- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Obama's plan to save the internet draws bold reactions
Posted on 11/12/14 at 8:36 am to TigerinATL
Posted on 11/12/14 at 8:36 am to TigerinATL
quote:
The proper place to fix this problem is by charging an appropriate amount for data plans
Which, IMO, should be far, far less than what they are charging now.
They used the government and tax payer to gain advantages and pay for their infrastructure, sometime creating monopolies in their areas.
0
Posted on 11/12/14 at 8:40 am to TigerinATL
quote:
The proper place to fix this problem is by charging an appropriate amount for data plans and then delivering what they promised to their customers.
They could do that, but I think we'd be paying much more for this than the way Netflix is able to do it today working directly with the ISPs to deliver their content.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 8:41 am to C
quote:
Try the above wired article. You'll probably take issue with their opinions but the facts for why it's being done are there.
I don't disagree with most of those facts.
I disagree with this notion:
quote:
We shouldn’t waste so much breath on the idea of keeping the network completely neutral. It isn’t neutral now. What we should really be doing is looking for ways we can increase competition among ISPs—ways we can prevent the Comcasts and the AT&Ts from gaining so much power that they can completely control the market for internet bandwidth. Sure, we don’t want ISPs blocking certain types of traffic. And we don’t want them delivering their own stuff at 10 gigabits per second and everyone else’s stuff at 1 gigabit. But competition is also the best way to stop these types of extreme behavior.
We should be doing both. Those companies were given unfair infrastructure advantages to gain control over markets.
Their viewpoint on that is semi correct and should have been used way back when, but it is extremely naive at this point
I have absolutely no problem with CDNs and really don't think that is a net neutrality issue. The net neutrality issue is when the ISPs can throttle general websites
This post was edited on 11/12/14 at 8:46 am
Posted on 11/12/14 at 8:50 am to TigerBait1127
quote:
The net neutrality issue is when the ISPs can throttle general websites
Yeah but we're just speaking semantics. Seems like people have issues with the artificial throttling that occurs due to certain providers paying for faster delivery methods.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 8:57 am to C
quote:No, this is exactly the debate.quote:Yeah but that's a different debate.
The reason the ISPs are against the streaming sites is b/c it offers competition to their cable packages.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 9:12 am to C
quote:
Yeah but we're just speaking semantics.
The exact opposite. I'm speaking to the real issue while you're trusting their word.
The FCC and ISPs are claiming that it will be a fast lane and a faster lane when every proposal or proposal I've seen gives them the power to dictate to throttle their competition.
Then they go further and try to sneak it in a bill that completely misleading about protecting children from porn.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 9:49 am to C
quote:Perhaps you've forgotten, but this is the Tech Board, not the Poli board. We know what peering is. We know what CDNs are. We know that networks have to evolve in order to balance loads and eliminate bottlenecks. This is a good thing for everyone involved. It is cheaper for both the content provider and the ISP, it provides a better experience for customers, and it unclogs the ISP's bandwidth going to/from the datacenter so that other, smaller sites don't get slowed down. This is not Netflix paying an ISP for a "fast lane". Peering deals are just Netflix and an ISP being good internet citizens by preserving full speed access for everyone involved. It is efficient use of resources. The same goes for CDNs.
Try the above wired article. You'll probably take issue with their opinions but the facts for why it's being done are there.
In other words, peering and CDNs are methods of preserving as close to full-speed access as possible for everyone by eliminating bottlenecks. Full speed. Because that's all there is. Any other speed is throttled or congested.
But here is why everyone gets worried when ISPs talk about "fast lanes". It's because they have been caught throttling sites and blaming it on congestion. First off, if you have congestion, upgrade your network. That's how you provide good service to your customers. But throttling has been proven time and again through the use of VPNs.
There is absolutely no reason to throttle any data when there is no congestion. All it does is back things up and it leads to congestion. It's like putting a stop light on the interstate, and the ONLY reason to do such a thing is to play dirty tricks.
Extortion.
Long story short: there is no such thing as a "fast lane". There is only congestion and throttling. Congestion is a problem that needs to be fixed by the ISP. Throttling is an artificial problem created by an ISP in order to extort money. Making "fast lanes" a thing is equivalent to saying extortion is now legal.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 10:40 am to Korkstand
quote:
but this is the Tech Board, not the Poli board. We know what peering is
The person above you needed help with my analogy. If you have no problem with peering then I'm not sure what this part of the debate is about. It seems like the FCC and customers have been able to challenge ISPs successfully when true throttling has occurred.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 10:57 am to C
quote:That's pretty clear.
If you have no problem with peering then I'm not sure what this part of the debate is about.
quote:Because there were rules in place, but those rules are about to change. This is the whole issue.
It seems like the FCC and customers have been able to challenge ISPs successfully when true throttling has occurred.
If "fast lanes" become a thing, there will be no more grounds to challenge throttling, because throttling will become the norm.
Because there is no such thing as a "fast lane". There is only the illusion of a fast lane accomplished by throttling everyone else.
