Cable Companies: Google Threatens Net Neutrality, Not Us

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
How stupid do cable companies think we are? Never mind. Forget I even asked that question.

The real threat to online freedom is from Internet giants like Google and Netflix, according to major cable companies. Those sites could block access to popular content and extort tolls out of Internet service providers, the cable companies warn. The argument is the backward version of the usual fight over net neutrality.
 

DooLocsta

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,693
Wow, meanwhile I just got my Internet only bill from Time Warner and it mysteriously went up $7 from last month. I call them and they tell me a special promotion I was on had expired.
 

CaptNumbNutz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
22,725
They may have a point, but nevertheless this is like one mafia boss bitching about how another mafia boss is doing something illegal. Very hypocritical of them.
 

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,683
They may have a point, but nevertheless this is like one mafia boss bitching about how another mafia boss is doing something illegal. Very hypocritical of them.

They did a fine good job demonstrating why it should be net neutral for everyone.
 

TwistedAegis

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
8,958
With net neutrality, someone could create a search engine to compete with Google.

Without net neutrality, Comcast could throttle any traffic to an alternative search engine and make it nonviable as a business.
 

Outamyhead

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
4,259
I truly hope they get classed as category II utility companies, although I know that isn't likely with supposedly impartial FCC board members, that are getting "donations" from the very companies they are supposed to regulate.
 

Babbster

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
1,434
With net neutrality, someone could create a search engine to compete with Google.

Without net neutrality, Comcast could throttle any traffic to an alternative search engine and make it nonviable as a business.
That truly is the bottom line. Google actually has competition - my mom can't stop going to Yahoo! for example, and I use Bing at least as often as not (and Google enables the latter by letting me choose Bing as my Chrome search provider). Netflix has a ton of competition - Amazon, Hulu, Apple, Microsoft, Google, and more. On the other hand, I have exactly two options for wired Internet service and only one option for cable service.
 

TwistedAegis

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
8,958
On the other hand, I have exactly two options for wired Internet service and only one option for cable service.

And I'm willing to bet the 2nd option for wired internet service is substantially slower than Comcast/TimeWarner/whoever you have in your area.
 

pigwalk

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
8,396
And I'm willing to bet the 2nd option for wired internet service is substantially slower than Comcast/TimeWarner/whoever you have in your area.

That's completely the Telco's fault for not being willing to invest in the infrastructure to compete. Seen it first hand.
 

erexx

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
472
Cable providers can already throttle anything they want.
They just want a policy that can use to excuse themselves to angry customers.
Seems like all the service providers today suck.
Like all money makers all maximum profit is slowly drained until nothing remains.
Will take some innovations within the industry to spur any real change...
 

Axiomatic

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
452
What else are they going to say? I assure you they are going to protect their cash cow till their dying breath.

2.png
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
I truly hope they get classed as category II utility companies, although I know that isn't likely with supposedly impartial FCC board members, that are getting "donations" from the very companies they are supposed to regulate.

They don't get 'donations', after they leave office they have a guaranteed job the board of those companies that they helped as a 'consultant', which will pay some stupidly large salary for them to pretend to work.. It's fucking scam that I can't believe is still legal.
 

roma

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
448
So you're saying there is no problem?


For years internet has been growing in leaps and bounds without gov interference. Then all of a sudden some people started calling for regulations in the name of freedom. It really made no sense.


This WSJ bit made more sense:

"There's little evidence the public is demanding these rules, which purport to stop the non-problem of phone and cable companies blocking access to websites and interfering with Internet traffic...The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002. Mr. McChesney's agenda? "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies," he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. "But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."

A year earlier, Mr. McChesney wrote in the Marxist journal Monthly Review that "any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself." Mr. McChesney told me in an interview that some of his comments have been "taken out of context." He acknowledged that he is a socialist and said he was "hesitant to say I'm not a Marxist."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0001424052748703886904576031512110086694.html
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,047
That truly is the bottom line. Google actually has competition - my mom can't stop going to Yahoo! for example

Seriously WTF is it with moms and Yahoo. The homepage is literally just tabloid gossip trash - Kim K's latest bowel movement or Lindsay Lohan sloppy-sideboob.

