PCWorld Forums: Net Neutrality Advocates Blast Google, Verizon Plan - PCWorld Forums

Post your comments for Net Neutrality Advocates Blast Google, Verizon Plan here

Internet speeds and content flow should be governed by the types of hardware being used and the QOS mechanisms needed for certain types of traffic. You wouldn't want a VOIP call to drop so that should be prioritized whereas downloading a movie is not as important. This is important and already happens, however if I already pay to have an internet connection and so do the web sites that I visit, how does an ISP justify charging users more for handling certain traffic ie gaming or charging content providers more for speeding up traffic to their sites? The ISP should get paid for the connection and that is all. Does the phone company charge you more for calling 911 or calling a particular store over another, or degrade the quality of the call if that company your calling doesn't pay up? Think about it. Anything else is nonsense and capitalist greed. Reminds me of hotmail, it started out free, then you were prompted to log in once in a month or get cancelled, if you wanted more than mediocre storage you would have to pay up, then along came Gmail, and then hotmail went back to normal, free, and lots of storage. What is enough for ISPs? Don't you already make millions if not billions? Build more infrastructure, everything is moving to the internet anyway, TV, movies, phone, radio, etc, you will have millions more subscribers the more content moves online, therefore more money from subscribers. I think the ISPs are trying to pull a fast one. They are trying to be lord of content instead of just trying to be lord of connection.

The whole QoS vs. net-neutrality is the real lie here.

When we order internet service, the service is described to us as "52Mb per second" or something like that.

If the user decided to use their bandwidth for phone calls that's their prerogative. The user downloading with bit torrent or the like will still be limited to the bandwidth they subscribed for.

If the network is saturated, I expect my VoIP to be useless - along with a lot of other things. Within my private network, I can establish QoS standards, but those standards are not ubiquitous by any means on the public Internet. If an ISP believes it needs to implement traffic shaping because they lack sufficient capacity, then the answer is not to implement traffic shaping, but to add more capacity.

What would expect from the ISP's? Of course they are against any regulation; no need to even take their opinions.

Besides, ISP's are wrong anyways because the Internet is telecommunications. The internet is just like telephone lines. We (the users) dial a number (IP address) of the website we are interested in seeing. Phone #'s look like (607)667-9999. IP addresses look like 234.354.354.345. We the users have the right to dial (search) any number (website) we see fit and have a quality connection unrestricted based on what we choose to find.

Faster networks are going to cost more and when the ISP's build them we (the consumers) will be floating the bill. We all know the ISP's are going to get tax $$ for upgrades. The ISP's crying about this is just a smoke screen. In most other countries they have giga-bite speed service and pay the same as we do.

Remember, the Internet as we know it today was created by the US Government with the High Speed Computing and Communications Act of 1991. Until 1993 the National Science Foundation (NSF) owned and operated the commercial Internet. In 1993 control of the Internet was leased to the original telcos (AT&T, MCI, Pacific Bell, Bell Atlantic) with the understanding that the Internet be operated in the public interest.

The FCC absolutely needs to determine if the public interest is being served by the current Internet environment where home users and businesses typically have a choice of one carrier or cable company, no competition. If the telcos are not serving the public interest, then the NSF should take back control of the Internet, or lease control to a group or organization that would operate the Internet in a way that is fair to all.

If this gets too much momentum, then I feel that the government should step in, hear me out, that a bill should be passed, in comparison to Finland where every citizen has a right to broadband. On another note, we need to unleash our bandwidth because we are falling WAY behind other countries. These companies want us to think that they have limited capacity and that they can't keep up with speed and content demands. That's how they justify this and when it all comes down to it, my bits are no different than everyone else's bits. There should be NO discrimination of information origin or use.

It is absurd to expect Verizon to accept anything that will impact their monopoly profits. They are not interested in providing broadband service at a reasonable profit, but want to collect a part of the revenue others are generating from using the network. That's like saying a company that uses public roads to deliver products has to pay a fat fee because they're making a profit.

We need a national broadband policy that makes all broadband networks regulated commodities, with a defined rate of return and a requirement to serve everyone. The modern equivalent of "universal service" that the old ATT, Ma Bell, operated under for 100 years; it was both regulated and profitable. That would be a win-win for everyone although Verizon won't agree voluntarily.

