They cannot differentiate between P2P traffic, FTP traffic, VPN traffic or routine HTTP traffic like this site.
uhh, what? I have no idea, really. shouldn't comcast be able to use their equipment in anyway they like? if the consumer doesn't like it aren't there other choices?Not always.
Not always.
I agree with the Govt's side on this. One person's abuse is another person's legitimate use. P2P, for example, has business uses just like it has illegitimate uses. Rather than throttle bandwidth based on type of traffic, users should be restricted to the contracted bandwidth and nothing more.
That said, iirc, part of the issue in this debate is that ISPs are also being held responsible for the user content that flows across their networks. You can't have both. Either ISPs are responsible, yet can affect controls of their networks, or they aren't responsible for content they don't originate and can't affect controls of such.
Chris
uhh, what? I have no idea, really. shouldn't comcast be able to use their equipment in anyway they like? if the consumer doesn't like it aren't there other choices?
Man, I am so far behind in this stuff and I once used to install modems for a cable company
If the consumer doesn't like it aren't there other choices?Nope. The two companies in the US are ComCast and Cox.
I'd sooner light myself on fire than have the fist of government come down on a private company's right to run their business how they want just because I would personally enjoy the outcome.This. Precisely this.
Nope. The two companies in the US are ComCast and Cox.
And they're part-owners of each other.
I use torrents all the time, so I would personally benifit if my ISP could not or would not cap my P2P bandwidth.
BUT, it's their equipment and they can do what they want. And I'd sooner light myself on fire than have the fist of government come down on a private company's right to run their business how they want just because I would personally enjoy the outcome.
I use torrents all the time, so I would personally benifit if my ISP could not or would not cap my P2P bandwidth.
BUT, it's their equipment and they can do what they want. And I'd sooner light myself on fire than have the fist of government come down on a private company's right to run their business how they want just because I would personally enjoy the outcome.
There's also Charter and Time Warner cable, along with several regional outfits. And those are just the cable companies...there are a plethora of different DSL outfits (Verizon, SBC Global, AT&T, etc).
If they could have addressed it under existing regulations, they should have. What I don't like is what appears to be a Govt Agency trying to expand their authority without support of a law passed by Congress.
Not all areas enjoy such diversity. Some are doing well to have one realistic choice.
For instance, Comcast can tell when they're transmitting P2P traffic without knowing whether the content of that P2P is legal content vs kiddie porn vs copyrighted material.
There's no reason for the government to step in and interfere in either case.
The common carrier thing is a red herring. Knowing the type of traffic does not mean a carrier knows the content of that traffic.
However, most areas have at LEAST three options: cable, DSL, or satellite. Some areas have more: multiple DSL providers (my area has at least two), wireless, etc. I think my area has five or six different broadband internet companies, and I'm in a town with less than 12,000 or so people, and am at least four hours away from any major city.
So, there IS some competition.
Oh, and this isn't just about P2P stuff either. They want the right to charge companies like Google, Amazon, eBay, etc. for letting their customers communicate with them. I don't see how that's defensible.
They also don't know the purpose, which makes throttling on basis of traffic type so wrong. Not everyone using P2P is a kid downloading the latest new releases.The purpose of the traffic is irrelevant. What matters is the affects the traffic has on the network. Providers should be free to tune their networks as they see fit, and customers should be free to choose networks based on the performance they offer.
Are we forgetting that the cable and phone companies have monopolies on usage of their lines that are placed on public space? You aren't exactly free to chop down that utility pole in your front yard, are you?Bad analogy. You don't fully own the land the utility poles live in. You'd have no more right to chop one of those down than you'd have right to bulldoze your neighbor's house.
Incorrect. IP packets are simply an envelope on the outer layer describing where the information is coming from, where it's going to, and some various control bits for data recovery in the case of TCP. They have to open the envelope up to find out if it's P2P distributed network communications.Bad analogy. IP packets are not an envelope, they do nothing to conceal the content of the communication. A packet is nothing more than user data in clear-text, accompanied by control info.
The purpose of the traffic is irrelevant. What matters is the affects the traffic has on the network. Providers should be free to tune their networks as they see fit, and customers should be free to choose networks based on the performance they offer.
"Packet discrimination"
=|
Let the market decide, not the government. If a some providers want to optimize their service by denying problematic types of traffic, and if customers want to use those sorts of networks, then so be it. If other providers want to offer unlimited and unrestricted access to all types of traffic, and if some customers want to use those sorts of network instead, then so be it.
There's no reason for the government to step in and interfere in either case.
The common carrier thing is a red herring. Knowing the type of traffic does not mean a carrier knows the content of that traffic. For instance, Comcast can tell when they're transmitting P2P traffic without knowing whether the content of that P2P is legal content vs kiddie porn vs copyrighted material.
Or if the provider attempted to reconstruct multiple packets worth of data into the full, original content, then view/read/analyze that content, that'd be a problem.
Unless you are in an urban area, you likely only have one telecom. If you open up the phone book, you might find plenty of DSL or dialup ISP's. Guess what, they are likely leased off that one said telecom.
Anything beyond simple port filtering is going to require them to start looking at the actual data in each packet or reconstruct the stream in an attempt to figure out what the user is really transmitting. You can run a full VPN solution over HTTPS these days. The more they try and shut down P2P clients the more sophisticated they will get and the cat and mouse game has gone on long enough now they HAVE to look at content to figure it out. And if that last statement of mine isn't technically correct it will be if they keep pushing.
This is why most (all maybe?) providers have a tiered structure. They don't get to choose how their customers use the bandwidth they are paying for. I pay Verizon $40ish a month for 20mb/5mb (down/up). That's all the control they have over my content. If they can't afford to let me use the full pipe I'm paying for, then they should either not sell me that size pipe or raise the price beyond my willingness to pay. Claiming some types of traffic or some destinations are worse than others is nonsense.Meh. If the plan you're buying is based on a straight "total bandwidth" concept, then for your purposes it would indeed be nonsense.
Chris
Meh. If the plan you're buying is based on a straight "total bandwidth" concept, then for your purposes it would indeed be nonsense.
That's no reason for other plan concepts to be forced out of the marketplace. Consumers are not all exactly like you, and there's no reason providers shouldn't be able to tailor plans to others.
For instance, my mother would benefit considerably from a "no P2P allowed" type of plan. She has no idea what P2P is, doesn't use it, and doesn't want it. Verizon should be free to offer a plan to that provides an optimized, limited functionality no-P2P network that would be faster and/or cheaper for her purposes.
How, precisely, are the providers determining which traffic is P2P vs which traffic is not?
Bad analogy. You don't fully own the land the utility poles live in. You'd have no more right to chop one of those down than you'd have right to bulldoze your neighbor's house.
Conceptually, you can be a common carrier without being equipped to handle every conceivable type of traffic. The US Post Office cannot deliver a 2,000 pound package. They aren't equipped for that sort of thing. Does that make them any less of a common carrier for the ordinary letters which they are equipped to carry?
Meh. If the plan you're buying is based on a straight "total bandwidth" concept, then for your purposes it would indeed be nonsense.
That's no reason for other plan concepts to be forced out of the marketplace. Consumers are not all exactly like you, and there's no reason providers shouldn't be able to tailor plans to others.
To use your phrase, false analogy. Packets are packets. There isn't an IP equivalent to the 2k lb package (there is actually, but networking devices handle that by design, it isn't a policy issue). It's a volume issue and even that's a poor analogy. The ISPs in question don't care if I download many gigabytes in html content, but are uptight if I download the same via P2P? It shouldn't matter, the bandwidth used is the same.You're right, it is a volume issue. The providers built networks (and entire businesses) around the kinds of volume that existed prior to P2P. Along came P2P, engulfing their capacity. I've read (dont' have a cite) that Bit Torrent now accounts for a third of all internet traffic. BT didn't exist just a few years ago. ISPs didn't plan for BT, didn't build up their infrastructures for this sudden onslaught of new traffic. I don't see why ISPs should be prohibited from restricting these new protocols that they aren't equipped for, if they and their customers can agree on it.
Chris
They don't want to offer other plans as it'll confuse the common consumer. You can't market an "unlimited 10Mbit down/1Mbit up" plan and then turn around and tell people you didn't really mean it and you can't market it as unlimited HTTP, SMTP, etc. traffic because then the P2P gang will just push their stuff over those protocols.Ah. I see. Some customers are stupid. Therefore government should force all customers into "stupid-people-safe" plans, whether you're stupid or not, whther you want that kind of plan or not.
What they should do is just cap the amount you can transfer at the advertised rate and then drop you back when you hit that monthly limit. And set windows where the bandwidth doesn't count against you. The big users would understand that, but the dad that lets his kids stream NetFlix stuff all weekend over the Xbox isn't going to get it and he'll be PISSED when his connection goes to crap even though he was engaging in perfectly legal activities.
They're just not being honest with consumers about what they can deliver to them, really, and it's only the last-mile providers. The big guys aren't messing with this nonsense. You got data to move? They move it and at the rate the contract states.
Ah. I see. Some customers are stupid. Therefore government should force all customers into "stupid-people-safe" plans, whether you're stupid or not.
Wait, how does that go again?
