MSM No Longer Useful So...

[Dante]

..let's grab the internet putting it under UN control or whatever treaty this scumbag wants to use. MSN is a joke now the global community can't get it's propaganda out like it used to. Gotta plug that leak of truth that is the internet. Damn scary stuff these times.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/05/obama-internet-cannot-be-wild-wild-west/

[TH3]

..let's grab the internet putting it under UN control or whatever treaty this scumbag wants to use. MSN is a joke now the global community can't get it's propaganda out like it used to. Gotta plug that leak of truth that is the internet. Damn scary stuff these times.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/05/obama-internet-cannot-be-wild-wild-west/

 

I cannot believe the utter - I don't even know what the correct term is - irony/laughter/sadness(?) contained in this one post....

 

You sir, win the day....

[What a Tuel]

We have to be careful here. There are 2 different things going on. The freedom and independence of the internet, and legitimate cyber security threats like China.

 

The ISP's would like nothing more than to became the gatekeepers for the internet, and they are trying to do that with data caps, and offers of "free data" for going with certain providers like Netflix, or even their own streaming services (Comcast owns NBC) . They are trying to close the door to the openness of the internet, or at least control who can go through. (ex. You don't want to go through Netflix? You want to go through "Sling TV? Well good luck streaming HDTV through Sling TV with your data cap. NBC Stream is otherwise data cap free!"

 

So while I am aware of attempts to monopolize the internet, I do think there are valid security concerns that should be listened to. It really depends on what Obama's "international agreements" entail.

Edited September 6, 2016 by What a Tuel

[/dev/null]

In Soviet Russia, Facebook updates your status.

[Dante]

 

I cannot believe the utter - I don't even know what the correct term is - irony/laughter/sadness(?) contained in this one post....

 

You sir, win the day....

Whatever. He doesn't want to protect the internet he wants control of it and that means control of the content. Ultimately.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Whatever. He doesn't want to protect the internet he wants control of it and that means control of the content. Ultimately.

This is all part of the globalist/NWO agenda.

[Azalin]

Whatever. He doesn't want to protect the internet he wants control of it and that means control of the content. Ultimately.

 

I guarantee that there are those in the federal government that want to have content control as well as the power to extract more tax revenue. To what extent they exist I couldn't say, but that is definitely a part of the FCC decision in proclaiming themselves a regulating body for the internet.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Azalin

[What a Tuel]

 

I guarantee that there are those in the federal government that want to have content control as well as the power to extract more tax revenue. To what extent they exist I couldn't say, but that is definitely a part of the FCC decision in proclaiming themselves a regulating body for the internet.

 

This is where I said above we need to be careful.

 

The FCC has made great decisions lately stopping those ISP's from putting the internet behind a paywall for businesses and eventually people.

 

Net neutrality is not a government takeover of the internet. It is a good thing for the end consumer and small businesses.

[Joe Miner]

 

This is where I said above we need to be careful.

 

The FCC has made great decisions lately stopping those ISP's from putting the internet behind a paywall for businesses and eventually people.

 

Net neutrality is not a government takeover of the internet. It is a good thing for the end consumer and small businesses.

So if a company pays for infrastructure to be built to provide it's good and services, that company doesn't get too dictate how its goods and services are provided?

[GG]

 

 

Net neutrality is not a government takeover of the internet. It is a good thing for the end consumer and small businesses.

 

No, it's not, because the higher end costs will be passed down to the consumer.

[Azalin]

 

This is where I said above we need to be careful.

 

The FCC has made great decisions lately stopping those ISP's from putting the internet behind a paywall for businesses and eventually people.

 

Net neutrality is not a government takeover of the internet. It is a good thing for the end consumer and small businesses.

 

The major reason ISPs want to control (or as you put it, put up "a paywall" ) is to regulate the amount of traffic over it's network in order to provide consistent, reliable service. Media providers like Netflix put a massive strain on some elements of the network, parts of which are owned by smaller ISPs who do not necessarily have the delivery capacity of the large ones like Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc. There are no dedicated paths for data transmission across the web, and there are never going to be. The ISPs are always upgrading network elements to meet increasing demands, but we're still at a point where the network can only move so much data at one time. The load from streaming effects the speed at which all other data moves, which can have a visible effect on all other types of data traffic.

 

Another reason the FCC is getting into the business of internet regulation is because more and more web browsing is happening over wireless networks, which does not have the same regulatory environment that land lines have. It's simply another case of the feds claiming to regulate in the name of fairness while opening up another source of revenue at the customer's expense.

 

No, it's not, because the higher end costs will be passed down to the consumer.

 

As is always the case.

[DC Tom]

So if a company pays for infrastructure to be built to provide it's good and services, that company doesn't get too dictate how its goods and services are provided?

 

I'm hard-pressed to think of any industry that really works that way.

