And why treating all packets equally will hurt user experience. They have long been treating packets unequally. Video packets get preferential treatment over file downloads, for example. The reason is QUALITY OF SERVICE, or QoS. If the video packets don't get this preferred treatment, then your video stream will suffer, degrade, or change from HD to something less. You can read about it here: http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Quality_of_Service_Networking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service "packets are given priority over other packets in other queues." /case
There's definitely a difference between micromanaging QoS and macromanaging internet traffic by putting Google behind a paywall. I would have thought you'd know better than to conflate the two. I have to ask, are you autistic?
They never have and never would put Google behind a paywall. That's ridiculous. In fact, I don't know of any site ever put behind a paywall by anyone. This law solves nothing. It only accomplishes government encroachment on what has been a really good thing.
Good for whom? The pivot here I think is instead of charging for speed (which gets throttled anyway after 200GB, and was never as good as advertised anyway) they'll have to charge for quantity and be more honest about the speed everyone is getting.
This comic gives another perspective: https://web.archive.org/web/20140921160330/http://economixcomix.com/home/net-neutrality/
It's been good for everyone. Look at the industry that's grown on the Internet over the years it wasn't regulated. Netflix and Google and Apple are three giants that wouldn't be close to as successful without being able to innovate as they see fit - without getting some bureaucrat's approval. It's been good for us since we're getting connections for $39/mo that are equivalent to 500x faster than ones that cost $30/mo in 2000. Or 17x faster than connections that cost $2,000/mo in 2000. That's Comcast's lowest speed today vs. dialup and dedicated T1 in 2000. The ISPs will charge by the byte, like on wireless plans. After all, the people who stream UHD all day should pay more than those who rarely do.
Sorry, but it's just wrong. The ISP is being required to build 8 lane superhighways to everyone's home, in that analogy. For the price they currently charge to build just a driveway.
Some of Wheeler's (Dingo's) speech... The internet -- the internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It's simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field. Think about it. The internet has replaced the functions of the telephone and the post office. The internet has redefined commerce, and as the outpouring from 4 million americans has demonstrated, the internet is the ultimate vehicle for free expression. The internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules. [applause] so let's address an important issue head-on. This proposal has been described by one opponent as, quote, a secret plan to regulate the internet. Nonsense! This is no more a plan to regulate the internet than the first amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. [applause] they both stand for the same concept: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go and what they can think. The action that we take today is about the protection of internet openness.
Read the article that links to about state protectionist laws. THOSE should be abolished, of course. We need competition to drive up service and down prices, not government trying to demand companies comply with arbitrary rules.
SCARY. So, the internet is so important the government must take it over. Yet it's not really taking it over. Don't you see the contradiction?
http://mashable.com/2014/05/16/5-arguments-against-net-neutrality/ As journalist Glenn Greenwald reported, the NSA already tampers with U.S.-made routers for spying purposes. If net neutrality went into effect, then the government would have to monitor the telecoms' and cable companies' broadband connections. Writing in Forbes, entrepreneur Joshua Steimie warned, "Don’t be surprised if that means the government needs to be able to install its own hardware and software at critical points to monitor Internet traffic. Once installed, can we trust this government, or any government, to use that access in a benign fashion?" (Read the whole thing)
Some of the reasons are why I am for net neutrality: (1) Block your tweets, if you criticize Comcast's service or its merger, especially if you use the #ComcastSucks hashtag. .. (7) Block all peer to peer technologies, even those used for software developers to share software, distribute patches (world of warcraft), distribute open source software (Linux). In fact, Comcast has shown it would love to do this. (8) Block Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, Moveon.org (and its emails), because of an "exclusive" deal with other blogs. Or alternatively, block FoxNews.com because of a deal with NBC and MSNBC. (9) Monitor everything you do online and sell it to advertisers, something else that some phone and cable have done, with the help of a shady spyware company. Taken from here: http://www.thewire.com/technology/2010/05/pros-and-cons-of-net-neutrality-in-two-lists/24598/ Nobody is perfect, but at least the robbery will stop. The corporations only look to increase their bottom line at the expense of the consumer. Competition at that level doesn't produce lower prices, or better service as they are all in on it.
Only one of those has an element of truth to it. None of those other things have ever happened. Comcast at one point did block peer-to-peer traffic. There was no law needed to get them to unblock it, consumer protest was enough. So what really is this law supposed to solve? Nothing. Usually government makes rules after some catastrophe that don't prevent a future one of the same kind (horse has left the corral). This is no catastrophe, and there isn't one to prevent by law. Here is a list of ports Comcast blocks: http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/internet/list-of-blocked-ports/ If they are forced to treat all packets equally, they'll unblock these. Then any network shares you have open on your PC will show up to all your neighbors. Almost all these ports that are blocked prevent something really bad from happening, and I'm quite sure you want them blocked. And frankly, if you have a need for those ports open, you really should buy commercial (not consumer) grade service. If you're going to give the ISPs the discretion to block ports (as they should, they need to control malicious use of their networks), then there is no "neutrality" about it.
You guys trusting these corporations to control the net is baffling to me. At lease we can vote Obama out. You can't vote out the CEO of ComCRAP....
Those corporations have "controlled" the internet all along and without any issues the rule is supposed to prevent. Surely government isn't corrupt, right? Now we'll have the Googles and Netflixes competing with the Comcasts to buy politicians and policy decisions. Finally, if you think Comcast is a monopoly and don't trust monopolies, the government is the biggest monopoly of them all. Out of the frying pan and into the forest fire.
Really??? No issues??? There's a reason why internet service in France, Spain, Finland etc. is MUCH cheaper and MUCH faster/better. My brother teaches in Finland and he gets internet service in the middle of the forest. He has a bundle (internet/"cable"/mobile) and pays the equivalent of $50 dollars for all three. I am FORCED to have ComCRAP and pay way more for less product. They suck and their CEO is overpaid. I'd rather have the people we can vote out make the rules for it than the Dictatorship that is the American Corporation.
Oh really? Only in Sweden (of the top 10) are speed getting faster at a rate better than here. And our speeds are faster than European nations. They don't have the issue of pulling fiber optic cable criss cross an area the size of the United States. Did you vote for any one of the 5 people on the FCC board, or any of the FCC's employees? SMH
