So the Tea Party is Helping Get rid of Net Neutrality...

[oreo]

So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.

Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality

So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how?

Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.

So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.

Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...

So you would prefer that a Federal Government whom has shown time and time again--that they couldn't manage a lemonade stand without driving it in to bankruptcy--would be better equipped to handle the internet than the private sector---

Corporations should be able to charge what they want--without interference from the Federal Government. That is what free-market competition is all about--and as we know--it's free market competition that keeps prices low--and quality and service UP.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Neither, that's called being a parent.

Nah, I'm doing it for selfish reasons. I want a lower ping when I play Bad Company 2. I don't care if his YouTube crap stutters and buffers, as long as I get more frags.

You want Big Business to be your parent and decide what you get to see?

I want to buy what I like.

When I have a remote site connecting to the ERP over a VPN tunnel, I want a QOS clause with my ISP ensuring that my traffic gets priority. Since I'm paying for it, why shouldn't I be able to contractually set an SLA that is binding? Why should the telcos not be able to prioritize traffic for those willing to pay for it? Why should I pay for a DS3, only to have it all go to shit once it passes the CO?

Honestly, you guys remind me of little kids who demand governors be put on Corvettes so they can't go any faster than your Scion, why should the rich people get to go faster...

 

[RDD_1210]

Neither, that's called being a parent.

Nah, I'm doing it for selfish reasons. I want a lower ping when I play Bad Company 2. I don't care if his YouTube crap stutters and buffers, as long as I get more frags.

You want Big Business to be your parent and decide what you get to see?

I want to buy what I like.

When I have a remote site connecting to the ERP over a VPN tunnel, I want a QOS clause with my ISP ensuring that my traffic gets priority. Since I'm paying for it, why shouldn't I be able to contractually set an SLA that is binding? Why should the telcos not be able to prioritize traffic for those willing to pay for it? Why should I pay for a DS3, only to have it all go to shit once it passes the CO?

Honestly, you guys remind me of little kids who demand governors be put on Corvettes so they can't go any faster than your Scion, why should the rich people get to go faster...

But what if what you like is not a preferred site by your ISP and you can't reach that site, but instead you are only able to get to the ISP's preferred site. You're cool with that?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

And this is why i outsourced my BTD website to Spain

The FCC can kiss my ass as far as im concerned

You aMericans want a internet like China?

Be my guest,

y'all being led into the third world by your liberal task masters imho.

Basically sums up what I said but in a different way


I dont want the govt involved in telling me what information I can and can not have, how much information, or what the information may or may not cost.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Neither, that's called being a parent.

Nah, I'm doing it for selfish reasons. I want a lower ping when I play Bad Company 2. I don't care if his YouTube crap stutters and buffers, as long as I get more frags.

You want Big Business to be your parent and decide what you get to see?

I want to buy what I like.

When I have a remote site connecting to the ERP over a VPN tunnel, I want a QOS clause with my ISP ensuring that my traffic gets priority. Since I'm paying for it, why shouldn't I be able to contractually set an SLA that is binding? Why should the telcos not be able to prioritize traffic for those willing to pay for it? Why should I pay for a DS3, only to have it all go to shit once it passes the CO?

Honestly, you guys remind me of little kids who demand governors be put on Corvettes so they can't go any faster than your Scion, why should the rich people get to go faster...

But what if what you like is not a preferred site by your ISP and you can't reach that site, but instead you are only able to get to the ISP's preferred site. You're cool with that?

I get a new ISP and that old ISP loses me and any other customers who like whatever websites they screw with.

Thats the beauty of american capitalism, well what is still left of it anyway.

 

[RDD_1210]

And this is why i outsourced my BTD website to Spain

The FCC can kiss my ass as far as im concerned

You aMericans want a internet like China?

Be my guest,

y'all being led into the third world by your liberal task masters imho.

Basically sums up what I said but in a different way


I dont want the govt involved in telling me what information I can and can not have, how much information, or what the information may or may not cost.

Good thing that government wouldn't be doing that.

Are you ok with Private Business telling you what information you can have and not have?

 

[Uncensored2008]

But what if what you like is not a preferred site by your ISP and you can't reach that site, but instead you are only able to get to the ISP's preferred site. You're cool with that?

If an ISP does that, I switch to a different ISP.

But that isn't what this is about. This is about traffic prioritization. This is about recognizing the reality that business has a legitimate need to BUY greater bandwidth and ensure quality of service. Why? Because while it may not seem like it to you, the ability of an order entry person to succeed in posting an order actually IS more important to society at large than the porn stream into some kids basement. So should the backbone operators be "allowed" to make service level agreements with ISP's to ensure packet prioritization for certain streams? Damn they should, it's THEIR FUCKING NETWORK. Before you spout off the DARPA built it, let me tell you that they didn't. 90% of the infrastructure is 100% privately funded. Verizon and AT&T have sunk billions into it.

