NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey, I've been hearing a lot about how net neutrality is bad, but no one has been able to give me a lot of reasons why.

Or even what it really is.

Could someone explain it to me? The more detail the better.

Gee... I woulda thought that Net neutrality would be good... being Neutral and all...

Net Neutrality is good because if it didn't exist, then we wouldn't be able to voice our opinions like so, because most likely then not your ISP won't let you access this site!

EDIT: I'm sure if you took 3 seconds of your life to google it, then you'll find PLENTY of reasons as to why Net neutrality is necessary (or not... :-S)

Gee... I woulda thought that Net neutrality would be good... being Neutral and all...

Net Neutrality is good because if it didn't exist, then we wouldn't be able to voice our opinions like so, because most likely then not your ISP won't let you access this site!

that told me nothing....

that told me nothing....

It wasn't meant to, look at my edit.

It wasn't meant to, look at my edit.

sorry, I didn't see that.
And yeah...I'm too lazy to think of that. (lol) Now that I'm here I want someone to just explain it to me lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Have fun.:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Have fun.:)

aw, wikipedia...the lazy man's encyclopedia. why didn't I think of that? Lol thanks

aw, wikipedia...the lazy man's encyclopedia. why didn't I think of that? Lol thanks

Actually, it's more like the poor man's encyclopedia, hence why I use it regularly...:)

"What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?" -Zapp Brannigan

"I hate these filthy neutrals, Kif! With enemies, you know where they stand, but with neutrals—who knows. It sickens me" -Zapp Brannigan

"All I know is my gut says maybe" -Neutral President

:)

Hey, I've been hearing a lot about how net neutrality is bad, but no one has been able to give me a lot of reasons why.

Or even what it really is.

Could someone explain it to me? The more detail the better.

The people who have been telling you these things are very wrong. Net Neutrality is a very good thing - it prevents ISPs from discriminating against certain types of data passing through the infrastructure we pay them to provide, thereby setting up a "tiered" Internet of preferred, premium, average, neglected, etc. areas of the Internet.

A lack of net neutrality would let them extort content providers like Google or Yahoo for money by making them pay for their site to get cheaper connections in order to keep customers coming. It would make you Internet more expensive by adding premium charges and stuff to the flat rate used now. It would also make life much more difficult for millions of websites and server owners who couldn't afford the extortion, or even the increased rates in general, would get sluggish service, and would become a huge connectivity slum of the Net. Overall, these effects combine to basically wreck the Internet. It's greatest strength is the free, open, level-playing-field environment which has made it so powerful and effective, and that's exactly what net neutrality preserves. Abolishing it is effectively the oligopolization and chaining of the Internet.

And that's not even mentioning the glaring issue of the necessity of tracking the exact content of each data packet going in and out of each Internet connection, and what that implies for censorship and privacy intrusion....

Bottom line: abolishing net neutrality is really, really good for the telcos and ISPs. It is really, really bad for consumers and content providers.

Bottom line: abolishing net neutrality is really, really good for the telcos and ISPs. It is really, really bad for consumers and content providers.

Damn you had me going till I read that. ;)

The people who have been telling you these things are very wrong. Net Neutrality is a very good thing - it prevents ISPs from discriminating against certain types of data passing through the infrastructure we pay them to provide, thereby setting up a "tiered" Internet of preferred, premium, average, neglected, etc. areas of the Internet.

A lack of net neutrality would let them extort content providers like Google or Yahoo for money by making them pay for their site to get cheaper connections in order to keep customers coming. It would make you Internet more expensive by adding premium charges and stuff to the flat rate used now. It would also make life much more difficult for millions of websites and server owners who couldn't afford the extortion, or even the increased rates in general, would get sluggish service, and would become a huge connectivity slum of the Net. Overall, these effects combine to basically wreck the Internet. It's greatest strength is the free, open, level-playing-field environment which has made it so powerful and effective, and that's exactly what net neutrality preserves. Abolishing it is effectively the oligopolization and chaining of the Internet.

And that's not even mentioning the glaring issue of the necessity of tracking the exact content of each data packet going in and out of each Internet connection, and what that implies for censorship and privacy intrusion....

Bottom line: abolishing net neutrality is really, really good for the telcos and ISPs. It is really, really bad for consumers and content providers.

