1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

[lolitics kind of]Al Franken on big business and net neutrality

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by pine, Aug 20, 2010.

  1. Sir_Brizz

    Sir_Brizz Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2000
    Messages:
    25,995
    Likes Received:
    75
    Well, if I was being completely honest, I'd say that the government should do with Internet what they did with telephone and power service to begin with in a lot of areas: own the network and contract out the service to outside companies. Then they can easily regulate it, they own it.
     
  2. Grobut

    Grobut Комиссар Гробут

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,822
    Likes Received:
    0
    Obviously he is, how else could he disagree with Larkin? this also means he is now part of the evil progressive conspiracy force..

    Well welcome aboard Brizz, we're having freshly cooked baby in the evil underground bunker cafeteria, help yourself, and remember, we're plotting world domnation at 5, don't miss it!
     
  3. pine

    pine Official Photography Thread Appreciator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,137
    Likes Received:
    0
    This scenario pretty obviously makes the most sense. I think the difficulty at this juncture is with the oldschool mindset understanding the idea that unbiased internet access is now a fundamental public utility like power and phone lines.

    edit: let me ask a question about bandwidth restrictions though, since you brought that up. Bandwidth is finite, is it not? So in order to assure service to everyone, some some controls must be placed on how much people use, no? My cable company in Canada (Shaw) caps bandwidth, both in terms of speed and max monthly transfer. However, the amount you get for $40 is more than enough, even sharing between an apartment of 3 intensive users. Is that so bad? I had terrible "high speed" internet for years due to being on the same network as people that used file sharing to transfer hundreds of gigabytes of data every month.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2010
  4. kiff

    kiff That guy from Texas. Give me some Cash

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,793
    Likes Received:
    0
    It sounds like you're saying it should be done on a local level, not federal, correct?

    I'm pretty sure he meant they can't advertise "unlimited" and then put some cap on it in very fine print.
     
  5. TomWithTheWeather

    TomWithTheWeather Die Paper Robots!

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    2,898
    Likes Received:
    0
    So prove him wrong.
     
  6. Larkin

    Larkin Gone

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    1,984
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bleh, the government(federal or not) has no right to take people's property and then resell or contract it out or anything of the sort. I don't care how noble an idea it is, its still wrong.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2010
  7. Sir_Brizz

    Sir_Brizz Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2000
    Messages:
    25,995
    Likes Received:
    75
    Yes. State, county and city governments should co-operate to build this infrastructure out and contract it to companies that can provide service through it.
    I really don't think it makes sense to cap bandwidth in terms of usage, personally. Hasn't it been proven that only something like 1% of internet users use more than 200gb of bandwidth per month if not less? I don't think it makes sense to limit how much people use because volume is not finite, speed is.

    So in terms of speed, I think speeds should only move up as quickly as technology to provide faster speeds to large groups of people increases. If the government built out a network capable of 1gb of throughput on each line, it should be possible for service providers to charge consumers a reasonable price for what we consider "fiber optic" speeds (in the 20-40mbps range).
     
  8. pine

    pine Official Photography Thread Appreciator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,137
    Likes Received:
    0
    That should have happened already, but as we know the US has been woefully behind other countries in developing our physical internet infrastructure and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. And if we did there would be the predictable outcry in the corporate sponsored media against government competition with "free" American enterprise.
     
  9. Larkin

    Larkin Gone

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    1,984
    Likes Received:
    0
    They would be taking the resources and giving rights to whom they see fit. Is that really competition? Maybe I'm all old school, but that seems like they control the entire industry top to bottom.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2010
  10. Sir_Brizz

    Sir_Brizz Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2000
    Messages:
    25,995
    Likes Received:
    75
    I dunno, that seems to be going down the "there shouldn't be public roads" line of thinking.

    I grew up in a city that ran their own power network and it was horrible, government should not be PROVIDING the service. Later I lived in a place where the city owned the power network but the service was contracted by outside companies and regulated. It was awesome. The businesses still make boatloads of money because they control the actual cost, the city government was raking in money because they were charging an extra minuscule tax on the power that was used, and the people there were generally happy because they didn't feel overcharged AND they had multiple options in terms of service providers that could provide them service.

