What You Should Know About Net Neutrality

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ProfessorChaos

The actual report is 8 pages long, with 292 pages of public comments.

Twitter comment from Gigi Sohn.

Great find! I had not heard that and no one has said that in any of the threads regarding NN.

I am salivating to read the mere 8 pages. Though, if they released a 4 page summary of an 8 page document, I am forced to ask, why not release all 8?

a reply to: theantediluvian

That group of companies should get together and build their own internet. The only legitimate legal claim is that nobody owns the capital parts of the internet paid for by taxes. Unless a high bidder buys them.

Instead the collectivists sell another quick fix by the commandeering of private property, and the barbed insertion of the divine leviathan.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
If you think the net is neutral or ever was. What can I say...

In the context of what we're talking about, yes. Meaning that network traffic isn't "legally or officially" being sped up or slowed down because of the type of data it is.

Ignorance is bliss...

That's what I hear. But you can't unlearn what you've learned so I guess I'm screwed.

But yes dude! That's what I said, I like totally agree with you, whatever it is your point is.

As you should.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: theantediluvian

That group of companies should get together and build their own internet. The only legitimate legal claim is that nobody owns the capital parts of the internet paid for by taxes. Unless a high bidder buys them.

Instead the collectivists sell another quick fix by the commandeering of private property, and the barbed insertion of the divine leviathan.

Google has tried to offer Google fiber. Oddly enough, I think it was Verizon that took them to court and made them stop their expansion. Verizon claimed it violated their rights as a monopoly for competition to be created.

Of course, Verizon didn't even build the network that turned them into a monopoly. Neither did Comcast. The government did, with your tax dollars. They simply inherited it.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

That group of companies should get together and build their own internet.

Instead the collectivists sell another quick fix by the commandeering of private property, and the barbed insertion of the divine leviathan.

Well shucks, I wasn't aware that Comcast, Verizon, etc built the Internet. Perhaps that because the "collectivists" did?

DARPA researchers developed the concept
DARPA funded the development of the architecture and the protocols (TCP/IP) for ARPANET
DARPA funded the physical construction of ARPANET

NSF, NASA, the DoE and others picked up where DARPA left off. Decades of development paid for by American tax payers. The original NSFNET backbone? American tax payers paid for that. The establishment of the original NAPs used during the transition while private IXPs were being created? Paid for by grants from the NSF.

Peddle this "commandeering of private property" BS somewhere else. ISPs have by now made trillions from technology developed by "collectivists."

If anything, this is a case of private companies trying to commandeer public property.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Lets not forget that $200 billion we gave them to build a broadband network that they didn't do. Forcing us to spend another $200 billion to build something ourselves.

It's a few years old, but everyone should read this
www.pbs.org...

a reply to: Aazadan

Exactly. Those "pipes" are ours.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Strangely that doesn't seem to be a problem overseas where their internet infrastructure is MUCH better...

a reply to: TonyS

The left/right system truly has a devolved into a system that caters to the extreme sides of the political spectrum.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Strangely that doesn't seem to be a problem overseas where their internet infrastructure is MUCH better...

I've seen this passed around several times but it's a bunch of hooey. There have been several case studies that shows in most cases (I think the Netherlands is the exception) that the US infrastructure is better than the great majority of Europe. The US also invest a ton (metaphorically that is) more per household than any other European country (in some cases, 65% more invested than it's European counterpart).

Particular case study can be found here which has a direct link to the PDF of the study: papers.ssrn.com...##

a reply to: Bearack

Cool inaccuracy disproved. That makes it even stranger that this isn't a problem in Europe.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bearack

Cool inaccuracy disproved. That makes it even stranger that this isn't a problem in Europe.

Honestly, where is the problem again? Another Fallacy is that Comcast slowed bandwidth to Netflix but anyone with any network knowledge knows that when you have millions streaming through a single pipe, it's not the ISP that is bogging the system down, it's the flow of traffic through the pipe.

What you are asking is to have everyone to have access to the same pipes as everyone else. That means that Netflix cannot purchase a dedicated pipe and will once again need to share a public pipe with everyone else. This means that EVERYONE will start to experience a slow down during peak hours because those band width monsters will be using the same pipes as us versus dedicated pipes.

Why can't people understand that?

a reply to: theantediluvian

How can anyone be FOR or AGAINST a 300 page government document when they have NO IDEA what's actually in it.

It's just as legitimate to be concerned about what we don't know could be in it that to be for it based off weird hypothetical scenarios that don't exist.

As far as I can tell people who want more govt control (LIBERALS) are for it and people who want less govt control (CONSERVATIVES) are against it.

originally posted by: Bearack

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bearack

Cool inaccuracy disproved. That makes it even stranger that this isn't a problem in Europe.

Honestly, where is the problem again? Another Fallacy is that Comcast slowed bandwidth to Netflix but anyone with any network knowledge knows that when you have millions streaming through a single pipe, it's not the ISP that is bogging the system down, it's the flow of traffic through the pipe.