[Joe Miner]

 

I'm hard-pressed to think of any industry that really works that way.

Most companies that build infrastructure are regulated.

 

My point was that it's the company's dollars that area used to build the infrastructure, yet once they risk the investment, the govt jumps in and dictates the use. In the libertarian mindset, which I thought Tuel subscribed to (could be wrong), I was curious how he reconciled that to be in favor of this internet regulation.

 

If he's not of the libertarian mindset this probably doesn't bother him.

[What a Tuel]

So if a company pays for infrastructure to be built to provide it's good and services, that company doesn't get too dictate how its goods and services are provided?

 

No it doesn't. The alternative is cable television. Is that what we want for the internet? The ISP's might provide access to the internet, but the content of the internet is independent as it should be. The ISP should not get to play favorites and allow/disallow certain entertainment providers.

 

As for the myth that other people like Azalin who are referring to customers "using too much traffic", well then these ISPs need to improve their infrastructure to serve their existing customers or shed those customers. We are talking about reducing the quality of a service because they have too many customers. In any other industry you start losing customers. There is too much lobbying going on to rely on "true" competition with these ISP's though. A standard speed needs to be set for the internet for the good of the consumer. And data caps shouldn't even be a thing. The cost of pushing this traffic has declined dramatically as the traffic has increased.

 

Again though, this would be a completely different story if there was actual competition between these companies, but there simply isn't.

 

Don't get me started on mobile data caps.

 

No, it's not, because the higher end costs will be passed down to the consumer.

 

What higher costs? We are talking about an ISP being able to say "Hey Netflix, pay me more money or we slow down your speed" vs an ISP having to provide the same speed for most services. This offers a dramatically higher variety of access to the entirety of the internet at consistent speeds. This is good for consumers, but admittedly not for Comcast's stockholders.

 

Edit: For those that will say "well Netflix uses a ton of data, they should pay more" then ok, what happens when Netflix pays for higher speeds to the detriment of other services? Do we see how this will hinder competition and independence of the internet? Not to mention the ISP's are multimedia conglomerates who have a vested interest in the success of their content as well. Imagine it 20 years down the road.

 

Access to the internet should be universal and separate from the content of the internet.

Edited September 8, 2016 by What a Tuel

[GG]

 

No it doesn't. The alternative is cable television. Is that what we want for the internet? The ISP's might provide access to the internet, but the content of the internet is independent as it should be. The ISP should not get to play favorites and allow/disallow certain entertainment providers.

 

As for the myth that other people like Azalin who are referring to customers "using too much traffic", well then these ISPs need to improve their infrastructure to serve their existing customers or shed those customers. We are talking about reducing the quality of a service because they have too many customers. In any other industry you start losing customers. There is too much lobbying going on to rely on "true" competition with these ISP's though. A standard speed needs to be set for the internet for the good of the consumer. And data caps shouldn't even be a thing. The cost of pushing this traffic has declined dramatically as the traffic has increased.

 

Again though, this would be a completely different story if there was actual competition between these companies, but there simply isn't.

 

Don't get me started on mobile data caps.

 

 

What higher costs? We are talking about an ISP being able to say "Hey Netflix, pay me more money or we slow down your speed" vs an ISP having to provide the same speed for most services. This offers a dramatically higher variety of access to the entirety of the internet at consistent speeds. This is good for consumers, but admittedly not for Comcast's stockholders.

 

Edit: For those that will say "well Netflix uses a ton of data, they should pay more" then ok, what happens when Netflix pays for higher speeds to the detriment of other services? Do we see how this will hinder competition and independence of the internet? Not to mention the ISP's are multimedia conglomerates who have a vested interest in the success of their content as well. Imagine it 20 years down the road.

 

Access to the internet should be universal and separate from the content of the internet.

 

You've demonstrated a fully ignorant view of the Internet backbone. Access to the Internet is universal, but there shouldn't be a guarantee of equal access and speed, just like you can't demand that Wegmans stock your bottled water right next to Coke & Pepsi and have equal shelf space. Internet is the perfect democratic medium where people decide what they want to surf. But the big providers of that content exploited a loophole in how Internet traffic is routed and then convinced a feeble POTUS that net neutrality is a real threat to Internet viability.

 

Just like most things concerning the business world, Obama doesn't have a clue about Internet transmission, because if Comcast can't get Netflix to pay for the bandwidth it hogs, guess who'll eventually foot the bill?

 

Clueless.

[Joe Miner]

 

No it doesn't. The alternative is cable television. Is that what we want for the internet? The ISP's might provide access to the internet, but the content of the internet is independent as it should be. The ISP should not get to play favorites and allow/disallow certain entertainment providers.

