You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 03, 2016, 07:50:19 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Net Neutrality.  (Read 787 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Net Neutrality.
« on: October 17, 2011, 12:10:40 PM »
I admit I'm not entirely happy with Big Business dictating what I access and how online. It's been my outlook that the ISPs are deciding to bill me MORE for using other services. it's not happening yet, but it might.

Here is the response I got back today by Senator Marco Rubio.

Quote
Dear Mr. _,

Thank you for contacting me to express your thoughts regarding the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) attempts to regulate the Internet, commonly referred to as net neutrality. I appreciate the opportunity to address this issue.

Since its inception, the Internet has flourished with minimal government intervention and has revolutionized our ability to communicate and conduct commerce.  As an engine of economic growth, it has provided businesses with the ability to compete in not only our domestic market, but in the global marketplace as well.  Continued development of the Internet and modern telecommunications, free of government interference, is integral to American freedom, prosperity, and innovation.

However, on December 21, 2010, the FCC adopted its "Open Internet Order," which would establish federal regulations governing network management practices for broadband Internet access providers. I believe that excessive regulation of the Internet is not only unnecessary, but potentially harmful to its future development. With that in mind, I have joined a number of my Senate colleagues in cosponsoring a joint resolution disapproving of the rules submitted by the FCC with respect to regulating the Internet and broadband industry practices (S.J. Res. 6). This resolution has been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, where it is awaiting further consideration.

I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind as the resolution continues to move through the Committee. Again, thank you for contacting me about net neutrality, and I look forward to any thoughts or input you wish to share in the future.

I find this particularly ironic since the only people out there who benefit from NO regulation are the ISPs and Senator Rubio sits on the Senate Committee on Small Business and this could definitely curtail small business innovation online.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Net Neutrality.
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2011, 07:54:00 PM »
Yes, I think long-term there's a real risk that if there would be a deregulation of the limitations of charging and traffic handling practices of the ISPs, it would lead to a model where the internet gets sold cable tv style. More or less clearly, you'd have the ISPs selling packaged sections of web access: on one level you'd get Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, some popular newspapers, blogs and mail services, plus lots of shop websites, and so on - if you wanted unrestricted access to any web site that anyone's set up, the customer would have to pay a good deal more, and it would be described as a somewhat outrageous or luxurious demand, even if today that's the model we all enjoy. And whatever package you choose, the transfer speed might be higher for popular and established sites, those having also been selected by your ISP (though the precise practices of said ISP would largely be buried in the fine print or not spelled out openly to the customers at all).

The ISPs are grumbling about their not getting enough fat in return for their side of the market. For the last dozen years, they have had to fight with lean bids to sweep up customers; prices for transfer rate vs the monthly payments have been falling, and there hasn't been much space to cash in from the customers in other ways, if you put high prices on something there's always another ISP ready to dig into your customer base. This is all as it should be, it's the free market keeping prices low, and the risks of so many ISPs landing belly up that the market becomes a closed oligopoly with just a few big brands is very low I think, as long as they are not free to debit added costs for all sorts of pseudo-services of their own making or on a "cable-tv web" model. But of course the ISPs are going to argue with this policy of no differentiation in how customers and web sites use their broadband speeds - that all should be treated alike. That's why they try to pass net neutrality off as a non-issue.

I would argue, too, with Rubio's assertion that the internet has been founded and "has flourished with minimal government intervention". The network structure - fiber and phone cable highways, university networks, installation of web access points and contacts in new buildings and apartments, trains, railway stations, public libraries, the promotion of the web in education and all that - has been largely public funded and even set out by public decisions in many places. Many ISPs, in Europe and Asia at least, are old state phone companies that were sold off in the 80s and 90s but kept a privileged status on the market in some ways. Defence has been a huge customer everywhere and has driven the technology forward ever since Arpanet; even if most of the actual engineering has been made by private enterprises, it got off the ground because of the input of public money and contracts.

And the whole technology of the internet is largely founded on the space race, which was completely state funded: the need for remote control of processes over thousands of miles; better phone traffic routing; image recognition; automatic processing and filtering of large amounts of data, even automatic translation of texts; new, faster and heat-resistent circuits - all of this received a boost from the space programs. So it makes sense to see the internet as a public good, even though it's not public owned, and it should conform to high standards of transparency and open access (though of course not free of charge in all places, or with any demands that all one finds on the web should be in the taste of the majority).
« Last Edit: October 17, 2011, 08:01:17 PM by gaggedLouise »

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Net Neutrality.
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2011, 08:29:32 PM »
The example I used in my letter was an attempt by a cable system in New York to charge higher bandwidth to services like Netflix, Hulu and such while their own streaming service wasn't part of your 'download quota'. At the same time trying to cut your 'ration' of bandwidth over a month to ensure you'd wide up paying a higher cost if you streamed too many movies.

That and (I THINK) phone services like Metro PCS 'throttling' other streaming services to a lower bandwidth while their services get the normal bandwidth online.

I find it annoying that folks like ATT are more than happy to buy up a rival rather than doing what they should have done in maintaining/expanding their infrastructure. Then claim the merger will 'grow' jobs when in actuality it will destroy thousands of jobs as redundant.

All in all I'm very disappointed with Rubio. It was one of those 'hold your nose' elections but I had hoped he'd be at least a LITTLE better in sticking to his campaign promises.

Offline LustfulLord2011

Re: Net Neutrality.
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2011, 01:07:28 PM »
The real issue here, for me, is whether or not I am going to be able to, in the future, access the content that I want to, for the same comparative prices that I do today. I think there DOES need to be regulations in place, summed up in two simple clauses, and no more regulation than that.

First, that no ISP shall restrict the rights of any user to access any content that was made available online with the intent of being viewable by the general public.

Second, that no ISP shall require extra compensation to allow access to any given material, except as it may incur extra bandwidth charges (and that only applies in situations where you pay for your net based on bandwidth usage... most people don't).

Thoughts?

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Net Neutrality.
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2011, 01:49:44 PM »
The real issue here, for me, is whether or not I am going to be able to, in the future, access the content that I want to, for the same comparative prices that I do today. I think there DOES need to be regulations in place, summed up in two simple clauses, and no more regulation than that.

First, that no ISP shall restrict the rights of any user to access any content that was made available online with the intent of being viewable by the general public.

Second, that no ISP shall require extra compensation to allow access to any given material, except as it may incur extra bandwidth charges (and that only applies in situations where you pay for your net based on bandwidth usage... most people don't).

Thoughts?

Well stand by to see all that go bye-bye. The House Resolution to strip the FCC of the ability to enforce Neutrality and the Senate Resolution is going through in the next month or so.

And the cellular companies are already giving preferential treatment already.  some apps are being choked while 'in house' versions aren't.Skype is one of the ones being choked.

Offline LustfulLord2011

Re: Net Neutrality.
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2011, 02:17:03 PM »
Well stand by to see all that go bye-bye. The House Resolution to strip the FCC of the ability to enforce Neutrality and the Senate Resolution is going through in the next month or so.

And the cellular companies are already giving preferential treatment already.  some apps are being choked while 'in house' versions aren't.Skype is one of the ones being choked.

Yeah, this is a very ugly trend, and the issue has actually been on the table for nearly a decade now. I have written to senators in three separate states in which I have lived since this battle began back at the turn of the century, and argued that the usefulness of the internet will collapse if the free flow of information is not protected, and it's fostering taken on as a primary duty of any regulating body.

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Net Neutrality.
« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2011, 02:25:18 PM »
Yeah, this is a very ugly trend, and the issue has actually been on the table for nearly a decade now. I have written to senators in three separate states in which I have lived since this battle began back at the turn of the century, and argued that the usefulness of the internet will collapse if the free flow of information is not protected, and it's fostering taken on as a primary duty of any regulating body.

It's amazing how interesting to get some replies back from my Senators and every one of my concerns is blithely ignored. I thought that Marco Rubio would be different, it was amazing how fast he got in the pocket of big business. So much for 'small business' friendly.

Offline LustfulLord2011

Re: Net Neutrality.
« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2011, 02:51:52 PM »
Doesn't pay off these days to support small business. The mega-corps own damned near everything now, and it's their money that is going to get Senators like him back on the campaign trail. It's sad, but it's true. I don't approve of politicians allying themselves with these kinds of people, but I understand it perfectly.

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Net Neutrality.
« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2011, 02:55:25 PM »
Doesn't pay off these days to support small business. The mega-corps own damned near everything now, and it's their money that is going to get Senators like him back on the campaign trail. It's sad, but it's true. I don't approve of politicians allying themselves with these kinds of people, but I understand it perfectly.

The larget employer is small business, as well as the highest grossing segment of the economy.

Offline LustfulLord2011

Re: Net Neutrality.
« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2011, 03:04:56 PM »
Yes, but from their point, to make small business a profitable place to try their hand, they have to somehow weave together the disparate interests of several smaller businesses to garner themselves the same financial leverage they could by cutting a contribution deal with ONE large corporation. It's quicker, simpler, and more efficient. More morally reprehensible, as well, but what can you do?