[jsconyers]

What are your thoughts on net neutrality? Do you think that the telecom companies should limit usage on the internet? Do you think they should block streaming media sites such as youtube? I haven't found anyone really on the fence about this. Everyone I this discuss topic with is either strongly for or against it.

Here is some more information on it.
Network neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.savetheinternet.com/?gcli...FYJM5Qod6E80YA

[wabbit]

i dont think its the isp say what i do with their bandwidth that i pay for, now, while now they add restrictions, when it was booming it was unlimited inter access.

now with this said, we pay for a connection for a tcp/ip stack and an ip, what we do with is, none of the isp business. its not our fault that they advertised unlimited internet access and meant all you can browse HTTP. not all you can use tcp/ip traffic.

but even now we governments, private sector etc shaping major online companies.

[strike2tamu]

I havent used torrents in forever...there so many munch better ways to download music, movies, etc...and they don't cut into your speed while downloading.

[ndub33]

I think content should not be dictated by carriers. I do however understand a very high ceiling on volume, to prevent a small handful of consumers from overloading a system for all paying customers. And by "very high ceiling", I'm referring to bandwidth that is clearly beyond what a single consumer can realistically do in a given period of time ( i.e; per month).

I am OK with restrictions that prevent small businesses from running their servers on more attractively priced unlimited consumer plans.

[kathrynhr]

You've found someone on the fence, js.

I have not yet answered for myself whether my right to do as I like with my internet use does/should trump my ISP's right to do as they like with their pipes.

I know what I prefer, certainly. I prefer unrestricted use. But as someone who works in IT and makes her money creating intellectual property, I do clearly see the other side. In the present environment, it is possible for some online users to degrade the service of others (unfairly, in many people's view). This is less about the users than the limits of technology, and the ISPs know it.

In the end I think supply and demand will out. If technology can allow the ISPs to create and manage enough bandwidth that both businesses and private individuals can do whatever they like online, simultaneously, without stepping on each others' toes... then I think we will never end up going to a preferred use scenario. If that doesn't happen, as more people use more resource-intensive services online, ISPs won't have much choice. Businesses that are willing to pay for hiccup-free service will put pressure on the ISPs, and because money always talks, they will eventually get their wish.

[jsconyers]

Kathryn,

As usual, another thoughtful post. I love reading your posts as you always seems to put a lot of thought into them. A friend of mine turned me onto this topic not too long ago and referred me to a book by Bruce Kushnick titled the $200 Billion Broadband Scandal. It's a pretty interesting read. Here's a quick summary:
The Unauthorized Biography of

[kathrynhr]

I hadn't heard of the lawsuit, but I am not surprised. Copper is not an ideal conduit, but I can immediately see some problems with rolling out fiber cable to that many people. Immediately apparent to me:

(a) Fiber cable is generally made of glass, which if cracked would degrade or prevent a signal altogether. Repairs would require almost constant resource flow.

and

(b) Problems (read: signal degradation) are inherently created when light is traveling through a cable and you bend the cable.

Multiply these issues and the solutions they would require by 100 million homes and 20 million businesses.

I'm aware that South Korea is using plastic instead of glass in a great deal of their fiber cable now. That wasn't an option 15 years ago when this was occurring.

[SteveO86]

Ahh, ISP limit the internet..

People will find ways around it. Spoofing/Proxies.. The ISP's would have to rebuild themselves completely with security in mind to lock themselves down..

And besides if ISP stop certain protocols/abilities like torrents, just watch how fast that ISP loses business in the consumer market, business might be more interested in that however.

Granted TCP/IP was not designed around security initially, so I wish them luck in the never ending of war of power..

Maybe I strayed from the point too far.

[test54]

I'm with kathrynhr, I see both sides of the argument and think that ultimately the free market could fix this but the problem is that the Cable & Telcos are in monopolistic positions. If there were more choices then then competition work for the consumer, but as it is they can do what they want in much of the country.

Private companies can do whatever they want with their pipes I guess, although as a user I hate to see that occur.

[daphne]

I'm not in favor of ISPs deciding what content I can and cannot access, but I do think they have the right to manage their resources. I would be very upset if my neighbors were using so much bandwidth that it degraded my internet speed. Especially if I'm paying the same monthly charge that they are. It makes sense to me for people to pay by usage. That's no different than utilities -- use more electricity, you pay more, same with natural gas.

[Dawg]

Originally Posted by daphne

I'm not in favor of ISPs deciding what content I can and cannot access, but I do think they have the right to manage their resources. I would be very upset if my neighbors were using so much bandwidth that it degraded my internet speed. Especially if I'm paying the same monthly charge that they are. It makes sense to me for people to pay by usage. That's no different than utilities -- use more electricity, you pay more, same with natural gas.

so you want to pay by the kb on your BB as well? Same difference really the more you use the more you shoud pay right?