You're right, it is a volume issue. The providers built networks (and entire businesses) around the kinds of volume that existed prior to P2P. Along came P2P, engulfing their capacity. I've read (dont' have a cite) that Bit Torrent now accounts for a third of all internet traffic. BT didn't exist just a few years ago. ISPs didn't plan for BT, didn't build up their infrastructures for this sudden onslaught of new traffic. I don't see why ISPs should be prohibited from restricting these new protocols that they aren't equipped for, if they and their customers can agree on it.
ISPs are trying to adapt to the new and unforeseen circumstances, trying to find ways to provide their traditional services in the ways their customers want. This is the market at work, and it's a good thing. If some customers want high-bandwidth P2P traffic, and a given provider can figure out how to deliver it to them, then they'll earn a competitive advantage and thrive.
The post office analogy is a good one. They've built infrastructure to handle delivering letters and small packages. But if people suddenly start demanding to ship one ton objects the same way they've always shipped letters, it becomes a problem for the carrier. They aren't set up for that. They'd be happy up to deliver one ton of letters and small packages for you, but they can't do the new heavy packages that suddenly became all the rage.
You're right, it is a volume issue. The providers built networks (and entire businesses) around the kinds of volume that existed prior to P2P. Along came P2P, engulfing their capacity. I've read (dont' have a cite) that Bit Torrent now accounts for a third of all internet traffic. BT didn't exist just a few years ago. ISPs didn't plan for BT, didn't build up their infrastructures for this sudden onslaught of new traffic. I don't see why ISPs should be prohibited from restricting these new protocols that they aren't equipped for, if they and their customers can agree on it.
ISPs are trying to adapt to the new and unforeseen circumstances, trying to find ways to provide their traditional services in the ways their customers want. This is the market at work, and it's a good thing. If some customers want high-bandwidth P2P traffic, and a given provider can figure out how to deliver it to them, then they'll earn a competitive advantage and thrive.
The post office analogy is a good one. They've built infrastructure to handle delivering letters and small packages. But if people suddenly start demanding to ship one ton objects the same way they've always shipped letters, it becomes a problem for the carrier. They aren't set up for that. They'd be happy up to deliver one ton of letters and small packages for you, but they can't do the new heavy packages that suddenly became all the rage.
They're selling on big numbers that they can't deliver on and when they hit their capacity they start pulling stunts you can't do as a common carrier. That's wrong. It's fraud. They have to pick one or the other. Either sell what you can deliver or stop being considered a common carrier.Sigh. There are other options, such as selling more elaborate plans, or filtering out troublesome traffic so that you can more fully deliver on your promises. P2P traffic volume is one of the biggest reasons consumers can't surf at higher speeds, ya know.
If it really is a problem that people can't understand what they're buying form their ISP, then the solution is to require clearer disclosures from the providers.
If it There's nor reason, no need, to try to regulate network performance and do convoluted common carrier lawsuit stuff to solve the problem you describe.
I think my gripe here is that I dislike the premise that because some consumers are stupid, government must step in and try to idiot-proof the world for them.
Believe it or not, I don know a thing or two about this stuff. One of my job responsibilities right now is to provide data access to remote testing sites around the world, using an odd protocol that our hardware requires, a protocol that some providers don't want to deal with. I'm not whining about common carrier BS, I'm shopping around for the provider that will deliver what my company needs for the lowest price. We've already had to rule out a few options because they were squirrely about guaranteeing us that we could run our particular protocol now and into the future.
Now, RevDisk, you seem to be advocating that we build new bad law because the existing bad law doesn't work well, basically saying that two wrongs make a right. If telecom companies are being bad about not growing their infrastructure the way they're supposed to, then force them to grow their infrastructure. Don't limit the kinds of service plans they can sell to willing customers under the guise of common carrier nonsense.
Huh? Why aren't you running PVC's to your remote sites? All it should take is calling up your account rep and saying "I want a PVC from each following T-carriers (insert list) to this T-1/DS-3 (insert your home office circuit ID)", taking a long coffee break, reprogramming your edge routers and start flowing traffic. If they're port filtering your PVC's, you need to shoot the person that signed your SLA's.When I said remote test sites, I meant remote. Nearest building is miles away. Nearest electricity is miles farther.
Chris, tell me why anyone should be forced to grant you access to any particular website or internet protocol against their will. Really, I'd like to know. There are some providers I'd love to force to carry my protocol. I'd save my company bajillions and be a hero for a while. :lol:
And I can find multiple service provider options in middle of nowhere Arizona, Spain, Italy, and India. So I'm not giving much credence to the notion that there's always a monopoly on service.As has already been pointed out, many "ISPs" in a given area are just resellers for a larger entity. If the larger entity is playing the throttle/block game, it doesn't matter who you choose as the billing agent.
When I said remote test sites, I meant remote. Nearest building is miles away. Nearest electricity is miles farther.
QuoteWhen I said remote test sites, I meant remote. Nearest building is miles away. Nearest electricity is miles farther.
Easy. Encapsulate your traffic in something else and send it over satellite.
I've run VOIP through an IPSEC tunnel over a satellite connection before. It works, though can be a bit choppy at times.
Chris
We're looking at cellular first. But as I said, they're being squirrely. We;re reading the contract and finding things that do not look encouraging.
When I said remote test sites, I meant remote. Nearest building is miles away. Nearest electricity is miles farther.
It ain't just a matter of plugging it in and turning it on.
I've surfed the web without being seen as doing so by connecting to my home network via SSH and routing the traffic through that encrypted tunnel. It's easy to do and looks like normal SSH traffic to the local network (have to make changes to Firefox so DNS queries also go through the tunnel though). I appear at the destination as having come from home rather than my true origination. Double whammy, not only did I hide my traffic, but I hid my source.
Uh, for a telcom geek remote means you can only get 4 copper wires there. Two twisted pairs of copper wire is enough for a 45Mbit connection last I recalled. RevDisk might be able to correct me. If you can get a PHONE there then you should at least be able to get 1.5Mbit over a T1.
I'm guessing you have to deal with an X.25 connection of some type. Is that correct?
I wonder if you could point a fellow to a web page that would explain how to do that? Unless you want to take the time to explain it yourself, of course.
We're looking at cellular first. But as I said, they're being squirrely. We;re reading the contract and finding things that do not look encouraging.
I'm guessing you have to deal with an X.25 connection of some type. Is that correct?
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SSH_VPN
Still not for the faint of heart.
I'm telling you, if you want to surf unmolested at work... MS virtual PC is a free download.
Run your favorite flavor of *nix as the OS, also free.
Get a data plan for your phone. Tether it. Run the tether as the only NIC the VM sees.
The only way you'll get busted is via walk-up, or if your employer has a screenshot logging system. If you fear a screen capture logging system/keystroke capture that will intercept before the VM, get a netbook, and a KVM.
If you consider the stakes, (your job), the investment is worth it.
Why are there telecom monopolies in America still?
Many folks on the conservative & libertarian right make the twin mistakes of:
1. Assuming that large corporations are in favor of free markets & liberty.
2. Assuming that what a large corporation wants to do will further the free market and/or otherwise benefit customers.
Their objective is to maximize profit. If that can be done via rent-seeking, raising the barriers to entry for their competition, etc., they will do so. This is in no way pro free market, though.
Uh, for a telcom geek remote means you can only get 4 copper wires there. Two twisted pairs of copper wire is enough for a 45Mbit connection last I recalled. RevDisk might be able to correct me. If you can get a PHONE there then you should at least be able to get 1.5Mbit over a T1.Can't get a phone there. Can't even get electricity. No wires for X.25 or anything else.
I'm guessing you have to deal with an X.25 connection of some type. Is that correct?
Easy. Encapsulate your traffic in something else and send it over satellite.Won't have any computers at this site capable of doing vpn or ipsec. Have a couple of hard real time systems running on embedded machines, but those can't be bothered with maintaining a connection ot the outside world.
I've run VOIP through an IPSEC tunnel over a satellite connection before. It works, though can be a bit choppy at times.
Chris
mtnbkr is right. VPN and satellite is the way to go. Probably your ONLY way. QoS it proper and build the apps to be somewhat lag friendly. If packets are not flowing, check your TTL's first. It's really not that bad.
Bad idea. Running straight copper circuit for miles for data is unpleasant. You want fiber.Running lines of any sort is prohibitive. Cost, power, time, legal issues.
Remember, these are Euro sites, they use E-carrier. An E1 is a twisted pair, 2.048 mbit full duplex.
Edit: Looked up in one of my ref books. Balanced 120 ohm twisted pair, terminated RJ48C.
This should be the right spec: http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.703-200111-I/en
The free market is still the best option, here. Government's roll is to ensure fair and open competition within the markets, not to pick winners and losers. Government is stifling competition, distorting the markets with arbitrary and needless distinctions between what is OK and what is Not OK.
And yet they are granted massive immunities, freedom from competition etc already via common carrier status. Are you in favor of removing those monopolies, or are you in favor of fed.gov monopolies as long as they "compete" within that structure?An example of gov meddling begetting problems that are solved by more meddling.
Can't get a phone there. Can't even get electricity. No wires for X.25 or anything else.
Won't have any computers at this site capable of doing vpn or ipsec. Have a couple of hard real time systems running on embedded machines, but those can't be bothered with maintaining a connection ot the outside world.
Can't add additional computers. No power.