 

[RDD_1210]

Nah, I'm doing it for selfish reasons. I want a lower ping when I play Bad Company 2. I don't care if his YouTube crap stutters and buffers, as long as I get more frags.



I want to buy what I like.

When I have a remote site connecting to the ERP over a VPN tunnel, I want a QOS clause with my ISP ensuring that my traffic gets priority. Since I'm paying for it, why shouldn't I be able to contractually set an SLA that is binding? Why should the telcos not be able to prioritize traffic for those willing to pay for it? Why should I pay for a DS3, only to have it all go to shit once it passes the CO?

Honestly, you guys remind me of little kids who demand governors be put on Corvettes so they can't go any faster than your Scion, why should the rich people get to go faster...

But what if what you like is not a preferred site by your ISP and you can't reach that site, but instead you are only able to get to the ISP's preferred site. You're cool with that?

I get a new ISP and that old ISP loses me and any other customers who like whatever websites they screw with.

Thats the beauty of american capitalism, well what is still left of it anyway.

The problem is such competition simply does not exist, and it isn’t likely to exist in the foreseeable future. Most Americans have access to two broadband providers — cable and DSL. That’s it. These two systems dominate, holding over 98 percent of the broadband market.

A significant chunk of the country has only one broadband provider, and around 10 percent of households have none at all. This is hardly a competitive market. Certainly there is insufficient competition between different technologies to produce any kind of deterrent. If both the local cable and telephone companies are using their networks to discriminate, the consumer is trapped. There is nowhere else to go.

That’s why nondiscrimination through Network Neutrality is so critical for the content and
application layer of the Internet. Without Network Neutrality, the telephone and cable duopoly will leverage its market power over the network to gain control over the content and application markets, establishing a handful of wireline companies as the gatekeepers of the Internet.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

And this is why i outsourced my BTD website to Spain

The FCC can kiss my ass as far as im concerned

You aMericans want a internet like China?

Be my guest,

y'all being led into the third world by your liberal task masters imho.

Basically sums up what I said but in a different way


I dont want the govt involved in telling me what information I can and can not have, how much information, or what the information may or may not cost.

Good thing that government wouldn't be doing that.

Are you ok with Private Business telling you what information you can have and not have?

I am ok with a private business running their internet as they see fit. If I dont like what they are doing I go and get a different provider, if enough people dont like it that ISP will go out of business or change its ways. Kinda like its been done for the last 15-20 years without a problem.

And if the net neutrality act passes there will be government officials deciding these things, its right in the net neutrality bill along with many other new internet use oversight powers being granted to the FCC. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf <----read it and talk to me in 2 or 3 days when you've had a chance to review the actual text of the bill .

 

[RDD_1210]

But what if what you like is not a preferred site by your ISP and you can't reach that site, but instead you are only able to get to the ISP's preferred site. You're cool with that?

If an ISP does that, I switch to a different ISP.

And there goes any credibility you have on the subject. If you truly understood the infrastructure, you would know that this truly isn't feasible as there are very few options, if any at all, out there for consumers.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

But what if what you like is not a preferred site by your ISP and you can't reach that site, but instead you are only able to get to the ISP's preferred site. You're cool with that?

If an ISP does that, I switch to a different ISP.

And there goes any credibility you have on the subject. If you truly understood the infrastructure, you would know that this truly isn't feasible as there are very few options, if any at all, out there for consumers.

Your incorrect.

I can choose from about 10 ISPs right now!
Massachusetts ISPs, MA Internet Service Providers, MA ISPs

 

[RDD_1210]

Basically sums up what I said but in a different way


I dont want the govt involved in telling me what information I can and can not have, how much information, or what the information may or may not cost.

Good thing that government wouldn't be doing that.

Are you ok with Private Business telling you what information you can have and not have?

I am ok with a private business running their internet as they see fit. If I dont like what they are doing I go and get a different provider, if enough people dont like it that ISP will go out of business or change its ways. Kinda like its been done for the last 15-20 years without a problem.

And if the net neutrality act passes there will be government officials deciding these things, its right in the net neutrality bill along with many other new internet use oversight powers being granted to the FCC. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf <----read it and talk to me in 2 or 3 days when you've had a chance to review the actual text of the bill .

Since you obviously are well versed in this bill, can you kindly point me to the portion that states where government officials will be restricting sites and throttling back access wherever they want?

 

[Uncensored2008]

And there goes any credibility you have on the subject.

Yeah, I'm worried about my creditability.... Especially with someone like you.