No matter how many times I set her homepage to Google, she's back to f*cking Yahoo. You cannot un-dumb these Yahoo users.
 

TwistedAegis

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
8,958
For years internet has been growing in leaps and bounds without gov interference. Then all of a sudden some people started calling for regulations in the name of freedom. It really made no sense.


This WSJ bit made more sense:

"There's little evidence the public is demanding these rules, which purport to stop the non-problem of phone and cable companies blocking access to websites and interfering with Internet traffic...The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002. Mr. McChesney's agenda? "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies," he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. "But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."

A year earlier, Mr. McChesney wrote in the Marxist journal Monthly Review that "any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself." Mr. McChesney told me in an interview that some of his comments have been "taken out of context." He acknowledged that he is a socialist and said he was "hesitant to say I'm not a Marxist."

So because some dumbass Marxist wrote in a paper no one reads that he has some master plan for net neutrality and overthrowing capitalism, all of a sudden everyone else is in that same boat?

Netflix and Youtube make up 50% of internet traffic, and all of a sudden started getting throttled and extorted for money from the ISPs. That is what is bringing up net neutrality in the public eye. Also, ISPs are only now looking to monetize different data streams more; people are looking to get in front of it rather than react when it's too late.
 

RealityCrunch

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,393
So because some dumbass Marxist wrote in a paper no one reads that he has some master plan for net neutrality and overthrowing capitalism, all of a sudden everyone else is in that same boat?

Netflix and Youtube make up 50% of internet traffic, and all of a sudden started getting throttled and extorted for money from the ISPs. That is what is bringing up net neutrality in the public eye. Also, ISPs are only now looking to monetize different data streams more; people are looking to get in front of it rather than react when it's too late.

How could you hate America so much? :p
 

me4get

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 15, 2011
Messages
102
Cable companies worship one thing $$$. anything else doesn't matter to them
 

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
6,209
As far as I'm concerned, all monied private interests cannot be trusted with net neutrality of their own accord, be they cable companies, Google, or anyone else. The only way to be sure of net neutrality is to enshrine protections and policy in law. Consider the Internet a public utility, that is to serve the public good in an open and content agnostic way, for instance.

Our grandparents generation alright fought their version of this fight, seeing the state of the highway system across this nation prior to the end of World War II. A patchwork assembly of roads that were generally laid and maintained based on the whims of various financial interests. Thus, the creation of the Interstate Highway System, connecting this nation universally with "broadband" saved us from both the scourge of bumpy back roads and the possibility of the only good "high speed" routes built being toll-exclusive. The IHS was a large part of the US' financial dominance after the war, given that manufacturing and transit of goods could be done more efficiently than ever and to more places than ever, giving long-term vision and expansion to the project.

Today, we have a similar, yet even worse issue when it comes to our Information infrastructure, but it can be remedied in a similar way. Abolish the individual corporate ownership of our information infrastructure; the copper, cable, and fiber lines in the ground and the mobile towers build to broadcast. Nearly all of them were build with copious subsidy of taxpayer dollars, and Comcast, Verizon, ATT and others have been able to maintain monopolistic control regardless. Put an end to it, especially at the last mile. In the future, roll out data infrastructure as a public works project and under public ownership - there's a huge worldwide precedent that it is cheaper and better for all.

With the lines and airwaves under the control of We The People again, we then stipulate that Internet service is a public utility and amongst other policies, net neutrality is mandated - traffic cannot be discriminated against because of its type, source or destination - users are paying for access to the pipe, and they should get all they pay for. This would also be a good time to enshrine in law various privacy and security mandates, such as stipulating that the Constitution applies fully to the Internet (ie. just because we are no longer working exclusively with "letters" people should be able to be secure in their electronic communication the same way they are in physical), and reducing the surveillance state in many ways. This would also be the time to draw up a long term plan for further maintenance and upgrades to our infrastructure (ie What kind of technologies are available for 5g and 6g mobile broadband? How should we go about rolling them out? Etc..)