So then let's assume Netflix is able to pay the fast lane tax for all the major ISPs, and who knows what sort of contracts will be drawn up and what sort of exclusivity clauses they may contain. So what then for a new competitor to Netflix? The fast lanes, and the contracts, and the throttling make it not just difficult, but LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a new service to compete with Netflix as far as quality. It will be ISP monopolies all over again. Monopolies, monopolies, everywhere.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 11:12 am to Korkstand
AT&T will stop investing in high-speed fiber internet until net neutrality rules decided
quote:
After President Obama called on the FCC to pass strong net neutrality rules, Chairman Tom Wheeler reportedly backed away from the statements, saying he favored a more "nuanced" solution. But regardless of where the debate stands, AT&T says it won't budge on a new project: at a conference today, CEO Randall Stephenson said AT&T would stop investing in a plan to bring high-speed fiber connections to 100 US cities until the FCC determines a path for internet regulation.
"We can't go out and invest that kind of money deploying fiber to 100 cities not knowing under what rules those investments will be governed," Stephenson said, according to a report from Reuters. AT&T brought the service to Austin last year, beating Google, and said they were exploring more investments in major metro areas. But as of April, negotiations with the cities were still in early stages.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 11:21 am to hikingfan
quote:Translation: Those funds are being diverted to politicians in order to ensure rules favorable to us.
AT&T would stop investing in a plan to bring high-speed fiber connections to 100 US cities until the FCC determines a path for internet regulation.
quote:
AT&T, of course, has long taken the stance that tough open internet rules would hurt competition
Right, are we supposed to believe that AT&T wants rules that will make their market more competitive? Hilarious.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 11:24 am to hikingfan
quote:
AT&T will stop investing in high-speed fiber internet until net neutrality rules decided
Found another interesting take on this NN debate.
Harvard Business Review
Posted on 11/12/14 at 11:37 am to Korkstand
quote:
LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE
Likely violate anti-trust laws. That's pretty clear...
Posted on 11/12/14 at 11:40 am to Korkstand
quote:
Those funds are being diverted to politicians in order to ensure rules favorable to us.
"So then I said, 'hey lets get the govt more involved! That will protect us from the govt granted monopolies!!'"
Posted on 11/12/14 at 12:04 pm to Oenophile Brah
quote:
Found another interesting take on this NN debate.
Harvard Business Review
Wow, that article is so full of bullshite and misinformation that I don't know where to begin.
I guess first of all, it should be pointed out that all the great advancements the article talks about, and all the companies that grew explosively, did so on a neutral internet. The author conveniently leaves this fact out, likely because it throws his entire argument out the window.
Second, the author talks about Moore's Law driving the internet explosion. While true, that same law has only in recent years driven down the cost of equipment capable of inspecting and prioritizing packets to make it cheaper than simply adding more bandwidth. In other words, this explosive growth took place during a time that the most cost-effective method of dealing with increasing bandwidth requirements was simply adding more bandwidth. In recent years, the tables have turned, and it is more cost-effective to buy, install, and configure equipment capable of discriminating against specific types of data in order to prevent saturation of the pipes. The economic incentives have shifted from encouraging actual network growth over to encouraging throttling. It also coincides with a time where internet companies are really starting to get huge, and others are springing up and growing rapidly, and ISPs understand their position of power and control over these companies' revenue streams.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 12:08 pm to C
quote:
Likely violate anti-trust laws. That's pretty clear...
You're right, it is pretty clear. Pay for priority fast lanes would seem to be a huge antitrust violation. So why even try to argue that such a thing should be legal? Why are ISPs trying so hard, and spending so much money, trying to make it okay to throttle whichever sites they please?
Posted on 11/12/14 at 12:10 pm to C
quote:The government didn't "grant" these monopolies. The government realized that infrastructure monopolies would arise naturally, and put laws in place to protect consumers. Because, of course, history tells us that these things happen.
"So then I said, 'hey lets get the govt more involved! That will protect us from the govt granted monopolies!!'"
Posted on 11/12/14 at 12:17 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Pay for priority fast lanes would seem to be a huge antitrust violation
Sorry I thought you were saying ISPs wouldn't be allowed to set up fast lanes for other users.
quote:
Why are ISPs trying so hard, and spending so much money, trying to make it okay to throttle whichever sites they please?
So ISPs in direct competition against the likes of Netflix and Google are doing direct business with the these companies... um what was the question again?
Posted on 11/12/14 at 12:29 pm to C
quote:The question is, why do you think it's ok to allow these perfectly fine business deals to evolve into an extortion racket via pay for priority fast lanes?
So ISPs in direct competition against the likes of Netflix and Google are doing direct business with the these companies... um what was the question again?
Or, rephrased, can you please take your head out of your arse so you can see what's going on?
Posted on 11/12/14 at 12:53 pm to Korkstand
I haven't read through all of this thread, but please humor me.
I'm in favor of Obama's proposition. However, I'm curious what it means for small, local ISPs. Like the one that I work at. If they are treated as a utility, what kind of regulations would we see? How much harm or good would come from the government regulating the small guys? Would it give them an advantage, or would it stymie their growth? etc.
I'm in favor of Obama's proposition. However, I'm curious what it means for small, local ISPs. Like the one that I work at. If they are treated as a utility, what kind of regulations would we see? How much harm or good would come from the government regulating the small guys? Would it give them an advantage, or would it stymie their growth? etc.
This post was edited on 11/12/14 at 1:09 pm
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News