Thank you! ^^

"What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?" -Zapp Brannigan

"I hate these filthy neutrals, Kif! With enemies, you know where they stand, but with neutrals—who knows. It sickens me" -Zapp Brannigan

"All I know is my gut says maybe" -Neutral President

:)

'Kif, fly the white flag of war' -Zapp Brannigan

'Kif, fly the white flag of war' -Zapp Brannigan

"What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?" -Zapp Brannigan

"I hate these filthy neutrals, Kif! With enemies, you know where they stand, but with neutrals—who knows. It sickens me" -Zapp Brannigan

"All I know is my gut says maybe" -Neutral President

:)

HA I loved that episode lol

Its all tubes to me!

Its all tubes to me!

And to think, that guy is a Senator. No wonder this country is so fucked.

I think the US should keep control of the internet. So what if the europeans don't like it, tough. Go make your own.

And to think, that guy is a Senator. No wonder this country is so fucked.

I tried listening to his drivel and it hurt. What a maroon.

I tried listening to his drivel and it hurt. What a maroon.

Much as I laughed (in pain, because of the power this man has) at his tortured explanation of how the internet is a bunch of tubes, I actually laughed harder at when he was talking about how his staff sent him an internet on Friday and he didn't get it until later.

I think the US should keep control of the internet. So what if the europeans don't like it, tough. Go make your own.

LOLOL!

I think the world wide web should be free to all..So what if the yanks don't like it, tough. Go make your own.

:rolleyes:

Much as I laughed (in pain, because of the power this man has) at his tortured explanation of how the internet is a bunch of tubes, I actually laughed harder at when he was talking about how his staff sent him an internet on Friday and he didn't get it until later.

yeah...it was frightening, funny and surreal...all at the same time!

LOLOL!

I think the world wide web should be free to all..So what if the yanks don't like it, tough. Go make your own.

:rolleyes:

it is free to all. We just own it.

If we managed to figure out a system to charge people for using our internet, man we'd be rolling in dough.

it is free to all. We just own it.

If we managed to figure out a system to charge people for using our internet, man we'd be rolling in dough.

You better let LINX know then!

Oh...I think you ought to cough up for using our World Wide Web btw. Where can I send the invoice? I think a couple of hundred billion would be fair don't you?

:rolleyes:

"What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?" -Zapp Brannigan

"I hate these filthy neutrals, Kif! With enemies, you know where they stand, but with neutrals—who knows. It sickens me" -Zapp Brannigan

"All I know is my gut says maybe" -Neutral President

:)

"your neutralness, it's a beige alert."
"if i don't survive, tell my wife 'hello'"

"your neutralness, it's a beige alert."
"if i don't survive, tell my wife 'hello'"

LOLOLOL!!!!

Damn I love Futurama!!! So glad they are doing a new series :)

I think the US should keep control of the internet. So what if the europeans don't like it, tough. Go make your own.

That's precisely the attitude that goes along with the abolishment of net neutrality. The Internet is a framework for communication, trade, and cooperation irrespective of distance or nationality. Making it single-nation-centric or government-controlled merely impedes its functionality, especially in a world where tons of technological, commercial, and scientific ventures are starting to happen in WEurope, East Asia, etc., not just the US.

The only thing you have to remember about Net Neutrality is that "The Internet is not a big truck. It's not something that you just dump stuff on, it's a series of tubes!" :D

Net neutrality is the government stepping in and forcing companies to give equal priority to all Internet traffic regardless of content. If you're a fan of giving a huge handout to Google/Ebay and reducing the quality of your Internet accesss 5-10 years down the line, feel free to support it.

If these Internet companies want net neutrality, then they should create telecommunications divisions and build their own networks with their money for people to use. They have the money and the expertise to do it, so I see no reason why they shouldn't...but that would hurt their bottom line. It's much easier to get the government involved and force the telecoms to do it rather than compete against them.

Net neutrality is the government stepping in and forcing companies to give equal priority to all Internet traffic regardless of content. If you're a fan of giving a huge handout to Google/Ebay and reducing the quality of your Internet accesss 5-10 years down the line, feel free to support it.

If these Internet companies want net neutrality, then they should create telecommunications divisions and build their own networks with their money for people to use. They have the money and the expertise to do it, so I see no reason why they shouldn't...but that would hurt their bottom line. It's much easier to get the government involved and force the telecoms to do it rather than compete against them.

Some things are much too important to be left to the private sector; they require state protection and intervention.

You can have a legitimate debate about who can better enforce neutrality, but the important thing is to enforce it by one sector or another.

Some things are much too important to be left to the private sector; they require state protection and intervention.

You can have a legitimate debate about who can better enforce neutrality, but the important thing is to enforce it by one sector or another.

