Posted on 11/13/2014 6:04:17 AM PST by maineman
It means people in section 8 housing get free high speed obamanet to watch porn, and you have to pay for it. Also government gets to shut down terrorist sites like free republic
Bandwidth is not “scarce.” the backbone is more than adequate, but some companies are trying to limit access to make content providers pay for access to their network.
There is no additional cost to the carrier, but they see popular content providers as a revenue source. Want Netflix on Comcast? Then Netflix will pay an access fee to Comcast for the privilege
...
Want to ensure your content has priority? Pay more.
Simple problem. Answer: massive government involvement and regulation without legislative oversight. The government will ensure everyone gets access and the government gets more power plus additional revenue from everyone. Perfect solution. Algore invented the Internet, after all.
What it means, in the long haul, is that fedzilla gets to collect tax revenues on anything they choose to target, which is ALL INTERNET commerce.
In economic terms, anything that is not unlimited is “scarce” and must be allocated.
In fact, the very need for allocation defines the term “scarce”.
It’s Obonics for: All your web access are belong to us.
Another poor reading comprehension exercise, unless you were responding to someone else.
I mentioned NOTHING about taking away freedom.
Is there anything about the ACCURACY of what I said or are you going to go full retard so early in the morning? I have done nothing to prevent you from hating anything you want, nor is there one word in your post that deals with the accuracy of what I have posted. Leave me out of your goofballism.
Common Core is the further dumbing down of American students to make them good little Communists, err Low Information Voters.
I’m paying Comcast for Xmbps (for OP: _____ million bits per second) service. Yes, I expect that if I start playing a Netflix movie and it runs at Xmbps that I’ll get that service for however long I play it. Alas, Comcast promises “up to” rates, with no intention of ensuring that rate when things get busy. Knowing they’re already under-delivering on my end, they’re now out to under-deliver on Netflix’s end - and insisting both of us pay more for allegedly better service where we’re already paying for that very service and not getting it.
The problem with the water analogy (admittedly) is we’re not paying for product, we’re paying for delivery rate - and, as stands now, few ISPs are delivering what they promise but demanding higher prices for those who actually use/need it. Few people have the slightest clue about how much data they’re actually using, nor how fast they need it, nor do they have much control over either.
The point is that when anyone - me, you, or Netflix - contract for Xmbps we should get Xmbps as needed, and not get squeezed for more $$$ when the content indicates the ISP might be able to negotiate a greater cut of the action. Right now, the world’s biggest ISP (Level3*) and Netflix literally have two network hubs sitting next to each other, with all the capability to fully supply Netflix’s needs at no additional cost, but the other refuses to install the ONE short cable needed to make it happen (there’s like 8 pairs of ports with 5 connected, the missing cables throttling performance); AFAIK Netflix has offered to pay for the cheap cable and its installation, but Level3 refuses to unless paid many millions of dollars.
Sometimes there IS a place for government interference: telling product/service suppliers to stop uniformly acting like jerks (analogy: the banking industry used to apply daily withdraws to accounts, charge fines for problematic results, THEN apply deposits; several times I had to call my bank to complain that I made a deposit to ensure subsequent withdraw wouldn’t bounce, but they reversed the order and charged me fees because it “bounced”...they don’t do that now that the gov’t told ‘em all to cut that [expletive deleted] out). ISPs are doing the same, and need be told to just provide the service they promise and stop systemically screwing all customers.
At least we’re bickering over the right analogy, as opposed to most posts on this thread who are trying to randomly bash the Obama.
(* - Might be Verizon, I’m too sick to recall right now.)
Net neutrality is basically how the internet operates at the moment. It means that network packets (the basic unit of internet traffic) are treated equally no matter where they are coming from or to.
Imagine you have two browser windows open on your computer. In one you are browsing Free Republic, in another you are watching a video on You Tube.
As your ISP receives packets of data from FR and YT is sends the packets to you in the order it receives them from the provider. Youtube can’t get a faster pipe to you because they have paid your ISP.
It doesn’t mean that you get a super fast connection unless you have paid for it. If you have paid for a 1.5 M connection and your neighbor has paid for a 3M connection then your neighbor will get data from FR and YT at twice your speed, net neutrality doe not affect that.
ISPs (probably your phone or cable company) want to get some of the revenue that content providers get, so they (ISPs) would like Youtube or ESPN to pay them so that they (YT/ESPN) get higher priority for delivering data packets to your computer over other providers who have not paid.
The debate over net neutrality is basically about whether current practice (treat packets equally) gets codified in law.
The meaning “net neutrality” is, literally, a provider of Internet services cannot be free to set their own terms, and different terms to different customers for different reasons, the way that companies that want to use those services must be allowed to do with their customers.
The practical meaning of “net neutrality” is that it is a business model for those businesses that want true free enterprise taken out of the provision Internet services, so that other companies get Internet services controlled, for them, like a public utility. They don’t want the provision of Internet services to have the competitive and profit seeking environment they want for themselves.
The one argument that I rarely see mentioned that seems to me to be in Obama’s favor is that in many places of the country, ISP’s have a regional monopoly (thanks to deals with local government). Because of the lack of actual ISP competition for many people, a lot of the arguments being made in favor of the free market appear to be sort of moot. I believe this is also why cable companies have been able to continue to use bundled services despite strong interest from consumers for a la carte pricing. Can somebody offer me a good counter argument to this?
ISPs have a choice: they can offer unlimited bandwidth including Netflix, or they can charge by the gigabyte. The government, long looking for a way to 'regulate' the internet, glommed onto this problem so they can offer a 'solution.'
The danger is that once federal regulation is admitted as to web content source, it could become intrusive and endorse or even require some forms of discrimination. For example, government, educational, and credential news providers might be given the highest priority or never charged, with providers of commentary like FR and other popular conservative web sites disfavored as to priority and required to pay to get their content through on a fast and reliable basis.
Indeed, if net neutrality regulation is permitted, rules could be made so that web content providers had to pay ISPs based on data load, with higher charges based on specific content and the amount of data they transmit. Some content providers might even be barred from the Internet, such as web sites that were insufficiently deferential to Islam or that provided evidence of corruption against political figures.
Of course, ISPs dislike net neutrality for commercial reasons. They seem to want to charge extra to major sources of data like Hulu and Netflix. There is some justification for this because the heaviest data providers tend to drive the demand for investment in more Internet capacity. Yet even on a purely commercial basis, ISPs might also charge nonprofit sites like FR because they are popular and generate relatively high levels of data use.
“Common Core” is nominally the concept of having common minimum standards for educational achievement.
Unfortunately, LIBERALS have used it CHANGE THE CONTENT of the books and material to PROMOTE A LIBERAL AGENDA.
i.e.
VERY dumbed down and incoherent approach to math,Revisionist History, Climate Change, Deviant Sex Ed, Anti-Religion, etc.
Yesterday a couple of different commentators said the plan was to turn the Internet into a utility. Guess we would pay monthly based on our usage.....
Sounds like a TOTAL CRAP plan to me!
This all started because Companies like Netflix and Google (which are now the same company) were generating a lot of traffic because people out there on the internet want their content. Companies like Time Warner, who would prefer you to get content from them because then they get the advertizer dollars decided that they want to start charging extra tolls for Netflix or slowing down their data. The problem is, the way the internet was designed, all packets have pretty much equal priority (IPv6 has QOS headers, but that isn't widely adopted yet). Anyway, TW is saying, "it's not fair that we don't get money from people watching Netflix." The problem with this, is that it is a lie, unless they are giving away internet services to their customers.
