Net Neutrality - Who needs it ?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

¿What do we get for free currently?

Well understood is that people prefer to pay a fixed fee for unlimited service rather than being nickeled and dimed for usage. The fixed fee tend to create a feeling of 'free'. Charges by the minute or consumption tends to make people feel they are paying for everything.

A mobile phone with unlimited usage. A Scandanavian country tried that once. Then discovered people using their mobile phones constantly connected as baby monitors. That didn't work.

[Undertoad]

Us: "We want a full double rainbow!"



Starbucks: "Our studies show that people's favorite color is blue. Many people coming to our stores are looking for a full double rainbow, but sometimes this is because they want blue. So we are offering a great deal: as much free blue as you want. Our designers have chosen a shade that we feel you'll agree is calming and interesting. You can have the full double rainbow if you want, but believe us, blue is really cool."



Google/Verizon: "We know you want a full double rainbow, and in fact our entire business model is based on providing it wherever and whenever you want it. But there are no regulatory agencies that can guarantee that to you. So we've come up with a compromise: everybody gets a full double rainbow at home, and on mobile devices, either half a double rainbow, or a single rainbow that people can look at twice."

[BrianR]

and UT nails it!

[ZenGum]

Dammit, I said a DOUBLE COMPLETE RAINBOW. What is your problem, are you off drugs?

[spudcon]

http://www.tvkim.com/watch/435/kim-o...lity-explained

[Pico and ME]

Isn't her query about 'who do you want calling all the shots' misleading? I mean, as in, 'do you really want the government calling all the shots about internet traffic'. Would that really be the case with internet neutrality? Or is this just a scare tactic.

[Happy Monkey]

And she says that "unimportant" stuff shouldn't have as high priority as "important" stuff. Then she asks who I want deciding what's important, and pops up the COX logo, as if they are a good option?

No, I want nobody to make that decision, and the FCC making sure that COX doesn't.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

Isn't her query about 'who do you want calling all the shots' misleading? I mean, as in, 'do you really want the government calling all the shots about internet traffic'.

How many years does it take to forget lessons from history? The internet is stories about why one industry - also called the 'last mile' - cannot be trusted.

For example, when was DSL available? 1981. Same year that the IBM PC came out. One year before MacIntosh existed. That meant data communication at 1,000,000 bits per second. What were we provided maximum? 1200 bits per second.

For 15 years, we were stuck with a maximum 50,000 bits per second - less in most places - because these companies could be trusted.

So Bill Clinton passed the 1996 Federal Communication Act. It said, if a communication company did not offer at least 1,000,000 bits per second, then anyone could provide it on their lines. Suddenly Verizon and Comcast had to innovate.

Welcome to some industries who will do anything to screw you - to increase their profits at the expense of America.

Well George Jr came to power. Said government was the problem. So Powell's son and a Republican congress removed the 1996 Communication act. Suddenly upstart communication companies were driven out of business by the few big boys. These politicians said it would increase competition. Reality: these Republicans were getting massive campaign contributions from Verizon, Comcast, et al.

So you love it that you only have two Internet choices? Internet costs in American are increasing compared to the rest of the industrial world. US internet bandwidth has now fallen to somewhere below 10th on the list for Internet bandwidth access - and it still dropping.

A duopoly has increased your internet costs. And is attempting to incur additional costs for access to services such as Bit-torrent and Google. Is this good for you? Is this good for America? Yes according to those who blame government. Who removed government oversight from Communications, Securities industry, and in so many other places that then provided less service.

How quickly were these lessons forgotten? Comcast in particular has a problem. They must double their cables to handle the load. Technology says they can provide that service at same costs - as happens in any productive industry. So Comcast wants to change the rules. Want even more freedom to also control the information sources (ie NBC).

At what point do history lessons say why American broadband access is decreasing compared to the rest of the industrial world? When oversight was removed, they simply played money games to eliminate competition and raise prices. Even subverted Skype traffic. Which , BTW, is now legal for them to do again.

Or read lessons taught by the destruction of Covad.

When are profits more important than the product - and this is good?

[tw]

What Kim Kommando forgets to include as an example. All phone calls are also prioritized. Gossip was obstructed because it also was not important. Or we deal with reality. The internet must grow to handle all traffic just as the phone system had to grow to even handle gossip.

She has simply hyped a myth used by 'last mile' providers to increase profits. As if Comcast's profits were not high enough. They even built the highest building in Philadelphia because the internet is so unprofitable. In places where interent traffic is heavier (ie Korea), net neutrality works just fine. And access rates are lower. But then Korea does not have a duopoly. Strange how the internet has no problem in Korea where interent provider invest in infastructure - not skyscrapers and TV networks.

[Lamplighter]

This FCC proposal regarding the traditional "internet" seems reasonable to me,
especially the part about allowing a separate cable system for heavy use businesses.

I still have no idea about what it means for "wireless" users.
I see the advantages of wireless internet for the service-industry people who must travel to do their work.
But watching movies on "smart" phones doesn't raise my passions.

