Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
BrandonTO416

The Politics of Development

Recommended Posts

Guest

You guys are blind indeed. You enjoy quoting, what wikipedia? Some indy 'insider' book (all the book beotches about is how the telcos screwed the universe)? And anecdotal 'insider' warnings that throttling is happening as we speak {Gulp}!!!

 

I will restate for the umpteenth time - if you guys are not presently happy with speed/cost/access to broadband you will be less so once it is regulated. 'end

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ha, have at it!

 

Dramatics aside, Why do you care if throttling is occurring (and I have yet to see evidence that it is) if you are happy with the service being provided. I pay for quality bandwidth and I am receiving quality bandwidth. If that changes I will perceive a problem and thus have an actual problem. I foresee any problems down the road to be a result of our lovely government bureaucrats / politicians ..... they are not the angels of virtue that you envision.

 

I do not envision government bureaucrats to be angels of virtue--so much for dramatics aside. 

 

The evidence that throttling is occurring is included in UTGrad's link (amongst other places), which kind of makes me think you haven't looked at still.  The reason that it matters is because people are doing more important things on the internet than streaming netflix--things that take a lot of bandwidth--and every second of delay is a competitive disadvantage relative to everyone else on the planet who isn't having their service deliberately slowed so that their service provider can make more money. 

 

You also neglected to acknowledge how 1 out of 3 Americans don't have the broadband options with which you are so satisfied and upon which you are resting your entire argument.  But that doesn't affect you so who cares, right?  Instead, you ignore the issue entirely and deflect back to a very general attack about how government bureaucrats will muck it all up at some unspecified point down the road. 

 

Again, if you have some specific complaints or concerns about the proposed regulations, now would be a great opportunity to bring them up.  Otherwise, I think you've made it clear already that you are happy with your broadband service, which is all that really matters to you, and that you think government regulation is a bad thing.  No need to rehash that again, certainly if you still don't look at Kevin's link first.

Edited by ruraljuror

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

RJ - I am not sure which 'smoking-gun' link to which you are referring. I read the PBS link, and the HuffPo link (really the same) and the silly Oatmeal link-  all of which Kevin contributed to the conversation. The only 'proof' discussed in any of them (throttling is not even mentioned in the first 2) is the Comcast / Netflix agreement. The same agreement I have alluded to several times in my posts.

You have yet to answer any of my queries - I will ask you one question. Actually I will ask the question again....

 

Does Comcast (or any ISP) have the right to charge a company/individual more money if that company/individual requires more resources?

 

Once you answer that we can discuss the Comcast/Netflix specifics....

A a teaser I give you...

 

 

The deal is a milestone in the history of the Internet, where content providers like Netflix generally have not had to pay for access to the customers of a broadband provider.

But the growing power of broadband companies like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T has given those companies increased leverage over sites whose traffic gobbles up chunks of a network’s capacity. Netflix is one of those sites, accounting for nearly 30 percent of all Internet traffic at peak hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RJ - I am not sure which 'smoking-gun' link to which you are referring. I read the PBS link, and the HuffPo link (really the same) and the silly Oatmeal link-  all of which Kevin contributed to the conversation. The only 'proof' discussed in any of them (throttling is not even mentioned in the first 2) is the Comcast / Netflix agreement. The same agreement I have alluded to several times in my posts.

You have yet to answer any of my queries - I will ask you one question. Actually I will ask the question again....

 

Does Comcast (or any ISP) have the right to charge a company/individual more money if that company/individual requires more resources?

 

Once you answer that we can discuss the Comcast/Netflix specifics....

A a teaser I give you...

 

 

NB, we're not getting anywhere here.

 

You ask the question "Does Comcast (or any ISP) have the right to charge a company/individual more money if that company/individual requires more resources."

 

The short answer is yes.  Unfortunately, that's not the situation we're working with here in the slightest. 

 

The longer answer would require an understanding of how and why telecommunications businesses are not the same (and are not regulated the same way) as most traditional businesses. 

