Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25

Thread: Net Neutrality

  1. #1
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan
    Age
    31
    Posts
    6,438

    Question Net Neutrality

    Aka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality Sorry if theres a massive thread somewhere on this I dont know about.

    Okay so I am having trouble keeping up with everything the Obama Administration is trying to slide in. I have ALWAYS supported the idea of Net Neutrality and now there is legislation being put through to finnaly act on it. However Obama is supporting it and that right there makes me question what's really going on. That and a friend of mine happens to be very against this current legislation and is telling me theres more to it than meets the eye. That somehow its giving the FCC power?

    Where am I missing the boat (asuming I am). I want the internet to be the free open competitve innovative marketplace it currently is. Cable companies like Comcast know that internet TV and sites like eztv are the future and are killing the sales on their big expensive cable tv packages. I dont want them to be able to limit or restrict access to those things as they see fit. However I dont want the FCC to have control over these things either. Technically if it really is Net Neutrality no one would have the control/power to limit these things right?

  2. #2
    Joined
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    5,171

    Re: Net Neutrality

    they'll probably start saying we can't cus and can't have a hot babes thread and all sorts of other nonsense.
    Max Plank: "A new scientific truth does not
    triumph by convincing its opponents and making them
    see the light,
    but rather because its opponents eventually die"
    Arthur Shopenhauer: "Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized.
    First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is opposed. Third, it is regarded as self evident."
    Martin Niemöller:
    "When the Nazis came for the communists,
    I remained silent;I was not a communist.
    When they locked up the social democrats,I remained silent;
    I was not a social democrat.When they came for the trade unionists,I did not speak out;
    I was not a trade unionist.When they came for the Jews,
    I remained silent;I wasn't a Jew.When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out."

  3. #3
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    8

    Re: Net Neutrality

    we will turn into china

  4. #4
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Crazy AZ USA
    Posts
    3,516

    Re: Net Neutrality

    If I read it right, this is about business competition- not privacy rights (although there is some overlap). What this means is basically that a company like an ISP can not restrict reasonable services from another company- even if it is a competing ISP.

    Because of our internet "Domain" structure, it is relatively easy for an ISP to restrict or delay the throughput of another ISP. This is a pretty hot button item as you have some services like bit-torrent that burden a system's bandwidth. Many throttles and restrictions are in place to actually help the provider give their paying users preference so that there is less impedance for their useage of video links, etc. Many times the "lag" you have in games is due to this throttling which can actually be a physical limitation on the system or an ISP giving preference to its users.

    Technological advances in routing and standards (like IPV6) should help throughput immensely, but like we say in the industry- demand tends to eventually consume all available resources.

    There are also competing applications among ISPs like anti-virus packages or firewalls, etc, etc, one ISP may use domain resources that are not available in another ISP. etc. etc.

    It's a needed conversation and one not easy to handle.
    Last edited by AeroSim; 10-22-2009 at 09:42 AM. Reason: sp

  5. #5
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,163

    Re: Net Neutrality

    Not to worry.. once we turn control of ICANN over to the U.N. the issue will fix itself just as Kamlanie suggests.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  6. #6
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,707

    Re: Net Neutrality

    I don't know what china (that got google to install filters) or the UN (UNDS?) has to do with this debate that has been going on for years, but for a look at the issues and players via the articles written about the situation over time....

    http://www.freepress.net/newsroom/

    It's interesting that Verizon has broken ranks with ATT and Comcast.

    Make up your own minds.
    George Carlin
    Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  7. #7
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Crazy AZ USA
    Posts
    3,516

    Re: Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Not to worry.. once we turn control of ICANN over to the U.N. the issue will fix itself just as Kamlanie suggests.
    The Chinese are more addicted to it than we are.

    Makes you wonder if that's necessarily a bad thing- generating a democratic revolt as well as better hackers against the system.
    "We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government....

    Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business."

    William Jennings Bryan.

  8. #8
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,707

    Re: Net Neutrality

    Odd, no mention of the UN here, and wasn't this the guy who proclaimed not being on top of technology during the last election? lol, the Internet Freedom Act will allow ATT to stop VoIP from being used over their network and for Comcast to decide what we download?

    Tony Bradley, PC World | Friday, October 23, 2009 7:02 AM PDT
    McCain Moves to Block FCC Net Neutrality


    The FCC voted unanimously yesterday to move forward with the debate in an effort to formalize net neutrality guidelines. Senator John McCain followed up by introducing a bill that would prohibit the FCC from governing communications.

    In the wake of FCC chairman Julius Genachowski's initial announcement of his intent to pursue formal net neutrality rules, a group of GOP lawmakers already initiated a similar attempt. However, that amendment was retracted almost as quickly as it was filed.


    McCain's bill, the Internet Freedom Act, seeks to do the opposite of what its name implies by ensuring that broadband and wireless providers can discriminate and throttle certain traffic while giving preferential treatment to other traffic. Basically, those in power or those who pay more will have better access. Apparently we have different definitions of ‘freedom'.


    According to the text of the McCain bill, the FCC "shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services." Isn't that what the FCC does? Isn't that sort of like introducing a bill to prohibit the Treasury from printing money, or a bill to prohibit the IRS from collecting taxes?


    Oddly, the bill also contains text stating that any regulations in effect on the day before the Internet Freedom Act is officially enacted are grandfathered in and exempt from the provisions of the Internet Freedom Act. The implication seems to be that if the FCC can formalize net neutrality rules before McCain can get the Internet Freedom Act signed into law, the net neutrality rules would still apply.


    Net neutrality opponents claim that the free market can police itself and that any net neutrality restrictions will stifle innovation and competition. However, Comcast tried to throttle peer-to-peer networking traffic and only changed policy after the threat of FCC net neutrality rules. AT&T sought to block customers from using VoIP services from its wireless network, but changed policy out of fear of the net neutrality rules. The trend seems to be that these providers only do the ‘right thing' when the net neutrality gun is pointing at their head.


    What the FCC voted on yesterday is simply to start the debate. Its an open discussion, so what are net neutrality opponents afraid of? They have 120 days to gather information and collect data and present their case. If there are valid issues that need to be resolved, then go ahead and bring them to the table. Don't initiate legislation that seeks to pretend the table doesn't exist.


    During the Presidential election campaign last year the differences between the two candidates was stark. While Obama was attached surgically to his CrackBerry and his staff leveraged social media from their Macbooks, McCain admitted having little or no knowledge or interest in modern technologies like email or the Internet.


    It seems suspicious that the Internet is suddenly a major concern for him. Maybe he just missed seeing his name in the paper.
    Tony Bradley is an information security and unified communications expert with more than a decade of enterprise IT experience. He tweets as @PCSecurityNews and provides tips, advice and reviews on information security and unified communications technologies on his site at tonybradley.com.
    George Carlin
    Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  9. #9
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Crazy AZ USA
    Posts
    3,516

    Re: Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Odd, no mention of the UN here, and wasn't this the guy who proclaimed not being on top of technology during the last election? lol, the Internet Freedom Act will allow ATT to stop VoIP from being used over their network and for Comcast to decide what we download?
    I think there has been so much overlap with these issues that the lines have been blurred.

    Privacy Rights
    Network Nuetrality
    and Internet Names and Numbers control (ICANN)

    These are really separate issues. However, Big Brother is seen in all of them by everybody, so you have what you have today.
    "We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government....

    Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business."

    William Jennings Bryan.

  10. #10
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Crazy AZ USA
    Posts
    3,516

    Re: Net Neutrality

    ^^^ I also need to add censorship and content control. This is really an issue that has been used to complicate Network Neutrality. If I read this right, Network Neutrailty is as much about competitors trying to figure out when and where to sue as it is about content.

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

    Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for residential broadband networks and potentially for all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.

    The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.

    Though the term did not enter popular use until several years later, since the early 2000s advocates of net neutrality and associated rules have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, protocols), particularly those of competitors. In the US particularly, but elsewhere as well, the possibility of regulations designed to mandate the neutrality of the Internet has been subject to fierce debate.

    Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms.[4] Vinton Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the web, and many others have spoken out strongly in favor of network neutrality.
    "We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government....

    Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business."

    William Jennings Bryan.

  11. #11
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,707

    Re: Net Neutrality

    I guess it is all where one chooses to see Big Brother and where one chooses to see someone looking out for the average user. I'll keep the issues apart, for that is what they are.

    ICANN
    David Coursey | Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:27 PM PDT
    U.S. Loosens Grip On ICANN, Domain Chaos To Follow?


    The U.S. has relaxed its grip on the Internet, thanks to a new agreement with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Widely hailed as an internationalization of Internet governance, the move could also make it more likely consumers will see a huge increase in Global Top-Level Domains (gTLDs).
    Until now, ICANN has largely been a creature of the U.S. Department of Commerce and has sometimes been criticized as a result. The new agreement between ICANN and the U.S. creates a new international management scheme, under which the U.S. has only a single seat at the negotiating table.
    ICANN controls the international domain name and IP address structure that gives the Internet its form. It is also the group that decides which gTLDs, such as .com, .net, and .org can be used.
    While ICANN does other important things, gTLD issues are where it often makes news that directly affects Internet users. The group has been involved in discussions over whether to create an .xxx gTLD for adult sites (it refused) and is under constant pressure to create others.
    Some businesses fear an ICANN proposal that could result in the creation of an unlimited number new gTLDs--things like .football, .sailing, and .softdrink. The additional new gTDs might require companies to purchase large numbers of new domain names to protect their trademarks.
    This could represent a considerable expense for business and create a new and continuing game of cat-and-mouse between trademark owners and infringers.
    U.S. lawmakers have questioned the value of new gTLDs and urged ICANN not to allow their creation. The new agreement between ICANN and the U.S. specifically mentions the issue.
    "Nothing in this document is an expression of support by [the Department of Commerce] of any specific plan or proposal for the implementation of new generic top level domain names or is an expression by DOC of a view that the potential consumer benefits of new gTLDs outweigh the potential costs," the new agreement said.
    My take: It is easy to take a "we invented it and its ours" attitude toward the Internet, but this is shortsighted. Nevertheless, if ICANN unleashes a flood of new gTLDs, businesses worldwide might wish the U.S. had remained more involved.
    David Coursey tweets as @techincter and can be contacted via his Web site.

    Privacy is all about what we allow the government to monitor. I find it not so amusing at least one person who was for tapping email of US citizens without a warrant is now comparing the FCC debate to the situation becoming like China.

    I'll add security into this equation, but once again the FCC is not addressing this issue with Net Neutrality. We need security addressed on a uniform basis, not only for the average user, but for areas that apply to infrastructure on a national level. But gee whiz, that gets blown up into an Obama wants to control the internet and not things like a recent example of a cable supplier giving out routers with huge security holes in them.


    Net Neutrality is this example, where Canada sided with the providers to allow throttling of peer to peer during business hours...
    CRTC net neutrality decision - some progress but more needs to be done
    George Carlin
    Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  12. #12
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Obamaland
    Age
    37
    Posts
    9,532

    Re: Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Bearded Frog View Post
    Aka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality Sorry if theres a massive thread somewhere on this I dont know about.

    Okay so I am having trouble keeping up with everything the Obama Administration is trying to slide in. I have ALWAYS supported the idea of Net Neutrality and now there is legislation being put through to finnaly act on it. However Obama is supporting it and that right there makes me question what's really going on. That and a friend of mine happens to be very against this current legislation and is telling me theres more to it than meets the eye. That somehow its giving the FCC power?

    Where am I missing the boat (asuming I am). I want the internet to be the free open competitve innovative marketplace it currently is. Cable companies like Comcast know that internet TV and sites like eztv are the future and are killing the sales on their big expensive cable tv packages. I dont want them to be able to limit or restrict access to those things as they see fit. However I dont want the FCC to have control over these things either. Technically if it really is Net Neutrality no one would have the control/power to limit these things right?

    So tell me how Obama's stance on a topic can make you instantly question your own?
    However, if you're a capitalist; you would be against Net Neutrality.


    As another election draws near; the G.O.P. are yet again filled with a stupid confidence that the they will win the White House. What they don't realize about people like Trump, Carson, and Cruz is that their rhetoric only resonates within an echo chamber, but not the American people. They live in an illusion of falsehood and distorted truth and only seek information and opinions that confirm these beliefs and instantly reject anything that contradicts them because only their opinions matter. Their notion of freedom is freedom for themselves and those alike to them, but not the rest of the country which has changed.
    These are the reasons why the G.O.P is set to lose in 2016. And when that happens, rest assured that they will have myriad of conspiracy theories blaming everyone and everything from the liberal media, to Oprah, to welfare moms, and pretty much everyone but their own disgusting selves.



  13. #13
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan
    Age
    31
    Posts
    6,438

    Re: Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by JustinC939 View Post
    So tell me how Obama's stance on a topic can make you instantly question your own?
    However, if you're a capitalist; you would be against Net Neutrality.
    Because I haven't agreed with a single thing hes done ever. I think hes a terrible person, a terrible president, and I dont care for his disgusting tactics as a president. Therefore when he says something I agree with I have to wonder what and where his alterior motive is, because so far there has always been one hiding.

    I really don't see how it is being un-capitalistic (is that a word) to oppose unfair business tactics. An example: This isn't a case of Comcast being better than Hulu and winning out. Its Comcast not allowing Hulu to have fair competition. It's hard to relate it to normal competition because normally your competitor doesnt control access to your product.

    Maybe I am crazy and have read into this all incorrectly. Maybe I am drinking Obama's cool-aid on this one but I am not seeing it.

  14. #14
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,707

    Re: Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Bearded Frog View Post
    Because I haven't agreed with a single thing hes done ever. I think hes a terrible person, a terrible president, and I dont care for his disgusting tactics as a president. Therefore when he says something I agree with I have to wonder what and where his alterior motive is, because so far there has always been one hiding.

    I really don't see how it is being un-capitalistic (is that a word) to oppose unfair business tactics. An example: This isn't a case of Comcast being better than Hulu and winning out. Its Comcast not allowing Hulu to have fair competition. It's hard to relate it to normal competition because normally your competitor doesnt control access to your product.

    Maybe I am crazy and have read into this all incorrectly. Maybe I am drinking Obama's cool-aid on this one but I am not seeing it.
    Perhaps if you simply threw out the ODS and looked at it from 2 perspectives...

    One, this debate has been going on for several administrations.

    Two, what Comcast and ATT are proposing is that they will decide what you can and can not access via their services not that a competitor has access to their product.

    The "product" under discussion is internet access. Do you wish it to be something that is censored? Or something that allows you to use any features you wish to access?

    If I use a peer to peer or a VoIP service, I am not accessing duplicate systems of that nature that Comcast and ATT have in place, I am accessing top level access to the internet.

    Your original post is in conflict with your original post, for what the FCC is doing is not controlling what you access, just proposing to stop anyone else from doing it.

    The issue at hand is cutting off services. It's a good debate that needs to realize the infrastructure that companies invest in, while acknowledging what public systems they use. In other words, what you get from ATT and Comcast when you use them is more than what you just get from their direct investments. If they can decide without oversight what public portions you can use and not use, well, that is one way to not protect the public and private investment in the infrastructure. Another way is to allow all use and assume that competition will breed competition with peer to peer, on demand video, and VoIP services.
    George Carlin
    Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  15. #15
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Crazy AZ USA
    Posts
    3,516

    Re: Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Perhaps if you simply threw out the ODS and looked at it from 2 perspectives...

    One, this debate has been going on for several administrations.

    Two, what Comcast and ATT are proposing is that they will decide what you can and can not access via their services not that a competitor has access to their product.

    The "product" under discussion is internet access. Do you wish it to be something that is censored? Or something that allows you to use any features you wish to access?

    If I use a peer to peer or a VoIP service, I am not accessing duplicate systems of that nature that Comcast and ATT have in place, I am accessing top level access to the internet.

    Your original post is in conflict with your original post, for what the FCC is doing is not controlling what you access, just proposing to stop anyone else from doing it.

    The issue at hand is cutting off services. It's a good debate that needs to realize the infrastructure that companies invest in, while acknowledging what public systems they use. In other words, what you get from ATT and Comcast when you use them is more than what you just get from their direct investments. If they can decide without oversight what public portions you can use and not use, well, that is one way to not protect the public and private investment in the infrastructure. Another way is to allow all use and assume that competition will breed competition with peer to peer, on demand video, and VoIP services.
    That is about my read on it too. And it's not an easy process as ISPs want to offer unique values and do things like block ports to protect their constituents (I know Comcast blocks a number of ports for good reason- but may be a restriction to another ISP). My main issue with my ISP is it's restrictions on some VPN resources. So it's a question of what changes to make it work.

    Once they have a standard for everyone to work with, things should stablize- but it also gives hackers known quantities to work with too.

    Stay tuned.
    Last edited by AeroSim; 10-29-2009 at 10:40 AM.
    "We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government....

    Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business."

    William Jennings Bryan.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •