A day in the life of Net Neutrality

[ClosedCaption]

And it still doesn't say they have been, plan to or are currently blocking or discriminating. Verizon sued because they felt the FCC had no place in using rules that that made up arbitrarily outside the halls of congress. The 2010 deal was...wait for it...wait for it....unconstitutional. Hence the circuit court decision to remove those items form the FCC power plate.

Dude they SUED for the right to discriminate. Its right in your link. As far as if it ever happened.

This shows that it has. So here are 2 facts for you.

1. Verizon sued to discriminate and
2. Comcast purposefully slowed down the speed of one site and not the others (just like you said they couldnt do).

You can play dumb but you cannot refute facts

It does not show that Comcast purposely slowed down the speed of one site and not the others. It showed that Comcast did experience a slowdown with regards to one site (the chart doesn't list other video streaming services) and then the speed increased without any federal legislation or change in policy.

Verizon sued for the right to charge for increased level of service, not for the right to slow down basic services for consumers.

Read the links I posted about net neutrality:

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1717&context=btlj

The Net Has Never Been Neutral - NationalJournal.com

Then explain what this statement is saying:

WASHINGTON — Less than a month after the Federal Communications Commission adopted an order aimed at keeping Internet service providers from blocking access to certain Web content or applications, Verizon asked a federal appeals court on Thursday to overturn the new rule.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/business/media/21fcc.html?_r=0

 

[Eric Cartman]

You wake up early, you pick up your iPhone and check your VZ-Connect page, you got 7 VZ-Likes on the cat video you posted, you would have gotten more, but an FCC censor found it objectionable and removed it. Not for the first time, you find yourself yearning for the days of Facebook. But after Verizon was named the exclusive backbone carrier by the FCC, weeks after President Obama issued the Executive Order making the internet a Title II utility. Facebook held on for awhile, but the FCC revoked their netcasting license after repeated violations of the net neutrality seditious content rules. Verizon quickly replaced Facebook with VZ-Connect, which was monitored by FCC content custodians.

You need to send Aunt Martha a thank you note for the sweater she sent you for your birthday. So you log on to VZ-Banking to check your balance. Aunt Martha is half a country away and the long distance charges for an email to her will be in the hundreds of dollars. Your balance is low, but you keep the message down to just a few words to keep the costs down.

A pile of mail is in the corner and you dread your Verizon bill. Opening it you see the usual $200 base charge, along with TTY charges, Baseline services taxes to provide internet to families on assistance. The netuse tax has gone up again, now $73.42 for a month. The tax is needed to pay the FCC regulators. But what you really dread are the long distance charges, email in the same zip code is still free, but a per mile charge for email outside of the zip code adds up quickly.

You are tempted to log on to VZ-Chatter and post a complaint, but last time you complained about your Verizon bill you got a stern letter from an FCC guardian advising you that such complaints have no place on the internet.

On the bright side, hand written letters through postal mail have made a resurgence.

The government initiated and funded the creation of the internet. Government authorities allow for the internet backbone to exist and much of its distribution network just like other utilities or roads. Telecoms have made giant profits from their investments and the governments largess.

Would we allow other utilities to use extortion as a revenue stream?

Can you pay to :

1 lower water pressure to a competing car wash?
2 Dim the lights of a competing retail outlet?
3 Close a bridge to a competing restaurant?

No.

Please explain why people who normally speak of the greatness of free markets want to let giant corporation stifle competition by manipulating a pseudo-government entity (the internet) that was designed to be common carrier.

You bet that you have to pay the government utilities to:

1. Have higher water pressure than other businesses currently use - try to start a car wash in a town with a public water supply.
2. Have more lights than other businesses use. Check your utility rates. Businesses that use more power pay for it, and that means their customers pay those increased rates.
3. If you think the process for expanding bridges in commercial areas is "bridge neutrality" then I've got a bridge to sell you.

ISPs can charge end users for more bandwidth but they shouldn't be allowed to censor content through blocking or throttling select specific sites.

