) Can you give a summary? Is there a good article on exactly what the negative impact of the new regulations will be? And what are the taxes? Everything I've read about Net Neutrality seems like it's a no brainer protection from local monopolies for consumers. The negativity seems to stem mainly from fear of government involvement or a view that this is anti-capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 It's not going to kill the Internet, but according to the eternal law of unintended consequences you will certainly have the haves and the have nots. Until the progressives recognize their folly and impose a high tax on the haves to redistribute the internet. All because they proposed a fix to something that isn't close to being broken. The interesting thing about this thread (which is crystal clear to anyone like myself who is trying to understand this ruling) is that the people who are against it have relatively clear and concise arguments for their position and those who are not have no idea what they're talking about, but feel the need to defend it for some unknown reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts