• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

A Potential Net Neutrality Win-Win-Win?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
C|Net has an interesting editorial posted today claiming that there is a potential win-win-win situation when it comes to net neutrality. The article was written by Paul Misener , Amazon’s vice president for global public policy.

Radical solutions to Net neutrality, one way or the other, are politically impossible today. Neither the imposition of substantial common-carrier regulation nor, for example, permission to block lawful Web sites could be accomplished in Congress or at the Federal Communications Commission. Heavy government intervention is unwelcome, and the fundamental openness of the Internet obviously has been good for consumers and innovation.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
He raises good points, but I'm not sure if I agree that it will be the best for the net.

When website owners start paying for their site to have better performance than the baseline, the baseline will erode. Network providers won't do much to upgrade the baseline.

It will turn out to be ISP's sneaky backdoor method to net-non-neutrality. You can say they won't throttle down normal existing connections, but those normal existing connections won't ever improve. Infact, with more usage it will seem like the quality will go down. Network improvements will only come to sites that pay the premium.
 
I agree with Parmenides.

If the network provider finds no benefit in improving the "free-for-all" network thus rendering obsolete sooner or later; they will only invest in improving/creating network paths and making them available just for paying clients.

If they can make sure the "poor-man's network" also gets worked on, then it is a very interesting suggestion.
 
Ah, net neutrality. Where a bunch of people get around and say "we're afraid of the corporations controlling the internet...so the government should control it before they do!"

*sigh*

Here's an idea: free market. Free market got people 15 dollar broadband years ago. Free market got people ad-supported "free" internet. ISPs want to make money. If they don't provide the services people want, someone will.

Social Security? Bankrupt. Medicare? Bankrupt. FDIC? Bankrupt. Unemployment? Bankrupt.

Take your pick.
 
Stiletto said:
Here's an idea: free market. Free market got people 15 dollar broadband years ago. Free market got people ad-supported "free" internet. ISPs want to make money. If they don't provide the services people want, someone will.
Click to expand...

Except the free market is an illusion. It just winds up 3 or 4 of the biggest players banding together to make sure they get all the money, while muscling out anybody else that tries to compete.

Sure, the government is corrupt too. But a lot of that is caused from the fact people are completely oblivious (or just choose to completely ignore) the corrupting force being the very corporations and lack of oversight a lot of people seem to revere as being the solvent for it.

That's like all the spending and creation of national debt, etc.. Where do people thing that money goes? The government vaporizes it? No, it goes to a shit ton of companies that overcharge and rip off taxpayers without ever suffering a single word of rebuke for it.

Hell, the government created the internet with taxpayer money. Why should it be completely handed over to the private sector, to be turned into a turnkey money factory where the big players charge all the smaller players to have the right to play? Sounds more like the way the Mafia operates to me.
 
Stiletto said:
Ah, net neutrality. Where a bunch of people get around and say "we're afraid of the corporations controlling the internet...so the government should control it before they do!"

*sigh*

Here's an idea: free market. Free market got people 15 dollar broadband years ago. Free market got people ad-supported "free" internet. ISPs want to make money. If they don't provide the services people want, someone will.
Click to expand...

It's a question of infrastructure though, "someone" won't just come along with the capital to lay down brand new high-end infrastructure down the line. It's just too big an initial investment (without gov't subsidy) to expect "someone" new to come along and fix the problem. You're basically just abandoning the internet to what's become of cable TV. 500 channels you pay an arm and a leg for, and there's hardly anything worth watching on.
 
Kueller said:
It's a question of infrastructure though, "someone" won't just come along with the capital to lay down brand new high-end infrastructure down the line. It's just too big an initial investment (without gov't subsidy) to expect "someone" new to come along and fix the problem. You're basically just abandoning the internet to what's become of cable TV. 500 channels you pay an arm and a leg for, and there's hardly anything worth watching on.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely no idea if this is true. In fact, it's most likely not true. Why do you think companies are laying down new fiber to homes?
 
obs said:
You have absolutely no idea if this is true. In fact, it's most likely not true. Why do you think companies are laying down new fiber to homes?
Click to expand...
Because they have contractual obligations with the townships to do so. And sticking with the letter of the contract means they'll charge those homes $12,000 for exceeding the agreed upon terms by 100 feet.
 
srangara said:
Because they have contractual obligations with the townships to do so. And sticking with the letter of the contract means they'll charge those homes $12,000 for exceeding the agreed upon terms by 100 feet.
Click to expand...

What exactly does that have to do with companies like verizon laying down fiber? Show me these contractual obligations they have to provide FIOS.
 
Stiletto said:
Ah, net neutrality. Where a bunch of people get around and say "we're afraid of the corporations controlling the internet...so the government should control it before they do!"

*sigh*

Here's an idea: free market. Free market got people 15 dollar broadband years ago. Free market got people ad-supported "free" internet.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Nice echo of the Corporate anti-neutrality lobby.

This isn't about government control. Reality is the whole point of net neutrality is to maintain the free market for internet traffic.

Right now Every byte transferred is already paid for twice. The uploader pays for his BW and the downloader pays for his BW.

But that isn't enough... The greedy ISPs realize you can make even more money by extorting the already paid for traffic with a protection racket. Selling you preferred access, if you don't buy in, you get relegated to some throttled undersized portion of the network... And again they can charge both ends in this "protection" racket.
 