 

[Eric Cartman]

You wake up early, you pick up your iPhone and check your VZ-Connect page, you got 7 VZ-Likes on the cat video you posted, you would have gotten more, but an FCC censor found it objectionable and removed it. Not for the first time, you find yourself yearning for the days of Facebook. But after Verizon was named the exclusive backbone carrier by the FCC, weeks after President Obama issued the Executive Order making the internet a Title II utility. Facebook held on for awhile, but the FCC revoked their netcasting license after repeated violations of the net neutrality seditious content rules. Verizon quickly replaced Facebook with VZ-Connect, which was monitored by FCC content custodians.

You need to send Aunt Martha a thank you note for the sweater she sent you for your birthday. So you log on to VZ-Banking to check your balance. Aunt Martha is half a country away and the long distance charges for an email to her will be in the hundreds of dollars. Your balance is low, but you keep the message down to just a few words to keep the costs down.

A pile of mail is in the corner and you dread your Verizon bill. Opening it you see the usual $200 base charge, along with TTY charges, Baseline services taxes to provide internet to families on assistance. The netuse tax has gone up again, now $73.42 for a month. The tax is needed to pay the FCC regulators. But what you really dread are the long distance charges, email in the same zip code is still free, but a per mile charge for email outside of the zip code adds up quickly.

You are tempted to log on to VZ-Chatter and post a complaint, but last time you complained about your Verizon bill you got a stern letter from an FCC guardian advising you that such complaints have no place on the internet.

On the bright side, hand written letters through postal mail have made a resurgence.

The government initiated and funded the creation of the internet. Government authorities allow for the internet backbone to exist and much of its distribution network just like other utilities or roads. Telecoms have made giant profits from their investments and the governments largess.

Would we allow other utilities to use extortion as a revenue stream?

Can you pay to :

1 lower water pressure to a competing car wash?
2 Dim the lights of a competing retail outlet?
3 Close a bridge to a competing restaurant?

No.

Please explain why people who normally speak of the greatness of free markets want to let giant corporation stifle competition by manipulating a pseudo-government entity (the internet) that was designed to be common carrier.

The government initiated and funded the creation of DARPA, ARPANET, and NSFNet not "the Internet." The government-funded backbone of ARPANET and NSFNet was transitioned to the privately funded Internet due to deregulation of the telecommunication rules that governed wireline and wireless communications.

I don't use Wikipedia as a source often, but in this case it provides a good place to start for those who want the basics and are willing to read the various documentation links.

History of the Internet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Just because the government started it as a defense project doesn't mean they own it by fiat now - should they start to impose new rules on the consumption of Tang today? The government never designed a computer system to be used as a means for consumer commerce and entertainment. Nobody in the government ever envisioned Google, Netflix nor even USMB.

The government tried to regulate telecommunications and always asserted authority over that fiefdom until the citizens demanded something else so much that even a liberal Democrat (in his time) was compelled to sign a Republican bill into law deregulating it. What was the result? The largest talking points Democrats have about how good they are - the dot com revolution.

Smart regulation works, especially when it's mostly deregulation. Net Neutrality is not smart regulation.

I am sure you must be right. Maybe we should privatize all the roads in the country. Let the private market charge take them over and make improvements, innovations, charge tolls for their use and then they could ask business to kick in a little extra money and they just might have to close the road in front of their competitions. Don't worry about it though, the free market will make sure it works great... its not like them having a local monopoly with no real competition will affect the outcome.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But this isnt about only Netflix this is about should the internet stay the way it is or should the companies be allowed to block competing websites and charge ANYONE (not just Netflix) to pay for faster delivery of their websites.

No one is blocking anything at the backbone level - never has.

So you Communists are convinced that the way to keep a free and open Internet is to put it under the rules that governed Ma Bell in 1965? You want an Internet that is just as open as the phone company used to be.....

Currently all websites, from blogs to NBC is offered on the same level playing field.

This has been told to you before but your act remains the same

No backbone gives a damn about websites. You prey on the ignorance of the public, spreading fear through bullshit in hopes of getting your hooks into the web. You'll fail this time, as even the FCC is crying foul to your campaign of idiocy. Websites ride on port 80 - no one gives shit about port 80 traffic. NetFlix attaches on port 443, but uses H.264 as a streaming protocol on port 556. Backbones use a QOS throttle in one of two ways, either directly on 556, which is marginally effective, or on the H264 protocol itself, which is highly effective. On my network, I have the Link server NATed and directly block all other H.26x traffic.

You seek - rather your filthy party seeks, to gain power over the Internet. You haven't got a fucking clue what's going on, you just blindly obey your party bosses.

 

[Ravi]

But this isnt about only Netflix this is about should the internet stay the way it is or should the companies be allowed to block competing websites and charge ANYONE (not just Netflix) to pay for faster delivery of their websites.

No one is blocking anything at the backbone level - never has.

So you Communists are convinced that the way to keep a free and open Internet is to put it under the rules that governed Ma Bell in 1965? You want an Internet that is just as open as the phone company used to be.....

Currently all websites, from blogs to NBC is offered on the same level playing field.

This has been told to you before but your act remains the same

No backbone gives a damn about websites. You prey on the ignorance of the public, spreading fear through bullshit in hopes of getting your hooks into the web. You'll fail this time, as even the FCC is crying foul to your campaign of idiocy. Websites ride on port 80 - no one gives shit about port 80 traffic. NetFlix attaches on port 443, but uses H.264 as a streaming protocol on port 556. Backbones use a QOS throttle in one of two ways, either directly on 556, which is marginally effective, or on the H264 protocol itself, which is highly effective. On my network, I have the Link server NATed and directly block all other H.26x traffic.

You seek - rather your filthy party seeks, to gain power over the Internet. You haven't got a fucking clue what's going on, you just blindly obey your party bosses.

What a load of bullshit.

And currently the Rethugs are in charge, so you'd have to believe that Dems want to give Rethugs power over the internet.

You truly are a moron.

 

[Uncensored2008]

there really, truly, aren't other isp's available.
not broadband anyhow.

Bullshit.

DSL is still broadband.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What a load of bullshit.

You wear your ignorance as a badge of honor. Among the left, it isn't the best and most educated who is praised. but the least and most ignorant.

You never question your rulers, you have no knowledge with which you could question.

And currently the Rethugs are in charge, so you'd have to believe that Dems want to give Rethugs power over the internet.

You truly are a moron.

You are on the verge of mental retardation - you don't understand the question, you don't understand why there is a question, yet you offer the answer that your masters have trained you to spew.

Pleas avail yourself to the free cheese behind the fridge, Rati,

 

[ClosedCaption]

AHAHAHAHA yeah Dems want to pass net neutrality to give the power to republicans because that makes sense lol

 

[Ravi]

AHAHAHAHA yeah Dems want to pass net neutrality to give the power to republicans because that makes sense lol

See post number 3 in this thread.

 

[ogibillm]

there really, truly, aren't other isp's available.
not broadband anyhow.

Bullshit.

DSL is still broadband.

okay. so i have two options. one with actual speed, and one with less than 1Mbps.
gosh, the choices!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The authority goes to the FCC, not republicans. Partisan fucktards. Censor is referring to you socialist parasites giving the authority to government.

It's like a clown car without wheels in here.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ethernet is not the internet.

Oh really?

So we use Token Ring then?

Straw man.

Hardly, that is the most pertinent point of this entire thread - the basis of not just your position, but that of every leftist here; the concept that we are all property of the government and mus 'give thanks" to our rulers that they "allow us" to use the internet, or to exist.

Ultimately, your perspective and that of the other leftists is that of chattel. You dream that you will be master instead of slave, but you still base your philosophy of life on the idea that man is the property of the state and the rulers therein,

Maybe this is why you don't seem to understand the issue.

You desire to tame and regulate the internet, to put government monitors in charge.

I understand completely.

If we have a data drought your comment might be apt.

As with water, bandwidth is limited. Streaming video has outpaced existing infrastructure. You only grasp that you want, you cannot grasp what is. Backbone providers have said that they will charge a premium for those who exceed a baseline - just as every other utility does.

What's amusing is that your party bosses have programmed you to claim that if we put the Internet under strict government control, that bandwidth will be unlimited - yet EVERY regulated utility, water, electric, sewer, natural gas, every one, has base lines above which extra costs are accrued.

When you find that you were lied to by your rulers, you'll blam BOOOSSHHH, as they instruct you to do.

that isn't what net neutrality does... wow

What net neutrality does is make the internet a title II utility under the 1934 telecommunications act, reversing the modernization done under Bill Clinton.

The LIE that you Bolsheviks are telling to try and trick people into accepting the regulation of the net is that you will ensure that NetFlix and other content providers are not subject to throttling.

As pointed out, the moment your party bosses gain control, they will engage in throttling far beyond anything Verizon ever dreamed of - and you will defend it as vocally as you condemn it now.

Again you don't seem understand the issue... the question should be " can manufacture pay the electric company for better service than their competitors."

The problem you have is that I do understand the issue, I am one of the few who actually understands it. You don't, you just read a script that was given to you by MSNBC or one of the hate site, but you wouldn't be able to explain the difference between a socket and protocol if your life depended on it - you support Net Neutrality because the party does - end of story.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ethernet is not the internet.

Obviously he thinks we run Token Ring... Or maybe ArcNet (remember that crap?)

 

[Uncensored2008]

oh i see. you think net neutrality means government censorship of content.
you're entitled to be wrong.

Under title II of the 1934 Telecommunications act, could the FCC censor content?

Hint: Janet Jackson, wardrobe malfunction.

The Internet can only be censored by the ISP now, not at the backbone level - but you want to change that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

okay. so i have two options. one with actual speed, and one with less than 1Mbps.
gosh, the choices!

Earthlink runs 6mbps.

Try again.

 

[Eric Cartman]

The problem you have is that I do understand the issue, I am one of the few who actually understands it. You don't, you just read a script that was given to you by MSNBC or one of the hate site, but you wouldn't be able to explain the difference between a socket and protocol if your life depended on it - you support Net Neutrality because the party does - end of story.

Wow you know fairly common tech terms, you must be one of those elite 3 million IT workers in the United States. I should just defer to your opinion.

or

I could realize that you are just making an appeal to authority, a common fallacy.

I guess I could play that game.
Vinton Cerf co-inventor of the Internet Protocol and considered a "father of the Internet," and Tim Berners Lee, creator of the Web, support net neutrality. If I was playing by your rules then I was say case closed. The truth is this isn't a tech issue it is a political, economic and perhaps even a moral issue.

Be a good little libertarian and go attack any regulation that the big corporations don't like meanwhile they will continue to rake in the dough with their government aided regional monopolies. Don't worry about the thousands of regulations that they are ok with because it causes barriers of entry into their industry ... just wait for them to point and then you attack. Good boy.

 

[boedicca]

Slate's alternate history of the internet seems to have turned into Obama's "how to ruin the internet" manual.


In January 1993, idle regulators at the FCC belatedly discover the burgeoning world of online services. Led by CompuServe, MCI Mail, AOL, GEnie, Delphi, and Prodigy, these services have been embraced by the computer-owning public. Users "log on" to communicate via "e-mail" and "chat rooms," make online purchases and reservations, and tap information databases. Their services are "walled gardens" that don't allow the users of one service to visit or use another. The FCC declares that because these private networks use the publically regulated telephone system, they fall under the purview of the Communications Act of 1934. The commission announces forthcoming plans to regulate the services in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity."

The FCC ignores the standalone Internet because nobody but academics, scientists, and some government bodies go there. So do the online services, which don't offer Internet access.

"Regulating the Internet would make as much sense as regulating inter-office mail at Michigan State University," says the FCC chairman. "The online services are the future of cyberspace."

The online companies protest and vow to sue the FCC, but the heavily Democratic Congress moots the suits by passing new legislation giving the commission oversight of the online world....

If the FCC had regulated the Internet A counterfactual history of cyberspace.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wow you know fairly common tech terms, you must be one of those elite 3 million IT workers in the United States. I should just defer to your opinion.

or

I could realize that you are just making an appeal to authority, a common fallacy.

I guess I could play that game.
Vinton Cerf co-inventor of the Internet Protocol and considered a "father of the Internet," and Tim Berners Lee, creator of the Web, support net neutrality. If I was playing by your rules then I was say case closed. The truth is this isn't a tech issue it is a political, economic and perhaps even a moral issue.

Be a good little libertarian and go attack any regulation that the big corporations don't like meanwhile they will continue to rake in the dough with their government aided regional monopolies. Don't worry about the thousands of regulations that they are ok with because it causes barriers of entry into their industry ... just wait for them to point and then you attack. Good boy.

Cerf is a big government leftist, he has supported China style government control of the Internet all along. He adamantly opposed allowing commercial traffic on the net in the first place.