 

As for the myth that other people like Azalin who are referring to customers "using too much traffic", well then these ISPs need to improve their infrastructure to serve their existing customers or shed those customers. We are talking about reducing the quality of a service because they have too many customers. In any other industry you start losing customers. There is too much lobbying going on to rely on "true" competition with these ISP's though. A standard speed needs to be set for the internet for the good of the consumer. And data caps shouldn't even be a thing. The cost of pushing this traffic has declined dramatically as the traffic has increased.

 

Again though, this would be a completely different story if there was actual competition between these companies, but there simply isn't.

 

Don't get me started on mobile data caps.

 

 

What higher costs? We are talking about an ISP being able to say "Hey Netflix, pay me more money or we slow down your speed" vs an ISP having to provide the same speed for most services. This offers a dramatically higher variety of access to the entirety of the internet at consistent speeds. This is good for consumers, but admittedly not for Comcast's stockholders.

 

Edit: For those that will say "well Netflix uses a ton of data, they should pay more" then ok, what happens when Netflix pays for higher speeds to the detriment of other services? Do we see how this will hinder competition and independence of the internet? Not to mention the ISP's are multimedia conglomerates who have a vested interest in the success of their content as well. Imagine it 20 years down the road.

 

Access to the internet should be universal and separate from the content of the internet.

So not a libertarian.

 

Also, I think you need to look into the relationship between content providers, consumers, and service providers a bit more.

[Azalin]

 

No it doesn't. The alternative is cable television. Is that what we want for the internet? The ISP's might provide access to the internet, but the content of the internet is independent as it should be. The ISP should not get to play favorites and allow/disallow certain entertainment providers.

 

As for the myth that other people like Azalin who are referring to customers "using too much traffic", well then these ISPs need to improve their infrastructure to serve their existing customers or shed those customers. We are talking about reducing the quality of a service because they have too many customers. In any other industry you start losing customers. There is too much lobbying going on to rely on "true" competition with these ISP's though. A standard speed needs to be set for the internet for the good of the consumer. And data caps shouldn't even be a thing. The cost of pushing this traffic has declined dramatically as the traffic has increased.

 

Again though, this would be a completely different story if there was actual competition between these companies, but there simply isn't.

 

Don't get me started on mobile data caps.

 

 

What higher costs? We are talking about an ISP being able to say "Hey Netflix, pay me more money or we slow down your speed" vs an ISP having to provide the same speed for most services. This offers a dramatically higher variety of access to the entirety of the internet at consistent speeds. This is good for consumers, but admittedly not for Comcast's stockholders.

 

Edit: For those that will say "well Netflix uses a ton of data, they should pay more" then ok, what happens when Netflix pays for higher speeds to the detriment of other services? Do we see how this will hinder competition and independence of the internet? Not to mention the ISP's are multimedia conglomerates who have a vested interest in the success of their content as well. Imagine it 20 years down the road.

 

Access to the internet should be universal and separate from the content of the internet.

 

Don't quote me on something I never said. Customer demands and expectations of data delivery is continually increasing, but that's not to say that they're (to quote YOU) "using too much data".

 

You also ignored the point I made with regard to ISPs constantly increasing their delivery capability. It only makes sense for them to do that, and it's exactly what they're doing. What we're discussing here is a technology that is in a constant state of growth, and the last thing it needs is to have a board of bureaucrats dictating how that growth should happen, or how it should operate. The explosive growth of the internet and accompanying data services is a perfect example of how markets work, and most of those markets in the US have at least land line vs wireless competition, if not several competing entities in each technology.

 

The transmission of mass amounts of data isn't an issue along the major transmission paths, but it becomes an issue as it breaks out into smaller ones. There are several markets in the US right now where you can get 1G delivered on a fiber optic connection right up to your house, and in each of those markets you have Google, Verizon, and/or AT&T competing with each other. If you live in an apartment complex or an apartment building, then the delivery becomes a shared bandwidth. It's in the areas of shared bandwidth that you see the greatest effect that streaming has on delivery - buffering. That will eventually go away, but in most cases it won't happen until delivery at the point of the end user becomes wireless. Until that time, buffering will be an issue. To prevent buffering from happening, some ISPs will attempt to throttle back on the amount of data that some service providers (such as Netflix) stream. Why? Who do you think will be blamed for the problem? The ISPs, of course.

 

That's what you're doing.

[What a Tuel]

 

You've demonstrated a fully ignorant view of the Internet backbone. Access to the Internet is universal, but there shouldn't be a guarantee of equal access and speed, just like you can't demand that Wegmans stock your bottled water right next to Coke & Pepsi and have equal shelf space. Internet is the perfect democratic medium where people decide what they want to surf. But the big providers of that content exploited a loophole in how Internet traffic is routed and then convinced a feeble POTUS that net neutrality is a real threat to Internet viability.

 

Just like most things concerning the business world, Obama doesn't have a clue about Internet transmission, because if Comcast can't get Netflix to pay for the bandwidth it hogs, guess who'll eventually foot the bill?

