The death of Net Neautrality and the Raping of the American Consumer

[negZero]

There are only 2 ISPs here. Funny thing is, there used to be a telephone company that held a legal monopoly. And you had to rent phones from them. They disappeared a few years after I was born so I dont remember it too well but until recently you could still see their logo on microwave towers and payphones around town

Your Canadian you only ever have the choice between 2 ISP no matter where you live, thanks to Rogers & Bell owning the cable and phone lines.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Your Canadian you only ever have the choice between 2 ISP no matter where you live, thanks to Rogers & Bell owning the cable and phone lines.

Actually heres its Eastlink and Bell-Aliant. Rogers sells cell phones

 

[negZero]

Actually heres its Eastlink and Bell-Aliant. Rogers sells cell phones

Cellphone relatively free in Canada in comparison to the internet market since everyone needs to build up signal towers, through we still get screwed over more then anyone else in the world. Eastlink is built off Rogers's last-mile and Bell-Aliant is Bell after a merger. When you take look under the hood we really only have 2 choices here and shows.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I know Bell-Aliant is a merger. Because there used to be a 3rd one but it disappeared under that. I dont remember this all that well though. I was only young

 

[negZero]

I know Bell-Aliant is a merger. Because there used to be a 3rd one but it disappeared under that. I dont remember this all that well though. I was only young

That would be Maritime Telephone and Telegraph Company and NewTel Enterprises. They merged to form Aliant.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

MTT is the one that had the legal monopoly.

 

[illram]

No I gave example of what the ISPs want that hasn't yet been passed. They are still pushing for this to come to pass.


Again this argument has been happen for 8 years people people know what the ISPs want, wording they use to pass and what it means. With this now getting by and courts ruling that FFC don't have legal authority to slap net neutrality regulation on ISPs.

It is known fact that ISPs are throttling Bittorrent regardless of its usage even through it is protocol that is used for numerous legal reason outside of downloading copyrighted material.


Again people have caught ISPs throttling entire protocol just because it puts to much on there underdeveloped network.

Actually no the customers caught them first, then FCC stepped in and failed big.


The reason why people aren't concerned with it being dead in wireless networks is because wireless doesn't make up the last-mile. Plus there are whole alot of other things wrong with North America cellphone market.

First, by wireless I mean cell phone providers. They have nothing to do with landline internet providers and the rules for them will be different. All those slides in this thread showing different rates for different web pages? That's for mobile phone data plans. I think it's outrageous. I think it's also very scary, because I think mobile broadband and mobile data will become more prevalent than wired internet in the future, the same way cell phones have made landlines obsolete.

What I am hearing is you don't trust the ISPs regardless of what the FCC says (I don't trust most of them either!) and you don't like Comcast's policy of throttling bittorrent traffic. I agree that you can use bittorrent for lawful purposes, and p2p is used all the time online for lawful purposes (I think many xbox live games, for instance, use a variation of p2p, where individual users host games for other users rather than centralized servers.) The point of these FCC regs is to salvage some semblance of regulatory authority after that court order that basically said Comcast can do what it wants to manage traffic, so really, this is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

I am prepared to take some of the bad with some of the good, if it means I can more conveniently access lawful content. Part of my biggest gripe was when the industry simply refused to put any content online or via streaming, and sought to simply wipe out online delivery of content altogether. Now, I think they are coming around, and part of that deal is they get to implement policies that protect their bottom line. I am OK with reasonable policing of their content, such as preventing large amounts of traffic of unlawful content, which is why I am adopting more of a wait and see attitude. Of course, I would prefer a policy that does not prevent lawful distribution, so I am not saying I wholeheartedly agree with throttling traffic indiscriminately...although I doubt anyone will tell me with a straight face that the majority of bittorrent traffic--at least in the US and under US IP laws--is lawful content.

BTW, please don't break up my post, if you respond, into a wall of separate quotes, it makes it really difficult to respond and line by line stuff just drives me nuts.

 

[Murky]

I'm thinking about giving up my Internet habit completely except just for doing essential things like looking something up.

no facebook
no more youtube
no more cfc
no blogs
no more hulu

etc.

 

[galdre]

I don't even have internet at home - keeps me from wasting time on it. If I really want to look something up, I take my laptop to a coffee shop or the library. Or I just wait until I'm at work.

 

[negZero]

First, by wireless I mean cell phone providers. They have nothing to do with landline internet providers and the rules for them will be different. All those slides in this thread showing different rates for different web pages? That's for mobile phone data plans. I think it's outrageous. I think it's also very scary, because I think mobile broadband and mobile data will become more prevalent than wired internet in the future, the same way cell phones have made landlines obsolete.

This won't be happening in N.America for long time since the ISPs are unwilling to rebuild there entire infrastructure till they are out right forced too. They are still unwilling to do some real building on there DSL infrastructure.

Also wireless internet will never make landlines obsolete, well not for the foreseeable future since they are unable to make that last-mile for large bandwidth users like business

What I am hearing is you don't trust the ISPs regardless of what the FCC says (I don't trust most of them either!) and you don't like Comcast's policy of throttling bittorrent traffic. I agree that you can use bittorrent for lawful purposes, and p2p is used all the time online for lawful purposes (I think many xbox live games, for instance, use a variation of p2p, where individual users host games for other users rather than centralized servers.) The point of these FCC regs is to salvage some semblance of regulatory authority after that court order that basically said Comcast can do what it wants to manage traffic, so really, this is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

I don't like any N.American ISP.There lying, cheating, demanding... Way FCC is going about this is wrong, they could have tapped several experts who have been working on this for years. Instead in state of confusion they rush one of the biggest loopholes into the rulebooks. Now ISPs can throttle anything as long as they can prove its reasonable. This did nothing to enhance your privacy, stop ads, heck it didn't stop the MAFIAA from appointing themselves the police of the internet.

I am prepared to take some of the bad with some of the good, if it means I can more conveniently access lawful content.

The problem is that the bad parts can gut the good out of this.

Part of my biggest gripe was when the industry simply refused to put any content online or via streaming, and sought to simply wipe out online delivery of content altogether. Now, I think they are coming around, and part of that deal is they get to implement policies that protect their bottom line.

The problem is that the ISPs are able to use these regulations to make you pay extra for the use of legal content.

I am OK with reasonable policing of their content,

Well you and I could agree on whats reasonable, ISPs have shown that they are driven by profits. So there definition of reasonable will be based on what they can get away with and make money on.

such as preventing large amounts of traffic of unlawful content, which is why I am adopting more of a wait and see attitude.

You like talking about video streaming but you forget on how that service came into being for the general public. It is some unknown college age students who came up with an idea and put it into practice, now any new innovation that comes along for the internet will be meet with same disregard and resistance Napster got when it first came out.

Of course, I would prefer a policy that does not prevent lawful distribution, so I am not saying I wholeheartedly agree with throttling traffic indiscriminately...although I doubt anyone will tell me with a straight face that the majority of bittorrent traffic--at least in the US and under US IP laws--is lawful content.

Actually most of stuff using bittorrent protocol is quite legal examples of legal usage of this can be seen in facebook, twitter, open source programs, video games, Amazon S3 supports it, and TV stations have even started to use it for there programs.

BTW, please don't break up my post, if you respond, into a wall of separate quotes, it makes it really difficult to respond and line by line stuff just drives me nuts.

Going to keep doing it, so best get use to it.

 

[illram]

Well then, I guess our discussion is over.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Do we need to bring out the definition of Monopoly?

Cartel ?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Do we need to bring out the definition of Monopoly?

Its a fun board game.

I thought a monopoly by several companies was an olivegarchy or something.

 

[Dachs]

I thought a monopoly by several companies was an olivegarchy or something.

An oligopoly is a scenario in which a relatively small number of firms dominate market share. A cartel is some kind of agreement between firms in the same market to fix prices and/or production. Firms in an oligopolistic market may have a cartel agreement, or they may not.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I messed up the term badly. That wasnt very smart.

 

[Samson]

The are majority of Americans only have access to one ISP where they live, meaning that ISP can charge as they please in that region. Note many ISPs are built on different bigger ISP so if big ISP starts charging the smaller ISP more money your rates go up.

I am quite amazzed by this, as I have always seen america as such an extreme example of the free market. Surely even the most right wing people would suport regulation in this kind of environment.

I can only assume it is to do with the ownership of the wires to indavidual areas?

Monopoly only works when there are no rivalrous products.

(i dont think that holds here)

Not that I really want to argue ecconomics with you, but surely if more than 50% of americans have only one option WRT land based internet then that is a monopoly? I do not think satalite internet is a valid alternative, and mobile internet is very different.

There are only 2 ISPs here. Funny thing is, there used to be a telephone company that held a legal monopoly. And you had to rent phones from them. They disappeared a few years after I was born so I dont remember it too well but until recently you could still see their logo on microwave towers and payphones around town

Sounds similar to the UK. We had a state owned telephone company, where you only rented the phone, and it was illegal to plug in anything that was not approved. They privatised it, and legally required the resulting company to sell access to the wire network to other compaines. It was a major thing Margret Thacher did, and it seems to have worked better than some of her other stuff. I could get my internet from one of more than 10 ISPs.

 

[Cutlass]

I am quite amazzed by this, as I have always seen america as such an extreme example of the free market. Surely even the most right wing people would suport regulation in this kind of environment.

There is a problem of definitions of words you have to deal with in American discussions of issues like this. To some fundamentalist purists, 'free market' means one and only one thing: No government involvement whatsoever. It doesn't matter to them if a market is centrally planned. All that matters is that government has no involvement in any way, shape, or form. Complete monopoly is completely fine with them. In fact, many do not even believe in the existence of monopoly in the absence of government making it happen. I have seen many time, often right here in OT, the argument that 'monopolies cannot be profitable in a free market, and therefor can only exist by government action.' Me, I take an differing view. I believe that markets are only free when no one is permitted to control it. And that it takes government actions to make that happen. That markets are only free to the extent that government is actively protecting and promoting that freedom.

 

[Bordz]

Does anyone see the Irony here, yous complain about the limiting of data and paying or it on a per use basis becuase currently you essentially get infinate data for free. Yet when people want healthcare to be free everyone has a fit .

On a more on topic point, This wont change much excet punish those who go over there limit with slower speeds. I think it will develop like in other counties where for example you get 120gig for say $50 at max speed capable and it just slows down to 512/128kb when you exceed your limit until the start of teh next billing period.

 

[negZero]

Does anyone see the Irony here, yous complain about the limiting of data and paying or it on a per use basis becuase currently you essentially get infinate data for free. Yet when people want healthcare to be free everyone has a fit .

Okay whos internet is for free? There are illegal ways to get stuff for free and laws written to stop it, but the internet isn't free. You are promised by ISPs to have unlimited bandwidth, but it still isn't free. Really want to know who gets this unlimited plan for free?

Thing you must realize is that ISPs promise unlimited bandwidth as part of there deals only in North America do ISP feel that this is now unreasonable.

On a more on topic point, This wont change much excet punish those who go over there limit with slower speeds. I think it will develop like in other counties where for example you get 120gig for say $50 at max speed capable and it just slows down to 512/128kb when you exceed your limit until the start of teh next billing period.

This law allows ISP to throttle anything they deem unreasonable. Which leaves us asking what is unreasonable? This is a question left unanswered in this law. This law says nothing about imposing monthly limit since it was legal to do that before as long as you were upfront about. Also I have never heard of any other country's ISP putting limits on bandwidth, can I get a source?

 

[Bordz]

Okay whos internet is for free? There are illegal ways to get stuff for free and laws written to stop it, but the internet isn't free. You are promised by ISPs to have unlimited bandwidth, but it still isn't free. Really want to know who gets this unlimited plan for free?

Thing you must realize is that ISPs promise unlimited bandwidth as part of there deals only in North America do ISP feel that this is now unreasonable.



This law allows ISP to throttle anything they deem unreasonable. Which leaves us asking what is unreasonable? This is a question left unanswered in this law. This law says nothing about imposing monthly limit since it was legal to do that before as long as you were upfront about. Also I have never heard of any other country's ISP putting limits on bandwidth, can I get a source?

LOL you serious, well try here,

http://www.tpg.com.au/products_services/adsl2plus_pricing.php?/pricing/adsl2plus

http://go.bigpond.com/broadband/

http://personal.optus.com.au/web/oc...onal/bundles/broadbandhomephone&site=personal

*i was not aware of the 1st part of the changes, that is completely different if they can be selective

**Those links are 3 plan summarys from the top 2 telcos and my isp in aus (yes i am aware tpg has an unlimited deal its brand new only came onto the market 2 months ago). Note that afrer exceeding your limit it slows you down.