Net neutrality — beyond dumb


Locutus
+1
#1
Steve ForbesVerified account ‏@SteveForbesCEO

This editorial says it all in reference to Net Neutrality and the President.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/our-opinion/editorial-net-neutrality-beyond-dumb/article_53588271-f41c-5606-a391-c58007269a55.html …




Even by his own standards, President Obama’s case for net neutrality borders on idiotic.
The president says Internet service should be treated like a basic utility — which is defensible. But then he says bandwidth providers must treat all users exactly alike, all the time, and that will make everyone better off.


It won’t. Which is why utilities don’t act that way.

Power companies, for example, charge different rates to residential customers, small commercial users and large industrial users.

Water utilities often — and rightly — charge higher rates to customers who use huge volumes. This encourages conservation.

The president and other advocates of net neutrality like to compare Internet service to the highways. They claim they don’t want consumers to have to pay tolls or get stuck on gravel roads. Apparently they have missed the past quarter-century of transportation policy innovation.

High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, once derided as “Lexus Lanes,” are now a proven method of reducing congestion — and not just for those who pay extra to use them. When someone uses a HOT lane, he or she leaves the regular lanes, thereby making traffic flow more smoothly in those lanes as well.

Advocates of net neutrality, such as Netflix and other content merchants, have grossly misrepresented the debate. Bandwidth providers have nothing to gain by slowing down service to anybody. After all: Net neutrality rules are not in place now. Is Internet innovation being stifled? Are customers being denied service? Are cable companies censoring controversial content? Of course not. Net neutrality advocates are not warning about genuine threats. They’re telling campfire ghost stories to scare the public.

Bandwidth providers do, however, have a very good reason to charge higher rates to bandwidth hogs. Streaming movies and other huge video files slows down network connections for everybody. It’s a premium service, and those who sell it should be allowed to charge a premium price. By the same token, companies such as Netflix should be able to avoid delivery interruptions (such as frequent buffering) by paying extra for faster connections.

The digital revolution has worked wondrously so far. But handing over control of the Internet to government bureaucrats would bring progress to a screeching halt. It would expand the scope of federal power into new territory yet again. That’s great for politicians and the special interests who have to grease their palms. It would be a disaster for everyone else.


Editorial: Net neutrality — beyond dumb - Richmond Times-Dispatch: Our Opinion
 
Kreskin
+2
#2
Faced with ever increasing bandwidth use the ISP's like Bell, Telus and Rogers are going to charge more and/or throttle back. Claiming they have nothing to be gained by slowing things down, and that nothing has been stifled and thus contending nothing will be, is misleading. After all they need as much space as they can get to produce their ever growing sports entertainment assets.

On the other hand claiming the internet should be treated as a utility and thus everyone would pay the same is also misleading. If I leave every light in my house on every day of the year my utility bill will be much higher than my neighbour's bill. If it's treated as a utility then we can rest assured there will be nothing neutral. The end user pays no matter which end of the candle is burnt. IE either Netflix pays and thus passes on the cost of it to the user or the user pays directly. Six of one, one half dozen the other.

The biggest issue to me is what will the future hold for start ups and smaller players on the internet. Success already drives higher and higher server related costs. It would be a shame if the future also has additional costs related to bandwidth. Therefore, if I had to chose I would go with the 'treated as a utility' option. A more user friendly internet world for micro/small business.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+4
#3  Top Rated Post
It even gets more murky now that Rogers/Shaw have entered into SHOWMI (a Netflix clone). A definite conflict of interest if they can throttle back Netflix.
 
Tonington
+1
#4
And now the porn stars have their say:

Porn Stars Explain Net Neutrality - YouTube
 
Goober
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

It even gets more murky now that Rogers/Shaw have entered into SHOWMI (a Netflix clone). A definite conflict of interest if they can throttle back Netflix.

Happened in the US but they have differing rules than Canada.
Internet does not fall under their communications act.

Netflix Agrees To Pay Comcast To End Slowdown – Consumerist

For the last several months, Comcast Internet customers have complained about a drop in quality of the Netflix streams being delivered to their homes, and Netflix’s own data showed a massive decline in connection speeds starting in October. But today, the two companies announced they have reached a “mutually beneficial” agreement that will hopefully turn that trend around.

Much like Netflix’s ongoing standoff with Verizon FiOS, the drop in speeds wasn’t an issue of the ISP throttling or blocking service to Netflix. Rather, the ISPs were allowing for Netflix traffic to bottleneck at what’s known as “peering ports,” the connection between Netflix’s bandwidth provider and the ISPs.

Until recently, if peering ports became congested with downstream traffic, it was common practice for an ISP to temporarily open up new ports to maintain the flow of data. This was not a business arrangement; just something that had been done as a courtesy. ISPs would expect the bandwidth companies to do the same if there was a spike in upstream traffic. However, there is virtually no upstream traffic with Netflix, so the Comcasts and Verizons of the world claimed they were being taken advantage of.

Today’s announcement, which doesn’t specify any financial terms, says that Netflix and Comcast have “established a more direct connection between Netflix and Comcast.”
 
tay
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post

Steve ForbesVerified account ‏@SteveForbesCEO

This editorial says it all in reference to Net Neutrality and the President.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/our-opinion/editorial-net-neutrality-beyond-dumb/article_53588271-f41c-5606-a391-c58007269a55.html …





The president and other advocates of net neutrality like to compare Internet service to the highways. They claim they don’t want consumers to have to pay tolls or get stuck on gravel roads. Apparently they have missed the past quarter-century of transportation policy innovation.

Bandwidth providers have nothing to gain by slowing down service to anybody. After all: Net neutrality rules are not in place now. Is Internet innovation being stifled? Are customers being denied service?

Bandwidth providers do, however, have a very good reason to charge higher rates to bandwidth hogs. Streaming movies and other huge video files slows down network connections for everybody. It’s a premium service, and those who sell it should be allowed to charge a premium price. By the same token, companies such as Netflix should be able to avoid delivery interruptions (such as frequent buffering) by paying extra for faster connections.

The digital revolution has worked wondrously so far. But handing over control of the Internet to government bureaucrats would bring progress to a screeching halt. It would expand the scope of federal power into new territory yet again. That’s great for politicians and the special interests who have to grease their palms. It would be a disaster for everyone else.


Editorial: Net neutrality — beyond dumb - Richmond Times-Dispatch: Our Opinion




The NETFLIX situation is indeed an example.


It could get murkier with say an operator/provider who has a certain Political/Religious leaning allowing sites that support that view to 'flow freely' and sites that debate those views to be unavailable.


And that is possibly why this group doesn't like it..........








Christian media oppose FCC Internet ruling






Christian media representatives are encouraging voters to ask Congress to overturn a Feb. 26 Federal Communications Commission ruling regulating broadband Internet services.




The FCC voted 3–2 to reclassify broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, with the purported intent of protecting open Internet, according to an FCC press release.



Both the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) Board of Directors, composed of 100 key leaders among Christian communicators, and the Christian Film & Television Commission (CFTVC), a non-profit ministry aimed at redeeming the values of entertainment media, say the change will hamper free speech and oversteps the bounds of democracy.



"I am saddened that the FCC voted on partisan lines to dramatically expand federal power over the Internet," NRB President and CEO Jerry Johnson said in a press release. "Bigger government is not fertile ground for the flourishing of free speech and innovation. This is a power grab, and NRB opposes it."



During its 2015 convention in Nashville, the NRB had urged the FCC in a Feb. 23 resolution to oppose the change recommended by the Obama administration, stating it might also send a poor message to the international community regarding free speech. In the same resolution, the NRB encouraged voters to tell the government to reject the change.



"Asserting Title II power domestically could not only send a poor signal to nations that have or are considering more state governance of the Internet," the resolution reads, "but also it could appear to lend credence to arguments by certain repressive regimes that would like an international body like the International Telecommunications Union of the United Nations to have increased authority over the Internet."



The CFTVC, which publishes the MovieGuide.org entertainment monitoring site, said the new rules "will destroy innovation, progress and freedom on the Internet."



"If we allow the federal bureaucracy to control the Internet," said CFTVC chairman Ted Baehr, "the soft tyranny under which we now live will harden into a real tyranny where liberty will rapidly become a dim memory."


"The best solution," Baehr said, "is for American citizens to demand that Congress immediately overturn the new regulations."




more




Christian media oppose FCC Internet ruling
 
Walter
#7
California vs. Trump on net neutrality
https://www.axios.com/us-sues-califo...4b341ded9.html

California wants gubmint to control internet. Stoopid.
 
MHz
-1
#8
The Citizens would probably be okay with just being given the tools to fuk up the trolls good all by themselves. I would also think it would be Walnut's movie producer friends rather than the abused starlets that want as little Government involvement in things as possible.
 
Walter
#9
Ad hominem is a poor argument.
 
MHz
#10
You are a poor argument for a human being Walnut. I would ask the ones you don't like how they feel about it if they had permission to tell the truth. Why do you hate the truth so much Walnut?