Why do we need to enforce neutrality? If you're willing to pay more you should get equal or better quality and higher priority; that policy is used pretty much all the time in every single other industry and service on Earth and it works very well.

A smart Internet network is very similar in nature to a water system or natural gas system; you pay a basic access fee to get a connection that can deliver a certain capacity and then you pay for the amount you consume. The Internet is not a limitless source of bandwidth, and more and more people are going to be competing for the same capacity; if you want that capacity to keep up with demand, market prices have

What net neutrality does is very similar to what California did with its energy markets in 1996; they eliminated the ability of utilities to make a profit off of their energy markets, crimping their ability to keep up with demand and increasing congestion on the distribution system until criminals were able to manipulate it and make a fortune.

A neutral Internet is going to be very easy to abuse once capacity utilization reaches high enough levels...destroying competition never works.

Why do we need to enforce neutrality? If you're willing to pay more you should get equal or better quality and higher priority; that policy is used pretty much all the time in every single other industry and service on Earth and it works very well.

A smart Internet network is very similar in nature to a water system or natural gas system; you pay a basic access fee to get a connection that can deliver a certain capacity and then you pay for the amount you consume. The Internet is not a limitless source of bandwidth, and more and more people are going to be competing for the same capacity; if you want that capacity to keep up with demand, market prices have

What net neutrality does is very similar to what California did with its energy markets in 1996; they eliminated the ability of utilities to make a profit off of their energy markets, crimping their ability to keep up with demand and increasing congestion on the distribution system until criminals were able to manipulate it and make a fortune.

A neutral Internet is going to be very easy to abuse once capacity utilization reaches high enough levels...destroying competition never works.

It's not even close to the same thing. What getting rid of net neutrality does is allow telcoms to restrict information flow they don't like, and if you think they won't do it, then you're fooling yourself.

It's not even close to the same thing. What getting rid of net neutrality does is allow telcoms to restrict information flow they don't like, and if you think they won't do it, then you're fooling yourself.

Pretty much spot on...hence my rambling about W WW...not that many understood what I meant.

It's not even close to the same thing. What getting rid of net neutrality does is allow telcoms to restrict information flow they don't like, and if you think they won't do it, then you're fooling yourself.

Net neutrality does the same thing. I can guarantee you that telecoms are going to use "congestion" problems (real and imagined) to block information they don't like and drive up costs across the board. I'd rather the cost of expanding the Internet come from companies like Google, Ebay, or Yahoo rather than the bills of the average Internet user; this issue is a battle between corporations for profits, and nothing more...but the telecoms are the ones who provide the Internet access and they are the ones who should have the say.

A non-neutral net is going to be a lot easier to get in to and compete in than a neutral one, and that's a lot better for consumers. If Google doesn't like its terms with Verizon, it can start its own network and direct its own traffic, or even undercut Verizon by chargin lower prices or eliminating priority fees. Also, it's going to be a lot harder for telecoms to justify price increases or delays in service.

(However, this probably wouldn't even be an issue if the US had a national broadband policy; unfortunately, such pressing issues as the missle shield and the money pit known as the War in Iraq have distracted us from an issue that could determine our economic future.)

I don't think it's easy to realise how amazing the internet is - familiarity breeds contempt. We have _never_ in human history had such amazing access to information and to other cultures, other peoples, free from business and government intervention and regulation. And as for freedom of expression? You can't do better! It's people power, with all its advantages and disadvantages, personified. If there's any international treasure worth protecting more, I can't think of it.

Pissing it away for - what, exactly? - is horrendously shortsighted. Change the basis by which it operates, and you risk destroying so much - it's not worth it.

Net neutrality does the same thing. I can guarantee you that telecoms are going to use "congestion" problems (real and imagined) to block information they don't like and drive up costs across the board. I'd rather the cost of expanding the Internet come from companies like Google, Ebay, or Yahoo rather than the bills of the average Internet user; this issue is a battle between corporations for profits, and nothing more...but the telecoms are the ones who provide the Internet access and they are the ones who should have the say.

A non-neutral net is going to be a lot easier to get in to and compete in than a neutral one, and that's a lot better for consumers. If Google doesn't like its terms with Verizon, it can start its own network and direct its own traffic, or even undercut Verizon by chargin lower prices or eliminating priority fees. Also, it's going to be a lot harder for telecoms to justify price increases or delays in service.

