Harry Guerrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 28,951
- Reaction score
- 12,422
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
In that explanation, then I am against it.
j-mac
Resistance to Catz is impossible. :2razz:
You will be assimilated.
I feel a little zombie like already.
j-mac
See? Sometimes corporations really ARE evil. :shrug: And sometimes, government really DOES have to step in to protect the interests of the public.
Not always, but sometimes.
The problem is the corporations were "Evil" by taking part and utilizing the horrendous situation the government ignorantly and stupidly set forth for them through their regulations that allowed for the quasi-monopolies to happen in the first place.
Its one giant evil "**** the American Public" reach around being perpetrated by the two.
1) Have there been widespread reports that ISP's have throttled particular applications or limited the connection speeds to particular websites, that didn't threaten quality of service (ie require excessive amounts of bandwidth), or pose a potential danger to them or their customers?
2) Have there been widespread reports that ISP's have blocked access to legally operated public websites, that posed no danger (malicious content) to them or their customers?
The Washington Post said:William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc.
Verizon's Ivan Seidenberg told the Wall Street Journal said:We have to make sure they don't sit on our network and chew up our capacity. We need to pay for the pipe.
Grim, here's two posts concerning this issue that I made some time ago that basically speak to this. One, showing some examples of statements and actions that are a precurser to what's being suggested. Two, what people think is generally the end game in regards to where this all would be going.
Now if everything I stated above is accurate, the next questions I have are:
1) Have there been widespread reports that ISP's have throttled particular applications or limited the connection speeds to particular websites, that didn't threaten quality of service (ie require excessive amounts of bandwidth), or pose a potential danger to them or their customers?
2) Have there been widespread reports that ISP's have blocked access to legally operated public websites, that posed no danger (malicious content) to them or their customers?
Then more specifically if you wish.
In America, there have been reports of this happening P2P programs (and also affected Lotus Notes) with Comcast where in 2007 they tried to do it outside of their contractual limitations and then later adjusted it to fall within guidelines (1). They also were found throttling VOIP calls using competitor services but removing said throttling for their own calls (2)
There's been accusation after some studies that AT&T, AOL, and Cablevision have also been doing this (3).
That's constraining it to the U.S.
Now, the issue here is your notion of "excessive" bandwidth. While Comcasts current throttling rules are based off "congested" areas only when a particular person is clearly contributing to said congestion, their previous throttling action (that points more to their actual desire) was a flat out across the board throttling.
Additionally, throttling it based on "excessiveness" is in and of itself something people are having an issue with. I'm paying for a certain amount of speed on your network, HOW I use that speed is my choice. Indeed, what is the point of buying a 15Mbps Comcast XFinity connection if you're going to throttle my ability to utilize services that actually take advantage of said 25 Mbps speed.
If someone is on a 5 Mbps connection they're not magically going to pull down 25 Mbps doing P2P. While I understand there's the potential for slow down due to congestion, that's on them and infastructure and plans. If there was going to be congestion they shouldn't have sold me a 15 Mbps package, but they did, so they shouldn't start telling me that I can't use that 15 Mbps to do Torrents, or games, or VOIP, or Netflix, or other heavy traffic activities because that's why I purchased that higher connection.
In Canada yes, as I had spoke of in a previous post. Also in the previous post, while not a website, AOL Time Warner was blocking access to emails mentioning something they didn't want.
Of course, the issue why there's not really been reports of this happening yet is because in part network neutrality is the working model at this time. However one can look at the actions and comments by the Telecomms while also looking at the history of how other media changed as quasi-monopolies gained more and more control and power over it to see the logical direction it can go.
This particular story is another indication of it and the way its going, with companies paying ISPs to give them a "higher" speed and thus more bandwidth, paving a way for a tiered internet where corporate backed sites have the majority of the bandwidth and ability to go to at broadband speeds while individuals will be regulated to the smallest sliver at the slowest speeds. It also is the first steps to a segregated internet where individual big sites are connected and tied to specific ISPs.
The thing that pisses me off most about the net neutrality debate is that in other countries, they have speeds approaching 30mb/s or more while we are sitting here looking at ways to cannibalize our existing infrastructure to make "tiers" and other crap.
If you get the chance, watch this great piece on Net Neutrality that Billy Moyers aired a few years ago on PBS. This is the first time that I took notice of the implications.
Moyers on America . The Net @ Risk . Watch & Listen | PBS
And, BTW, I wonder how it will affect this board once the changes take place. I suspect it won't be positive.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?