Net Neutrality Paradigm Shift

[Husar]

Any way, at this point in the argument is where I see that no progress is going to be made here.

Let's be fair here, progress could be made if you did what CR said and tried to refute the arguments in that blog, but because you're stubborn and close-minded, you're also right and progress cannot be made.

[ICantSpellDawg]

CR - I want the Web to be public as well unfettered by regulation. Ideally, I want to see it replace the subsidized mid 20th century educational system as well. I would prefer that, If our dollars are going to go somewhere, that children recieve remedial education in community and recieve the rest online. Stop subsidizing education the way it works least and figure out a system where we can get rid of most teachers and replace them with more effective online programs. Kids could congregate for mandatory testing, but other than that they could congregate on their own time with people that they have things in common with.

Insane, I know - but I want to see the web unfettered by private actors and untouched by the governemnt. It is the new highway system, the new storefront, the new movie theater, the new library and the new school. Tax dollars should eventually go towards basic maintenence and the bottom should fall out of the current entitlement system leading to lower taxes in general.

I see the internet as the conservative dream come true. Keep our tax dollars for our own purposes, a market that is minimally regulated across state lines and job loss for millions of liberals in government work.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The bread & butter of the Internet is built around the idea that on the level of routers and switches ISPs do not impose arbitrary restrictions on traffic; an example would be how a Pakistan ISP once blocked the entire Youtube site for the entire world by routing all traffic to Youtube IPs over its network directly to the ‘shredder’.

Furthermore any site pays for its bandwidth already: you buy a certain data capacity from whatever company plays host to your service (website, torrent tracker or what have you), or you have your own servers and you buy bandwidth from your ISP (and you make sure that you can actually make use of your bandwidth).

In fact, this practice of buying bandwidth and then using it as you see fit is the business model of tier-3 ISPs: they simply buy bandwidth in bulk with service guarantees from a tier-2 or tier-1 ISP and re-sell chunks of it as ISP services to customers. These ISPs do not even have direct access to the hardware through which their traffic is routed.

About that blog; just reading on we get to some seriously funny stuff:

A variety of conceivable factors can come into play when a competing marketplace producer makes decisions of this sort. For instance, satisfying iPhone user demand for access to VoIP applications using 3G network capabilities could increase AT&T’s good will, cementing its relationship with existing users and attracting increased numbers of new users. On the other hand, giving iPhone user access to VoIP applications using 3G network capabilities could have the overall effect of subsidizing its VoIP competitors, ultimately resulting in loss of significant business to those competitors. There is the possibility that business lost to VoIP competitors will result in a loss of revenue necessary to cover AT&T's high, up-front sunk costs for both building and maintaining its 3G network, which like all networks, has finite capacity. And loss of revenue makes it less likely that AT&T can subsidize iPhones so that consumers can purchase them for less than $200. Multi-factored business decisions of this kind should not be made by regulatory fiat.

Just read that again:

There is the possibility that business lost to VoIP competitors will result in a loss of revenue necessary to cover AT&T's high, up-front sunk costs for both building and maintaining its 3G network

So if to pay for VoIP is to pay for your use of 3G, what it the usual monthly bill to pay for? To pay for your use of 3G, yet again?

[Crazed Rabbit]

You two can keep thinking that government is out to get you, and let companies walk all over you for the sake of keeping the free market alive and I'll keep thinking my own out of touch ideologies.

The point I've been trying to make this whole thread is that companies aren't walking over anybody. All the dangers about not having net neutrality ARE JUST SPECULATION.

I see the internet as the conservative dream come true.

Well then don't believe the net neutrality people who harp on non-existent problems.

If there really will be a problem because we don't have net neutrality, then let's go on without regulation until we see the problem. And then, we can think about regulation designed for the actual problems.

That's simple logic.

And ACIN, if we're blocked, it's because you ignored my post with the blog link and tried (and failed) to pull a tribesy. You've been going on about how you think the corporations are idiots and won't invest in their networks, and then I show you how they've invested hundreds of billions of dollars in the past couple of years. And that goes for a lot of other examples you've given, like that the internet was an ignored market in the last decade. Sometimes, ACIN, I think you aren't getting your views on corporations from the right source. Take this for example:

No, companies have only realized recently the power that the internet provides consumers and they are afraid of it and are now attempting to stop it.

That makes no sense, it's like it came from the latest issue of socialist monthly. How in the world could companies only recently realize the power of the internet? Were they on drugs the last 15 years?

And why would the ISPs be afraid of the internet giving the consumers more power to choose? If the internet is more important to consumers, then they will use more of it, which is good for the ISPs. See, this is the bit that really doesn't make sense; the idea that the ISPs would not like consumers having power seems to be based on the idea that corporations are evil or out to gain power or control over people, or that their interests always go against the consumer.

There's no reason to think any of that, because corporations are in it for profit. And profit comes from satisfied consumers (unless they get the government to prevent people from choosing or to give them an edge somehow).

The whole idea that ISPs want to stop consumers from using the power the internet has given them is stupid as well. First of all, they've known how the internet has affected people for a decade and haven't tried to stop it. Secondly, there is absolutely no reason for them to try and stop people from using the internet to their advantage. There's no reason behind it.

So if to pay for VoIP is to pay for your use of 3G, what it the usual monthly bill to pay for? To pay for your use of 3G, yet again?

If all iPhone users used VoIP, the network physically couldn't handle it. So how else would you prevent the network from deteriorating for everybody using it because to much traffic is traveling on it?

CR

[Beskar]

I see the internet as the conservative dream come true. Keep our tax dollars for our own purposes, a market that is minimally regulated across state lines and job loss for millions of liberals in government work.

Except the conservatives want mass-regulation and ban everything that doesn't agree with their view of the bible.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Except the conservatives want mass-regulation and ban everything that doesn't agree with their view of the bible.

Where do you live? What is "their view of the bible?. I'm pretty sure that discussion happened a long time ago and ended up with numerous denominations who think differently, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

[Beskar]

I was referencing fundamentalist republican Christians, fox news viewers, etc.

That makes no sense, it's like it came from the latest issue of socialist monthly. How in the world could companies only recently realize the power of the internet? Were they on drugs the last 15 years?

Well, the music industry was.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Let's be fair here, progress could be made if you did what CR said and tried to refute the arguments in that blog, but because you're lazy, progress cannot be made.

Fixed that for you.

EDIT; I have already shown to be receptive to making progress as I have already agreed with CR on some points, but he has yet to agree with anything I have said.

[Husar]

If all iPhone users used VoIP, the network physically couldn't handle it. So how else would you prevent the network from deteriorating for everybody using it because to much traffic is traveling on it?

CR

That sounds rather naive or copied from the ISPs website.
A phone connection needs bandwidth as well, during huge events like 9/11 cellphone networks often break down/are inaccessible due to overload so that's not unique to anything I'd say. T-Mobile also blocks Skype on my iPhone but I'm sure it's not because of network overload but because they can make a lot more money charging you per minute than they could if you'd always make phone calls via the data flat.
They do also offer the chance to watch TV on my iPhone via the 3G network so obviously their network is perfectly capable of handling a lot of data as video uses a lot more bandwidth than just audio.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The point I've been trying to make this whole thread is that companies aren't walking over anybody. All the dangers about not having net neutrality ARE JUST SPECULATION.

I understand that, and me and Lemur would disagree.

Well then don't believe the net neutrality people who harp on non-existent problems.

If there really will be a problem because we don't have net neutrality, then let's go on without regulation until we see the problem. And then, we can think about regulation designed for the actual problems.

That's simple logic.

Since when has "wait until the problem is on our doorstep before we do anything" been logical?

And ACIN, if we're blocked, it's because you ignored my post with the blog link and tried (and failed) to pull a tribesy. You've been going on about how you think the corporations are idiots and won't invest in their networks, and then I show you how they've invested hundreds of billions of dollars in the past couple of years. And that goes for a lot of other examples you've given, like that the internet was an ignored market in the last decade. Sometimes, ACIN, I think you aren't getting your views on corporations from the right source.

Ok, let me clear up something. I guess I have been using bad terminology here. I am differentiating between ISPs and the corporations that I want net neutrality regulation against. I don't think corporations are idiots, I am not denying that they are expanding their network I was saying that expanding their network doesn't not count as an innovation if I remember the last two pages correctly. I will explain the ignored market in the next quotation. I get my info on how corporations operate from history and base my opinion on that. Now, I do the same with government and for the most part I don't trust that either, but in this case I feel it is needed.

That makes no sense, it's like it came from the latest issue of socialist monthly. How in the world could companies only recently realize the power of the internet? Were they on drugs the last 15 years?

Well as you said earlier:
How is a government regulator from an age before color television supposed to adequately write a rule about something that hasn't even occurred yet?
The same can apply to the leadership of a company. The heads of these companies were from a different time who probably didn't even understand how the internet worked let alone its potential, and now as younger people move up the ranks who are more knowledgeable about the internet and its power they can and will do something to preserve profits.

And why would the ISPs be afraid of the internet giving the consumers more power to choose? If the internet is more important to consumers, then they will use more of it, which is good for the ISPs. See, this is the bit that really doesn't make sense; the idea that the ISPs would not like consumers having power seems to be based on the idea that corporations are evil or out to gain power or control over people, or that their interests always go against the consumer.

I am not saying the ISPs are afraid, I am saying companies/special interest groups such as the RIAA, MPAA are afraid. Again, I must have been using bad terminology, when I say corporations or companies I mean the big evil conglomerates that people like to demonize, when I mean ISPs I will say ISPs, nothing else. Companies and interest groups are not evil, they are for the most part amoral, their only goal is their own self interest monetary wise which means they do things which are wrong.

There's no reason to think any of that, because corporations are in it for profit. And profit comes from satisfied consumers (unless they get the government to prevent people from choosing or to give them an edge somehow).

Companies have pretty much relied on what you have put in parentheses since Standard Oil's time.

The whole idea that ISPs want to stop consumers from using the power the internet has given them is stupid as well. First of all, they've known how the internet has affected people for a decade and haven't tried to stop it. Secondly, there is absolutely no reason for them to try and stop people from using the internet to their advantage. There's no reason behind it.

Again, not ISPs, interest groups/giant conglomerates (Microsoft, etc...). ISPs I am pretty sure probably don't care about the power the internet gives people as long as they buy it from them, which of course leads to them using the government to make regional monopolies. But we have already gone over that and we have agreed that shouldn't be allowed, so it is pointless to talk about that again.