Cable style "Programming" is happening. Death of Net Neutrality.

[stomachmonkey]

The internet as we now know it today is going away.

I've said this before and sadly it looks like my predictions are coming to fruition.

This is the first step towards broadband providers desire to monetize the traffic that they carry and may ultimately lead to control of what you will have access to.

Marvin Ammori: About the Verizon/Google "Deal" on Net Neutrality

FOXNews.com - Google, Verizon Near Plan to Created Tiered Internet

[widebody911]

With enough lobbying dollars, anything can happen.

[enzo1]

From the "My How Times Change" file, the following open letter from Google CEO Eric Schmidt was posted in the summer of 2006. Here it is, verbatim:

A Note to Google Users on Net Neutrality:

The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. There's a debate heating up in Washington, DC on something called "net neutrality" – and it's a debate that's so important Google is asking you to get involved. We're asking you to take action to protect Internet freedom.

In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.

Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay.

Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard.

Thanks for your time, your concern and your support.

Eric Schmidt

[wdfifteen]

Looks like Google payed attention to the Bill Gates theory of capitalist success: Have a good idea, use the free market to promote and succeed with your good idea. Use your success with your good idea to monopolize the market and suppress other good ideas from seeing the light of day.

[Brando]

Pay to play.

Some providers block certain protocols and/or popular ports... Like NNTP protocols, or TOR, ports for filesharing programs like Kazaa, bearshare, etc... How long did you think it was going to be before they realized they can make money turning it from being like a faucet to being like a faucet with multiple filters.

[WolfeMacleod]

I was reading about this on Gizmodo.com earlier today. Though about posting it, but couldn't access the board. Was really, really, really slow. Must be one of those anti-net neutrality things...

[jyl]

The FCC's authority to regulate this aspect of the net needs to be clearer. The internet is too vital to this country to leave it entirely up to who can pay who the most.

[BGCarrera32]

Yeah jyl, good idea. Get the government agencies involved to regulate the hell out of it, just like the stellar job they do with everything else.

Right on.

[berettafan]

eff 'em all. my life would improve w/o internet. i've learned what i need to know about maintaining a 40yr old 911 and could care less about social networking sites and the like.

[John TArsicwitz]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

The internet as we now know it today is going away.

I've said this before and sadly it looks like my predictions are coming to fruition.

This is the first step towards broadband providers desire to monetize the traffic that they carry and may ultimately lead to control of what you will have access to.

Marvin Ammori: About the Verizon/Google "Deal" on Net Neutrality

FOXNews.com - Google, Verizon Near Plan to Created Tiered Internet

Are you aware that by the time you had posted this the FCC basically tossed the decision to even allow Google and Verizon to discuss the "Tiered system" Perhaps before posting you can make sure that the context you are posting about is true? This is how rumors start.

[slakjaw]

Net neutrality is a bad thing people!

[slakjaw]

The net neutrality tards are so full of if. The Internet isn't going away. Companys like cogent might go away. Which would be alright.

[jyl]

Originally Posted by BGCarrera32

Yeah jyl, good idea. Get the government agencies involved to regulate the hell out of it, just like the stellar job they do with everything else.

Some aspects of the economy need the government to set the basic ground rules.

E.g. food companies can't sell dangerous or unclean food and must tell consumers what's in the food they do sell. And drug companies can't sell ineffective drugs or drugs that harm more than they help.

Without basic rules, food companies would sell unclean food and wouldn't tell you about all the crap they put in it (you think they would voluntarily tell you that your hamburger has 1000 gm fat? How about 2000?). Drug companies would sell ineffective drugs and even dangerous drugs (look at what the largely unregulated "nutritional supplement" industry does now).

Nothing different about the telecom industry. Left to their own devices, they will maximize profit, because that is their duty. The easiest way to do that is not to provide us w/ innovative new services that we value, but to use their power to force us to pay more for less.

Maybe the big backbone carriers get together and tell Wayne that he has to pay $100K/yr for broadband service, or PP gets throttled down to dial-up speeds. You think they wouldn't? You think Wayne can build an alternative fiberoptic data backbone?

[jyl]

Originally Posted by John TArsicwitz

Are you aware that by the time you had posted this the FCC basically tossed the decision to even allow Google and Verizon to discuss the "Tiered system" Perhaps before posting you can make sure that the context you are posting about is true? This is how rumors start.

Not correct. The FCC has no authority to prevent GOOG and VZ from discussing or making a deal. GOOG and VZ are laying low, for public relations reasons most likely. They can still negotiate and do deals, quietly.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by John TArsicwitz

Are you aware that by the time you had posted this the FCC basically tossed the decision to even allow Google and Verizon to discuss the "Tiered system" Perhaps before posting you can make sure that the context you are posting about is true? This is how rumors start.

Rumor? What rumor? Are you saying that providers do not have a desire to create a tiered premium content model? I hope not as that has been common public knowledge for quite some time.

In fact it's part of the motivation for the closed door meetings between the FCC and the providers.

And what the FCC did yesterday was not prohibit verizon and google from talking about tiered services, the FCC does not have that authority.

What the FCC did was halt the closed door meetings that they had been having because it appears that some of the participants had their own agenda which was in conflict with the objective of those meetings.

[WolfeMacleod]

Originally Posted by slakjaw

The net neutrality tards are so full of if. The Internet isn't going away. Companys like cogent might go away. Which would be alright.

Not neccesarily.
Think about it. here are some things that Net Neutrality does...

It prevent companies like Comcast, who provide phone, internet, and TV, from slowing of blocking access to competitive markets. Let's say I'm a user of Vonage. Without Net Neutrality, Comcast could easily block or slow access to vonage servers, thus rendering my vonage service useless. "You want phone?, MUST USE US!"
I get my TV through DirecTV. For VOD, shows must be downloaded via the internet. Comcast could slow or block acess to DirecTV services. "You want VOD?, MUST USE US!"


Let's assume for fun that Blockbuster video is still owned by Viacom... a competitor of Comcast. Now let's assume (again, just for fun) that Comcast owns Netflix (which it does not) ... under Net Neutrality, Comcast could not block access to Blockbuster streaming video servers, which would force people to use Netflix instead of Blockbuster for streaming VOD.
Without Net Neutrality, they could. And probably would.


Net Neutrality prohibits the slowing or blocking of access to competitive markets, period. It allows equal access to all lanes of the highways and on/off ramps to competitive formats. It allows you to chose who you want your content from, and when you get it.
It prohibits companies Google and Verizon from striking deals to allow greater and faster access to Youtube (owned by Google) servers over, say, Hulu servers.
It prohibits companies like Comcast from blocking or slowing access to VOIP services.
It prohibits companies from making your choices FOR YOU, and prevents companies from bleeding other companies to allow their content to flow freely to the end user.

this is what Net Neutrality does.

[legion]

On the other hand, if I have one neighbor who eats up all of the bandwidth in the neighborhood, net neutrality prevents our provider from doing anything about his overuse so that my connection will perform at a decent speed.

Most cable providers currently put ALL voice traffic on a lower tier. I agree that it is unethical to intentionally degrade the service of competitors. But at the same time, by not putting voice traffic on a lower tier, it degrades the service for all of the users.

[slakjaw]

No that is not what it does. I urge you to read up on the issue.

Quote de slakjaw

The net neutrality tards are so full of if. The Internet isn't going away. Companys like cogent might go away. Which would be alright.

Not neccesarily.

Think about it. here are some things that Net Neutrality does...



It prevent companies like Comcast, who provide phone, internet, and TV, from slowing of blocking access to competitive markets. Let's say I'm a user of Vonage. Without Net Neutrality, Comcast could easily block or slow access to vonage servers, thus rendering my vonage service useless. "You want phone?, MUST USE US!"

I get my TV through DirecTV. For VOD, shows must be downloaded via the internet. Comcast could slow or block acess to DirecTV services. "You want VOD?, MUST USE US!"





Let's assume for fun that Blockbuster video is still owned by Viacom... a competitor of Comcast. Now let's assume (again, just for fun) that Comcast owns Netflix (which it does not) ... under Net Neutrality, Comcast could not block access to Blockbuster streaming video servers, which would force people to use Netflix instead of Blockbuster for streaming VOD.

Without Net Neutrality, they could. And probably would.





Net Neutrality prohibits the slowing or blocking of access to competitive markets, period. It allows equal access to all lanes of the highways and on/off ramps to competitive formats. It allows you to chose who you want your content from, and when you get it.

It prohibits companies Google and Verizon from striking deals to allow greater and faster access to Youtube (owned by Google) servers over, say, Hulu servers.

It prohibits companies like Comcast from blocking or slowing access to VOIP services.

It prohibits companies from making your choices FOR YOU, and prevents companies from bleeding other companies to allow their content to flow freely to the end user.



this is what Net Neutrality does.

[slakjaw]

Why should verizon or sprint get paid to pass cogent traffic? Everything should be free!

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by slakjaw

Net neutrality is a bad thing people!

So is women's suffrage. We need to end women's suffrage now! It's not right that they should suffer!