(However, this probably wouldn't even be an issue if the US had a national broadband policy; unfortunately, such pressing issues as the missle shield and the money pit known as the War in Iraq have distracted us from an issue that could determine our economic future.)
No it doesn't. It puts too much power in the hands of the telcoms. Right now, the telcoms can't restrict content, not really. But if they get what they want in this bill, they'll be able to say to a political site they don't like--Daily Kos or Instapundit, for example (to use one from either side of the spectrum)--"if you want to get your message out, it'll cost you a thousand times what it's costing now," and those sites are fucked. Anything without a corporate sponsor could possibly be shitcanned, and there's not a damn thing they could do about it. And forget about individual voices--they'll get jammed up the worst.

Let me ask you something. Why is it that the only people online who support this bill are the telcos and the people they're paying? Bloggers from all political backgrounds are united on this front. People who hate each other most of the time are best buds on this issue. Why? Because they know that the telcos will fuck them like a twelve year old Laotian boy if this bill passes.

If you're willing to pay more you should get equal or better quality and higher priority

no, you shouldn't. that's almost always been a bad idea.

no, you shouldn't. that's almost always been a bad idea.
No kidding. We wouldn't accept that for police or fire protection, or for water quality. Why should we accept that for access to information?

No kidding. We wouldn't accept that for police or fire protection, or for water quality. Why should we accept that for access to information?

it's bad enough that we accept it for medical care and schooling

No it doesn't. It puts too much power in the hands of the telcoms. Right now, the telcoms can't restrict content, not really. But if they get what they want in this bill, they'll be able to say to a political site they don't like--Daily Kos or Instapundit, for example (to use one from either side of the spectrum)--"if you want to get your message out, it'll cost you a thousand times what it's costing now," and those sites are fucked. Anything without a corporate sponsor could possibly be shitcanned, and there's not a damn thing they could do about it. And forget about individual voices--they'll get jammed up the worst.

What incentive would they have to do that? It's a lot more profitable to keep the status quo and avoid such negative publicity, especially in such a competitive market as telecommunications; aside from the sheer amount of regulation it's also intensely competitive which would make it highly unlikely for them to do that in a business sense, let alone the legal or Constitutional problems of such a measure.

The Internet needs capacity, and it's going to have to come from somewhere. The only way we're going to do this is by granting companies network neutrality or getting the money from somewhere else; unfortunately, there is no real government support for the Internet or infrastructure development, so we're stuck with removing neutrality provisions or facing capacity crunches a few years down the line and hampered development of new technology. It's the lesser of two evils.

Let me ask you something. Why is it that the only people online who support this bill are the telcos and the people they're paying? Bloggers from all political backgrounds are united on this front. People who hate each other most of the time are best buds on this issue. Why? Because they know that the telcos will fuck them like a twelve year old Laotian boy if this bill passes.

Bloggers don't want to pay more; honestly, anyone with a significant financial stake in net neutrality isn't going to support something that may hurt them in the long run. If someone who supports net neutrality came up with a workable alternative that would address capacity problems and maintain net neutrality, I'd support them 100%.

Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be happening; the status quo will not work forever so we're going to have to change things to better prepare the network for the next generations of Internet technology.

no, you shouldn't. that's almost always been a bad idea.

It seems to work fine for pretty much all consumer products; the only place where it doesn't work is in things like utilities where the services provided are natural monopolies that require government regulation in order to provide good quality, reliable services at market prices.

it's bad enough that we accept it for medical care and schooling


Exactly. If we do not enforce net neutrality then people who can pay will be able to access information taht others cannot. I can stomach someone else getting a faster connection than me if they pay, but not a connection to a better internet.

net neutrality prevents ISPs from censoring information, or selling it.

Poogle, for folks too poor to use google.

the status quo will not work forever so we're going to have to change things to better prepare the network for the next generations of Internet technology.

On what grounds? What is the status quo and why will it "not work forever"?

It's a lot more profitable to keep the status quo and avoid such negative publicity, especially in such a competitive market as telecommunications;
Some one obviously knows two things about the telco's - jack and shit.

It seems to work fine for pretty much all consumer products

i don't know that i'd call the current systemic outcomes 'working fine'. in fact, i know that i wouldn't.

I have a question. Usually I'm more up on current events than this, but this is the issue that's been confusing me.

Is net neutrality the status quo? As far as I see it, the consumer pays for bandwidth to access the entire internet, and content providers pay their host to put up a site.

What the Senate was planning on doing was making it so content providers would have to pay ISPs to allow their sites to be shown.

The previous two paragraphs were my analysis of the situation. Is what I said accurate?

On what grounds? What is the status quo and why will it "not work forever"?

The status quo is the current system of neutrality.

It's not going to last forever unless there is a way to keep up with demand for bandwidth; you can't force telecoms to make investments beyond those deemed profitable, and a lot of the capacity needed for the future will likely not be profitable enough to merit investment until capacity is already starting to push its limits. Eventually, it might not be invested in at all and the system will become overloaded.

The only way to preserve net neutrality is to find a way to make investment in infrastructure profitable enough to convince companies to do it. Other than a national broadband program, the only way to do it is to remove neutrality provisions.

Some one obviously knows two things about the telco's - jack and shit.

Really? Telecoms are the most regulated industry in the country other than the energy companies and utilities; they can't do anything anticompetitive without the government catching them almost immediately, and the sheer number of telecoms worldwide puts a lot of competitive pressure on them to avoid acting anticompetitively just out of concern for profit margins.

Technology is also opening the market to more companies and international competition is becoming a reality as foreign companies invest in the US.

It's not going to last forever unless there is a way to keep up with demand for bandwidth;
Are you insinuating there isn't a way? I think you have been listening to too much telecom propaganda and idiots who thinks internet "pipes" are getting jammed up. There are miles upon miles of dark fibre optic cable, and that isn't evne the fastest stuff you can get.

you can't force telecoms to make investments beyond those deemed profitable,
Telecoms are dicks, they should be forced to do whatever is needed to improve the nation.

The only way to preserve net neutrality is to find a way to make investment in infrastructure profitable enough to convince companies to do it. Other than a national broadband program, the only way to do it is to remove neutrality provisions.
See above. Neutrality must be maintained to stay at the precipice of the slippery slope instead of grabbing a sled and hitting the hill. Without neutrality, telecoms will be able to become far more powerful and more monopalistic than they are with now by gaining the ability to control who can and can't do what on the internet without going through the legislature and spending money on lobbying. And with that, they will have no reason to expand because they will have no competition. You think the telecoms have competition? Try again. All the major telecoms are working together to solidify their power.

they can't do anything anticompetitive without the government catching them almost immediately
The government is full of ignorant jackasses asleep at the wheel of a car with no windows and fueled by bureuacracy.

and the sheer number of telecoms worldwide puts a lot of competitive pressure on them to avoid acting anticompetitively just out of concern for profit margins
Worldwide? Who gives a fuck. Only the ones in America matter. America is a major hub and giving the American telecoms the ability to regulate the internet affects the entire world. Not only that but the major telecoms have repeatedly worked together anticompetitvely to shut down or try to shut down competition from the likes of Google and other entrepreneurs who try to give away internet within their borders.

The status quo is the current system of neutrality.

It's not going to last forever unless there is a way to keep up with demand for bandwidth; you can't force telecoms to make investments beyond those deemed profitable, and a lot of the capacity needed for the future will likely not be profitable enough to merit investment until capacity is already starting to push its limits. Eventually, it might not be invested in at all and the system will become overloaded.

The only way to preserve net neutrality is to find a way to make investment in infrastructure profitable enough to convince companies to do it. Other than a national broadband program, the only way to do it is to remove neutrality provisions.

Well, I'll take a slow and free internet over a fast and censored internet any day of the week.

EDIT

Other than a national broadband program, the only way to do it is to remove neutrality provisions.
That's like saying, "Other than killing all the Muslims, the only way to stop terrorism is by putting telescreens in everyone's homes." Don't be that guy who uses false dichotomy to justify his asinine arguments.

Vetalia probably thinks the "pipes" on the internet are dirty and that's why the internet is slow.

The death of net neutrality will not convince telecoms to open up more lines and create cheaper, faster, more direct types of internet. It will give them the ability to shut down smaller competition and increase their profit margin without increasing service. Welcome to America.

Vetalia probably thinks the "pipes" on the internet are dirty and that's why the internet is slow.

The death of net neutrality will not convince telecoms to open up more lines and create cheaper, faster, more direct types of internet. It will give them the ability to shut down smaller competition and increase their profit margin without increasing service. Welcome to America.

No, I just think that Vetalia isn't looking at internet service as a utility. I do, and so I feel it's important that the suppliers be required to offer the same access to everyone, just like we do with water and electricity. I think we can convince him, because he's a reasonable individual.

Net neutrality is the government stepping in and forcing companies to give equal priority to all Internet traffic regardless of content. If you're a fan of giving a huge handout to Google/Ebay and reducing the quality of your Internet accesss 5-10 years down the line, feel free to support it.


Ahh now we are in the DOOM AND GLOOM phase.

Sorry it has nothing to do with handouts. It's about PREVENTING the Telcos from giving the exact same service if not less and charging a great deal more for it.

