I'm curious.

Why isn't there a discussion on this board about Net Neutrality and the FCC Proposal on it? It's something that affects all of us and is actually something most of us agree on.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi...n/8994875/

You should pay for what you use. It's really simple. Like everyone else, I wouldn't like it but I pay a lot for filet.

I'm very much in favor of net neutrality. Startups that don't have the resources to pay for faster access to end users will suffer. That's bad for innovation. Cable companies are struggling to support a dying business model rather than adapting.

The solution is to classify internet service providers as common carriers so they have to provide equal access to everyone. Internet providers should be classified as utilities. That really is what they are.

In some ways ISPs are treated as if they are common carriers. For example, they aren't held responsible for the activities of their end users. If an ISP is simply in the business of transferring data to and from a user, they have no liability for the actual contents of that data. That's why an ISP isn't held liable if a user is transmitting illegal content such as violating the DMCA or if the user is launching attacks against other computers. Since ISPs aren't in the business of inspecting traffic and treat all traffic equally, they aren't liable for this behavior. Although ISPs are classified as information services and aren't technically common carriers, they benefit from some such protections.

If net neutrality ends (and I fear it will) and the ISPs take an active role in giving better quality of service to certain traffic, then they are in the business of inspecting traffic. In that case, an ISP ought to forfeit other benefits they get from acting like common carriers. That is, any ISP that is providing tiered service based on the type of traffic ought to be held responsible for the data that is moving through. If ISPs are in the business of tiering types of traffic, they ought to forfeit any common carrier protections, and thus be liable for users who do illegal things like sharing pirated music, movies, and software. After all, the ISP no longer acts like a common carrier, so they shouldn't enjoy any such protections.

I really don't want an ISP snooping through traffic, nor am I convinced it's feasible for them to do so for the purpose of filtering illegal content. Rather, I'd like to think it would make tiering traffic based on its type so undesirable that net neutrality would be preserved.

(05-13-2014 08:17 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  I'm very much in favor of net neutrality. Startups that don't have the resources to pay for faster access to end users will suffer. That's bad for innovation. Cable companies are struggling to support a dying business model rather than adapting.

The solution is to classify internet service providers as common carriers so they have to provide equal access to everyone. Internet providers should be classified as utilities. That really is what they are.

In some ways ISPs are treated as if they are common carriers. For example, they aren't held responsible for the activities of their end users. If an ISP is simply in the business of transferring data to and from a user, they have no liability for the actual contents of that data. That's why an ISP isn't held liable if a user is transmitting illegal content such as violating the DMCA or if the user is launching attacks against other computers. Since ISPs aren't in the business of inspecting traffic and treat all traffic equally, they aren't liable for this behavior. Although ISPs are classified as information services and aren't technically common carriers, they benefit from some such protections.

If net neutrality ends (and I fear it will) and the ISPs take an active role in giving better quality of service to certain traffic, then they are in the business of inspecting traffic. In that case, an ISP ought to forfeit other benefits they get from acting like common carriers. That is, any ISP that is providing tiered service based on the type of traffic ought to be held responsible for the data that is moving through. If ISPs are in the business of tiering types of traffic, they ought to forfeit any common carrier protections, and thus be liable for users who do illegal things like sharing pirated music, movies, and software. After all, the ISP no longer acts like a common carrier, so they shouldn't enjoy any such protections.

I really don't want an ISP snooping through traffic, nor am I convinced it's feasible for them to do so for the purpose of filtering illegal content. Rather, I'd like to think it would make tiering traffic based on its type so undesirable that net neutrality would be preserved.

Bingo. Removing Net Neutrality would hurt businesses and give ISPs far more control over their customers.

A company's business model is their own discretion, not the government's.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(05-13-2014 08:07 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  You should pay for what you use. It's really simple. Like everyone else, I wouldn't like it but I pay a lot for filet.

On some level I agree, however, do we really want to skew the playing field of business even more. Won't those with the most money ALWAYS win squelching out some little guys that may actually have a better idea?

(05-13-2014 08:37 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  A company's business model is their own discretion, not the government's.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

So an ISP should be able to charge websites money in order to increase their customers' speed to said websites? It's damn near blackmail.

