Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ooh sorry make that four with Verizon.
"cable"
another cable thingy
AT&T (ours)
Verizon

Hughes Satellite. Nuke it from orbit, its the only way to be sure!

 LordofHats wrote:

If Netflix is such a big traffic hog (because people use it) and ISPs start throttling it for whatever reason... consumers will dump those ISPs.

Like many Americans I only have 1 choice of ISP. Comcast. No one else services my area because Comcast forced everyone else out of the market and won't let anyone else in. Not everywhere has small time ISP providers or even a choice in where to get their service and from who. My situation is normal in most of suburbia and smaller urban areas that aren't major cities. Rurual areas have it even worse.

Comcast is a terrible company. If they were even remotely good at what they do, I'd probably be fine and have faith they'd make a smart decision, but this;

That's likely true just about everywhere...

So...genuinely asking here...

Is access to the internets, should that be on the same level of "access rights" as it is for standard utility (ie, power, water, gas)??


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Ooh sorry make that four with Verizon.
"cable"
another cable thingy
AT&T (ours)
Verizon

Hughes Satellite. Nuke it from orbit, its the only way to be sure!

Yeah.

I have no idea what Hughes satellite is like.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Finally, I posit that a large part of why these networks were so successful was because of regulation, notably the open network principles of 2005 laid down by the FCC.

Sure... because those were the enforced standards.

Are you saying that we need to remove the open network standards the FCC enforces while simultaneously agreeing with me that those standards helped it be as successful as it currently is?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... I know.

But I get the feeling that most of the throttling complaints where the torrent/p2p users as opposed to Youtubing and Netflixers.

I think there is a distinction to be made here. If you decide to throttle the top x percent of your heavy users as a network management strategy and it's not specifically for what content they are consuming, there is nothing wrong with that.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Finally, I posit that a large part of why these networks were so successful was because of regulation, notably the open network principles of 2005 laid down by the FCC.

Sure... because those were the enforced standards.

Are you saying that we need less regulation of the internet while simultaneously agreeing with me that the last 10 years of regulation helped it be as successful as it currently is?

I'm arguing that Net Neutrality is more regulations... as in, on top of the existing rules/regulations.

If you're so pro-net neutrality.

Would you also be in favor of pro-partisan neutrality with the news media companies?

Ie. 50% segments are pro-Democrats and other 50% are pro-Republicans?

It's only fair.

Lets leave that off the discussion eh?

 Ouze wrote:

I think there is a distinction to be made here. If you decide to throttle the top x percent of your heavy users as a network management strategy and it's not specifically for what content they are consuming, there is nothing wrong with that.

Right.

But the end goal of Net Neutrality was to treat ALL network traffic the same. If it was still in place, ISP couldn't throttle users of torrent/p2p traffic by simply being torrent/p2p traffic.

 whembly wrote:

I'm arguing that Net Neutrality is more regulations... as in, on top of the existing rules/regulations.

If you're so pro-net neutrality.

Would you also be in favor of pro-partisan neutrality with the news media companies?

Ie. 50% segments are pro-Democrats and other 50% are pro-Republicans?

It's only fair.

No, because it is a false analogy.

And it's not "new regulations". It's a continuation of a open network principle we have already had for almost 10 years.

 whembly wrote:
But the end goal of Net Neutrality was to treat ALL network traffic the same. If it was still in place, ISP couldn't throttle users of torrent/p2p traffic by simply being torrent/p2p traffic.

The FCC makes a distinction between network management and blocking. There is a big difference between throttling a torrent user who passes 3TB a month in data, and what will now be allowed: Google to deliver 404's for Yahoo Mail in the venues it supplies fiber.

i. Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network
management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their
broadband services;

ii. No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications,
services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful
websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony
services; and

iii. No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably
discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.

Not exactly War & Peace.

 Frazzled wrote:
Lets leave that off the discussion eh?

but why fraaaaaaaaaaazled.



Okay... ya'll don't answer that.

Is access to the internets, should that be on the same level of "access rights" as it is for standard utility (ie, power, water, gas)??

In this day an age? Yeah, probably. Most people who want it can afford it sure, but do we really need to be encouraging companies to form regional monopolies where they proceed to price gouge and then hand them a free pass to gouge even more?

I'd be fine with the status quo as it is if I actually had a choice in my provider, cause you know, then they'd have to actually compete with each other to provide a better service instead of just buying out the rights to the area like some kind of fief and some changes to renters protection laws (land lords should not be able to dictate which cable provider I can use like they did to me in PA).

Alternatively, I'd be fine with internet service going the way of radio or roads, with the government providing the organization and infrastructure and then selling it to providers who then sell it to me and some of that money going back to the government to pay for more infrastructure. At least then there'd be some kind of forced standard, however inefficient it may be, can't possible by much worse than what we have now. They could even treat the internet like highways... Okay not like the interstate and pay the states to build the infrastructure (assuming they don't bungle it up like they did with interstates).