 

Clueless.

 

Without net neutrality, access to the internet is not universal. Without net neutrality, your ISP can decide that competing services can run slower than their own. Or they can hold content providers hostage. They shouldn't have that power. They are providing a service - access to the internet at an agreed upon speed. Allowing them to mess with this will only lead to exploitation of content providers and customers (Who do you think foots the bill when Netflix has to pay Comcast for "the fast lane"?). The cost of maintaining speed is dropping as traffic goes up. The best way to move forward with the internet is to separate access to the internet from what you are accessing on the internet. There is too much bias and money involved for it not to be.

 

 

 

 

This is the future you are signing up for without net neutrality.

 

Also a video to watch:

 

 

 

For example, Sonic CEO Dane Jasper stated to CIO that “[t]he cost of increasing [broadband] capacity has declined much faster than the increase in data traffic.” While Sonic’s position as an underdog might shed some suspicion on the statement, Jasper provided concrete cost and revenue comparisons to back up his accusation. While infrastructure costs were as high as 20 percent of revenue when the company started up, the number has since dropped to less than two percent, says Dane

 

http://broadbandnow.com/report/much-data-really-cost-isps/

Edited September 8, 2016 by What a Tuel

[What a Tuel]

 

Don't quote me on something I never said. Customer demands and expectations of data delivery is continually increasing, but that's not to say that they're (to quote YOU) "using too much data".

 

You also ignored the point I made with regard to ISPs constantly increasing their delivery capability. It only makes sense for them to do that, and it's exactly what they're doing. What we're discussing here is a technology that is in a constant state of growth, and the last thing it needs is to have a board of bureaucrats dictating how that growth should happen, or how it should operate. The explosive growth of the internet and accompanying data services is a perfect example of how markets work, and most of those markets in the US have at least land line vs wireless competition, if not several competing entities in each technology.

 

The transmission of mass amounts of data isn't an issue along the major transmission paths, but it becomes an issue as it breaks out into smaller ones. There are several markets in the US right now where you can get 1G delivered on a fiber optic connection right up to your house, and in each of those markets you have Google, Verizon, and/or AT&T competing with each other. If you live in an apartment complex or an apartment building, then the delivery becomes a shared bandwidth. It's in the areas of shared bandwidth that you see the greatest effect that streaming has on delivery - buffering. That will eventually go away, but in most cases it won't happen until delivery at the point of the end user becomes wireless. Until that time, buffering will be an issue. To prevent buffering from happening, some ISPs will attempt to throttle back on the amount of data that some service providers (such as Netflix) stream. Why? Who do you think will be blamed for the problem? The ISPs, of course.

 

That's what you're doing.

 

The idea that there are competing markets in broadband internet is laughable. I am not sure if that is what you are saying but these companies have a few areas where they overlap but they mostly keep to their own agreed upon markets.

 

The ISP's should be blamed for that problem. Why shouldn't Netflix pay more because they are utilizing the transmission of more data? Because they already do. They already pay for the transmission of all of their data. They aren't getting a free ride. We are talking about Comcast telling Netflix to pay them more money or they will not get the speeds they are already paying for. That is what Net Neutrality is stopping.

 

How do you feel about data caps for broadband internet at the home level? Do you think it is reasonable? Do you think it serves any purpose other than getting people under their thumb? (like mobile did albeit they have little more legitimate reasoning)

Edited September 8, 2016 by What a Tuel

[Azalin]

 

The idea that there are competing markets in broadband internet is laughable. I am not sure if that is what you are saying but these companies have a few areas where they overlap but they mostly keep to their own agreed upon markets.

 

The ISP's should be blamed for that problem. Why shouldn't Netflix pay more because they are utilizing the transmission of more data? Because they already do. They already pay for the transmission of all of their data. They aren't getting a free ride. We are talking about Comcast telling Netflix to pay them more money or they will not get the speeds they are already paying for. That is what Net Neutrality is stopping.

 

How do you feel about data caps for broadband internet at the home level? Do you think it is reasonable? Do you think it serves any purpose other than getting people under their thumb? (like mobile did albeit they have little more legitimate reasoning)

 

If you live in nearly any major metro area, then you have competing broadband providers. If you live in a less populous area, then likely you don't. You will in a few years, though - it's all going to be wireless before you know it.

 

Net Neutrality is about a hell of a lot more than settling a squabble between Netflix and Comcast. Do some research - do not politicize the issue, but instead do a little digging. The information is out there. Remember Senator Stevens referring to the web as "tubes"? Remember when Senator McCain suggested we combat free music downloads by coming up with a way to "blow up" the end-user's computer?

 

How do I feel about data caps? If you mean, offering different pricing levels for different levels of ethernet bandwidth, then I'm all for it. It's no different than offering different pricing per pound on meat at the grocery store when purchasing a large quantity vs a smaller one.