i think we all know that ISPs don't want net neutrality because they'd want to say.. make an agreement with napster to give them more bandwidth and then using iTunes would start to suck with the same ISP. I'm not saying it would go this way, probably the other, but still, we it's just not a good idea to think that QOS would be capped based on how much the contnet vendor could shell out. so.. for the first time in a while, I am happy with the House of Reps.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Net Neutrality Bill Approved By House Committee
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i'm usually always supportive of capitalism, but i think i have to agree with the decision to not allow different rates.
in all reality, the majority of america's internet (and pretty much any other high tech market) is always going to flounder, and will probably be outdated a lot sooner than most people would like to think. when you look at a country like england, whose socialistic policies already help in maintaining public uses, it's miniscule compared to the amount of area the united states has. we're simply too big to do anything about.
i live in austin, and occasionally i won't be able to get cell phone reception. imagine what it's like to live in montana. there's nothing there.
i don't really see what the big deal is anyways. the telecom companies are so ridiculously huge they could stand to lose some money. heaven forbid the people earning millions of dollars a year earn a few thousand less. i know it's 'unfair', but america isn't as free-market as we'd like to think. entirely too much backscratching going on.
in all reality, the majority of america's internet (and pretty much any other high tech market) is always going to flounder, and will probably be outdated a lot sooner than most people would like to think. when you look at a country like england, whose socialistic policies already help in maintaining public uses, it's miniscule compared to the amount of area the united states has. we're simply too big to do anything about.
i live in austin, and occasionally i won't be able to get cell phone reception. imagine what it's like to live in montana. there's nothing there.
i don't really see what the big deal is anyways. the telecom companies are so ridiculously huge they could stand to lose some money. heaven forbid the people earning millions of dollars a year earn a few thousand less. i know it's 'unfair', but america isn't as free-market as we'd like to think. entirely too much backscratching going on.
I think this is a fine proposition, as it isn't too in depth. But as someone pointed out earlier, once government gets going it doesn't stop, and it's no good at doing business like this.
This is nice because it will prevent monopoly ISPs from completley destroying small businesses in their area. However, I fear what the government may start to do in regards to sticking its nose way to far into this internet deal; this would include web standards, servers, bandwidth, prices...etc. We all know how good government is at pretty much everything outside of sitting there.
This is nice because it will prevent monopoly ISPs from completley destroying small businesses in their area. However, I fear what the government may start to do in regards to sticking its nose way to far into this internet deal; this would include web standards, servers, bandwidth, prices...etc. We all know how good government is at pretty much everything outside of sitting there.
Earendil said:
I'll take you one further...
If the US Federal Gov't doesn't step up and commit to regulation things could get really bad in a decade. Imagine a country where only the wealthiest 5% of the population can afford highspeed internet.
As it stands the internet, like gasoline, is a luxury item. In my life the internet is a utility. I use it more than gas or water or telephone. The elite could and may maintain and strengthen their status by making the internet unobtainble to the working class, like their doing with gasoline right now.
I'm scared, the future of a decent standard of living for "working class" in the USA looks worse everyday.
we moved more and more towards neo-capitalism and now we are taking two steps bad.... it's actually kind of sad that in the past 10-15 years we have moved more and more backwards in many ways...... markets that were once competitive have moved towards consolidation and we find ourselves facing many problems which have not been commonplace since the monopolies at the turn of the century... price-fixing, anti-competitive practices, etc.....
this is a return to zero-sum thinking and not win-win thinking... the pursuit of money has reached a point that more and more people are thinking it is acceptable to trample others to try and stay on top.....
this is a return to zero-sum thinking and not win-win thinking... the pursuit of money has reached a point that more and more people are thinking it is acceptable to trample others to try and stay on top.....
ItsAMacWorld said:
Yeah, sorry just don't believe this. They will want their cake (money from content providers) and eat it too (eat all of us subscribers). Then they pay millions or hundreds of millions to CEO's and executives for running the company in to the ground. No thanks.
I really believe in the free market, but lets be honest, in this area there is no such thing as a true free market. All these companies get some sort of government benefit, be it through the backbone of the net (originally established by the gov't) or via tax breaks. This creates problems and barriers to entry which limits the market.
i had a communications class and we talked about deregulation in 1996. how the vendors all said it would increase competition and fuel innovation blah blah blah. when all that has really happened is consolidation and higher prices. it is evident everywhere. clear-com owns something like 1200 radio station throughout the country and they all sound the same. there used to be limits on this stuff. the cable companies used to need government approval to raise their prices. i think their prices increase 5 dollars every hour nowadays. after the industry was deregulated there was something like 50 Billion in mergers within the first year (something like that, it was a lot). and so far I don't know if any of it has been good or the consumer. i like the guy who said we would have 45Mbps speeds. HA.
whmees said:
I lived in Montana, and have family that still live there. Very sad that even in some of the larger and more popular towns (ones that many people from out of state are moving to) the best you can still get is dial up for $15/month or broadband for $75/month.
Again, I'm all for free markets and capitalism. While the gov't may go deeper, if they treat this like electric utilities, I think it could work. The gov't actually DID a good job managing electric companies. When many states deregulated in the 90's that is when all hell broke loose. It is important to understand that just be removing gov't control over one aspect, like regulation of power, DOES NOT mean you are letting the market take over. Government (federal, state, local) still all have their friggin hands in the pot along with all the lobbies. Hence, you run in to other problems and get many of the corrupted businesses that take advantage of the situation. Montana, again, is a perfect example of this. They used to have some of the cheapeset power in the nation - now they get screwed, along with former employees of Montana Power while the former CEO sits in his million dollar mansion on flathead lake.
The internet is something very similar to electricity. In the 1800's the federal gov't understood the importance of electricity and the need for it to reach every corner of the country. They understood it could quickly divide the country, one just coming out of civil war, between have's and have not's. The internet is very much the same. How many more years before we see people having to use the internet to file taxes, apply/claim gov't services, be the only means of paying your bills without being charged a "service" fee for mailing in a check, the only way your bank operates, etc., etc.
No, internet should be a "public" utilitiy - at least the info structure. Available across the US. We recognize the importance of inner city and rural schools needing computers. Inner city schools are more likely to have easy access to high speed internet. The same is not true for rural schools. And we don't see a problem with this?
sw1tcher said:This is good news, yet people are voting negative on this. WTF?
Yeah, I don't get that either. Someone wants Telecom to slow their connection down and force them to pay more to get the connection as fast as it was before this legislation was passed?
Electricity, water, telephone.
Most of the utilities, defined as stuff that everyone must have, are regulated and have been for many decades. The basic problem is monopoly--whoever happens to own the pipe your house essentially has a monopoly on a commodity that you can't not buy, and you can't buy elsewhere. So in a deregulated market, the price goes way up for everyone, and if you can't pay, companies generally won't care as long as more people can pay the higher prices than can't pay at all.
This already happens to some extent in our broadband internet market. It happened when Bolivia deregulated its water market--prices went up, and the poor areas occasionally got no water at all. It happened on a larger scale with California's electricity last year. And most economists think that it is what's wrong with our healthcare market right now. The internet backbone is basically a monopoly (really a small oligopoly), and if the owners are free to do whatever they like with it, prices will go up for every web site (why not, if we can't buy elsewhere?), and web site that can't afford to pay or, for whatever reason, it's not worth providing bandwidth for, will simply not get service.
Certainly in a freer market the wealthiest would get better service: they could get cleaner electricity, better water pressure, better sounding phone service, better health care, and higher-speed internet--but the cost is usually higher prices for everyone and no service at all for the poorest. Regulation works fine for water, electricity, and telephone, and seems to me better than the alternative for internet access and services.
Most of the utilities, defined as stuff that everyone must have, are regulated and have been for many decades. The basic problem is monopoly--whoever happens to own the pipe your house essentially has a monopoly on a commodity that you can't not buy, and you can't buy elsewhere. So in a deregulated market, the price goes way up for everyone, and if you can't pay, companies generally won't care as long as more people can pay the higher prices than can't pay at all.
This already happens to some extent in our broadband internet market. It happened when Bolivia deregulated its water market--prices went up, and the poor areas occasionally got no water at all. It happened on a larger scale with California's electricity last year. And most economists think that it is what's wrong with our healthcare market right now. The internet backbone is basically a monopoly (really a small oligopoly), and if the owners are free to do whatever they like with it, prices will go up for every web site (why not, if we can't buy elsewhere?), and web site that can't afford to pay or, for whatever reason, it's not worth providing bandwidth for, will simply not get service.
Certainly in a freer market the wealthiest would get better service: they could get cleaner electricity, better water pressure, better sounding phone service, better health care, and higher-speed internet--but the cost is usually higher prices for everyone and no service at all for the poorest. Regulation works fine for water, electricity, and telephone, and seems to me better than the alternative for internet access and services.
intlplby said:
Oh. You mean something like money is the root of all evil? Yeah, I'm typing stuff from the Bible.
But this is what this is about - on BOTH sides.
Corporations: They want the opportunity to tier their pricing a little more by using advantages (allow/disallow certain protocols) and possibly *gasp* via advertising. Get rid of competition and now, not only do you have the other company's dollar, you have the opportunity to charge another one.
General Public (via the gov't by extension): Their desire is to pay LESS for goods. Be it gasoline, groceries, or information. "The internet *should* be considered a utility and just like water should be cheap cheap cheap," they say. As a matter of fact, our constitution says that "all men are created equal" so we should have all things equal.
I believe neither will work, but one will win. I can guarantee you that. Why won't either work? Greed and corruption. I'm not a doomsday sayer, just a realist. And in an economy and country where, more and more, one voice is the majority, the only way to 'fix it for sure' is to socialize. - But I DON'T want that. yikes!
For those of us in the US chiming in about how wonderful this is, I'm curious as to what in the recent history of the US House of Reps makes you think this is going to work out all fine and dandy like you think it will? Please give me examples where they have created technology laws that didn't end up having all kinds of intended consequences that simply made things worse.
That's what bothers me right now about this. First there isn't any pre-existing problem in the US the law solves. Right now all of the ISPs are providing "best effort" class of service to all comers. CALEA, DMCA, COPA, telecom 1996 and the list goes on, are all examples of things Congress did that sound reasonable, even good in theory, but end up getting hosed because they were written too broadly or too vaguely.
What makes you think a bunch of 60 year old white men in the hands of a bunch of Washington lobbyists are actually going to write a good law here?
That's what bothers me right now about this. First there isn't any pre-existing problem in the US the law solves. Right now all of the ISPs are providing "best effort" class of service to all comers. CALEA, DMCA, COPA, telecom 1996 and the list goes on, are all examples of things Congress did that sound reasonable, even good in theory, but end up getting hosed because they were written too broadly or too vaguely.
What makes you think a bunch of 60 year old white men in the hands of a bunch of Washington lobbyists are actually going to write a good law here?
I think it's just a matter of people not truly understanding the article, and perhaps a few that just flat out don't agree. ??sw1tcher said:This is good news, yet people are voting negative on this. WTF?
This is excellent news.
evilgEEk said:
Yes, of course, it could never be that you and others are misunderstanding the debate.
People shouldn't be kidding themselves here. "Net Neutrality" has almost nothing to do with individuals and their high speed Internet service.
The two sides fighting over this issues are the content owners, movie studios, Google, Amazon, Yahoo!, Microsoft, etc. and the bandwidth providers, Verizon, AT&T, etc. This is not "corporations" versus "little guy", this is one oligopoly pitted against another oligopoly. The fight comes in the middle of an election year where the House is up for grabs, so members need more donations to hold onto their seats, so this is the quickest way to scare a bunch of well funded corporate lobbyists into flowing the money in to make sure their side gets a "fair deal".
My biggest concern is that the US HoR legislates in a chicken and egg problem. Bandwidth providers can't provide higher margin services so can't make a decent ROI so slow down fiber buildouts so content providers can't provide enough new services to mess with TV on demand over the Internet or any other service they might dream of which needs something other than "best effort" service to lots of people.
bigandy said:
Of course, Scotland is a wee bit smaller than the USA or Canada.
Be that as it may, it surprises me how poorly connected we are in the States. I'm in New Mexico, (Santa Fe to be precise), and despite the presence of some serious network capability, most of us don't get a choice as to what kind of Internet we get. Example: I live outside of town in a subdivision of 6000 or so. We can't get DSL, just cable. Which brings me to my point: if we had more choice, then it wouldn't be so much of an issue. But, I'm slaved to one ISP, so if they were able to restrict my connection I couldn't go elsewhere.
(Meanwhile, my parents live in a small town in Upstate NY with its own telephone company - independent for over 100 years. While they could get other service, why? Their telephone company provides great connectivity, good prices, etc. They had high-speed *years* before me.)
Thank my freaking God.
And now moveon.org will stop sending me letters to tell all my friends about it after I already had.
And now moveon.org will stop sending me letters to tell all my friends about it after I already had.
How come folks living in the cities have to keep subsidising "rural America" for their postal service, phone service, highway access and now high speed internet? How about rural America subsidising the city folks for their high cost of rent? Who is going to stand up for them?baleensavage said:
It is not like they do it for free. We pay for the food farmers grow, that should be incentive enough. In any case, most people in the rural areas are not farmers. I doubt any of the posters on this forum claiming to live in rural areas are farmers.Highland said:
I still don't get it. Why don't rural folks have to subsidise city people? If not for them, there would not be internet to begin with. You live in the city, you have better access to all kinds of services, but most everything is more expensive. People make their peace with it. If you live in the rural areas, all of a sudden you have a God given right to cheap internet, highways etc. If a big back yard, cheap housing, fresh food, clean air, short commute etc. is not enough, then move to the city.