Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Defend Net Neutrality
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 6
Defend Net Neutrality
Tweet Topic Started: May 5 2014, 07:59 AM (512 Views)
Mr Gray May 6 2014, 12:42 PM Post #16
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
May 6 2014, 11:50 AM
Mr Gray
May 6 2014, 11:27 AM
dreachon
May 6 2014, 09:29 AM
Mr Gray
May 6 2014, 09:13 AM
dreachon
May 6 2014, 08:30 AM
Mr Gray
May 5 2014, 02:20 PM
HoosierLars
May 5 2014, 02:02 PM
Why should Netflix or any other company have the right to fill the pipe, not letting other internet users have enough bandwidth? In the example of cable, the pipe has a finite size, and many people share it. I don't think there's an easy answer here, and admit I'm no expert on the subject.
I live in the country and have Dish Network satellite internet, which is not unlimited. It kind of sucks for me, but it is probably a better model. I tend to limit my Netflix use because of it.
Then charge customers for more bandwith use. If I want to stream movies and upload documentaries and download games and all that shit then I should pay for it. But limiting which websites I can actually use based on how much the ISP can siphon out of each site is NOT the way to go, IMO. Talk about killing innovation...
I agree it's stupid....but I believe you are an advocate of making it illegal. Right?
The idea is NOT to pass laws making it illegal. It is to reclassify ISPs as common carriers. An example of this is telphone service. Whether I call Home Depot or Lowes, my call goes through just fine. Lowes can't pay an extra fee to make sure my call to Home Depot sounds like shit and gets dropped. So reclassifying ISPs in this manner would prevent them from doing the same with certain websites. I don't know whether that counts as "making it illegal". No new laws would be added to the books, if thats what you meant.
yes, it qualifies as making it illegal....reclassifying something so that the act you are referencing is then illegal is just that. Your comparison to the phone companies goes back to my original question....who paid to put those pipes in? The taxpayers footed the phone line bills, thus the government control.
Hmmm. This seems like a hollow argument.

1) Are we sure all the infrastracture was created by the ISPs? At least initially it was all created by government. I'm sure nowadays most of the lines run through existing phone line networking because creating all new pathways would be incredibly redundant. So I'm not sure it's safe to assume the infrastructure was all paid for by the ISPs.

2) Internet companies run their lines through public land. They don't have to buy and own all the land that they use. If they're going to claim that the lines are theirs and they can do what they want, then maybe they should be charged for using public land to run those lines.
Both are good questions and comments, which is why I asked the question at the very beginning. It wasn't meant to be a rhetorical question brother I really don't know who paid for all that infrastructure.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 6 2014, 01:30 PM Post #17
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
May 6 2014, 12:42 PM
Both are good questions and comments, which is why I asked the question at the very beginning. It wasn't meant to be a rhetorical question brother I really don't know who paid for all that infrastructure.
Let's pretend the ISPs paid for much of the infrastructure, but of course that infrastructure goes through public land completely free. How should this be handled? Allow the FCC to reclassify them or no?
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray May 6 2014, 03:46 PM Post #18
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
May 6 2014, 01:30 PM
Mr Gray
May 6 2014, 12:42 PM
Both are good questions and comments, which is why I asked the question at the very beginning. It wasn't meant to be a rhetorical question brother I really don't know who paid for all that infrastructure.
Let's pretend the ISPs paid for much of the infrastructure, but of course that infrastructure goes through public land completely free. How should this be handled? Allow the FCC to reclassify them or no?
In your example scenario, do all competitors and potential competitors have the same access to running lines to the free public land?

FYI, I realize this is just your hypothetical, but in reality they do actually pay a fee to the state and or county for use of the easement.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 6 2014, 03:53 PM Post #19
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
May 6 2014, 03:46 PM
dreachon
May 6 2014, 01:30 PM
Mr Gray
May 6 2014, 12:42 PM
Both are good questions and comments, which is why I asked the question at the very beginning. It wasn't meant to be a rhetorical question brother I really don't know who paid for all that infrastructure.
Let's pretend the ISPs paid for much of the infrastructure, but of course that infrastructure goes through public land completely free. How should this be handled? Allow the FCC to reclassify them or no?
In your example scenario, do all competitors and potential competitors have the same access to running lines to the free public land?