Solar. We're developing products for remote solar installations (desert locations). We have our own product (self/solar powered), and a larger system of test instruments for monitoring our device as well as meteorlogical and astronomical conditions that will be powered by a commercial solar panel/inverter.
How do the devices get power? What do they do?
A palletized sat system with encryption can be literally dropped by air and set up by unskilled labor. I worked with a couple companies to develop such systems years ago.Cost? Power consumption?
VPN is included in many consumer SOHO routers these days. An Intel Atom based computer running Linux and capable of running on 12v power (car batteries for example) can act as an IPSEC VPN endpoint.We've had bad luck with consumer grade electronics surviving in these environments.
Chris
And yet the government is the biggest barrier to true competition here. They're the ones limiting what kinds of alternative competitive services can be offered. They're the ones deciding who can profit and who can't, and what services can be sold and what services can't. They say nobody is allowed to sell anything but unrestricted traffic, based on misapplied common carrier doctrine, when there is clearly an interest in alternatives that customers might find valuable.
The free market is still the best option, here. Government's roll is to ensure fair and open competition within the markets, not to pick winners and losers. Government is stifling competition, distorting the markets with arbitrary and needless distinctions between what is OK and what is Not OK.
I say let providers decide what they want to try to sell, and let customers decide which they want to buy. We'd find out very quickly whether traffic filtering/throttling is a good practice. Government meddling causes problems; people propose more government meddling to solve the problems. Rinse, lather repeat. Pretty son you end up with precisely the kind of tangled mess we see here.
It's amazing how often this pattern plays out, in all sorts of wide and varied fields. It's also amazing how the various participants always seem to find ways to rationalize it away. (Not singling out anyone here on APS, just making a general observation)
Solar. We're developing products for remote solar installations (desert locations). We have our own product (self/solar powered), and a larger system of test instruments for monitoring our device as well as meteorlogical and astronomical conditions that will be powered by a commercial solar panel/inverter.
Cost? Power consumption?
We've had bad luck with consumer grade electronics surviving in these environments.
Next product rev will likely contain an ARM based system for doing all of the things we can't do know, such as communicate easily. Lots of R&D before we can bring that to life, though, so not an option right now.
"Laws of physics"
And Micro... Libertarian fantasies aside, can't pull up the paving to run new cable every time a new provider wants to get into the market. Electrical, telco, water, sewer... only so much space for the essential infrastructure.
Partway there. I agree in principle, but physics & business reality are still beating on this principle like a red-headed step child.It's interesting just how subjective these "realities" turn out to be.
1. ISPs are not calling for a free market or abolition of the common carrier designation, but to change the deal they made with gov't so that they have fewer responsibilities for the bennies they get. Ensuring they fill their end of a voluntary bargain is hardly a sign of gov't gone wild.
2. Also, there are going to be messy gov't/business/market entanglements when the business model and/or technological reality requires gov't involvement.
Stringing cable is the obvious one here. Gov't has stepped in to allow common carriers the ability to lay cable on common areas and on private property, as well as to maintain it. Several companies can lay cable (power, phone, cable tv/data), but there is a physical & practical limit to how many cables can be laid & maintained in a system. Should gov't & the taxpayers require no reciprocity for allowing companies to use common areas and private property (that is not the companies property) to make money?
Also, it is a practical monopoly, or at least competition is near impossible due to physical & technological reality (since two cables cannot occupy the same space).
If'n Comcast & Co. don't want to keep up their end of the bargain, then maybe we ought to boot their signal & cabling from property they don't own?
Now, if wireless broadband eventually develops to the point it can equal or exceed copper & fiber optic cabling performance, I can see less need for gov't involvement, though limited RF spectrum will still impose limits on how many competitors can enter the market.
What seems to be is that in the specific context of telecommunications infastructure, the costs of laying down wire do not exclude competition per se, unless the costs of laying down wire are far more expensive in America than elsewhere. Of course, you do not always need to pull up pavement to lay new wire. It would possibly be cheaper to use push-pipes [what is the proper English name?] or poles.
There's no need to lay fiber by digging up streets and alleys. Even if you're laying fiber, you can do it by push-piping or by other means. Nor is there a need for telecoms to be fiber-based.
This. Precisely this.
I'm in agreement as well. Does anyone seriously know what this supposed "net neutrality" is (in the real world, not in the "free love" and "free internet" world?
There is nothing "neutral" about the fracking incompetent, corrupt, over reaching, power hungry, soul eating, mindless government bureaucrats taking over the flippin' internet!
Read the bill before you sign it.
I'm in agreement as well. Does anyone seriously know what this supposed "net neutrality" is (in the real world, not in the "free love" and "free internet" world?
There is nothing "neutral" about the fracking incompetent, corrupt, over reaching, power hungry, soul eating, mindless government bureaucrats taking over the flippin' internet!
Read the bill before you sign it.
BUT, it's their equipment and they can do what they want.
Regarding the comparison between Israel and the US, there's a bit of difference.
Your phone calls go out over somebody else's equipment. Mind if they listen in?
When you use a credit card, it goes over their equipment again. Guess you don't care if they use the number for whatever they want.
Your phone calls go out over somebody else's equipment. Mind if they listen in?
When you use a credit card, it goes over their equipment again. Guess you don't care if they use the number for whatever they want.
Is that in the contract they signed with me? If yes, I'll go somewhere else. The glory of capitalism is that if one company won't give me what I want, another company will be more than happy to in order to draw me away.
I'm in agreement as well. Does anyone seriously know what this supposed "net neutrality" is (in the real world, not in the "free love" and "free internet" world?
There is nothing "neutral" about the fracking incompetent, corrupt, over reaching, power hungry, soul eating, mindless government bureaucrats taking over the flippin' internet!
Read the bill before you sign it.
Is that in the contract they signed with me? If yes, I'll go somewhere else.
The answer to this in EncryptionI must be talking to a wall. I've said multiple times Comcast dicked around with my ENCRYPTED traffic. They couldn't read or modify it, so they blocked it for BS reasons.
The better thing for comcast to do is to offer BW limits to their plans, instead of calling them unlimited. If you realy want to transfer 500gb/mo, pay extra for it.
FCC is stupidly trying to make this a net neutrality issue, when it should not be. Simply enforce the appropriate definition.
I must be talking to a wall. I've said multiple times Comcast dicked around with my ENCRYPTED traffic. They couldn't read or modify it, so they blocked it for BS reasons.
Wow, I can't believe how many people just fall for government spew because it has a consumer friendly name and they may or may not have been screwed around by some >insert name< company.
Now that I think of it, I sure wish the government would pass a new law that would protect my firearms from being stolen. We could call it the "Firearm Owners Liability Protection and Child Safety Act". Golly, the world would just be so much better if the children were safe! Who could be against that?
Wow, I can't believe how many people just fall for government spew because it has a consumer friendly name and they may or may not have been screwed around by some >insert name< company.
Now that I think of it, I sure wish the government would pass a new law that would protect my firearms from being stolen. We could call it the "Firearm Owners Liability Protection and Child Safety Act". Golly, the world would just be so much better if the children were safe! Who could be against that?
Wow, I can't believe how many people just fall for government spew because it has a consumer friendly name and they may or may not have been screwed around by some >insert name< company.
No, some of us have experience with this and with the companies in question and know exactly what will happen. We also know how it can be accomplished. Do you?
What would you do if your telephone service monitored your calls, only allowed you to call certain numbers, and disconnected your calls if you talked about topics they didn't agree with? What if every telephone service did that? Go without a phone?
Chris
Have has anyone read the bill?
There is no bill. Net Neutrality is a concept, one that states an ISP should allow any IP traffic to flow over its network without undue constraint or control. Much like your voice calls aren't monitored or molested (why hasn't anyone answered my questions related to traditional telephony?).
Wikipedia has a pretty decent writeup on the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
Chris
What would you do if your telephone service monitored your calls, only allowed you to call certain numbers, and disconnected your calls if you talked about topics they didn't agree with?I'd fire 'em and hire someone else.
There is only so much room in the physical pipes carrying cable for service. Until you can get around that there's going to be a monopoly, fed.gov enforced or not.
I'd fire 'em and hire someone else.
And yes, in circumstances like that there would always be someone else. Service that bad just begs for a competitor to come along and eat you for lunch.
The existence of government-enforced monopolies is the only real threat here. That seems to be the root of the issue, and there's no reason for it. It would be much more productive to end this problem than to pile on new problems with the FCC overstepping its authority.
In an urban environment, there's no real reason to have a monopoly on phone and cable services.
The Laws of Physics disagree. Only so much room in those easements or on the pole.
It is not that we like it that way, but denying the laws of physics in favor one's ideology is something I'd expect from a looney lefty.
Notice all of the infrastructure geeks seem to be more or less in agreement, and quite a few of the non-geeks are telling us that we're wrong but not in detail explaining how we are wrong? I decided to give up trying, but I still love reading the thread.
[popcorn]
You have a good case for wireless, but the wired problem of requiring access to all sorts of public & private space is a bear. Just power, phone, cable, water, & gas are already a spaghetti mess and prone to cause each other problems.
Further, there's the phenomenon of push-pipes. Lay a push-pipe, lay several different lines inside the pipe, and go.
No, some of us have experience with this and with the companies in question and know exactly what will happen. We also know how it can be accomplished. Do you?