With all of the above prepared, we can go about opening the next generation of data services and ISPs, which rent access to the lines/towers, but do no control them. This partnership will actually allow additional competition, as small ISPs will not be stonewalled from opening in an area because Comcast or whomever owns the physical infrastructure. Furthermore, it will encourage the creation of local, public, municipal ISPs which will further lower the prices and increase the quality of service.

The nations with the greatest connectivity, fastest and yet affordable Internet, and impressive information infrastructure have all shown to use some form of the plan I outline above. We're lagging behind to enrich a handful of corporate interests while we the people pay the price - being double and triple dipped along the way. Net Neutrality is important, but it is just the tip of the iceberg - if we want an Internet that isn't under the control of the biggest monied interests, we need to strike hard and fast at the source. The Internet is one of the greatest developments in humanity's history, and it should be a bastion of equal access information and serve the public good by doing the most good for the most individuals. When threatened by a handful of those who would enrich themselves by controlling and shaping the Internet and the entire platform of modern discourse to their will, we need to act.
 

Babbster

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
1,434
...roll out data infrastructure as a public works project and under public ownership - there's a huge worldwide precedent that it is cheaper and better for all.
Precedent in other countries is meaningless. America is special. Why do you think we can't even consider a single-payer healthcare system despite the fact that it's proven to work elsewhere?
 

timta2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
1,393
For years internet has been growing in leaps and bounds without gov interference. Then all of a sudden some people started calling for regulations in the name of freedom. It really made no sense.


This WSJ bit made more sense:

"There's little evidence the public is demanding these rules, which purport to stop the non-problem of phone and cable companies blocking access to websites and interfering with Internet traffic...The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002. Mr. McChesney's agenda? "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies," he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. "But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."

A year earlier, Mr. McChesney wrote in the Marxist journal Monthly Review that "any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself." Mr. McChesney told me in an interview that some of his comments have been "taken out of context." He acknowledged that he is a socialist and said he was "hesitant to say I'm not a Marxist."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0001424052748703886904576031512110086694.html

What a great source, an editorial from one of the most conservative, pro-big business papers around. It's like the Faux news of newspapers with some more money thrown in. :D
 

Semantics

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,811
Precedent in other countries is meaningless. America is special. Why do you think we can't even consider a single-payer healthcare system despite the fact that it's proven to work elsewhere?
I didn't see why we couldn't even adopt a system similar to japan in which you're liable for 30% of the cost the govt covers the other 70%, which still allows for insurances etc and personal liability.
 

Gavv

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
14,552
I can only laugh at the cable companies arguments. It's like show us the data to back that claim up. The show us how you're doing things differently.

I hate talking with the cable company. It's a fun magical place of dumb that just gets portrayed as helping the customer. They might be able to bullshit the over 55 crowd, but most of the under 55 crowd doesn't believe their non-sense.


Seriously WTF is it with moms and Yahoo. The homepage is literally just tabloid gossip trash - Kim K's latest bowel movement or Lindsay Lohan sloppy-sideboob.

No matter how many times I set her homepage to Google, she's back to f*cking Yahoo. You cannot un-dumb these Yahoo users.

It's really not they are dumb, it's really an alternative to the news and the other crap we have to see almost everywhere. You look at TV offerings, dumb as hell. You look at the news and it is no more than 2 spoiled brats (dems and repubs) calling each other names while mis using your money. Or simply it is sad an depressing with the coverage of all the shootings and stupid shit.

So the tabloid trash is something that takes away another form of dumb and provides entertainment from the others.

At least that is the argument in a nutshell I get when I try to switch my mom's homepage for her as well :D
 
Top