The free market works pretty well when there are no monopolies and cartel style price fixing.

If government has to pass a law, it would have to be something to break up the local monopolies and fixing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but part of that problem could probably be solved at the local governments who seem to cultivate it.
 
Parmenides said:
The free market works pretty well when there are no monopolies and cartel style price fixing.

If government has to pass a law, it would have to be something to break up the local monopolies and fixing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but part of that problem could probably be solved at the local governments who seem to cultivate it.
Click to expand...

The government created the monopolies.
 
Snowdog said:
:rolleyes: Nice echo of the Corporate anti-neutrality lobby
Click to expand...

Darn. My check got lost in the mail somewhere.

Go ahead and echo the Government pro-neutrality lobby.

One thing is true: corporations can fail. The government can't, not while it's collecting revenue under threat of imprisonment if you don't.

I'll take my chances with the big entity that has something to lose.
 
Stiletto said:
One thing is true: corporations can fail. The government can't, not while it's collecting revenue under threat of imprisonment if you don't.

I'll take my chances with the big entity that has something to lose.
Click to expand...

You are creating a Phony Straw-Man here, pretending this is a choice between extra fees from the government vs extra fees from the ISPs. This is bogus.

Reality: Neutrality is about Government enforcing neutrality, stopping the "protection" racket and extra fees the ISPs would like. Not about Government fees.
 
obs said:
Verizon isn't the only one laying down cable. My point was, in absence of government restriction preventing competitors from entering the market, there will be more competition.
Click to expand...
It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg thing, really. Companies don't want to compete with each other. The government purportedly wants a free market. So companies bid against each other... for exclusive rights to a local market. They compete only to the point where the city is satisfied they are getting the best deal for their constituents.

After that, anyone in that area is in a monopoly and subject to the terms of the contract that consumers had little say in. In that city, yes, Verizon is the only one laying cable. And that's just the way Verizon (and Comcast, and...) wants it. If the government were to open up the market, the big telecoms would be the first lining up their lawyers to bring exclusive contracts back.
 
how can there be more competition though, right now what are the government restrictions stopping most of the U.S only have 1 choice, Comcast, or time warner or AT&T ? Many parts of north america only have one ISP to choose from, because they own all the lines and everything else.
 
srangara said:
It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg thing, really. Companies don't want to compete with each other. The government purportedly wants a free market. So companies bid against each other... for exclusive rights to a local market. They compete only to the point where the city is satisfied they are getting the best deal for their constituents.

After that, anyone in that area is in a monopoly and subject to the terms of the contract that consumers had little say in. In that city, yes, Verizon is the only one laying cable. And that's just the way Verizon (and Comcast, and...) wants it. If the government were to open up the market, the big telecoms would be the first lining up their lawyers to bring exclusive contracts back.
Click to expand...

No, verizon isn't the only one putting out FIOS. Lots of companies are. So the big telcoms bring exclusive contracts. But it's the government signing them. Let everyone in and compete.
 
Stiletto said:
Ah, net neutrality. Where a bunch of people get around and say "we're afraid of the corporations controlling the internet...so the government should control it before they do!"

*sigh*

Here's an idea: free market. Free market got people 15 dollar broadband years ago. Free market got people ad-supported "free" internet. ISPs want to make money. If they don't provide the services people want, someone will.

Social Security? Bankrupt. Medicare? Bankrupt. FDIC? Bankrupt. Unemployment? Bankrupt.

Take your pick.
Click to expand...

And another one...

How would you like it if your power and water were on the same principal. Only those that pay a premium will have reliable power and the freshest water. Not all regulations are bad unless you stand to profit.
 
bacon said:
And another one...

How would you like it if your power and water were on the same principal. Only those that pay a premium will have reliable power and the freshest water. Not all regulations are bad unless you stand to profit.
Click to expand...

That's not net neutrality. That's a tiered bandwidth service, which already exists in ISPs. Terrible analogy.
 
obs said:
No, verizon isn't the only one putting out FIOS. Lots of companies are. So the big telcoms bring exclusive contracts. But it's the government signing them. Let everyone in and compete.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're getting it. First of all FIOS is a Verizon trademark, so Verizon is the only one laying that tech. Second, in a given locality, you will not find cable being laid side-by-side by two vendors. Cable and DSL, maybe, but only one vendor for each.

Companies are competing--for the contracts. If you open up the market and refuse to allow exclusive contracts, then NO ONE will compete. Laying down cable is too expensive to risk your customers switching to another provider.
 
Stiletto said:
Ah, net neutrality. Where a bunch of people get around and say "we're afraid of the corporations controlling the internet...so the government should control it before they do!"

*sigh*

Here's an idea: free market. Free market got people 15 dollar broadband years ago. Free market got people ad-supported "free" internet. ISPs want to make money. If they don't provide the services people want, someone will.

Social Security? Bankrupt. Medicare? Bankrupt. FDIC? Bankrupt. Unemployment? Bankrupt.

Take your pick.
Click to expand...

You forgot running water, sewage, waste collection, electricity, and gas.
 
obs said:
That's not net neutrality. That's a tiered bandwidth service, which already exists in ISPs. Terrible analogy.
Click to expand...

It would be more like if the power company could shut down your PCs and A/C during peak usage hours, unless you paid a premium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top