If these Internet companies want net neutrality, then they should create telecommunications divisions and build their own networks with their money for people to use.

Oh come now I expect better from you. That is like saying companies should make their own power plants and their own road systems if they want cheaper power and better commutes.

They have the money and the expertise to do it, so I see no reason why they shouldn't...

Actually many do or they get consultants.


but that would hurt their bottom line. It's much easier to get the government involved and force the telecoms to do it rather than compete against them.

:D righhhht.

Sorry it has nothing to do with handouts. It's about PREVENTING the Telcos from giving the exact same service if not less and charging a great deal more for it.

We're going to get less service

Oh come now I expect better from you. That is like saying companies should make their own power plants and their own road systems if they want cheaper power and better commutes.

A lot of companies do that, particularly energy intensive ones like refineries or chemical plants that can produce power on-site for a lot less money than it would cost to buy it from a utility. The same is true with companies that provide transportation services for their workers. It saves them money to provide these services and cuts out the cost of the middleman at the utilities and saves workers money, reducing the labor costs to the company.

Companies who want services at their terms are best off if they do it themselves; for example, Google has the cash to build some significant wireless and fiber-optic networks, and if they make the investment they will be able to not only stiff the telecoms but also deliver services at their terms or sell their services to consumers.

Actually many do or they get consultants.

They should; it's a lot better idea to have these Internet companies build out their own infrastructure and compete directly with the telecoms than to simply regulate the telecoms to preserve the profits of the Internet companies. It would attract a lot more investment and competition to the sector, and that's always a good thing.

:D righhhht.

Curse my poor wording...

Why do we need to enforce neutrality? If you're willing to pay more you should get equal or better quality and higher priority; that policy is used pretty much all the time in every single other industry and service on Earth and it works very well.


They already do. Only so many companies can afford T3/E3 access. More companies can afford T1 access. The rest do fractional/DSL/etc or even modem :eek:


A smart Internet network is very similar in nature to a water system or natural gas system;


No it's not. For one thing Water and gas a limited sources that must be produced.


you pay a basic access fee to get a connection that can deliver a certain capacity and

Just like everybody who uses the Internet.


then you pay for the amount you consume.


YES BECAUSE THOSE ARE LIMITED RESOURCES THAT MUST BE CREATED.


The Internet is not a limitless source of bandwidth,


Yes IT IS for the 1001002302010212001201202010 TIME!

Unlike your beloved analogy of gas and water, the Net doesn't have to dig new pipes and create new plants to increase capacity.

The telcos only need to set up a new router and possible run new fiber. The monthly fees cover that!


and more and more people are going to be competing for the same capacity;


Yes and capacity increases all the time.

Look at the costs of a T1 and then look at what they were 10 years ago. They are cheaper! If capacity was disappearing as you imply prices should be increasing like gas.


if you want that capacity to keep up with demand, market prices have


The only capacity problem is IP addresses. However, IP6 will take care of that.


What net neutrality does is very similar to what California did with its energy markets in 1996; they eliminated the ability of utilities to make a profit off of their energy markets, crimping their ability to keep up with demand and increasing congestion on the distribution system until criminals were able to manipulate it and make a fortune.


Apples and oranges again.

The product does not have to be created and the delivery method is far easier then gas and water.


A neutral Internet is going to be very easy to abuse once capacity utilization reaches high enough levels...destroying competition never works.

This is a case of screaming The sky is falling! The Sky is falling!

Net neutrality does the same thing. I can guarantee you that telecoms are going to use "congestion" problems (real and imagined)

Congestion problems is a fact of the Net. Always has and always will be. But telcos will probably draw down on consumer speeds since the consumer doesn't have guaranted access speeds like companies.

to block information they don't like and drive up costs across the board.

Information? You have to define that better.

How does my accessing a dirty joke page versus the Washington Post have access issues.

Now if you are talking video. Yes streaming does increase traffic but there are mechanisms like QoS that controll it.

Your gross mistake is viewing a data pipe like a water pipe. You can controll the speed of acess and not every connection is going to be accessing it at the same time.


I'd rather the cost of expanding the Internet come from companies like Google, Ebay, or Yahoo rather than the bills of the average Internet user;


Hmmmm should we make Mercedes, BMW, Toyota pay for road construction because they make good cars?


this issue is a battle between corporations for profits, and nothing more...but the telecoms are the ones who provide the Internet access and they are the ones who should have the say.


And they do. Look at the monthly costs of a T3 with guaranteed levels of support and add in redundency.