This article has a more details.

NYTimes
F.C.C. Chairman Outlines Broadband Framework
By EDWARD WYATT
Published: December 1, 2010

WASHINGTON — Thwarted by the courts, by lawmakers on Capitol Hill and by some of his fellow commissioners,
the Federal Communications Commission chairman will try again on Wednesday to devise a new strategy for regulating
broadband Internet service providers.

In a speech he plans to give Wednesday in Washington, Julius Genachowski, the F.C.C. chairman,
will outline a framework for broadband Internet service that forbids both wired and wireless Internet
service providers from blocking lawful content.
But the proposal would allow broadband providers to charge consumers different rates for different
levels of service, according to a text of the speech provided to The New York Times.

The proposal will allow broadband companies to impose usage-based pricing, charging customers higher prices
if they make heavy use of data-rich applications like streaming movies.
Users who use the Internet only to check e-mail, for example, could be charged lower prices for using less data.

Mr. Genachowski will also face significant opposition from Republicans in the House of Representatives,
who last month warned against attempts to regulate broadband service and the Internet.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But watching movies on "smart" phones doesn't raise my passions.

Nor mine, but I can see people trapped in cubicles wanting it.

Mr. Genachowski will also face significant opposition from Republicans in the House of Representatives,
who last month warned against attempts to regulate broadband service and the Internet.

It's astonishing they've managed to convince people that bitch continuously about being raped by cable providers, that government rules to prevent at least some of that, and try to keep it from getting worse, is a bad thing.

[tw]

Comcast is again going to war to maximize their profits at the expense of net neutrality. Comcast says that Netflix are being downloaded mostly from the Level3 backbone. So Comcast wants to surcharge Level3 for connections to Comcast customers. Comcast now want to restrict access to the internet.

Comcast can do this because Comcast got classified as an information provides - not a data transporter. And the Supreme Court has, essentially, banned the FCC from enforcing rules that protect net neutrality.

It's just a matter of time before Comcast goes back to subvert Skype packets so that users will be force to use Comcast telephones - not Skype. Even that is now legal thanks to a Supreme Court ruling (and the monopoly created by Michael Powell last decade).

Comcast needs more cash to pay for a 50 story skyscraper, NBC, Tivo, and other purchases.

[richlevy]

Check out the current Comcast/Level 3 dispute. Level 3 wants to deliver netflix via broadband. Comcast is about to acquire NBC/Universal. This would put them into the position of owning content and distribution, which is why they have not yet gotten approval. If they intend to charge Level 3 a fee but not charge themselves the same fee for their content....


http://seekingalpha.com/article/2397...o-is-laughable

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...288688392.html

[TheMercenary]

I have been reading that the FCC has been directed to do an end-around on the slow pace of the Congressional action and that their rules will attempt to add other things like content control.

[tw]

Who is so bought and paid for as to want net neutrality subverted? From the Washington Post of 17 Dec 2010:

Sen. Hutchison moves to block funds for FCC on net neutrality rules
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), ranking member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee filed an amendment to an appropriations bill aimed at preventing the Federal Communications Commission from adopting net neutrality regulation.

Hutchison's amendment, co-signed by John Ensign (R-Nev.) and six other Republican lawmakers, would "prohibit the FCC from using any appropriated funds to adopt, implement or otherwise litigate any network neutrality based rules, protocols or standards." ...

The FCC's five commissioners are deliberating draft rules proposed by Chairman Julius Genachowski that would prevent Internet service providers from blocking access to Web sites or favoring the access to some content over others.

Companies such as Comcast would have to earn their profits by innovating rather than by subverting other services to extract more money.

These same extremists changed the rule so that all internet providers, but two, were driven from the market. These extremist said two big companies was better than many innovative internet providers. Since then, broadband in America has been quickly decreasing compared to all other OECD nations. Decreasing in average bandwidth. And decreasing in broadband availability. Subverting principles of the 1996 Federal Communication laws that essentially said, "either you provide broadband or anyone else can provide it on your lines".

How dare government require companies to innovate. Extremists said a duopoly is better. These same extremists say Comcast subverting Skype data packets is both good and desirable. That surcharging Netflix is good so that consumers instead will buy same and more expensive services from Comcast.

Remember when cable TV was $8 per month? Why are consumers now paying more than $100 per month? Free markets and competition?

FCC should no longer stop corrupt actions. Comcast should have the right to buy any software they want to corrupt Skype packets. And should have the right to lie about doing same. That means more campaign contributions from companies such as Comcast. The political agenda is far more important than the consumer.

What might we expect next from these same politicians? Hate of Muslims? Hate of gays? Do anything to make Obama fail? The internet should be a profit center only for the highest paid executives. Executives who can now contribute all they want to buy their favorite politicians. Screw net neutrality when a political agenda is far more important.

It started when the 1996 Federal Communication Act was subverted in the early 2000. Changed to drive out free markets and competition. What happened to companies such as Covad or PSINet? Apparently the only free market that should remain free is the one that buys politicians.