What would you do if your telephone service monitored your calls, only allowed you to call certain numbers, and disconnected your calls if you talked about topics they didn't agree with? What if every telephone service did that? Go without a phone?
Chris
There is only so much room in the physical pipes carrying cable for service. Until you can get around that there's going to be a monopoly, fed.gov enforced or not.Easy. Run more pipes.
Not everyone has the luxury of doing without a phone. This affects not only individuals, but other corporations and organizations (woo, wouldn't it be fun if the local telco started playing games with the fire dept or calls going to the FD).We have to do it your way because, gosh darn it, you have a right to force companies to provide this service to you want, and on your terms.
The larger issue, and one that keeps getting sidestepped, is that the telcos want to do this within their existing operating agreements. They don't want to offer you a tiered service that disallows some types of traffic. They want to arbitrarily block some types or have the right to redirect your request for www.google.com to www.bing.com (as an exampleLet 'em. Customers who are ok with this practice will use it, probably save money in the process. Customers who aren't ok with it will do business elsewhere. The market would decide pretty quickly whether redirecting traffic is a good business model or not.
Yes. I would go without a phone. And enough people did the same, said telcom would stop those practices and start acting more in line with what consumers want. When you break it down, I will almost always side with the corporations over government regulations. Because in the end, no corporation has force. No telcom can make me do business with them or give them my money if I don't like what they are doing. Government can. I trust the symbiotic relationship between corporation and consumer more than I trust the slave/master relationship between us and government.This.
Easy. Run more pipes.
Or, even easier, allow providers to lease/own of said pipes. Let providers acquire rights to the pipes, run whatever cable they want through their pipes, and let 'em sell what ever access to that bandwidth they see fit.
Ther's no reason that government monopoly must be in control of the pipes.
Customers who aren't ok with it will do business elsewhere. Customers who are ok with this practice will use it, probably save money in the process. The market would decide pretty quickly whether redirecting traffic is a good business model or not.Except there likely won't be anywhere else to go because all of the ISPs who have commented on this are in favor of it. In my town, we have Verizon and Comcast (and only Comcast covers the entire town). Both are own record opposing Net Neutrality. If they get their way, nobody in this town (that includes businesses) will have an option for wired 'net access. Wireless isn't fast enough or reliable enough for business use yet.
"The Regulated American Economy," James Nelson said in a loud voice. "This course is about government
regulation of the free market. Much of the curriculum will focus on utility companies and other
government-regulated monopolies." Nelson was an expert on industries that were most efficient when
addressed by a single supplier.
"This department is known for its free-market philosophy, so it may surprise some of you to hear me
advocate government-sanctioned monopolies." He saw that he had their attention, and continued.
"An existing utility company—the phone company, for example—can double its capacity and serve twice
as many customers for a fraction of the cost of duplicating its entire plant and equipment. A general rule of
thumb for a single entity of this type is that capacity increases as the square of the cost. This is because
most of the necessary hardware is already in place." Nelson paced across the front of the room and went on.
"This fact has been known for many years, but sometimes our legislators forget it. Years ago, the local
decision-makers realized Amherst was growing, and needed more water service. They passed a law
decreeing that there had to be a second choice for water service in this town, and solicited sealed bids.
They chose the company that offered the town the most for the privilege of competing in the water-supply
business."
"They didn't dig up the streets and put in duplicate water mains!" Henry said reflexively.
"That's exactly what they did," Nelson said with a laugh. "Care to guess what happened?" No one
answered. "Mister...Bowman, is it?" Henry licked his lips and took a stab at the question.
"The existing company cut their prices, maybe even to where they were losing money, and they drove the
new guys out of business." Nelson smiled as he nodded in agreement.
"Then what?" the professor asked.
"Well, ah...I guess after the new company went bust, the old one was able to buy up their hardware—you
know, the pipes and all—for a few cents on the dollar, and ended up in an even stronger position than
before."
"Right. And on top of that," Nelson added, "the town subsidized the construction. It was a hundred years
ago, and they're still paying off the debt incurred by that fiasco. Can anyone tell me what was the one smart thing the town council did in making this law?" He saw Henry grinning. "Mister Bowman, you look like
you may have a suggestion."
"They were really smart to decide that there should be two water companies competing for everyone's
business, and not ten."
The govt doesn't control them, the utilities do (including the telcos), which is why all your other plans are for naught. If VZ, who owns the fiber, decides to control your access to www.armedpolitesociety.com, it doesn't matter who you actually buy your service from. Your local provider will be using the fiber owned by VZ. Your local provider doesn't have the capital to run the fiber themselves. Switch to another local provider? They're likely using VZ's infrastructure as well.I'd hire the provider who is able to negotiate with VZ to get me the service I want.