It works like this, you pay for a certain amount of bandwith to/from your house. That is where the local ISP is getting its money. What they are all upset about is that they actually have provisioned the networks on the same kind of basis as fractional banking. Let's say an ISP has a 1GB pipe to a local neighborhood. Rather than selling just 1 GB of bandwith to the farious folks in the neighborhood, they actually sell 10GB of bandwith, knowing that you'll only see 10% from the various customers in use at any given time. Now, as time progresses, people seem to want more bandwith hungry stuff like Video, as opposed to text-based stuff like FR. (FR, except on threads with lots of pictures is very low bandwidth content). So, the actual bandwidth they provisioned starts bumping up against the bandwidth their customers actually want to use so they are going to have to either provision more capacity (which costs money), or charge their customers more, which might lead to those customers who can, switching to someone else. Either way, it's eventually going to eat into their profits. Lord knows we can't have that. You know, people actually using what it is that they are already paying for.
So, they are looking for additional revenue streams. Their attention quickly goes to Google/Netflix because it really looks like those folks have a license to print money. "Excellent", says TW, "let's threaten Google with slowing their packets down if they don't pay us some 'protection money'". After all, if we make Netflix service suck enough, maybe our customers will come to our servers for stuff, so we make more money. They start sending out their shills claiming that Google is somehow getting a 'free ride'. This appeals to conservatives, because we don't like leaches, and people who aren't paying their way. The problem is, it simply isn't true. Google pays a lot of money for their connection to the internet. I don't know the actual details, as I'm not privy to them, but it is well known that they have huge fiber connections to their ISP(s) for their internet access. They, like you, are paying for their bandwidth. However they may not be paying TW, which pisses them off, because they want on the gravy train. They can't charge you thousands of dollars for your internet connection because you'd tell them to stuff it. They look at Google's big wallet and say, "we want some of that".
Trouble is, they are essentiall a commodity service, though most people don't realize it. Data from TW is the same as data from any other ISP. Since they are in the ISP business, they have interconnect agreements with the folks they get their internet service from, up the chain to the actual 'backbone' of the fiber that carries the bulk of traffic (it's actually less decentralized than people generally think). Everyone agreed when they first connected to the backbone to carry everyone else's traffic. The internet doesn't work if packets can be randomly dropped because an ISP wants to act as a private tollkeeper. When you send an email, it may well pass through 10 different servers before it gets to the intended recipient. You don't have to pay each of those servers for handling your mail. They pass the traffic along because they want everyone else to pass their traffic along as well. Otherwise, it doesn't work.
Net Neutrality is the way the internet was designed.
Now, there are other things going on as well. The proposals you're actually seeing coming out of Obama's District of Criminals are anything but Net Neutrality. They are a massive power-grab to give FedGov much more control over how things work on the internet. You've got big media companies (you know, the mainstream media - the ones that hate conservatives and everything we stand for) that are desperate for additional revenue streams, as people realize that with the advent of the internet and DVRs, their revenue streams are dying. People aren't watching commercials anymore (which is the actual content on TV. The programming is just to get you to watch the Ads). They are losing control over information (who the hell actually watches CBS "News" anymore?). In general, they are losing power.
The internet providers are also not happy with simply being a utility, where their bits/bytes are the same as another company's bits/bytes. That's a really low margin game. All of this screaming about Google "not paying their share" is because these companies can't come up with compelling content of their own that you want to see and pay for, so they are trying to get a cut of things they had no hand in.
If you made it this far in this, congratulations. Net neutrality is not a concept that fits on a bumper sticker. Neither side is completely right, but I lean much more towards maintaining the status quo, which is working, as opposed to making massive changes that are of dubious utility to us, the actual customers/consumers of all this.
I'm still amazed at the conservative support for the folks opposing net neutrality, especially given the screws that will inevitably be tightened on any content from our side once the various ISPs can pick their own QOS for individual packets based on source or destination.
Netflix may push a lot of data, but people have paid ISPs to receive that data. Where that data comes from is largely irrelevant, total bandwidth matters. ISPs are trying to double charge for one service rendered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.