I think it's all becoming moot, as we'll likely have high-speed digital satellite networking from PCI or USB adapters in the next 5 or so years.
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
Hopefully this will become law, we do NOT need a tiered internet thank you very much.
For those that don't know what net neutrality and a tiered internet are, check out the vid linked here:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/156
It's the video version of the most recent TWiT from the Apple Store San Francisco. It was hosted by Leo Laporte, Patrick Norton, Roger Chang, Molly Wood from CNET and the guy who doesn't need an intro, Woz.
Here is the TWiT link to the full audio and video versions:
http://twit.tv/44
For those in the US, this still has to pass the full House, so write your representatives, pester them about this.
For those that don't know what net neutrality and a tiered internet are, check out the vid linked here:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/156
It's the video version of the most recent TWiT from the Apple Store San Francisco. It was hosted by Leo Laporte, Patrick Norton, Roger Chang, Molly Wood from CNET and the guy who doesn't need an intro, Woz.
Here is the TWiT link to the full audio and video versions:
http://twit.tv/44
For those in the US, this still has to pass the full House, so write your representatives, pester them about this.
Awesome decision
And the surprise for me was that Sensenbrenner/Conyers worked together on this and it got out of committe before anybody laid a hand on it
Even though there are some fairly cohesive arguments to contradict network neutrality, wherein the thought is that regulation stifles entrepreneurship.
There are a few problems with this argument and the present state of the network itself that makes a good case against de-regulation.
If one is to say that the people should not be over-regulated; this would not be the case with very large companies that now own a very sizeable and visably huge (you can see it on the map of the internet) chunk of the physical network. Whereas, before, the network was neutral just by virtue of the fact that the internet was one giant 'bucket-brigade' and if one company threw a fit and wanted to start shaping packets enough to make other networks irritated, then they would be avoided, with other AS's routing around them.
The deal here is; either you are being sold de-regulation, so as a startup you can have a shot; OR you are being Orwelled to death so that you consent to something that can only really benefit a large oligopolist with an already sufficient network. So, if the gov't let's everybody shape packets on their network infrastructure, do we all win? Of course not, I don't have a network infrastructure. This also gives the corporations that are already successful more ability to actually create a barrier to entry to other upstarts.
Hey, I figure (and I'm right) that I already pay for my bandwidth. Therefore, shaping and discriminating packets after the fact, forcing me and my communicators to pay twice, feels like it falls under some kind of racketeering. AT&T isn't just letting the NSA spy on you...both the NSA and AT&T use Narus software for their own, somewhat different reasons. NSA uses Narus as an advanced 'Carnivore' . AT&T uses it for analysis to learn what type of packets are going across for QoS concerns. Part of the Narus product description is that it can determine what packets are of a certain type. For instance it can detect, shape, or drop skype calls.
Hmm. I already pay for 1 mbps upload and 1.5 down and I assume everybody else pays their bills...so why can't I use my skype? The answer is making sure you get what you ALREADY paid for. This is Network Neutrality.
And the surprise for me was that Sensenbrenner/Conyers worked together on this and it got out of committe before anybody laid a hand on it
Even though there are some fairly cohesive arguments to contradict network neutrality, wherein the thought is that regulation stifles entrepreneurship.
There are a few problems with this argument and the present state of the network itself that makes a good case against de-regulation.
If one is to say that the people should not be over-regulated; this would not be the case with very large companies that now own a very sizeable and visably huge (you can see it on the map of the internet) chunk of the physical network. Whereas, before, the network was neutral just by virtue of the fact that the internet was one giant 'bucket-brigade' and if one company threw a fit and wanted to start shaping packets enough to make other networks irritated, then they would be avoided, with other AS's routing around them.
The deal here is; either you are being sold de-regulation, so as a startup you can have a shot; OR you are being Orwelled to death so that you consent to something that can only really benefit a large oligopolist with an already sufficient network. So, if the gov't let's everybody shape packets on their network infrastructure, do we all win? Of course not, I don't have a network infrastructure. This also gives the corporations that are already successful more ability to actually create a barrier to entry to other upstarts.
Hey, I figure (and I'm right) that I already pay for my bandwidth. Therefore, shaping and discriminating packets after the fact, forcing me and my communicators to pay twice, feels like it falls under some kind of racketeering. AT&T isn't just letting the NSA spy on you...both the NSA and AT&T use Narus software for their own, somewhat different reasons. NSA uses Narus as an advanced 'Carnivore'
. AT&T uses it for analysis to learn what type of packets are going across for QoS concerns. Part of the Narus product description is that it can determine what packets are of a certain type. For instance it can detect, shape, or drop skype calls. Hmm. I already pay for 1 mbps upload and 1.5 down and I assume everybody else pays their bills...so why can't I use my skype?