In the short term, the FCC is on the right path by putting internet service back under telecommunications jurisdiction, where it can impose some standards and regulation.

RCharles

mkb1, on 10 August 2010 - 06:08 AM, said:

If a passenger shows up at an airport with 75,000 pounds of baggage, should the airline be forced to carry it for the price of a coach ticket. Should they throw everyone else off the place so they can accommodate the heavy baggage man. Should they fly a jumbo jet to accommodate him. Of course, charging the rest of us for his indulgence. Or should they just charge him directly for his 75,000 pounds. Or should they just refuse to carry his 75,000 pounds.

I dont see that the bandwidth argument is much different. Bandwidth takes infrastructure and infrastructure costs money. The question is should everybody pay equally, or should you charge the bandwidth hogs more.

Airline passengers and information are different. One is physical and one is electrical signals. The real heart of the matter is that information on the internet that is made public or used for private purposes must be made accessible by anyone who requests it. Seriously, billions of people using the internet and these companies are wanting to milk us (even more) for what they classify as "bandwidth usage." Lets keep internet access unlimited and unrestricted. Why are these companies thinking backwards instead of moving forward? Lets not become another Australia and become "pay per use" or "pay per gigabyte." This will backfire dramatically if theses companies get their way. The network infrastructure is already in place and these companies should be utilizing them to their full potential instead of giving out "allotments." I pay for unlimited and thats what want period.

This post has been edited by wolfmoon13: 10 August 2010 - 09:29 AM

I have read all the blah, blah about net neutrality for years. It is very simple. What net neutrality is really all about is to make all of us who don't have heavy bandwith requirements pay the freight for those individuals and companies who want to hog the internet and pay as little as possible for the priviledge. End of story.

I just noticed wolfmoon13's ridiculous argument. No you don't have to make everything that is posted on the internet accessible to everyone. There are millions of inane videos and video games flying around the internet. These are bandwidth hogs that serve no essential purpose. If you want to play then play with your own money. Not mine. The truly essential information like words and voice are not heavy bandwidth users.

littleboy, on 10 August 2010 - 10:33 AM, said:

Keep in mind that YMMV. You or I may think this stuff is stupid, but to other people, these might be great experiences or timekillers. This is exactly the attitude net neutrality is trying to avoid. We don't want to discriminate based on the activity - everything should have equal priority. After all, do we partially enforce the First Amendment or any of the others?

Here is a link to the latest Tech News Today talking about what we all are concerned about. Remember, bits are bits

http://twit.tv/tnt49

littleboy, on 10 August 2010 - 10:33 AM, said:

Are you actually serious in what you are writing?
(1) Are you suggesting some kind of censorship?
(2) What is important for you might not be important to somebody else and vice versa.
(3) Actually in my area I am playing with my own money the bandwidth I use, not yours. If I only need modest bandwidth I can choose a 1.2 Mbps connection at a symbolic price. If I need more bandwidth I could go for higher bandwidth/more money, up to a 52 Mbps. So, if you only use "words and voice" you'd want to pay less.

You read all the answer I do not understand that a network infrastructure already in place, these companies should use their full potential, rather than engage in "funding." What I want to and that infinite hope....

mkb1, on 10 August 2010 - 06:08 AM, said:

Millions? O_o... Verizon made a gross income of 11+ billion last year... Net profit of almost 3 billion. Wouldn't it be nice to make twice as much? That's their thinking, and do you blame em? if your company could make 30...40.. 100 billion more, wouldn't you atleast give it a shot? Why blame the company for what they are designed to do, make money? I don't agree with it, but i dont blame em either.

vlgligor, on 10 August 2010 - 11:06 PM, said:

I guess no one else is a network administrator.. Well, just because there are millions of useless, mind-numbing videos "flying around" out there, how does that affect the internet bandwidth? They are all stored on servers, not on "the internet". The only time they will use any bandwidth is if a user requests to play or view the videos, etc. Not until then do the files get transfered across the internet. And in that case, the only videos takin up bandwidth are ones that someone wants to watch at the moment, so who are you to stop them? So what you are really complaining about is storage space on someones server... Send GoDaddy some $$$ and they'll gladly upgrade their server capacity to store more useless junk.