If you truly understood the infrastructure, you would know that this truly isn't feasible as there are very few options, if any at all,

Covad, Paetec, Sky River, Telepacific, XO, Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner Business - yeah, there are no choices at all...

 

[RDD_1210]

If an ISP does that, I switch to a different ISP.

And there goes any credibility you have on the subject. If you truly understood the infrastructure, you would know that this truly isn't feasible as there are very few options, if any at all, out there for consumers.

Your incorrect.

I can choose from about 10 ISPs right now!
Massachusetts ISPs, MA Internet Service Providers, MA ISPs

You realize you are looking at resellers who are all more or less buying from the same source?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your incorrect.

I can choose from about 10 ISPs right now!

He thinks AOL and Cable are the only choices out there....

 

[Uncensored2008]

You realize you are looking at resellers who are all more or less buying from the same source?

Do you have any clue what an ISP is? Do you think that ISP's own and run the backbone? (actually, Verizon, Paetec and AT&T do, but that is independent from their ISP portions.)

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Good thing that government wouldn't be doing that.

Are you ok with Private Business telling you what information you can have and not have?

I am ok with a private business running their internet as they see fit. If I dont like what they are doing I go and get a different provider, if enough people dont like it that ISP will go out of business or change its ways. Kinda like its been done for the last 15-20 years without a problem.

And if the net neutrality act passes there will be government officials deciding these things, its right in the net neutrality bill along with many other new internet use oversight powers being granted to the FCC. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf <----read it and talk to me in 2 or 3 days when you've had a chance to review the actual text of the bill .

Since you obviously are well versed in this bill, can you kindly point me to the portion that states where government officials will be restricting sites and throttling back access wherever they want?

Its evident throughout the language in the entire bill and the attachements. the whole bill reads as "The government now has the power to decide what is and what is not acceptable for ISPs to provide their customers"

Im serious, take the time to go read through it and then re-bump this thread so we can discuss it on equal footing.

Make sure as your reading through dont skip past the reference numbers, once you finish a section read what the reference goes to below, many times it will sound like the section is saying one thing but once they reference it it sounds like something else.

 

[RDD_1210]

You realize you are looking at resellers who are all more or less buying from the same source?

Do you have any clue what an ISP is? Do you think that ISP's own and run the backbone? (actually, Verizon, Paetec and AT&T do, but that is independent from their ISP portions.)

Ahhhh, so you do know what a backbone is. Well at least you've heard of it. So you do realize if a backbone provider is throttling content that would have widespread effects. No?

 

[RDD_1210]

I am ok with a private business running their internet as they see fit. If I dont like what they are doing I go and get a different provider, if enough people dont like it that ISP will go out of business or change its ways. Kinda like its been done for the last 15-20 years without a problem.

And if the net neutrality act passes there will be government officials deciding these things, its right in the net neutrality bill along with many other new internet use oversight powers being granted to the FCC. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf <----read it and talk to me in 2 or 3 days when you've had a chance to review the actual text of the bill .

Since you obviously are well versed in this bill, can you kindly point me to the portion that states where government officials will be restricting sites and throttling back access wherever they want?

Its evident throughout the language in the entire bill and the attachements. the whole bill reads as "The government now has the power to decide what is and what is not acceptable for ISPs to provide their customers"

Im serious, take the time to go read through it and then re-bump this thread so we can discuss it on equal footing.

Make sure as your reading through dont skip past the reference numbers, once you finish a section read what the reference goes to below, many times it will sound like the section is saying one thing but once they reference it it sounds like something else.

Let's be honest, I appreciate the link but I'm not reading through 194 pages to try and find something you are claiming is in there. I'm happy to read any specific examples you'd like to point me towards, but despite what others would love to claim, I really do have better things to do with my time then comb through this document.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ahhhh, so you do know what a backbone is. Well at least you've heard of it. So you do realize if a backbone provider is throttling content that would have widespread effects. No?

Actually, that isn't what they are doing. They are prioritizing traffic.

You didn't grasp it the first time, so you won't grasp it this time. But what the hell...

If a business leases a fat pipe from their ISP, they do so with the intent of transacting across it. So IF an office in East Los Angeles wants to create a persistent tunnel to a server farm in Downey, they are in luck. Because the whole area is Verizon. So all they have to do is get an SLA from Verizon, and they're good.

BUT, what if an Office in Denver, needs to connect to the SAP instantiation in Brooklyn? Now we have a problem, because once the traffic leaves the local loop, it becomes open season. SO, what groups have done is create SLA's with the backbone operators, ensuring that this sort of traffic is prioritized across their switches. Yes, this means that during peak times, the QOS of your porn will be lower than that of the VPN traffic. Too fucking bad - if you want to ensure porn than never stutters, pay business prices and get an SLA.