    Now I live in a place where one company owns the entire power. One company owns the entire gas. One company owns the entire land telephone system. IT SUCKS. These services are all regulated so now we have government supported monopolies. The regulators have a hard time controlling the costs, plus they have to charge fees on top of the costs. I haven't had a landline in my house now for almost 5 years and I probably never will again because it is RIDICULOUSLY expensive, and even if you get an outside provider, they are contracting through the primary provider which is ripping everyone off. It's a terrible system.
     
  11. pine

    pine Official Photography Thread Appreciator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,137
    Likes Received:
    0
    The difference being that there's no existing system of private roads, apart from the small branches that feed directly to individual private residences. Whereas there is already an existing system of private backbone networks owned by the increasingly few massive media conglomerates that we rely on for internet access for the time being. I'd definitely like to see this change, but that's where we are at right now.

    Well, hang on a sec. Obviously that is a terrible system. But is it terrible because it's government regulated, or because they're monopolies? ;)
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2010
  12. Sir_Brizz

    Sir_Brizz Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2000
    Messages:
    25,995
    Likes Received:
    75
    Because they are monopolies, more than likely. The regulation just turns it into a "look the other way" kind of monopoly.
     
  13. BITE_ME

    BITE_ME Bye-Bye

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,564
    Likes Received:
    0
    If a company runs lines through a city they are taxed for it.
    Think Cable companies.

    If a company installs phone towers, they have to pay taxes and rent.

    If a company beams up and down a satellite signal. They only have to pay taxes for the people using it.

    If the government (city,state,schools) owns the network. They don't have to deal with the extra cost of rent and taxes. Cheaper internet :)

    But I don't think the government will ever do it.
    They get too much money in there pockets from the providers.
    Why do you think all this crud comes up, right before an election?
    Politicians are getting money ever time they say some thing needs to be changed ;)
     
  14. Festering Anus

    Festering Anus Cheeto Hans

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    2,660
    Likes Received:
    32
    OBAMA IS A TERRORIST
     
  15. Lizard Of Oz

    Lizard Of Oz Demented Avenger

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 1998
    Messages:
    10,593
    Likes Received:
    15
    I don't want government "take-over", and I don't want corporations to run amok. (See image previous page)

    I simply want the government to regulate what providers can and cannot do. I.e. No throttling, no charging for "premium access", etc...
     
  16. dragonfliet

    dragonfliet I write stuffs

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    31
    Honestly, all I care about is that ISPs should not be allowed to regulate traffic in any way. It should not be able to block certain sites, it should not be able to speed up access to certain sites or types of data or slow it down. Why does this seem so difficult? This isn't about monopolies (which are frustrating) or internet speed or monthly data limits, it is simply about the government needing to step in and say that the internet is an open forum and needs to stay that way.

    ~Jason
     
  17. Grobut

    Grobut Комиссар Гробут

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,822
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly, or said even simpler: Don't take away net neutrality!

    This isen't about control as some of you are jammering on about, it's about preventing control, aslong as net neutrality exists, then neither Government nor Corporations can tell us where to surf (well within the law, kiddie pr0n sites and such will still be a nogo), or charge us extra for the privilege, IE, things will stay as they are.

    But if the Corporations get their way and net neutrality is done away with, then nothing's stopping them from selling us internet access the same way we have to buy Cable-TV packages, so we'll constantly have to buy additional packages to make use of the sites we want access to, and that's exactly what many of the big ISP's want to do (also here in Europe BTW, we'll be no better off), because it would be such an easy way to make more money for them, and block content that they don't want us to see (like filesharing networks and torrent sites), so they don't have to deal with any legal hassles from groups like the RIAA.
    It would also allow groups like the FCC to regulate our internet, so we only get "family safe" sites unless we pay for the "adult access" (and i'll bet you that one's gonna cost you!).


    Net neutrality = unrestricted access to information, and a free and open market everyone can participate in.

