Comments on: In support of Net Neutrality

By: Chanel Bag

Chanel Bag — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 05:39:40 +0000

Have you ever taken some factors into account when
you seek coach staff from coach online outlet store?

By: Frank

Frank — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 21:19:00 +0000

A lack of regulation worked so well in the financial and home mortgage industries. It cracks me up when people think the government is the problem. The government is owned by big business.

By: Marsh

Marsh — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:22:06 +0000

Say no to net neutrality! The government is far more insidious than any isp. Political hacks from all parties use vague sections of a law to justify their actions. Be it to minimize or eliminate an opponents view from the public arena. Humans are not perfect, which is why well intended laws are often twisted into some perverse rule to benefit the group in power.

We look beyond the gentle phrases and soft smiles into the souls of those touting a law or rule to be for the benefit of everyone, Far too often the unintended results haven't been accounted for because the developer was a Pollyanna or started with evil intent.

By: cbemerine

cbemerine — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:08:28 +0000

What is your suggestion when the company does NOT want to fix it, as it allows them to charge you more each month for less?

At&T and the other wireline/wireless providers could offer this but they do not want too. Now what do you suggest?

By: cbemerine

cbemerine — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:05:30 +0000

Free markets working, what a joke. They do work, but in the USA, specifically in this market place; there is a very factual 20+ year track record showing factually that the market is being prevented from working.

You can deny its true, but the facts speak for themselves.

Follow the money.

What do you suggest now? The market is most certainly NOT working.

By: cbemerine

cbemerine — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:01:48 +0000

I agree with, but without net neutrality they will out right block, throttle (shaping software) back, or prevent a competitor's VoIP product from receiving as good service as their own VoIP product, which of course they want you to purchase instead.

Many did not believe that a cable company would craft a stop TCP/IP packet until they did it, were taken to court and it was proved they had done it. (Of course they denied it for a long time).

We MUST have net neutrality. We also need minimum bandwidth guarantees for both upstream and downstream.

By: cbemerine

cbemerine — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:57:29 +0000

I take part of your post to call for government deregulation, though I am sure you would disagree with my assumption of your comment. Your simply not going to remove barriers, monopoly or oligopoly situations without Government regulation and/or de-regulation. It was de-regulation that was successful in Japan.

The American telcos actions are extremely well documented. They have had 20+ years, have received in excess of $900 Billion (grants, taxes and additional fees; yes your tax dollars) specifically to build out fiber.

Instead of building fiber, they whine that it is too expensive while lobbying our elected officials in D.C. alone at the rate of $18 million per WEEK! (So that is why I pay $50 per month for 100Kb / 4Kb, great! )

Where's the fiber?

As to cost, once the fiber is in the ground, maintenance is cheaper, just ask anyone that lives in a state with allot of lightning. In Japan, officials are on the record stating that with fiber it costs pennies to offer 2GB, I believe it cost them less than .50 cents to offer 100MB per month and the cost did NOT increase to offer 1GB per month. They stated that they are still making over 300% profit even when offering higher bandwidths of either 100Mb / 100Mb or 1 GB / 1 GB.

To increase bandwidth on fiber, you switch out the router on each end. That is the only additional cost, which can be spread out over many, many years as is any capital expenditures.

By: avner ronen

avner ronen — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:22:24 +0000

makes sense. i think optimizing the network for different protocols is a good idea, and i know that the ISPs and their vendors are doing stuff on this front.

it needs to be done in a way that does not let the ISP "abuse" the system to degrade services that it deems competitive or unprofitable for him (e.g. VoIP, Video?)

By: SeanO

SeanO — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 04:30:29 +0000

I'm afraid you don't understand the debate at all. The government is the reason we have the Internet in the first place. Without it we'd all still be using Compuserve, AOL, or Prodigy.

The reason the Internet is not "broken" as you say is because no ISPs (except wireless ones) have taken any bold steps yet in violating neutrality. Yet. They want to. They openly say they want to. They want to be able to tell a customer, "Hey we'll give you Internet half-off if you let us block access to YouTube." If you can't understand how devastating this would be to everyone, then I'm just sorry.

If AT&T can't handle a certain amount of bandwidth, then they need to cap the data rate lower. They don't have a right sit there and make qualitative decisions as to which apps you can and can't use. That's fvcking ridiculous! If their network can't handle that much traffic, then they need to cap everyone's bandwidth and stop calling it an unlimited data plan.

By: SeanO

SeanO — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 04:22:36 +0000

I support net neutrality except for one caveat. I think ISPs should have the right to treat traffic differently based on the way that the site/service chooses to identify itself as. So if you're Gmail, you identify yourself as an email app that doesn't require low latency or high bandwidth. If you're YouTube you need high bandwidth but don't need low latency (everything is buffered). If you're Skype, you identify yourself as VOIP which means you need decent bandwidth and the lowest latency possible. The ISPs should have the right to build different networks optimized for different types of traffic and route them accordingly. The key difference between this and opposition to net neutrality, is that the ISPs would not get to determine what sites and services are what. So when coding my blog, if I decide to identify it (on some registry perhaps?) as a VOIP service (even though it's just a blog) the ISP would have to treat it as a VOIP service. It'd be dishonest of me, but most people would be honest about it. Often there is a trade off between latency and bandwidth so most services would want to be honest so they get routed in a way that truly benefits them the most.