Google, Yahoo and Ebay have Net bills that would easily pay the costs of small cities(speaking of DSL access costs).


A non-neutral net is going to be a lot easier to get in to and compete in than a neutral one, and that's a lot better for consumers.

No it's note. It will increase the profits of the Telcos and the consumers will not see it. In fact I will say their access will probably get worst.


If Google doesn't like its terms with Verizon, it can start its own network and direct its own traffic, or even undercut Verizon by chargin lower prices or eliminating priority fees. Also, it's going to be a lot harder for telecoms to justify price increases or delays in service.

Do you know what google pays for it's access? Verizon is making a ton of money off them.


(However, this probably wouldn't even be an issue if the US had a national broadband policy; unfortunately, such pressing issues as the missle shield and the money pit known as the War in Iraq have distracted us from an issue that could determine our economic future.)

No argument on that one. Private wars are always expensive.

What incentive would they have to do that? It's a lot more profitable to keep the status quo and avoid such negative publicity,


Negative publicity only hurts when the users are financially damaging or getting killed.

They will gladly take the negative publicity if in 5 years they will see gigantic profits.

You going to suggest the telcos are competing with each other in every state(speaking land lines)?

especially in such a competitive market as telecommunications; aside from the sheer amount of regulation it's also intensely competitive which would make it highly unlikely for them to do that in a business sense, let alone the legal or Constitutional problems of such a measure.



The Internet needs capacity, and it's going to have to come from somewhere.


It has tons of capacity. Running a new cable is not like having to dig a new piping system. Even when they have to dig, they drop several lines just for growth purposes.


The only way we're going to do this is by granting companies network neutrality or getting the money from somewhere else;


Ever look inside a telco? Pacific Bell/SBC does not create routers and switches. Neither does Verizon or South West Bell, etc.

The telcos drop and maintain lines. They buy their eqiupment from Cisco, Nortel, etc......

These communications equipment companies have to deal with the capacity problems. If they can't do what a telco needs them to do, they don't get the business.


unfortunately, there is no real government support for the Internet or infrastructure development,

Actually the son of arpanet is supposed to be getting created as business as mucked up the Net for them.


so we're stuck with removing neutrality provisions or facing capacity crunches a few years down the line and hampered development of new technology. It's the lesser of two evils.

Capacity shortage is a fake problem.

If you want capacity concerns I would put your effort into energy production as that will affect the net more then the bogus capacity claims.

Bloggers don't want to pay more;

They don't need to. The access is the key. They pay for DSL speeds and the telcos control their access. If the blogger has too much traffic, people will notice is when their page times out.

The blogger can bitch all he wants but the telcos will say "Hey time for T1 or better....."

honestly, anyone with a significant financial stake in net neutrality isn't going to support something that may hurt them in the long run.

They are screwed no matter what. If you charge google more then, the advertisers pay more to cover googles costs. The advertisers then pass that cost onto the consumer.


If someone who supports net neutrality came up with a workable alternative that would address capacity problems and maintain net neutrality, I'd support them 100%.


Prove there are capacity problems.

Your water and gas analogies are not valid.


Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be happening; the status quo will not work forever so we're going to have to change things to better prepare the network for the next generations of Internet technology.

Yes and cisco etc are working on them all the time.

It seems to work fine for pretty much all consumer products; the only place where it doesn't work is in things like utilities where the services provided are natural monopolies that require government regulation in order to provide good quality, reliable services at market prices.

Like the telcos? Don't recall seeing my phone cables not saying pacific bell/sbc......

Black Forrest, you win. I guess it's time to reconsider my position on the issue (with the exception of the national broadband program).

Black Forrest, you win. I guess it's time to reconsider my position on the issue (with the exception of the national broadband program).

WOW:eek: I think thats like maybe the second time I have ever seen someone on here manage to talk someone into changing their views on something.

Really? Telecoms are the most regulated industry in the country other than the energy companies and utilities; they can't do anything anticompetitive without the government catching them almost immediately, and the sheer number of telecoms worldwide puts a lot of competitive pressure on them to avoid acting anticompetitively just out of concern for profit margins.

You mean India telecom will start droping cables in this country? :eek:

They are regulated because they are natural monopolies. Natural as in it don't make sense to have every telco running cable to all houses.

SBC is not going out of business anytime soon. Unless of course the goverment opens this country to foreign telcos.


Technology is also opening the market to more companies and international competition is becoming a reality as foreign companies invest in the US.

Cisco, Nortel, et all do a fine job.