[wabbit]

Originally Posted by strike2tamu

I havent used torrents in forever...there so many munch better ways to download music, movies, etc...and they don't cut into your speed while downloading.

its not just torrents it bandwidth that is caped, what if you worked for a cloud company, and you have to distribute your work to 1000-2000 people and ever revision etc, and since you been doing this a lot recently you hit your cap from the isp and their goes your connection...

the problem is when companies were so eager to sell internet access dirt cheap to everyone with out thinking of the load they would take. instead of meeting demands and expanding they want to lower demands on the network. is this right?

[daphne]

Originally Posted by Dawg

so you want to pay by the kb on your BB as well? Same difference really the more you use the more you shoud pay right?

To use an example... VZW's 'unlimited' data plan is really 5 GB, right? If I go over 5 gigs, they do charge more, right? But 5 gigs is a lot for a BlackBerry and I doubt many people would go over that limit unless they were streaming videos and music all day. When you sign up with VZW you have to agree to their terms, so if you go over the 5 gig limit, they have the right to charge you.

Why shouldn't it be the same with your ISP at home? Say you pay $40 per month for 50 GB usage, but your neighbor who is watching movies over the net and downloading torrents all day long is using 150 gigs per month, AND his high usage is degrading your internet speed, why shouldn't he have to pay more? Wouldn't that be fair?

[wabbit]

so when you signup to unlimited internet it should be just that, by isp's definition unlimited http access, since most people dont know theirs more to the internet past web pages.

The Internet is a global network of interconnected computers, enabling users to share information along multiple channels. Typically, a computer that connects to the Internet can access information from a vast array of available servers and other computers by moving information from them to the computer's local memory. The same connection allows that computer to send information to servers on the network; that information is in turn accessed and potentially modified by a variety of other interconnected computers. A majority of widely accessible information on the Internet consists of inter-linked hypertext documents and other resources of the World Wide Web (WWW). Computer users typically manage sent and received information with web browsers; other software for users' interface with computer networks includes specialized programs for electronic mail, online chat, file transfer and file sharing.

this is from wiki under internet, alot it does state theirs more to it then this, more then 50% of people with internet access belive the web is the internet along with email.

this is also brings up, why not charge per irc packet, per p2p packet, didnt someone try to charge per e mail and failed?

this is just a drive from greed, first they wanted a user base, take comcast for instance, once a user base is established, milk them, or block them. fair business usage?

[test54]

They own the networks and charge as they wish. The capping at 5GB when calling it unlimited is annoying I agree but it is their choice. All the major carriers now have caps and the ISPs are slowly moving to this as well.

They are a for-profit business and will then always look to their bottom line to run their business. From a users perspective it would be nice for more options so that competition could change the market but in reality most ISPs are monopolies or have very little competition, therefore they can do what they want when it comes to use and pricing.

Now as to what is done on an ISP's network (illegal p2p), then I think they should have full authority to block users. But when the actions are legal then I think they should not be allowed to block or charge a special rate for normal useage.

[wabbit]

Originally Posted by test54

Now as to what is done on an ISP's network (illegal p2p), then I think they should have full authority to block users. But when the actions are legal then I think they should not be allowed to block or charge a special rate for normal useage.

who is the isp to say what is legal or not?

so an isp can violate your privacy laws and deny service for breaking the law, interesting view point you have.

[Dubdub]

I think the real issue here is what are we really paying for? What does unlimited mean to the ISPs and to us as users? IMHO, I think it means two different things.

[wabbit]

Originally Posted by Dubdub

I think the real issue here is what are we really paying for? What does unlimited mean to the ISPs and to us as users? IMHO, I think it means two different things.

i agree with you, also i think alot of the services advertised are misrepresented, like verizon advertising their data plan, in which is also the cause for alot of outrage by people.

[test54]

Originally Posted by wabbit

who is the isp to say what is legal or not?

so an isp can violate your privacy laws and deny service for breaking the law, interesting view point you have.

The laws are the laws, I do not thing they should invent ones but when it comes to copyright and other legal issues I think its pretty obvious in terms of whats legal. They should not set the law but I do think its well within their right to terminate or hinder those that are breaking the laws while on their network.


But i think we are off topic, the idea of specifically charging people to access certain sites is wrong in my opinion.

[wabbit]

Originally Posted by test54

The laws are the laws, I do not thing they should invent ones but when it comes to copyright and other legal issues I think its pretty obvious in terms of whats legal. They should not set the law but I do think its well within their right to terminate or hinder those that are breaking the laws while on their network.


But i think we are off topic, the idea of specifically charging people to access certain sites is wrong in my opinion.

just a sec off topic, i agree laws are laws, but its not the isp job or should it be to play judge jury executioner. or go around the right to due process.

should your info be given out, when someone thinks your doing something illegal or a warrant is needed. this is the basis for privacy.