 

In what ways and why are telecom businesses different, you ask?  Telecom deals with freedom of speech, so it's a little more complicated than selling a donut or opening a barber shop.  In the U.S., we decided a long time ago that 'the airwaves' were a public commodity that could not be owned by any company--only rented from the people.  The general idea was that we didn't want one voice buying up and dominating the public sphere, spewing self-serving propaganda.  Crazy, right?

 

Also unlike a donut shop, telecom companies require significant public concessions and licenses in order to operate.  The right to broadcast over a public radio signal or hang wires on public utility poles are the most obvious examples, but it gets significantly more complicated when you're trying to get permits to lay underground cable across city, and county, and state lines.  That requires a lot of public cooperation, funding, and yes.....dreaded regulation.   The deal was, in exchange for public cooperation and funding, the telecom companies would play by different rules in order to ensure that free speech and mass communication were never controlled and exploited by private companies.  Seems like a good idea to me.

 

All that said, maybe you're right.  Maybe you actually know what you're talking about here.  I first started working on net neutrality issues in 2006, but maybe you've got some insight into the industry that I've been missing all this time.  I'll admit that it's certainly possible, but I'd hope that you'd also admit that you may be a little out of your depth here, too--especially considering the most specific you can be with your complaints is that regulation leads to inefficiency. 

 

In any case, I'll give you the last word.  Say your peace.  Net neutrality is bad--I get it--expound to your hearts content if you wish.  Just in the slim chance that there's a tiny possibility you may consider re-evaluating your opinion, however, I'll leave you with a selection from the comments section of Ted Cruz's facebook page in response to his earlier tweet comparing Net Neutrality to Obamacare.  I doubt anything that I say can change your mind, but maybe they're speaking your language:

 

 

David Vogelpohl: Texas employer here... This is really the wrong issue for you. Drop this quickly and move on to something else before it's too late. You're starting to look like a Tea Party whacko growling for his corporate masters. Move on before you embarrass the Republicans out of the next presidency. Net neutrality is about ensuring a free market. America loves a free market. But hey, be against free markets and America. It's cool. I'm sure no one will think of you when their Netflix slows down who wouldn't have before

 

Adam Huzzey: Go find whatever rock you crawled out from under Ted and stay under it! Proud republican here, but not so proud to be blind like the good senator. Look how "great" our free market Internet is!!! I pay $100 a month for 15mbs / 100gb p/m capped Internet. Yep, those "free" markets really make it better lmao

 

Sam Adams: Senator Cruz, you are wrong on this one. As a conservative voter and IT professional, I can assure you that Net Neutrality is a GOOD THING. Internet providers (who are also content owners) can't be trusted (as has already been proven) to allow consumers equal access to content from their competitors. This is why the government needs to ensure Net Neutrality as it protects the consumer from the bias of their Internet provider. This is especially true since we don't have real competition in this space.

 

Marvin England: Ted Cruz, as a tech and fiscal conservative in Texas who generally votes Republican, I am incredibly disappointed by your completely inaccurate statement. Please read up on what Net Neutrality actually is and fire any staff you have who are advising you on technical matters.

 

James Nelson: Have to disagree with the Senator on this one. AT&T and big cable have proven they can't be trusted and net neutrality is necessary to keep fair competition. These big monopolies own their own competing streaming services and want nothing more than to be able to relegate competitors to an internet slow lane.

 

Jimmy Lee: Wow. I am embarassed that I supported you Ted. Face palm. I think it's time that I "unlike" your FB page.

 

Jinnie McManus: Goddammit, stop making my party look like morons and look up net neutrality. It doesn't mean what you and your speechwriters think it means.

 

Joey Camp: As a Republican whom also works in IT like Ed... You have no clue what you are talking about or you are company bought and paid for.

 

Keith French: Ted, I am as conservative as they come.... I want government out of just about everything... and I hate to say it, really hate to say it, but Obama is right on this one. I do not want my access and internet speed controlled by my ISP. It will be. The internet has been an open forum with little to no restrictions, that will change and not for the better. Bottom line, do not go against freedom of the net just because Obama is for it. Even an old blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.

 

Ed Piper: As a Republican who works in the tech industry I can say that this statement shows you either have no idea what you are talking about or you are bought and paid for by the American Cable monopoly. This is amazingly an stupid statement and is disheartening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

RJ - I actually liked you post  ...until the random comments section, not sure why that is relevant. I guess I could find their contrary but is seems pointless. 

 

Of course, I have not worked on net neutrality since 2006, but I have started and sold 2 technology companies since 1996 and I am working on a 3rd start-up as we type - an online, b-2-b portal that just landed seed-financing. In my almost 20 years as an entrepreneur I have experienced the paralysis that results from a muddy regulatory involvement. 

 

I agree that we have fully exhausted this topic - and are at loggerheads. In my mind I do not believe we are far off on the desired outcome but our methods are worlds apart.

 

I tend to agree with this snippet from a WaPo article - G'day

 

 

"Either the Internet’s neutral or it’s not.

That’s never been true. Wu said himself in his 2003 law journal article, “Neutrality, as a concept, is finicky.” For one thing, even allies on the pro-regulation side of the debate haven’t settled on one definition of “net neutrality.” For some, it means treating, say, Web page traffic exactly the same as e-mail. For others, it simply means handling every bit of the same kind of Internet content the same way. Then there are those who see it as just a ban on ISPs blocking some Web sites or services.

What’s more, the network engineers who handle the nuts-and-bolts management of the Internet are regularly called upon to make decisions to keep traffic flowing smoothly. “Network design,” as Wu wrote, “is an exercise in tradeoffs.” The net neutrality debate isn’t black and white. Participating in it fully means wading into those shades of gray."

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Those comments posted by "Republicans" sounded highly dubious. "Government ensuring fairness/free market, et al" or "I'm gonna unlike Ted Cruz" ! Whut ? No Conservative talks or writes nonsense like that. None.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Those comments posted by "Republicans" sounded highly dubious. "Government ensuring fairness/free market, et al" or "I'm gonna unlike Ted Cruz" ! Whut ? No Conservative talks or writes nonsense like that. None.

 

You may be onto something, FMDJ.  It's a conspiracy!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the last couple of posts deleted because they had absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Mine had to do with FMDJ's post, as I stated in the post itself, but so be it. Perhaps I should rephrase. I think the fact that he was so shocked over the mere possibility that conservatives exist that disagree with him on something, that he literally refused to believe it, gives a revealing peek into his overall political worldview. Hopefully that's better.

Also, let me just say that I've enjoyed reading the discussion between ruraljuror and nashville bound. Good thoughts on both sides. Thanks guys...very informative and interesting discussion being had.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Update- Sorry just read you response.

 

 

So DirecTV now partners with Excede...the point remains.

 

http://www.exede.com/internet-packages-pricing/directv-bundle-offer

 

ATT and ATT wireless are completely  separate products ...I should know as I receive 2 different bills. Also when one is down I am able to utilize the other so separate network at some point. I am not sure of the '3rd' ATT entity in the list.

So you listed 3 that are the same (AT&T) and one (DirecTV) that doesn't even do internet. Or, in this area, they partner with AT&T.

 

EDIT: Forgot to address WiMax. That's Sprint/Clear. So that's another off the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update- Sorry just read you response.

 

 

So DirecTV now partners with Excede...the point remains.

 

http://www.exede.com/internet-packages-pricing/directv-bundle-offer

 

ATT and ATT wireless are completely  separate products ...I should know as I receive 2 different bills. Also when one is down I am able to utilize the other so separate network at some point. I am not sure of the '3rd' ATT entity in the list.

 

 

Just so we're all on the same page, everyone realizes that AT&T is in the process of buying Direct TV, right? 

Edited by ruraljuror

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so we're all on the same page, everyone realizes that AT&T is in the process of buying Direct TV, right? 

 

The more media consolidation we have, the better for us all. Yayyy!

 

 

Squash competition! Squash competition! Squash competition!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the last couple of posts deleted because they had absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Yeah, since I utterly demolished RJ's and the others' points about all those alleged GOP commenters. Thanks. BTW, saw a poll the other day, 61% oppose so-called "net neutrality." Keep the fed's cotton-pickin' hands off the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.