    No net neutrality = The doors are wide open for both Government and Corporate control, restriction of information, package deals that both end-consumers and online-vendors will have to pay to use/be part of, national restrictions on the net (this site is not avalible in your region), ad-supported surfing, and hell knows what else..


    So if you are the sort of person who likes things like freedom of information, free markets, and don't like paying extra for no good reason, then you should very much be in favour of net neutrality!
    The people who are not in favour of it, are the people who want to censor the net, or help themselves to some more of our monthly paychecks..
     
  18. Crotale

    Crotale _________________________ _______________

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,535
    Likes Received:
    12
    Grobut, we already have net neutrality. The current business models are unlikely to change if left alone. It would not be in any corporation's best interest to charge for access the way cable operators do. The reason cable operators can and do charge for tiered access is for important reasons that differ from the internet. TV channels and programming are subject to controls and fees imposed by the federal, local and state laws, to include licenses and taxes on ownership and ability to operate. Content on each individual channel provided is authorized via licensing and other contracts, as well as federal, state and local laws/policies. Most of this has to do with advertising dollars. We simply do not have that issue right now with the web, and I have not seen any company or entity claim it wants or plans to go that route with the web.

    Internet providers, while still operating under certain federal, state and locals laws and rules, provide content each user can access and is not controlled other than via certain "decency" laws such as COPA or other internet "rules". I fail to see how the internet would ever go this route in the US (I cannot speak for other countries). One of the biggest kickers is that if providers decided to offer tiered access similar to cable, users could and probably would be locked out of website from out of state businesses, thus squashing interstate commerce on the web. Let me rephrase that last statement: users would see in-state and local websites prioritized over content from out-of-state vendors, etc., or, at least include the websites whose owners have paid for content priority in that state or local area. Oh sure, users could access out-of-state websites by purchasing a separate tier, but really? I'd give'em the finger before I choose a provider that goes this route with my service.

    I do not know about you, but handing over control of the internet to the government is not a good thing. Not only would we see greased palms enacting laws that lock users into tiered access models (why you think government would not be the one to renig on net neutrality is beyond me) and would surely stifle interstate competition to the point that it would no longer be "the internet".

    Net neutrality is one of those buzzwords that politicians and activists like to use for clout. The problem is that the entire argument is pretty much moot, for there has been no real threat of removing neutrality as we know it. I remember the many spam emails I used to get back in the 1990s about the US Postal Service trying to tax emails. Another grouping of messages was relating to charging tax on each megabyte of data a user accesses or transfers. Both of these ideas proved to be nothing more than internet hoaxes. While both ideas have basically been kicked around Congress over the years, neither has gained enough steam to get pushed past status of "idea", and I do not foresee this changing any time soon.

    Jason, the issue for many ISPs is that the primary use of torrents is done to illegally move files. While torrent technology works very efficiently, the sheer amount of bandwidth used for moving these illegal files makes it worth a provider's while to cull back access to this content to make room for more legal data transfer. You have to look at this from another point of view and not form the user only. Think about content providers who have paid for access and want to ensure that users can access their content. If a major portion of an service provider's bandwidth is being used for possibly nefarious activity, do you not think that has an effect on legitimate content providers AND more importantly, users who want to access that content?
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2010
  19. DarkED

    DarkED The Great Oppression

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,107
    Likes Received:
    13
    That's like Duke Energy where I live. They own pretty much anything energy-related across the entire state of North Carolina. I can't complain about them but I would like to have a choice. Competition drives prices down if nothing else.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2010
  20. kiff

    kiff That guy from Texas. Give me some Cash

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,793
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps I'm ignorant in the finer points of bandwidth usage, but at this point I'm not convinced that isp's should be denied the ability to charge on the basis of BW. That's assuming there's no false advertising.

    I don't think cable tv packages are a fair analogy. Stations like HBO (et al) have charged from the day they were born. The cable/satellite companies just pass that along. Are there websites that charge for their content? yes. is this an access issue? not at all.
     

Share This Page