This would drive the cost of streaming services, such as Netflix up, as well as allow ISPs to charge even more.

(05-13-2014 09:11 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 08:37 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  A company's business model is their own discretion, not the government's.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

So an ISP should be able to charge websites money in order to increase their customers' speed to said websites? It's damn near blackmail.

This would drive the cost of streaming services, such as Netflix up, as well as allow ISPs to charge even more.

If they think that model will succeed, they are free to try it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I think we did net neutrality to death last time.

(05-13-2014 08:37 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  A company's business model is their own discretion, not the government's.

That is great when you are truly in an open market... but internet connectivity is not an open market. It is a duopoly due to issues with right of ways and wiring thus it has to be regulated as a utility, IMO.

I think Love and Honor hit the nail on the head... I agree wholeheartedly with his post (and I work as a network engineer).

(05-13-2014 09:11 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 08:37 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  A company's business model is their own discretion, not the government's.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

So an ISP should be able to charge websites money in order to increase their customers' speed to said websites? It's damn near blackmail.

This would drive the cost of streaming services, such as Netflix up, as well as allow ISPs to charge even more.

Then don't use those services, right? If no one comes, price goes down. If it's a smash hit they charge what they can. Why is this any different than a concert? I caught Dave Mathews as a bar band for about 6 bucks. Ten years later he was commanding 65-500. Maybe I'm missing something here, but why the distinction?

Why some of you have a never failing devotion and confidence in "government" to do things "right" and make things" fair" is well beyond me. You really want to trust the Government to micromanage our sources of information and entertainment? What happens when some activist group on one side or the other has an objection to something Ooooofensive? Is government now the arbiter of what adults can decide to allow into their own homes? Either buy it or not, simple choice.

(05-14-2014 08:58 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 09:11 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 08:37 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  A company's business model is their own discretion, not the government's.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

So an ISP should be able to charge websites money in order to increase their customers' speed to said websites? It's damn near blackmail.

This would drive the cost of streaming services, such as Netflix up, as well as allow ISPs to charge even more.

Then don't use those services, right? If no one comes, price goes down. If it's a smash hit they charge what they can. Why is this any different than a concert? I caught Dave Mathews as a bar band for about 6 bucks. Ten years later he was commanding 65-500. Maybe I'm missing something here, but why the distinction?

Why some of you have a never failing devotion and confidence in "government" to do things "right" and make things" fair" is well beyond me. You really want to trust the Government to micromanage our sources of information and entertainment? What happens when some activist group on one side or the other has an objection to something Ooooofensive? Is government now the arbiter of what adults can decide to allow into their own homes? Either buy it or not, simple choice.

So, you support ISPs being able to price gouge you and slow down your internet?

(05-14-2014 09:01 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 08:58 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 09:11 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 08:37 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  A company's business model is their own discretion, not the government's.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

So an ISP should be able to charge websites money in order to increase their customers' speed to said websites? It's damn near blackmail.

This would drive the cost of streaming services, such as Netflix up, as well as allow ISPs to charge even more.

Then don't use those services, right? If no one comes, price goes down. If it's a smash hit they charge what they can. Why is this any different than a concert? I caught Dave Mathews as a bar band for about 6 bucks. Ten years later he was commanding 65-500. Maybe I'm missing something here, but why the distinction?

Why some of you have a never failing devotion and confidence in "government" to do things "right" and make things" fair" is well beyond me. You really want to trust the Government to micromanage our sources of information and entertainment? What happens when some activist group on one side or the other has an objection to something Ooooofensive? Is government now the arbiter of what adults can decide to allow into their own homes? Either buy it or not, simple choice.

So, you support ISPs being able to price gouge you and slow down your internet?

Of course not. so I'd move to the "other" guy. Do you support the local gas station price gouging and having one pump open to slow you down? Of course not, you'd go across the street.

Last thing I want is the government running them, be they gas stations or much anything else, including my choice of ISP.

(05-14-2014 09:06 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 09:01 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 08:58 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 09:11 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 08:37 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  A company's business model is their own discretion, not the government's.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

So an ISP should be able to charge websites money in order to increase their customers' speed to said websites? It's damn near blackmail.

This would drive the cost of streaming services, such as Netflix up, as well as allow ISPs to charge even more.

Then don't use those services, right? If no one comes, price goes down. If it's a smash hit they charge what they can. Why is this any different than a concert? I caught Dave Mathews as a bar band for about 6 bucks. Ten years later he was commanding 65-500. Maybe I'm missing something here, but why the distinction?

Why some of you have a never failing devotion and confidence in "government" to do things "right" and make things" fair" is well beyond me. You really want to trust the Government to micromanage our sources of information and entertainment? What happens when some activist group on one side or the other has an objection to something Ooooofensive? Is government now the arbiter of what adults can decide to allow into their own homes? Either buy it or not, simple choice.

So, you support ISPs being able to price gouge you and slow down your internet?

Of course not. so I'd move to the "other" guy. Do you support the local gas station price gouging and having one pump open to slow you down? Of course not, you'd go across the street.

Last thing I want is the government running them, be they gas stations or much anything else, including my choice of ISP.

You seem to misinterpreting government's role in this.

The FCC is attempting to allow ISPs to get rid of net neutrality.

And what about those areas that have only 1 ISP? Same as the small town with only one gas station. I suppose they should just bend over and take it, huh?

(05-14-2014 09:15 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 08:37 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  A company's business model is their own discretion, not the government's.

That is great when you are truly in an open market... but internet connectivity is not an open market. It is a duopoly due to issues with right of ways and wiring thus it has to be regulated as a utility, IMO.

I think Love and Honor hit the nail on the head... I agree wholeheartedly with his post (and I work as a network engineer).

Thanks, glad to see one UC fan has a brain.

I don't claim to know a whole heck of a lot about this. What I do know is whenever I hear about the government stepping in to "make things fair" it does precisely the opposite and prices go UP for everyone.

Maybe I've got this one wrong. But that'd be a first. I'll believe it when I see it.

(05-14-2014 09:01 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 08:58 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 09:11 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 08:37 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  A company's business model is their own discretion, not the government's.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

So an ISP should be able to charge websites money in order to increase their customers' speed to said websites? It's damn near blackmail.

This would drive the cost of streaming services, such as Netflix up, as well as allow ISPs to charge even more.

Then don't use those services, right? If no one comes, price goes down. If it's a smash hit they charge what they can. Why is this any different than a concert? I caught Dave Mathews as a bar band for about 6 bucks. Ten years later he was commanding 65-500. Maybe I'm missing something here, but why the distinction?

Why some of you have a never failing devotion and confidence in "government" to do things "right" and make things" fair" is well beyond me. You really want to trust the Government to micromanage our sources of information and entertainment? What happens when some activist group on one side or the other has an objection to something Ooooofensive? Is government now the arbiter of what adults can decide to allow into their own homes? Either buy it or not, simple choice.

So, you support ISPs being able to price gouge you and slow down your internet?

I pay monthly for an internet speed. No, my ISP ought not be able to slow me down below what I pay for.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(05-14-2014 09:33 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 09:15 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 08:37 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  A company's business model is their own discretion, not the government's.

That is great when you are truly in an open market... but internet connectivity is not an open market. It is a duopoly due to issues with right of ways and wiring thus it has to be regulated as a utility, IMO.

I think Love and Honor hit the nail on the head... I agree wholeheartedly with his post (and I work as a network engineer).

Thanks, glad to see one UC fan has a brain.

The feeling is mutual regarding Miami fans. :)

Say buh bye to net neutrality. ******* FCC is ******* garbage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...ingtonpost

Quote:The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that would dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers.

The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for the guarantee of flawless video streaming.
Smaller companies that can't afford to pay for faster delivery would likely face additional obstacles against bigger rivals. And consumers could see a trickle-down effect of higher prices as Web sites try to pass along new costs of doing business with Internet service providers.

(05-14-2014 09:50 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  I don't claim to know a whole heck of a lot about this. What I do know is whenever I hear about the government stepping in to "make things fair" it does precisely the opposite and prices go UP for everyone.

Maybe I've got this one wrong. But that'd be a first. I'll believe it when I see it.

This isn't government stepping in.