Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Community Member Kaboth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    1,290

    Default Be Wary and gaurd your wallets

    Business



    Sept. 6, 2007, 11:38AM
    Justice Department opposes 'net neutrality'


    Associated Press

    WASHINGTON— The Justice Department said today that Internet service providers should be allowed to charge a fee for priority Web traffic.

    The agency told the Federal Communications Commission, which is reviewing high-speed Internet practices, that it is opposed to "Net neutrality," the principle that all Internet sites should be equally accessible to any Web user.

    Several phone and cable companies, such as AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp., have previously said they want the option to charge some users more money for loading certain content or Web sites faster than others.

    The Justice Department said imposing a Net neutrality regulation could hamper development of the Internet and prevent service providers from upgrading or expanding their networks. It could also shift the "entire burden of implementing costly network expansions and improvements onto consumers," the agency said in its filing.

    Such a result could diminish or delay network expansion and improvement, it added.

    The agency said providing different levels of service is common, efficient and could satisfy consumers. As an example, it cited that the U.S. Postal Service charges customers different guarantees and speeds for package delivery, ranging from bulk mail to overnight delivery.

    "Whether or not the same type of differentiated products and services will develop on the Internet should be determined by market forces, not regulatory intervention," the agency said in its filing.

    The agency's stance comes more than two months after Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras cautioned policy makers to enact Net neutrality regulation.

    Such a regulation could prevent rather than promote Internet investment and innovation and have "significant negative effects for the economy and consumers," the Justice Department said in the filing.

    Supporters of Internet regulation have said that phone and cable companies could discriminate against certain Web site and services.

    However, the agency said it will continue to monitor and enforce any anticompetitive conduct to ensure a competitive broadband marketplace.

  2. #2
    Community Member Tavok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    It has always been this way. When internet was first created through land line usage, they had the ability to give EVERYONE the same speed (highest quality) but decided to seperate it so that if you payed more, you got faster service. Theres nothing being changed, we won't be charged more than we have been since the internet was invented. Just the fact that this made the news is that the justice department reviewed the the decision to make it mandatory for all people to be charged the same for top quality service, and they voted against it.

  3. #3
    Founder & Hero jjflanigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tavok View Post
    It has always been this way. When internet was first created through land line usage, they had the ability to give EVERYONE the same speed (highest quality) but decided to seperate it so that if you payed more, you got faster service. Theres nothing being changed, we won't be charged more than we have been since the internet was invented. Just the fact that this made the news is that the justice department reviewed the the decision to make it mandatory for all people to be charged the same for top quality service, and they voted against it.
    I think you missed a key part of this. It's not about the overall speed of access, it's that Comcast could, for example, make it so you get slower speed to any known bittorrent site unless you paid an upgraded fee for the "BitTorrent Access Pack!" -- Same with games. They could create a "Gaming Connection Package" and if you don't pay for that you have restricted access to Sony, Turbine and Blizzard game servers for playing MMOs.

    It allows them to slow down / speed up traffic on a PER SITE basis at their own discretion. And as long as they aren't doing it in an anti-competitive fashion (i.e. comcast making all of the bellsouth sites load slower) than there is nothing "wrong" with it.

  4. #4
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    500

    Default You are just wrong

    It has always been this way. When internet was first created through land line usage, they had the ability to give EVERYONE the same speed (highest quality) but decided to seperate it so that if you payed more, you got faster service. Theres nothing being changed, we won't be charged more than we have been since the internet was invented. Just the fact that this made the news is that the justice department reviewed the the decision to make it mandatory for all people to be charged the same for top quality service, and they voted against it.
    Land line internet service providers that charged extra for "faster" service were perpetrating a fraud. There is and never was any way to push an analog phone signal through a phone line any faster than 56kbps. Period. Claims to the contrary were innacurate and misleading. Some companies claimed faster speeds by using file compression, web page caching, and other tricks, but the bottom line is the send/receieve transmission rates could never be faster than 56kbps. In fact, this rate was only acheivable if you had absolutely no noise or interference on the line between you and the isp.
    Valiant Accord

  5. #5
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,284

    Default

    A few years ago, Google appeared to be working on a way to satisfy both net neutrality and consumer desire for faster/more reliable internet service. The basic plan was to buy up miles and miles of "dark" (unused) fiber-optic cable that litter our country, then place regional internet hubs (in the form of tractor trailers filled with computer equipment) all over the place. The hubs would constantly scour the internet based on popularity of websites, and make local copies of the sites it came across. They would then use the dark cable to pipe the cached net into your home/office (at a significant speed, much greater than anything currently available... or even possible).

    In addition to meeting the consumer's demand for notably increased speed and reliability, this might have allowed Google to circumvent the rules of net neutrality (within the regional networks).

    It was a very interesting idea, and not necessarily a dead one... so far as I know, Google is still buying dark cable like it is going out of style.

    Note that Google never announced or even discussed such a plan, it was just speculation based on known actions on the part of Google.
    DDOVAULT.COM
    Freedom from Oppression!

  6. #6
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jjflanigan View Post
    I think you missed a key part of this. It's not about the overall speed of access, it's that Comcast could, for example, make it so you get slower speed to any known bittorrent site unless you paid an upgraded fee for the "BitTorrent Access Pack!" -- Same with games. They could create a "Gaming Connection Package" and if you don't pay for that you have restricted access to Sony, Turbine and Blizzard game servers for playing MMOs.

    It allows them to slow down / speed up traffic on a PER SITE basis at their own discretion. And as long as they aren't doing it in an anti-competitive fashion (i.e. comcast making all of the bellsouth sites load slower) than there is nothing "wrong" with it.
    It works the other way around too... comcast may require each and every website out there to pay a fee in order to be viewed at a "normal" speed. This, I think, is where the real concern lies. Currently, the internet is an amazingly cheap way to run a business. Anyone can set up a webpage and it will be just as accessable as CNN.com. The end result of killing net neutrality might be that small/new businesses will lose the equal footing with big businesses that they currently enjoy (in this medium).
    DDOVAULT.COM
    Freedom from Oppression!

  7. #7
    Community Member In_Like_Flynn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Calgary, Canada
    Posts
    2,258

    Default It's Inevitable

    Whatever they decide to charge, you'll pay.
    <°)))>< O l d T i m e r s ' G u i l d ><(((°>
    H a r a j u k u - H o o l o o v o o - V e x x y
    <°)))><
    G h a l l a n d a ><(((°>

  8. #8
    Community Member Katianara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    135

    Default

    This isn't your current events forum, go post this somewhere else

  9. #9
    Founder Dariuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    4,655

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katianara View Post
    This isn't your current events forum, go post this somewhere else
    I think this qualifies as a legit 'gameplay issue'

    (granted, i personally don't think any of the effects of whatever decision is made will affect internet service until well after the current crop of MMOs is dead and buried)
    |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| ||
    |.....ALE TRUCK......| ||'|";, ___.
    |_...._....._____===|=||_|__|..., ]
    "(@)'(@)"***|(@)(@)**''(@)
    _________________Thanks to Hunglo for the Ale Truck

  10. #10
    Community Member Tavok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moonprophet View Post
    Land line internet service providers that charged extra for "faster" service were perpetrating a fraud. There is and never was any way to push an analog phone signal through a phone line any faster than 56kbps. Period. Claims to the contrary were innacurate and misleading. Some companies claimed faster speeds by using file compression, web page caching, and other tricks, but the bottom line is the send/receieve transmission rates could never be faster than 56kbps. In fact, this rate was only acheivable if you had absolutely no noise or interference on the line between you and the isp.

    The justice department that has been (illegaly btw) appointed by now-former head Alberto Gonzales is comprised of right-wing Bush yes-men that will always side against public welfare in lieu of big-business interests. Remember this when going to the polls next time. Pay attention to who pays (read: bribes) your politician before voting for them.
    Your first paragraph is what I kinda meant to say lol. I only got my responce from my media teacher, who told me all about this, needless to say I was a bit confused so I probably got it wrong lol.

    Second Paragraph - More proof that parties shouldn't exist. It would let you exactly examine the canidates instead of just saying "so and so is demo/repub so I will vote for them."

  11. #11
    Community Member Kaboth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    1,290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katianara View Post
    This isn't your current events forum, go post this somewhere else
    If they charging you more to play DDO because of bandwith but they dont charge extra for wow and that affects your lag, I think this would concern you and DDO dont you think?