FYI, I realize this is just your hypothetical, but in reality they do actually pay a fee to the state and or county for use of the easement.
Lol. Honestly have no idea. Why I'm no good at hypotheticals. Do you now that ISPs pay fees for use of the land or are you guessing? Because I haven't heard that is the case.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray May 6 2014, 04:16 PM Post #20
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
May 6 2014, 03:53 PM
Mr Gray
May 6 2014, 03:46 PM
dreachon
May 6 2014, 01:30 PM
Mr Gray
May 6 2014, 12:42 PM
Both are good questions and comments, which is why I asked the question at the very beginning. It wasn't meant to be a rhetorical question brother I really don't know who paid for all that infrastructure.
Let's pretend the ISPs paid for much of the infrastructure, but of course that infrastructure goes through public land completely free. How should this be handled? Allow the FCC to reclassify them or no?
In your example scenario, do all competitors and potential competitors have the same access to running lines to the free public land?

FYI, I realize this is just your hypothetical, but in reality they do actually pay a fee to the state and or county for use of the easement.
Lol. Honestly have no idea. Why I'm no good at hypotheticals. Do you now that ISPs pay fees for use of the land or are you guessing? Because I haven't heard that is the case.
yeah, I know they do...I hold a small public office and I see it on our financials.

So to answer your original question, if all competitors have the same access to the public land, then let them compete, and whoever offers the best service/value combination wins. If the public land has been given to one provider free or at a cost, but nobody else has access to it, then they should have to operate the way the taxpayers want them to.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 7 2014, 07:36 AM Post #21
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
As with most things we discuss on here it appears the issue is more complicated than we know. Here is a quote from Wiki.

Quote:
 
Because of the enormous overlap between long-distance telephone networks and backbone networks, the largest long-distance voice carriers such as AT&T Inc., MCI, Sprint, and CenturyLink also own some of the largest Internet backbone networks. These backbone providers sell their services to Internet service providers (ISPs).[2]


So it appears that most ISPs simply rent infrastructure from phone companies. It could be that the only infrastructure they're actually building is from the main trunk lines to your house. I'm honestly not sure.

In the end though, the internet was established with a set of protocols designed to keep it open and accessible. I believe it needs to stay that way.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray May 7 2014, 11:21 AM Post #22
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
May 7 2014, 07:36 AM
As with most things we discuss on here it appears the issue is more complicated than we know. Here is a quote from Wiki.

Quote:
 
Because of the enormous overlap between long-distance telephone networks and backbone networks, the largest long-distance voice carriers such as AT&T Inc., MCI, Sprint, and CenturyLink also own some of the largest Internet backbone networks. These backbone providers sell their services to Internet service providers (ISPs).[2]


So it appears that most ISPs simply rent infrastructure from phone companies. It could be that the only infrastructure they're actually building is from the main trunk lines to your house. I'm honestly not sure.

In the end though, the internet was established with a set of protocols designed to keep it open and accessible. I believe it needs to stay that way.
Quote:
 
In the end though, the internet was established with a set of protocols designed to keep it open and accessible


Link?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 7 2014, 01:28 PM Post #23
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
May 7 2014, 11:21 AM
dreachon
May 7 2014, 07:36 AM
As with most things we discuss on here it appears the issue is more complicated than we know. Here is a quote from Wiki.

Quote:
 
Because of the enormous overlap between long-distance telephone networks and backbone networks, the largest long-distance voice carriers such as AT&T Inc., MCI, Sprint, and CenturyLink also own some of the largest Internet backbone networks. These backbone providers sell their services to Internet service providers (ISPs).[2]


So it appears that most ISPs simply rent infrastructure from phone companies. It could be that the only infrastructure they're actually building is from the main trunk lines to your house. I'm honestly not sure.

In the end though, the internet was established with a set of protocols designed to keep it open and accessible. I believe it needs to stay that way.
Quote:
 
In the end though, the internet was established with a set of protocols designed to keep it open and accessible


Link?
Well it's very jargony language but you can look here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite

With a focus on the "Key architectural principles"
Quote:
 
In general, an implementation must be conservative in its sending behavior, and liberal in its receiving behavior. That is, it must be careful to send well-formed datagrams, but must accept any datagram that it can interpret (e.g., not object to technical errors where the meaning is still clear)."


It's designed to facilitate communication and pull whataver data is requested of it with no preferential treatment of or descrimination against any data.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 7 2014, 01:30 PM Post #24
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Less jargony

http://www.fcc.gov/openinternet

Quote:
 
The "Open Internet" is the Internet as we know it. It's open because it uses free, publicly available standards that anyone can access and build to, and it treats all traffic that flows across the network in roughly the same way.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray May 12 2014, 11:56 AM Post #25
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
May 7 2014, 01:30 PM
Less jargony

http://www.fcc.gov/openinternet

Quote:
 
The "Open Internet" is the Internet as we know it. It's open because it uses free, publicly available standards that anyone can access and build to, and it treats all traffic that flows across the network in roughly the same way.
fair enough, but don't you think that there is a distinction between what "flows across the internet" from what flows across a private companies trunk lines?

Let's just walk through a simple scenario. I personally live in the boonies, so I only have access to satellite internet, which isn't as fast as other forms. What if I personally decided to purchase access to the ground in my area and deliver high speed service to the 100 or so houses in a 10 mile radius who also don't have access. I pay for everything myself, and in my contract with my customers, it says that I have the right to give preferential bandwidth to all streaming IU games, but Purdue games will be flowing at around 56K. Can I do that (notice...I said "can I do that", meaning should it be legal, not "should I do that").
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 12 2014, 03:30 PM Post #26
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
May 12 2014, 11:56 AM
dreachon
May 7 2014, 01:30 PM
Less jargony

http://www.fcc.gov/openinternet

Quote:
 
The "Open Internet" is the Internet as we know it. It's open because it uses free, publicly available standards that anyone can access and build to, and it treats all traffic that flows across the network in roughly the same way.
fair enough, but don't you think that there is a distinction between what "flows across the internet" from what flows across a private companies trunk lines?

Let's just walk through a simple scenario. I personally live in the boonies, so I only have access to satellite internet, which isn't as fast as other forms. What if I personally decided to purchase access to the ground in my area and deliver high speed service to the 100 or so houses in a 10 mile radius who also don't have access. I pay for everything myself, and in my contract with my customers, it says that I have the right to give preferential bandwidth to all streaming IU games, but Purdue games will be flowing at around 56K. Can I do that (notice...I said "can I do that", meaning should it be legal, not "should I do that").
I'll preface this by saying that I'm still unclear exactly who pays for what infrastructure so your scenario may not in fact currently be in practice by any ISP.

Honest answer, I think it completely depends on how you view the internet. I think many people view it as a public commodity. The internet is a thing that no one produces and no one owns. Think of it like getting water from the water company. You can choose whether or not to pay for water, but if you do choose to pay for it, then the company gives you water. All or none. So if you contract with a company to receive internet, then you get the whole internet. Not parts or bits. This may sound crazy to you, I know.

Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars May 12 2014, 04:35 PM Post #27
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Mr Gray
May 12 2014, 11:56 AM
but Purdue games will be flowing at around 56K.
Given that only me, a couple of farmers, and maybe a couple of OHB posters will be watching, we should still get descent performance.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 16 2014, 10:07 AM Post #28
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
The FCC voted top open the discussion for public comment in an attempt to craft a proposal that will gaurantee net neutrality. Their current idea is to forbid ISPs from intentionally slowing down internet service to any website while at the same time allowing websites to pay an extra fee to receive faster service.

For the life of me, I still don't understand why speed of service is being charged to the websites and not the consumers.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jun 6 2014, 11:01 AM Post #29
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Pretty funny rant on net neutrality here. Good at highlighting the monopoly aspect and the fact that the current head of the FCC used to be a top lobbyist for Comcast, which I'm SURE doesn't affect anything. Just for you aaron and lars....thanks Obama!

[utube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU[/utube]
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jun 6 2014, 11:27 AM Post #30
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Jun 6 2014, 11:01 AM
Pretty funny rant on net neutrality here. Good at highlighting the monopoly aspect and the fact that the current head of the FCC used to be a top lobbyist for Comcast, which I'm SURE doesn't affect anything. Just for you aaron and lars....thanks Obama!

[utube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU[/utube]
hey dreach, I was thinking about this yesterday as I watched Comcast burying some lines. What if I, Mr. Gray Inc, had a website that sold all sorts of Mr. Gray memorabilia that mostly appealed to rural folks and farmers. In order for me to boost my website, I decided to invest millions of dollars of my own money, become an ISP and run fiber out to farmers all throughout the midwest for about $40 per month. The only caveat to my service is that my website is always the home page on any browser, and my website has more bandwidth allocated to it than any other site.

Disregard whether or not this would be a good business decision or not and assume as a part of my investment I have acquired easment right of way to bury the line.....should I be allowed to do this?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 6

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:54 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy