A description of Net Neutrality

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Google will win because the rulers want a single provider.

1. Google is losing.
2. They don't need a single provider to gather data on you. They own all the providers and they own the internet back bone.

3. Cause you are probably going to go there: Mesh networks can be infiltrated as well just like they infiltrated tor .

What good can come from giving more power to an already Oligopoly controlled industry ?

Net neutrality is the equivalent of the anti monopoly laws or are you against that as well?

I agree that a cartel is as good as a single company. Google might make some miraculous strides. Something to watch for.

Infiltrated isn't as bad as controlled. You can do business if its infiltrated. Business is vulnerable if it is controlled.

Could tor enable a local hardware system to get onto the internet? or does tor need an ISP link?

All monopolies are made by government regulations in the first place.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Google will win because the rulers want a single provider.

1. Google is losing.
2. They don't need a single provider to gather data on you. They own all the providers and they own the internet back bone.

3. Cause you are probably going to go there: Mesh networks can be infiltrated as well just like they infiltrated tor .

What good can come from giving more power to an already Oligopoly controlled industry ?

Net neutrality is the equivalent of the anti monopoly laws or are you against that as well?

I agree that a cartel is as good as a single company. Google might make some miraculous strides. Something to watch for.

Infiltrated isn't as bad as controlled. You can do business if its infiltrated. Business is vulnerable if it is controlled.

Could tor enable a local hardware system to get onto the internet? or does tor need an ISP link?

TOR could work with most networks including mesh, however if you really want to get into conspiracies
look into why does our gov't use chips manufactured in China and other foreign entities on our defense systems.

All monopolies are made by government regulations in the first place.

only a compromised gov;t which I agree our is and works for the lobbyist.

However, the case of net neutrality is a unique one because it puts two major Oligopolies against each other. It just so happens that net neutrality benefits the consumers and one of the Oligopoly [Online tech companies] while it impacts the other in a negative manner.

I'm for regulations that ensure a free market versus a monopolistic one. I'm very skeptical of any regulations that gov't tries to pass. In the case of net neutrality they blundered in the early days of the internet and it got passed and now they want to undo it. Luckily for us We have one Oligopoly on our side that stands to benefit by giving better ,cheaper, faster internet to the masses. This is the only reason its dragging on eitherwise it would have already passed. The question is which oligopoly owns our gov't more. As it stands now it appears that its the telecom and hollywood.

a reply to: interupt42

The chip circuitry is so small there could be 8088 equivalent spy inside of every CPU. no way to detect it. \
Maybe with an optical search.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The biggest players will win.

Make a new parallel internet, maybe one that has no NSA on it.

The biggest players are losing. Netflix, Google, Ebay, Amazon, these people are responsible for 99% of the internet traffic out there. They are not winning the battle.

A parallel internet makes no sense. Why create a second network, when all the laws that messed up the first network will carry over? The US has a long and poor history when dealing with electronic communications. Did you know that telephone and telegraph communications were at one point not covered under the constitution because it was electronic speech rather than physical? We have a similar battle happening now (this has gone back and forth for over 100 years), currently email is not considered protected speech or a protected document. What we need is some sane network policy and that all starts with treating all data equally.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
You can't really have net neutrality unless you pay into the net the same proportion that you use.

Otherwise someone will be paying for other people's internet.

That already exists in the current model with speed tiers. People who do more things, or higher bandwidth things need to pay for higher speed internet. Someone who only does the occasional email and google search can get by with the lowest speed internet plan available. Someone who is streaming HD movies or does a lot of torrenting needs a higher speed, and they pay more for it.

Such a thing does not violate Net Neutrality and does not end in a situation where some users pay for other users. Everyone pays their own way.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
They can change that in a heartbeat.

I had unlimited 4g with sprint and one day they just changed to 5gig max. I paid an $800 cell phone bill that month.

Bandwidth caps failed on wired networks, I wouldn't expect to see them again seriously for another 5 or 10 years. It will inevitably be tried again though if competition doesn't exist. The mobile networks such as what happened with your phone is basically a lost cause. The goal of the telecoms however is to move that same model and pricing structure over to wired networks. Where you pay say $50 in order to get 50 gigs of data at a speed of 50 mb. That is what they want, and with no competition possible with the way things are going they are eventually going to get it.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Google will win because the rulers want a single provider.

The UK, Norway, Japan, and South Korea also have higher population densities, they have economy of scale. Also there is probably governmental aid to the providers in those countries, before profits.

No one cares about the number of providers other than the telecoms. They want to protect their monopoly, if it's a matter of gathering data it's just as easy to get data from one source as from 15. You just write into the law that the data has to be turned over (this is already law). Whether it comes from 1 source or 15 sources it's the same amount that's handed over and sorted.

Population density is only an excuse up to a point. New York City has a higher population density than Seoul, South Korea yet the very best internet option in NYC is 1/3 of the speed as in Seoul and 15x the price.

It's also worth pointing out that the network the government tried to build and that the ISP's of the day defrauded us out of was budgeted to reach everyone, regardless of population density. It would have been as ubiquitous as phone or electric service.

a reply to: Aazadan

I found a article but can't seem to findit online. Maybe someone else would have better luck. It's in The Sunday magazine in Las Vegas, June 1-7 issue in the Vegas, Inc. section. I have the print article but couldn't find it in there.

Cox Communications unveiled plans last month to offer residential broadband with internet speeds of one gigabit in Las Vegas by 2016. Cox high speed preferred will increase from 25 to 50 megabits per second and premier will increase from 50 to 100.

That's the important part of the article I was hoping you could address. How is this possible if, as you say, they infrastructure isnt there? They are also doing wi-fi in certain public spots, available to cable subscribers that aren't even Cox subscribers and bumping the preferred and premier packages for free.

Reading the article for anything else relevant I see it says that CenturyLink also has given this to select customers last year. It's not a big article and has some nonsense in it about the press conference and where it was held(bloody media!).

I'm confused. I don't know enough about it. Thought you could shed some light on this.

originally posted by: TheSpanishArcher
a reply to: Aazadan

I found a article but can't seem to findit online. Maybe someone else would have better luck. It's in The Sunday magazine in Las Vegas, June 1-7 issue in the Vegas, Inc. section. I have the print article but couldn't find it in there.

Cox Communications unveiled plans last month to offer residential broadband with internet speeds of one gigabit in Las Vegas by 2016. Cox high speed preferred will increase from 25 to 50 megabits per second and premier will increase from 50 to 100.

That's the important part of the article I was hoping you could address. How is this possible if, as you say, they infrastructure isnt there? They are also doing wi-fi in certain public spots, available to cable subscribers that aren't even Cox subscribers and bumping the preferred and premier packages for free.

Reading the article for anything else relevant I see it says that CenturyLink also has given this to select customers last year. It's not a big article and has some nonsense in it about the press conference and where it was held(bloody media!).

I'm confused. I don't know enough about it. Thought you could shed some light on this.

Basically it's because there's still a federal push to upgrade the networks. The feds realize that we have to have a network of a certain quality so they offer grants to build these things. I don't think they pay for them 100% anymore but they still pay a bit. In the end however the companies are using the grants to pay for most of it so it slows down production. There are a ton of subsidies to upgrade networks. It's not 100% paid for by the feds anymore but they still finance a large portion of it because if they don't the telecoms aren't going to.

It's good that gigabit will be available but that's just their plans and it is extremely limited areas. Basically some premium apartment complexes only and it's at a high price (they haven't announced pricing yet).

The CenturyLink thing is a smaller ISP that basically leases space from the larger ones. They don't have an incentive to keep people on copper wires. Their incentive is to lease space on the backbone and then run fiber to homes because they're not competing for TV market share. Worth pointing out, Cox is only offering gigabit in 2 years in the cities where CenturyLink is already offering gigabit. This basically means that Cox is making CenturyLink do the work and expense of laying fiber, and then moving in and using that fiber. I imagine it's a pretty good deal for Cox too considering CenturyLink is reliant on Cox.

In the end it's just business, one company is making another company put out the work/expense of developing a product. Then the other company comes in and takes it. If we had actually developed the fiber network that was planned, that companies like Cox took the money for and then refused to build this wouldn't be happening. There would already be fiber lines in place to give everyone gigabit connections and CenturyLink/Cox would be competing rather than one simply abusing the other.

To add onto what I said previously, it turns out CenturyLink has bandwidth caps so there's really no difference between offering 50 mb and 1000 mb. Customers are still limited to the same amount of data making their gigabit offering nothing more than empty marketing.