What you are asking is to have everyone to have access to the same pipes as everyone else. That means that Netflix cannot purchase a dedicated pipe and will once again need to share a public pipe with everyone else. This means that EVERYONE will start to experience a slow down during peak hours because those band width monsters will be using the same pipes as us versus dedicated pipes.

Why can't people understand that?

Because corporations are evil and government is the only good and must take care of us and stop evil corporations, duh.

a reply to: Bearack

Actually everyone will experience what we've always experienced because the government is maintaining net neutrality not creating it.

a reply to: jjkenobi

It's not a 300 page document. It is an 8 page document with 292 pages of comments. We DO know what is in it since they've released a summary.

The reason the whole thing hasn't been released is the fault of the Republicans who keep stalling its release. All this info has been discussed and linked to in this thread.

As far as I can tell people who want more govt control (LIBERALS) are for it and people who want less govt control (CONSERVATIVES) are against it.

As far as I can tell, anyone who knows a bit about computers and how the internet works is for it (Liberals and Conservatives). Conservatives parroting Republican rhetoric (the uninformed) are against it.

Allowing internet providers to pick and choose what they feel is important, and not important is a dreadful idea. It would be a huge and devastating blow to the amount of democracy and fairness we have.

What do you think will happen if companies had the power to propagate the information THEY think you should know about. If this were to happen, each company would peddle their own branding networks even more relentlessly. People complain enough as it is that there's a lot of big business and government relations. This would just further that strangle hold. It would give them the opportunity to benefit themselves as well as their other business/political cronies even more. If an ISP would be considered strongly conservative/liberal, there's a good chance they will restrict an opposing political or social information coming from the other side. That would be propagandas wet dream.

A select few companies already own almost all of the media in America. They already own and produce a lot of the news, T.V. shows, radio, and movies we watch. As well as other outlets. Now they're coming after the internet. They want to control that also. Basically the last refuge of truly free thought and expression. If net neutrality would crumble, they would just further their information monopolies.

It has nothing to do with their companies "rights" or "freedom." It has everything to do with them trying to seize more control, and make even more money. It would only result in a higher caliber of a corporatized oligarchy in America.

originally posted by: Bearack
Honestly, where is the problem again? Another Fallacy is that Comcast slowed bandwidth to Netflix but anyone with any network knowledge knows that when you have millions streaming through a single pipe, it's not the ISP that is bogging the system down, it's the flow of traffic through the pipe.

What you are asking is to have everyone to have access to the same pipes as everyone else. That means that Netflix cannot purchase a dedicated pipe and will once again need to share a public pipe with everyone else. This means that EVERYONE will start to experience a slow down during peak hours because those band width monsters will be using the same pipes as us versus dedicated pipes.

Why can't people understand that?

What about you - do you really understand these 'pipes' as you call 'em?

Do you know why Netflix consumes so much of the internet's bandwidth? It's not just because it has a lot of users - it's also because the data is extremely expensive in terms of bandwidth. Audio alone is one of the larger formats. An individual image is many kilobytes - or even megabytes - and a movie contains 24+ frames (images) per second plus audio. The files are enormous. That's why hard formats like DVD and Blu-ray need to store multiple gigabytes of data.

However, most ISPs are also cable companies. What do cable companies offer aside from internet services? Hundreds of channels of streaming audio and video. It should be trivial for cable companies who already handle so much data to handle that and in fact - it is.

If you have cable, look at your coaxial. Do you know what it does? It's capable of carrying all of the channels your cable provider offers. All of that streaming audio and video, every hour of the day, 364+ days a year. Think about just how much bandwidth that is compared to say, ATS, where you may download a few images sometimes (when they aren't cached) and text.

Each character (letter/number/punctuation) is a mere 8 bits which comprise a single byte of data, where 1024 bytes = 1 kilobyte, 1024 kilobytes = 1 megabyte, and 1024 megabytes = 1 gigabyte. A single Blu-ray disc can hold upwards of 24 gigabytes - equivalent to 25,769,803,776 characters of text (the Holy Bible contains something like 3.5 million letters, but that probably doesn't include spaces). Similarly, speed is generally measured in bits per second; they are roughly similar, but the scale is different by a factor of 8. 8 bits in 1 byte means 1 megabyte could be transmitted per second on an 8 megabit line.

The coaxial does this by utilizing different frequencies; a modern system might handle up to 750MHz. If your internet used just 200MHz of that for download, you could get speeds approaching 900Mbps. How much do you figure the cable companies allocate to internet when the average U.S. cable modem speed is around 33 Mbps?

Maybe around 12MHz.

Bandwidth isn't the problem, the cable companies are.

a reply to: Greven

All of this could be non-sequitur as coaxial is extremely antiquated. At least with the new technologies soon to hit the market.

Using Light for Data Transmission on a Terabit Scale

Source: www.scientificcomputing.com...

a reply to: Bearack
Yes, and this antiquated technology is perfectly capable of far higher speed so... what is your reasoning to support your argument from before?