The answer is making sure you get what you ALREADY paid for. This is Network Neutrality.Comcast announced today having *invested in and built technology* that will allow users to double their download speed when engaging in high-bandwidth activities. *It is free to customers.* Maybe the people that should pay for this type of investment could be the movie or music companies that take up all the bandwidth to make money from downloading? Maybe Comcast developed this technology cause they thought the government wouldn't make them pass this on to customers since most customers don't engage in huge bandwidth hogging activities? Maybe this technology would NOT have been developed if Comcast knew they would have to raise your rates to make the profit on it? Maybe, possibly, we are all really beneficiaries and not victims of a free market in choosing high-speed providers?
It has everything to do with the individuals. How about the blogs we are keeping? How about the little home pages we create for ourselves? How about those innovative file servers we keep at home to access our documents easily? How about those people who wanted to start their little online projects? How about trying to talk to someone on msn or send files? How about those open source projects that uses bit torrent?ktlx said:
It's the high speed Internet that encourages people to reinvent how data is position on the net, look at all the new inventions; bit torrent, skype, google map so on. Do you think they can succeed on a 56k dial up? or do you think they can be that popular if people in UK get bad connection to these sites compare to people in US?
ItsAMacWorld, you sound like an industry rep. Let the free market reign, I agree. I already pay more for my 3M download service than I do for a 768k service. How I use that bandwidth is up to me. To say the company that provides access should charge more based on how I use my bandwidth is absurd.
I live in an isolated area that has only one option (cable) for high speed access. They are a monopoly. Therefore, they need government regulation.
It pains me to say this, but it is true for many people out on the fringe.
I live in an isolated area that has only one option (cable) for high speed access. They are a monopoly. Therefore, they need government regulation.
It pains me to say this, but it is true for many people out on the fringe.
DZ/015 said:
Hm. Again, not sure if the implications of the issue are clear. If net neutrality works out, the cable ops WILL DEFINITELY charge you for how you use your bandwidth because they will not be allowed to charge the companies that are making money off your activities. Here are your choices: 1) do they only charge "Bob" for his bandwidth hogging uses, 2) all of us as a whole for Bob's bandwidth hogging uses, or 3) the companies that are making money from Bob's bandwidth hogging uses.
Some people here have said that the cable ops will charge the companies AND us AND Bob. Okay, even if that's true, I'd rather they charge someone instead of ONLY me. This is NOT about regulating pricing to us, it's about charging another perfectly logical party to this whole game for their participation in the bandwidth usage. Why is everyone okay excluding Disney and Google from this payment circle?
baleensavage said:
I see this as a huge issue especially for some place like Maine but I think it is going to change. Maine is trying to figure out what to do about the percentage of graduates leaving the state because they cannot find a job. High speed internet state wide is a way to help to change this and I think the government is going to work on a solution.
COPE telecommunications act threatens Net Neutrality
Earlier today, I recieved an email from MoveOn.org on Net Neutrality.
Apparently, very soon, the House of Respresentatives will be voting on whether or not to approve the COPE telecommunications act. The current version "guts Net Neutrality" as stated in MoveOn's email. Unless Rep. Ed Markey's amendment to protect Net Neutrality is added to the bill, the bill getting passed would mean the end of a free internet.
Moby even did a fairly stupid video on it.... but it's kinda funny and worth watching: http://www.SavetheInternet.com/moby
Some more videos on it: http://savetheinternet.com/=videos
I liked the Public Knowledge video a lot.
This issue scares the crap against me.
Also, these are interesting: http://savetheinternet.com/=videos
Thoughts?
Earlier today, I recieved an email from MoveOn.org on Net Neutrality.
Apparently, very soon, the House of Respresentatives will be voting on whether or not to approve the COPE telecommunications act. The current version "guts Net Neutrality" as stated in MoveOn's email. Unless Rep. Ed Markey's amendment to protect Net Neutrality is added to the bill, the bill getting passed would mean the end of a free internet.
Moby even did a fairly stupid video on it.... but it's kinda funny and worth watching: http://www.SavetheInternet.com/moby
Some more videos on it: http://savetheinternet.com/=videos
I liked the Public Knowledge video a lot.
This issue scares the crap against me.
Also, these are interesting: http://savetheinternet.com/=videos
Thoughts?