I'm also fine with telling ISP's to suck it up for the benefit of pretty much everyone else in the country.

 LordofHats wrote:

Is access to the internets, should that be on the same level of "access rights" as it is for standard utility (ie, power, water, gas)??

In this day an age? Yeah, probably. Most people who want it can afford it sure, but do we really need to be encouraging companies to form regional monopolies where they proceed to price gouge and then hand them a free pass to gouge even more?

I'd be fine with the status quo as it is if I actually had a choice in my provider, cause you know, then they'd have to actually compete with each other to provide a better service instead of just buying out the rights to the area like some kind of fief and some changes to renters protection laws (land lords should not be able to dictate which cable provider I can use like they did to me in PA).

Alternatively, I'd be fine with internet service going the way of radio or roads, with the government providing the organization and infrastructure and then selling it to providers who then sell it to me and some of that money going back to the government to pay for more infrastructure. At least then there'd be some kind of forced standard, however inefficient it may be, can't possible by much worse than what we have now. They could even treat the internet like highways... Okay not like the interstate and pay the states to build the infrastructure (assuming they don't bungle it up like they did with interstates).

I'm also fine with telling ISP's to suck it up for the benefit of pretty much everyone else in the country.

Yeah... the question would be... how do we get there?

Like I said few posts back... this may all be moot as capacity is rapidly increasing (at least in the US... I have no fething clue whats going on outside of the states). Ten years from now, we won't be able to consume the network traffic at capacity.

The other possibility is that once some ISP runs rampant with this, Congress will finally get their gak together and resolve it, at long last.

I think the worries I've read in the last few days are probably unrealistic and doubt they will actually happen.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Wait, how does this affect the UK?
The US is not the world people:

I can't shake the feeling that there should be a lot more red dots on that map...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think additional charges for individual web sites would work in the UK.

Capacity is so cheap already, as long as you don't live in the middle of nowhere, that it's hard to see why any more money needs to be paid.

My phone line costs me about 20GBP a month including free evening and weekend calls and unlimited broadband data at about 13mbps (effective rate). I live in a not very well provided area. You can get much faster internet in cities.

Boy, That's far from what I pay, in a bigish city. Don't laugh. I barely hit the 1mbps on a good day.

And from the OP... a limit of 500mb of transfer? That's one episode of a series per month?

To put it in an individualist way:

Would you like it if ISPs could decide what parts of the Internet you get to watch or not?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
To put it in an individualist way:

Would you like it if ISPs could decide what parts of the Internet you get to watch or not?

Can't visit Dakka on our plans. I guess you could subscribe to another provider. What's that? We're the only provider in your region? Well, that's just too bad. *Starts rubbing nipples sensually*

 Soladrin wrote:
Our government is very much for the defense of net-neutrality so I'm pretty sure we are fine.

Well in the words of David Cross, "If the terrorists hated freedom, then the Netherlands would be fething dust."

 Frazzled wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
DogofWar has the way of it methinks.

I'm sorry, but you're talking about nationalizing the intranetz. This is brought to you by the people who brought you Obamacare. Seriously?

If you worried about oligopolies you just made it a government monopoly. When was the last time the govenrment was innovative in anything except taxation methods? How's that DMV thing working out?

We're not talking about nationalizing the internet. We're talking about nationalizing the "series of tubes," to ensure they remain open for all corporations and websites.

In essence, it would function similar to the radio spectrum, in that the government owns the spectrum and then makes it available. The way the government has leased the spectrum via a command and control structure (basically exclusive licenses to corporations and groups) has been criticized and the FCC is moving towards a more open form of allocating spectrum to ensure it goes to the highest valued user. Taking the tubes would result in a similar system, and one that, with the government coming around to favor unlicensed use or easier to gain licenses, would mean ISPs could easily spring up around the country.

Under such a system, it's highly likely we'd go from usually 1 or 2 ISPs for a given area, to 4-5 or more, especially in high density areas. The reason we only have 1-2 ISPs in an area is because making the tubes is so damn expensive. Remove that cost and the ISP market becomes vastly more diverse within a matter of a couple years.

What could be done once the government owns the "tubes" is basically setting up regional monopolies for the "tubes," that is corporations with capped profit margins who are paid by ISPs for use of the tubes, and who maintain the fiber/whatever with that money. It'd be somewhat similar to regional power companies or water companies.

Anything where ISPs get relatively cheap access to the infrastructure to provide an internet service is VASTLY preferable to the current situation of Comcast and Verizon owning all the infrastructure, and locking everyone else out by the inherent barriers to entry mixed with exorbitant license costs to use their infrastructure.

Time Warner cable is still around you know. Just saying (at least they had a cool mascot in the 90's).

 whembly wrote:
Like I said few posts back... this may all be moot as capacity is rapidly increasing (at least in the US... I have no fething clue whats going on outside of the states).

