Obama says broadband Internet should be regulated

[Oregonhunter5]

How about we just leave it like it is.
Once upon a time, there was never a thing called a hunting license, and tag. They just hunted. Same concept.

 

[DieselScout]

How about we just leave it like it is.
Once upon a time, there was never a thing called a hunting license, and tag. They just hunted. Same concept.

The companies don't want to leave it like it is. They are moving to restrict the web and without action there will be nothing to stop them from throttling or blocking whatever they see fit.

 

[Oregonhunter5]

That's fine with me. I will handle my biz the way I see fit. It will create a competitive business enviroment. When the giver,met gets involved, dead bodies start popping up.

 

[DieselScout]

That's fine with me. I will handle my biz the way I see fit. It will create a competitive business enviroment. When the giver,met gets involved, dead bodies start popping up.

So when your local ISP shuts down access to this site how are you going to access it? When the cell companies shut down internet access to this site and other what are you going to do? Internet access is such a small market there is no place to take your business. Most homes have only one option for internet and your handing the keys over to a money grubbing business who has no problem tossing your rights away for money or even image. Look at open carry bands as a perfect example. They do nothing yet companies jump right on the band wagon when their image is attacked.

 

[Oregonhunter5]

I will take my chances.
The last thing I want, is some goon like Husain running my life. Cell phone companies are a great example. They give away phones now, and are begging for biz. I hate big biz. But I hate goverment a whole lot more.

 

[DieselScout]

I will take my chances.
The last thing I want, is some goon like Husain running my life. Cell phone companies are a great example. They give away phones now, and are begging for biz. I hate big biz. But I hate goverment a whole lot more.

Better the evil you don't know then? Who's to say someone like BHO isn't running your ISP? Who's to say they're bit worse. I guess I am just different I don't trust either of them but at least I can vote out the one I don't like. on the corporate side my options are nill.

 

[PiratePast40]

After trying to determine the real impact, it's still about as clear as mud. What is clear, is the potential effect on free speech. From what I see, without net neutrality, someone like Bloomberg or Soros could be the ones deciding the content we're "allowed" to see. We've already seen ebay and Craigslist controlling content when it comes to firearms. Could get much much worse.

 

[Oregonhunter5]

Depends on who's the president.
That's a bet I wouldn't take

 

[Martini_Up]

Obama is a front man. Something bigger is pushing this. And if you think that a Republican would protect your rights, think again. Never, ever vote just by the R or D. Look at the person, best as you can.

And what is protecting law abiding citizens from the patriot act again?

Aw, never mind. My panties are starting to twist up....

 

[2506]

After trying to determine the real impact, it's still about as clear as mud. What is clear, is the potential effect on free speech. From what I see, without net neutrality, someone like Bloomberg or Soros could be the ones deciding the content we're "allowed" to see. We've already seen ebay and Craigslist controlling content when it comes to firearms. Could get much much worse.

This might help:
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

 

[PiratePast40]

This might help:
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

I get what they're saying, but I don't think the other side is represented fully. My understanding, is that providers of heavy bandwidth content, e.g., google and Netflix are already paying the infrastructure and delivery companies extra, in order to make additional bandwidth available. The concept is that they can pay the extra money for the additional services. If they didn't, the rest of the internet would be slowed down when the higher usage customers are using that product. They are, in effect, paying extra for use of a high speed lane. I don't see a problem with that as it seems like free enterprise.

The concern seems to be that, if you don't pay Comcast or other providers, the extra use fees, your content will be shuttled to the slow lane, or even worse, not allowed access. So protection against discrimination based on content, makes sense to me.

Now, if someone comes back and says that I don't know squat about how the internet works, please feel free to chime in. I'm struggling to determine the ramifications of this on both sides.

 

[Member 5605]

Taku and others,

Some are saying that the current adminstration wants to regulate the internet. That is not the case. I'm not a big fan of the majority of things that come out of D.C. so take this as a firm believer in liberty, equality and freedom from government.

What's happening here with the Net Neutrality is essentially something that happened a while back with phones. Land lines. You guys are old enough to know and remember (some of you) when you had an operator and you said "connect me to the Johnson's house" and they did it. Now remember pay phones?

Fast forward to the interesting point. There was a time when making a call from Oregon to NY would have to be routed through multiple networks. Each network would charge you $.xyz per minute to use their line. Didn't matter how far or how much of their network it needed. Five hops or just one. That added up and made calls asinine to make. There was introduced a sort of a neutrality for phone lines. Meaning you could pay for service but not every mom & pops phone line that had to hope couldn't charge you per connection or make your calls sound crappy because they put you on a lesser quality line.

Well, let's look at it now in the terms of how it effects us today. Today we can make cellular calls across the nation, most of us on cell phones can do that with no costs accrued. I'm not sure how it works anymore with land lines. I'm sure there is a flat per minute rate on long distance. Anyway..

Net Neutrality is important. As DieselScout was pointing out it's important that we understand this.

What can and has been happening:
http://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/
Comcast lowers the speeds of NetFlix until Netflix pays Comcast to up the speeds.

Verizon throttles their users:
http://www.verizonwireless.com/support/information/data_disclosure.html

I want you to look at this:
http://www.theopeninter.net/

Imagine if Comcast/Verizon/YourISP (Internet Service Provider) said to you in a newsletter "Thank you for being a valued customer, due to costs and conenctions, upgrades we will be changing the way that we operate. We will still be offering you the connection speeds you have become accustom to on our networks, though with the current changes in technology we can no longer offer you those speeds to streaming media sites (YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, DailyMotion, et al) due to streaming and bandwidth limitations. We are offering a package for streaming media that will give you unrestricted access to those sites for $5.99/month. We are also rolling out a "Forum Package" for $3.99/month that will allow you unlimited access to forum sites (sites that use V.Bulletin, Joomla!, XenForo, et al). We look forward to continuing to be your internet provider in the future."

What if that happened? Would you be pissed? The net access you agree to is based on YOUR ISP's TOS (Terms of Service). What if their TOS changes? Would you accept it? What if it went this way:

Email from YouTube/Hulu/Netflix etc:
"Dear subscriber/user;
Due to current issues with the ISP's providing service we have informed you that our network bandwidth through these ISP's has been slowed down by 1/2. This will dramatically affect your upload and download times, may create more buffering during peak times. We are sorry to inform you of this but we have been unable to reach a comparable agreement with the ISP's in your area for network speed"

Now there are two different possibilties, both have happened and are happening in places. It's all about money, not the free exchange of ideas.

When an ISP charges a company to have their data run through their network that's where we have to draw the line.

It's only a matter of time until your NBC/Comcast based (or name another large ISP), decides that they want to restrict the internet.

Take a look here for starters:
<broken link removed>

look at how our country has one of the higher costs per Mbps, we are at $3.50.

I recently read something about how the United States as a developed country literally has one of the highest costs per month for internet and at that it had the slowest speeds in relationship to that.

Just imagine what would happen if they decide that they want to restrict your content? The same people would be screaming because they are "restricting their freedom". This is a preemptive strike and has gotten more attention lately because Obummer has suggested it (and the negativity along with that) because the R's oppose the D's in Washington D.C.

I hope this clarifies. It's not an R or D, Conservative or Liberal issue, this affects us all.

 

[2506]

Dyjital--drop the mic and walk off the stage!

 

[Member 5605]

Better yet.. here is a good analogy..

It's like paying taxes (your monthly ISP fee), and knowing that it covers you for State and National Parks, only to find that when you go to these parks, you have to pay a toll on the roads to the parks, then pay an admittance fee to enter the park based upon how long you plan to stay there an pay again based on where/what roads you plan to travel on inside that park.

 

[PiratePast40]

Dyjiyal, I think you're still ignoring an important part of this, and that is the bandwidth taken up by the people doing the streaming. If you're using the infrastructure at a much higher rate, and others are being denied high speed service because of it, then that's a problem. I have a nephew who thinks the same way as you do. He doesn't think that he should pay any extra because of the fact that he downloads movies constantly. He sees it as a responsibility of the ISP / government to build better infrastructure.

Not saying that I disagree with everything you're saying, just that you're purposely bypassing some important points. I think that the measured response by the FCC has been the correct approach thus far.

 

[Member 5605]

I understand, but.....

I don't think you realize the amount of bandwidth ISP's are capable of providing.

I'm going to use my Cable ISP provider as the subject here.

DOCSIS 3.0 is capable of 16oMb/s
That's using the 8 available downstream channels. Currently my modem is capable of 8 down and 4 up.

Theoretical maximum speeds, so let's say that my ISP caps my net speed at 60Mbps (which it does), out of my 8 downstream channels I'm using a little over 26% of my modems capability. Upload is 12Mbps

Fiber speeds:
let's say that it's roughly 270Gbps per channel on a fiber line (that's pretty close)...
With that per channel bandwidth from head end to the fiber node that serves my place, 270,000Mbps of data transfer. That leads to 4,500 connections PER node at full download capacity to max out that fiber line.

Now each neighborhood has it's own fiber line, and let's say it's approximately 500 homes per node (even if we stretch it to 1000 it's insignificant).

Now that we have traced the path from our house to the local ISP headend, let's work on the data from the local ISP headend to their main servers.

I live in Corvallis. My data goes from Corvallis to Portland then to Seattle.

Corvallis to Portland:
From headend to headend it's all fiber. The amount of data from fiber HE to fiber HE is phenomenal. Currently the record is 73Tbps, so let's drop that to 66% for actual speeds. So we have 50Tbps.

50Tbps is
50,000 Gbps or
50,000,000Mbps

we established that 4,500 people on a single Gbps line could max it out at 60Mbps, so mathmatically speaking if we scale that to the Tbps, we would end up with 50,000x4500=225,000,000 connections before it maxed out the current lines.

I could be off a little bit, but hell, even if we take it for 1/2 of the calculations that I have listed, that's still saying that a fiber line is capable of massive data transfer. I'm not sure what QAM it's using but I remember 10 years ago when I was in IT they were using much lower compression ratios for data. QAM 256 was standard a while back I think I read somewhere that QAM 458 or something like that, so compression radios have almost doubled, along with lines being able to carry more.

Heck, for bubblegums and giggles, here is an article from 2006 praising a 14Tbps line:
http://www.ntt.co.jp/news/news06e/0609/060929a.html



EDIT

Here is another bit of information that I forgot to include.

Corvallis, as many other places have data storage facilities. These are Gbps lines that have PETABYTES of information stored on them. These are designed to decrease the load from the trunk lines. The ISP's store a crap ton of data on them. If I download something here at my house that's locally cached on the onid.orst.edu servers (Comcast's cache) I can get true download speeds of over 30MBps. I downloaded a 456MB file in 15 seconds.

So taking cache servers into play it makes a difference now...... Eliminates web traffic for streaming traffic.

 

[Gator Monroe]

You are one weird dude. I don't condone selling any rights to anyone. Stop smoking that crap.............

The net needs to stay free and open.................!

The Statist Socialist leaning Progressive Democrats are not the same as the Constitutionalist Conservative Republicans by a long stretch...

 

[U201491]

The Statist Socialist leaning Progressive Democrats are not the same as the Constitutionalist Conservative Republicans by a long stretch...

Constitutionalist Conservatives actually have value to America.

The so called "progressive" ie Socialist/Marxist/Communist warts are like a burr under the saddle blanket or a t.u.r.d in the pool.
I was being nice there.

 

[clearconscience]

Only thing that needs regulated around this country is our crooked government

 

[The Heretic]