Talk about an appeal to authority.

 

[asterism]

And it still doesn't say they have been, plan to or are currently blocking or discriminating. Verizon sued because they felt the FCC had no place in using rules that that made up arbitrarily outside the halls of congress. The 2010 deal was...wait for it...wait for it....unconstitutional. Hence the circuit court decision to remove those items form the FCC power plate.

Dude they SUED for the right to discriminate. Its right in your link. As far as if it ever happened.

This shows that it has. So here are 2 facts for you.

1. Verizon sued to discriminate and
2. Comcast purposefully slowed down the speed of one site and not the others (just like you said they couldnt do).

You can play dumb but you cannot refute facts

It does not show that Comcast purposely slowed down the speed of one site and not the others. It showed that Comcast did experience a slowdown with regards to one site (the chart doesn't list other video streaming services) and then the speed increased without any federal legislation or change in policy.

Verizon sued for the right to charge for increased level of service, not for the right to slow down basic services for consumers.

Read the links I posted about net neutrality:

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1717&context=btlj

The Net Has Never Been Neutral - NationalJournal.com

Then explain what this statement is saying:

WASHINGTON — Less than a month after the Federal Communications Commission adopted an order aimed at keeping Internet service providers from blocking access to certain Web content or applications, Verizon asked a federal appeals court on Thursday to overturn the new rule.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/business/media/21fcc.html?_r=0

Nothing that you posted disproves my point and it certainly doesn't prove that Verizon sued to slow down services for consumers.

 

[asterism]

You wake up early, you pick up your iPhone and check your VZ-Connect page, you got 7 VZ-Likes on the cat video you posted, you would have gotten more, but an FCC censor found it objectionable and removed it. Not for the first time, you find yourself yearning for the days of Facebook. But after Verizon was named the exclusive backbone carrier by the FCC, weeks after President Obama issued the Executive Order making the internet a Title II utility. Facebook held on for awhile, but the FCC revoked their netcasting license after repeated violations of the net neutrality seditious content rules. Verizon quickly replaced Facebook with VZ-Connect, which was monitored by FCC content custodians.

You need to send Aunt Martha a thank you note for the sweater she sent you for your birthday. So you log on to VZ-Banking to check your balance. Aunt Martha is half a country away and the long distance charges for an email to her will be in the hundreds of dollars. Your balance is low, but you keep the message down to just a few words to keep the costs down.

A pile of mail is in the corner and you dread your Verizon bill. Opening it you see the usual $200 base charge, along with TTY charges, Baseline services taxes to provide internet to families on assistance. The netuse tax has gone up again, now $73.42 for a month. The tax is needed to pay the FCC regulators. But what you really dread are the long distance charges, email in the same zip code is still free, but a per mile charge for email outside of the zip code adds up quickly.

You are tempted to log on to VZ-Chatter and post a complaint, but last time you complained about your Verizon bill you got a stern letter from an FCC guardian advising you that such complaints have no place on the internet.

On the bright side, hand written letters through postal mail have made a resurgence.

The government initiated and funded the creation of the internet. Government authorities allow for the internet backbone to exist and much of its distribution network just like other utilities or roads. Telecoms have made giant profits from their investments and the governments largess.

Would we allow other utilities to use extortion as a revenue stream?

Can you pay to :

1 lower water pressure to a competing car wash?
2 Dim the lights of a competing retail outlet?
3 Close a bridge to a competing restaurant?

No.

Please explain why people who normally speak of the greatness of free markets want to let giant corporation stifle competition by manipulating a pseudo-government entity (the internet) that was designed to be common carrier.

You bet that you have to pay the government utilities to:

1. Have higher water pressure than other businesses currently use - try to start a car wash in a town with a public water supply.
2. Have more lights than other businesses use. Check your utility rates. Businesses that use more power pay for it, and that means their customers pay those increased rates.
3. If you think the process for expanding bridges in commercial areas is "bridge neutrality" then I've got a bridge to sell you.

ISPs can charge end users for more bandwidth but they shouldn't be allowed to censor content through blocking or throttling select specific sites.

Traffic shaping is a fundamental means to provide quality consumer services. If you want a clear line, you are free to pay for it yourself. It's expensive so beware.