WOW:eek: I think thats like maybe the second time I have ever seen someone on here manage to talk someone into changing their views on something.

Vetalia's always been one of the most honest debaters around here. I read his posts carefully because he's willing to engage in actual conversation on issues. He's changed my mind a time or two in the past.

Black Forrest, you win. I guess it's time to reconsider my position on the issue (with the exception of the national broadband program).

Well? I think more in depth research would be better. You are far better at economics than I will ever be.

I am only arguing from what I understand about the technology and running a global network.

I hear a telco bitching about capacity and I think

1) They aren't keeping up with technology(ie buying big equipment)
2) They are purposely oversubscribing the Network and avoiding network upgrades.

The networking working has exploded in the last 20 years. Hell I remember when you were a "big" company when you had 9600 Baud connections to the telco. I remember x-25, 10base2, 10base5, etc.

The world of networking will always change and changing requires having to purchase new equipment.

Did the telcos plan for equipment capacities or is it a case an exec who is not happy having to buy the equipment he has to buy to offer is business?

AOL is the classic case. Free offers far outdid what their equipment could do and you go crap network access. They knew this but it was greedy bad management.

A telco is small monopoly(There are others but they all pay the large telcos for wire access as they have the infrastructure in place). Do they deserve to charge more because they made bad and or cheap choices? In a true competitive market the telcos who made bad choices would be eliminated and a competitor would take over.

The telcos had a free ride due to their mini monopolies until some people figured out how to do IP telephony. What drove that? If the costs of the telcos were "fair" then why invest in research for IP telephony?

As the world went global, the International telephone bills sky rocketed. The telcos didn't figure out ways for it to be cheaper. Why should they? They were making tons of money.

Along comes IP telephony and they scream NOT FAIR!

Nobody has a right to profit. They have to earn it.

I am not worried that SBC might go out of business because of "capacity limitations" another telco in this country or even another would gladly leap at the chance to buy their assets.

Anyhow. The "you win" comment means a great deal from somebody like you. :)

Vetalia's always been one of the most honest debaters around here. I read his posts carefully because he's willing to engage in actual conversation on issues. He's changed my mind a time or two in the past.

I will add he is a sharp one.

He has made me re-think things many times.

I dare not challenge him on econ matters. He will clean my clock on them! ;)

WOW:eek: I think thats like maybe the second time I have ever seen someone on here manage to talk someone into changing their views on something.

Vetalia has changed my mind on economics.

Just wanted to say well done on a well debated thread!!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/applause.gif

I've had the joy of working for a couple of telcos and at the end of the day they view this entire concept as a license to print money.

Nah....there is plenty of capacity out there....hell....nearly every major European city is fibre connected to some hefty datacentres...

http://tia.atalink.co.uk/html/p038.htm

KPNQwest did this a while back..laid all sorts of fibre and 'cyber centres'....and went under...but the network is still there chugging away...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05/31/kpnqwest_files_for_bankruptcy/

KPN know owns Eurorings...

The capacity is there as I know this has been done in the US as well. The US telco's just want their cake and to eat it as well.

Net neutrality is the government stepping in and forcing companies to give equal priority to all Internet traffic regardless of content. If you're a fan of giving a huge handout to Google/Ebay and reducing the quality of your Internet accesss 5-10 years down the line, feel free to support it.

If these Internet companies want net neutrality, then they should create telecommunications divisions and build their own networks with their money for people to use. They have the money and the expertise to do it, so I see no reason why they shouldn't...but that would hurt their bottom line. It's much easier to get the government involved and force the telecoms to do it rather than compete against them.

I understand your point, but here's the problem I see: the Internet isn't really a commodity. It's a market framework in and of itself, just like the real world or the social contract is a market framework. Abolishing net neutrality is equivalent, in the real world, to having the owners of a mall property charge a shopper an extra fee just to walk into a popular store, or adding a fee to every transaction you make and scaling it depending on how popular a good you're buying or who you're selling to.

It's a distortion of the market, a sort of tax on economic actorship. The Internet isn't a product - it's a basic medium across which economic transactions such as the buying and selling of products occur. It's a digital reality all on its own, running 'on top of' Reality 1.0. In this metaphor, ISPs are analogous to private owners of interstate highways, if such actually existed. They could reasonably charge for access to the system that allows you to travel and thus interact with the rest of the market, but I'm sure you'd find it unreasonable for extra premium fees to be charged to enter the parking lots of major stores.

EDIT: Apparently I missed the boat on this one. Wow - I think this may be the only argument on NSGen I've ever seen actually, truly won. And so quickly....