You're assuming that this is about legitimate capacity issues rather than an opportunity for ISPs to extort additional profits, and that no new technology will appear to consume more capacity. After all, people in 1990 probably thought that there was plenty of capacity for text-only internet and had no idea that streaming video would ever exist and dominate internet traffic.

This sounds very different to the way the UK works. - Not that I understand how that goes.

BT owns the main bulk of the actual infrastructure / cabling here (though Virgin are doing their own work with virgin cable, I think). Yet, we have lots of companies, including some relatively small ones, like the growing Plusnet (from Yorkshire :p), who I believe then license from BT.



Yeah, I contributed nothing here...

 Ouze wrote:
The other possibility is that once some ISP runs rampant with this, Congress will finally get their gak together and resolve it, at long last.

I think the worries I've read in the last few days are probably unrealistic and doubt they will actually happen.

Agreed.

I still need to talk to my brother about this... but, he's outta town till this weekend. I hope this topic is still around till then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Like I said few posts back... this may all be moot as capacity is rapidly increasing (at least in the US... I have no fething clue whats going on outside of the states).

You're assuming that this is about legitimate capacity issues rather than an opportunity for ISPs to extort additional profits, and that no new technology will appear to consume more capacity. After all, people in 1990 probably thought that there was plenty of capacity for text-only internet and had no idea that streaming video would ever exist and dominate internet traffic.

Heh...

We'll see eh?

As to streaming video... we've ALWAYS knew it was coming and we always knew the internet was going to explode.

The next big thing is when IPv6 becomes more mainstream on the consumer end.

 LordofHats wrote:




Is so true its god damn scary.

This. So much this...

Frazzled wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Well, you know how when you pay for cable TV, there might be only 3 or 4 channels that you regularly watch, but you have to pay for a package of 200 anyway? Think like that, but for your internet now.

how is that different then what I'm doing now?

whembly wrote:It used to be that Netflix wouldn't pay the services providers (aka, Charter) to use their infrastructure to provide streaming.

I'll make this brief. Our legislators have been grappling with the notion of forcing cable companies to offer channels/content ala carte. It's not law yet, but this is not dissimilar from the legislation passed on cell phone service providers. The days of astronomical roaming or overage charges, or charging for text messages individually. They were forced to bring overage rates down to a cost related pricing structure, and also simplify the way you where charged. Mobile data will be on the chopping block soon, my provider charges $12.99 for every 512mb over! But this to shall pass.

Point being, with our other services being pushed to one end of the scale at the federal level, it makes no sense that they would allow this kind of pricing structure at the other. So I think it's fair to assume that this will not take hold.

Addendum: As mentioned previously, the Internet doesn't live in America. That being said, netflix, google, or whoever, would simply use oversees servers. Which solves everybody's problems except ours (Americans).

If big ISPs are stupid enough to challenge porn, they will lose, and lose hard.

If there's one thing you don't mess with in the USA, it's allowing adults to have access to porn in the privacy of their homes. Moral guardians fight it, and it looks good to some, but when the chips are on the table, you don't mess with the porn industry. VHS won because of porn, DVD won because of porn, the internet is what it is today because of porn.

Congress will never admit it, but if ISPs dick around with porn, something will get passed.

Yes, it's true that America is not the world. But you'd be pretty blind to note take not that they're a very important part of it, and that a lot of legislation that they do pass ends up making waves, especially when it concerns things like technology and copyright.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
If big ISPs are stupid enough to challenge porn, they will lose, and lose hard.

If there's one thing you don't mess with in the USA, it's allowing adults to have access to porn in the privacy of their homes. Moral guardians fight it, and it looks good to some, but when the chips are on the table, you don't mess with the porn industry. VHS won because of porn, DVD won because of porn, the internet is what it is today because of porn.

Congress will never admit it, but if ISPs dick around with porn, something will get passed.

ISP doesn't want to challenge pr0n.

The ISPs and Adult Industries wanted to have their own TLD (top level domain) called ".xxx" to be the red light district of the internet... but ICANN refused to approve that.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
If big ISPs are stupid enough to challenge porn, they will lose, and lose hard.

If there's one thing you don't mess with in the USA, it's allowing adults to have access to porn in the privacy of their homes. Moral guardians fight it, and it looks good to some, but when the chips are on the table, you don't mess with the porn industry. VHS won because of porn, DVD won because of porn, the internet is what it is today because of porn.

Congress will never admit it, but if ISPs dick around with porn, something will get passed.

Porn, hero of the internet. That said, I doubt that porn cares much about free porn sites as much as its cares about paid for ones.

 LordofHats wrote:

Porn, hero of the internet. That said, I doubt that porn cares much about free porn sites as much as its cares about paid for ones.

Free porn nowadays is basically on the same model as youtube, that is, lots and lots of ads. So there's still money there for them.

The problem for porn would be uniting the industry in solidarity against ISPs, as they're rather separated right now.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
If big ISPs are stupid enough to challenge porn, they will lose, and lose hard.