Except there likely won't be anywhere else to go because all of the ISPs who have commented on this are in favor of it. In my town, we have Verizon and Comcast (and only Comcast covers the entire town). Both are own record opposing Net Neutrality. If they get their way, nobody in this town (that includes businesses) will have an option for wired 'net access. Wireless isn't fast enough or reliable enough for business use yet.Ya mean the service providers are in favor of being able to run their businesses their way, not the government's what? Whodathunkit?
It's worth noting nobody on the hosting side of the business (the folks that provide a home for websites and such) are in favor of this either. They know what it means for their business.I'd switch to a new host, one who has access to the network providers I want.
What would your company do if it suddenly lost visibility to a large portion of the country because the remote ISPs suddenly decided traffic to your company was against their interests or because they favored your competitor.
Unintended Consequences, page 298Interesting you should bring that up. The hypothetical described in the book is the exact opposite of the real-world example of what took place in my home town about a decade ago.
<snip>
Easy. Run more pipes.
Or, even easier, allow providers to lease/own of said pipes. Let providers acquire rights to the pipes, run whatever cable they want through their pipes, and let 'em sell what ever access to that bandwidth they see fit.
Ther's no reason that government monopoly must be in control of the pipes.
We have to do it your way because, gosh darn it, you have a right to force companies to provide this service to you want, and on your terms.
Let 'em. Customers who are ok with this practice will use it, probably save money in the process. Customers who aren't ok with it will do business elsewhere. The market would decide pretty quickly whether redirecting traffic is a good business model or not.
This.
Free choice and property rights work much better than government fiat.
I'd hire the provider who is able to negotiate with VZ to get me the service I want.
Ya mean the service providers are in favor of being able to run their businesses their way, not the government's what? Whodathunkit?
I'd switch to a new host, one who has access to the network providers I want.
The interesting thing about this stuff, the element that simply screams for unrestricted free market usage, is that distributed networks like the internet are inherently able to reroute traffic around blockages and obstacles. If some provider somewhere decides to stop carrying my traffic, the system is purpose-built to find another route through. Combine that with good ol' free market greed and there would almost always be someone out there willing to take my money in exchange for moving my data. It doesn't particularly matter to me where they are or what route the data takes, beyond the issue of speed.
And I don't buy the notion that there has to be only one or two access providers in any given area and that they'd all stifle internet access. The moment one of 'em tries to pull any crap, someone else will come along to displace them. There's too much money and demand at stake. Even if it came down to needing to lay new lines, I've no doubt that someone would find a way. There are no inherent difficulties with this, only government obstruction and lack of will/interest.
And in those rare instances where I can't find a route through, then I'd be willing to accept it. I'm not willing to use force of government to force private entities to do my bidding if they don't want to. I know that I don't have a government guaranteed right to internet access (or health care, or...)
Ultimately data traffic is a product like any other. We don't rely upon the seller's good nature to give us the products we want, we rely upon their self-interests. It works beautifully, but it does require that we give up the notion that we can control the sellers and manipulate them to our own ends by using force of government.
I agree that there are some legacy problems with telecoms these days, relating back to the days when all of this stuff was run as a government-enforced monopoly. But the way to solve these government-related problems is not to layer even more government over the top of what we already have. The solution is to strip away the remnants of government that still exist and are still causing the problems.
How is it a wet dream if it is actually happening in many big cities throughout the world?
What is wet-dreamish about having two wired telcos competing in one town? THat is actually happening right where I live. I can disconnect from my telco and go to the other telco. That's an actual physical fact.
We're not all anarchists/hardline libertarian/Ayn Rand fanbois here. AMazingly enough, there are some things .gov should be doing.
That's nice. Has nothing to do with the discussion at hand of course, but way to showcase the ole copy paste skills.
Also has nothing to do with the responsibilities and powers of local governments.
You're right.Unless each state erects a giant faraday cage at its borders, and doesn't allow any cables to cross state lines, the commerce clause obviously applies to the FCC.
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.This allows Congress to create bureaus like the FCC.
Unless each state erects a giant faraday cage at its borders, and doesn't allow any cables to cross state lines, the commerce clause obviously applies to the FCC.
Oh and Bob, 2 things. Read Ragnar's sigline to see where I'm coming from with my comment. And since you don't appear to even know what this discussion is about, it's a bit harder to take your input seriously.
That's nice. Has nothing to do with the discussion at hand of course, but way to showcase the ole copy paste skills.
We're not all anarchists/hardline libertarian/Ayn Rand fanbois here. AMazingly enough, there are some things .gov should be doing.
Oh, well if it works in City X in Israel, it must be a universally applicable idea in every city of every country in the world. ;/