  12. #12
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,999

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moonprophet View Post
    Land line internet service providers that charged extra for "faster" service were perpetrating a fraud. There is and never was any way to push an analog phone signal through a phone line any faster than 56kbps. Period. Claims to the contrary were innacurate and misleading. Some companies claimed faster speeds by using file compression, web page caching, and other tricks, but the bottom line is the send/receieve transmission rates could never be faster than 56kbps. In fact, this rate was only acheivable if you had absolutely no noise or interference on the line between you and the isp.
    Just a slight correction here. 56K modems do not work at 56K speeds. The FCC limited 56K phone line connections to no faster than 53K. So, the governemt does and can have their hands in the operating functions of the internet.

  13. #13
    Community Member Mercules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Spring Park, MN
    Posts
    6,634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blakbyrd View Post
    Just a slight correction here. 56K modems do not work at 56K speeds. The FCC limited 56K phone line connections to no faster than 53K. So, the governemt does and can have their hands in the operating functions of the internet.
    And... 53K is nearly impossible to get with a normal modem. Working for an ISP I naturally tweaked my system to get the best possible dial-up connection I could. 50.9-51.2 K nearly all the time. I live less than a mile from the CO where the copper turned into fiber. The copper line was fairly new(less than 2 years) and I matched the chipset of my modem to the kind my ISP was using. V90 was a bastardization of two different protocols before and different chipsets were originally designed based off of one of those protocols so I always liked to match them up for the best communication possible.

    The FCC also put the limitation in place because supposedly 56K connections would cause bleed over into other lines. Remember your higher speeds are basically sending more pulses down the line per millisecond and if you cram enough pulses together you've basically upped the frequency, get above 53K and that frequency bleed.
    "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment."
    -Barry LePatner

  14. #14
    Community Member Vanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tavok View Post
    It has always been this way. When internet was first created through land line usage, they had the ability to give EVERYONE the same speed (highest quality) but decided to seperate it so that if you payed more, you got faster service. Theres nothing being changed, we won't be charged more than we have been since the internet was invented. Just the fact that this made the news is that the justice department reviewed the the decision to make it mandatory for all people to be charged the same for top quality service, and they voted against it.
    Not quite that easy.

    Here is the scenario and why it should worry you.

    You are a startup company that relies heavily on web presense. You say a 5MB up/down line from your local ISP, lets call them ISP-ME.

    You are a sucess and are generating a bunch of new traffic to your site. AT&T then tell you that you need to pay them some money to be on their top tier service. If you don't customers on their backbone won't get your site on ISP-ME as fast.

    Other scenario. Say MS and AT&T partner and form a multimedia venture. Sprint and Apple do the same. You are on and AT&T line and want to access the Apple/Sprint service. AT&T tiers their service so that you can't access the Sprint site with reasonable responsiveness. Sprint does the same with AT&T. Unless of course you pay some difference to up your tier level to get to the providers on the other site.

    Next scenario. You use Skype or Vonage for phone service. Your ISP offers their own VIOP plan as well. They teir traffice to Skype and Vonage and tell them they need to pay a bazillion dollars for priority traffic, otherwise they will be put in the bottom rung. Call quality will suffer. This is BS becase as a consumer I am paying for bandwidth already. Why double charge my provider? Simple, so that I will drop the 'lesser' quality third party and go with the ISP package.

    In all, its BS. The telecoms are screaming that they are being burdened by too much traffic on their lines. Currenlty NO ONE uses the lines for free. This is nothing more than a ploy to drive out smaller competitor and force people into packages on one provider. So you can see this is much, much more than simply paying for more bandwidth.
    Hail Mighty Argonnesson
    Vanda Copperfoot -- ZZPP Copperskull -- Deepwoods Off
    Bronca Tigertooth --Tenflagon Copperfist -- ShubsnZuuls Roasting in the Sloar
    <UNBREAKABLE>

  15. #15

    Default From a non -techy

    From a non-techy perspective, this is terrifying.

    Either way, I am going to end up paying more for exactly what I have right now.

    Sigh...

    It's not totally surprising though considering that the only thing the government knows about the internet is... ya know

    Most of them can't click on the e-mail icon on their desktop LOL

    I grew up with 14.4 then 28 the 56 then dsl then cable. The rates are always changing as one company tries to out do the other.

    If businesses are charged more for me the consumer to see their site, then I the consumer will probably be charged more for the end product.

    And yes, I can see internet providers wanting to charge gamers more for solid, steady, "fat pipe"... grrrrrrr

    All in all I am disheartened to see Net Neutrality implode.

    See ya in Stormreach,

    -R

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload