As was warned what would happen. http://www.toptechnews.com/story.xhtml?story_id=012000WKCVHC One of America's largest Internet backbone providers, Level 3 Communications, claims that five U.S. Internet service providers (ISPs) and one European ISP are intentionally slowing down the Internet. Level 3 claims the companies are doing this in order to force the creation of more expensive peering agreements with content providers and Tier 1 service providers. In a blog post, Level 3's Vice President of Content Mark Taylor argues that six of its consumer broadband peers have intentionally allowed congestion to build up in ports. When congestion is an issue, the broadband provider will not be as fast and packets will consistently be dropped. Even though there is nothing wrong with this, Taylor said those six peers are not doing anything to fix the issue. Perfect Timing Level 3's blog post comes just a few days after Netflix signed yet another expensive peering agreement with Verizon so that it could boost performance. As we saw in April, Netflix was able to increase the average speed of its subscribers' streams by paying off Comcast. These companies will screw the consumer much like what Microsoft did years ago by sabotaging 3rd party browsers. This whole notion from RWers that "free market" will make everyone place by the rules is once again shown to be complete BS.
Taxcutter says: Net Neutrality is the first step down the steep slippery slope to that nirvana so sought by China and Iran: Government control of Internet content. As such, Net Neutrality is not acceptable. I'm currntly using a third party browser. The sabotage must not have been too much.
I have read the US has the slowest Internet of all the major industrial countries and we are the most expensive. Looks to me like they are purposely slowing it down to force people to pay higher fees for the faster service, which is still to slow.
Taxcutter says; ANY government control is a waypoint on the journey to content control. Government control is objectionable.
It isn't government control of the internet. It's government regulation of telecommunication companies in the same way that phone lines are regulated. No one bats an eye at the common carrier status of telephone lines. Somehow it's a problem when we're talking about the internet, though. I have yet to meet a single person against Net Neutrality who actually understands what it is. Knee-jerk "no gubmint control!" comments make up 95% of the objections. The other 5% are people arguing for the rights of corporations.
I really wish I understood this better. I get the argument BUT I can't see around corners to know its full impact, 'medium' and long term. Who will be included, and who will be 'excluded' in the long run?? (I am inclined to agree it will screw over the 'FREE' content speed and it will be a race to the top for the BIG BUCK corporate interests. But I'm guessing!!!
It's a little more than that. The US has by far the largest network, to continually upgrade every piece of equipment and line for every new release would be a logistical nightmare. Add in the distance and here we have our dilemma.
telecoms/MSO's benefited from monopolies in towns/cities as well as years of easements, rights of way and subsidies you can't even freely use the unlicensed ISM bands for wireless and the white space was auctioned off by the FCC You must jump through hoops to try and mount cable onto a pole, tear up a road etc. When they tried unbundled elements in 1996 the RBOCs/ILECs simply tied up everything in court and paid lobbyists in DC Heck, you were not allowed to bring AC powered gear into a RBOC central office but they had plenty of AC powered gear themselves so, there was no way for competition to actually prosper in exchange for basically being given an unlevel playing field, net neutrality should be the law of the land
Taxcutter says: Government is all about control. After the IRS thing the evil of government control is out there for all to see.
Let me try to put this in perspective for those who aren't aware. Pretend that Budweiser owns the only stretch of interstate-speed road between LA and San Diego. Miller wants to ship their beer from LA to San Diego. Budweiser, though, ships their competing beer on the same route. So Bud decides to make the speed limit for Miller trucks 40 mph. But, they'll raise it back up to 75 if Miller pays a big fee. As a result, Miller has to raise their prices, while Bud gets to keep theirs nice and low because they own the road. This is the internet without Net Neutrality. And Bud doesn't just do it to Miller, but to everyone brewing a competing beer. Microbrew startups? They can't afford the fee, so their ability to compete is stifled. With Net Neutrality, the rules of the road apply to everyone equally. A big company can't stifle competition just because they also happen to own the road. Edit: I should mention that this analogy isn't quite complete. To make it more valid, you'd also have to pretend that the government helped Budweiser build the road, and then also took money from Bud to keep other people from building a competing road. - - - Updated - - - That's a cute quip, but it doesn't make any sense with regard to the topic.
The Internet protocols are built on top of existing telecomms that are based on route insensitive protocols, meaning a packet/segment/frame can reach its destination from more than one route. This is done from the early days of broadcast transmissions, of course now we have VPNs and the like to determine those routes, but those comms can have bandwidth limits, it is difficult to handle burst traffic that is inherent with something downloads or uploads, and streaming, i.e., NetFlix. So having alternate routes alleviates the latency of using a single source route. By removing Net Neutrality, that single source route is set due other telecomms charging extra, which in the end only hurts the every day consumer.
Completely agree. I might understand the anti-Net Neutrality crowd if there was actual competition in the ISP world. But the reality is that some people are lucky just to have access to two ISPs, and most people have only one option when it comes to a physical internet connection.
Sorry but what I hear is "Wahhhhh, it is unfair that someone else is not paying the costs instead of us for our high bandwidth usage". Level 3 is a crappy company anyway.
Curious! How did we get here?? Because we are SO geographically huge that 'infrastructure' is just cumbersome to change out and/or because we 'laid' the first data stuff so long ago, much of it's just too old to carry the VOLUME? Does any of that have to do with this? (I think I have OLD recollections of 'right of way' being bought to lay fiberoptic cable next to train tracks in the NE corridor--is that the stuff still being used??)
FYI, they are deliberately slowing the bandwidth. In other words, they are cheating the consumer. http://www.level3.com/en/about-us/company-information/ Explore how we evolved from being the best-funded start-up in history to one of the world’s six Tier 1 Internet operators It is clear you do not understand.
Net Neutrality actually forces all providers to keep all data at equal speeds, rather than the scams Verizon and Comcast are pulling to slow down networks for certain companies they wish to squeeze money out of. We've always had net neutrality until recently, and we've seen Netflix squeezed as soon as the rules lifted. This is one of those cases where the regulation actually keeps things fair for everyone.
In the beginning the telegraph was laid alongside the railroad, but those days are long gone. Then came along, AT&T, with government subsidies, the nation was wired, then came along cable service that got right of way to use the telephone poles. Also, just a few years ago, cell phone towers had their limits, but by erecting more and more towers, the service is basically national. It has been a slow progression of a number of services, yet all have some inter-connectivity.
Government is all about control. After the IRS thing the evil of government control is out there for all to see That's a cute quip, but it doesn't make any sense with regard to the topic.[/QUOTE] Actually, not only is it OFF TOPIC, it's stupid. Frankly, I wish 'government' was that organized. Government control is more happenstance than by intent. The law of unintended consequences--in spades.
No I understand. This is not an issue I have not researched before. The complaints basically boil down to "Comcast wants to charge me for adding more ports as part of their peering agreement, but I don't think we should have to pay Comcast for more ports". Not upgrading one's existing infrastructure for free as not to inconvenience a rival company or to give companies that do share the expense first crack at them is hardly "deliberately slowing" the bandwidth. It's business. If I am driving my neighbor's car, I do it by his rules or not at all.
You must live in an alternative universe where profit motive can be removed and innovation and advancement will still occur. When Govt takes ver it doesn't get LESS corrupt, history has taught us this!
Funny, I know more people who use third party browsers today than ever before. All iphones/ipads/ipods use safari (or chrome or some other third party browser).
Gee, what happens every time the government denies the law of demand in order to make things "fair" We have a limited resource: Bandwidth. Currently the market regulates this resource using: Price Government steps in and commands "neutrality" Tell me, neutrality proponents, what does the law of demand say will happen to the availability of the resource: "Bandwidth" when the market regulator "price" is no longer indexed to demand?
I suggest you do your homework before making posts like this which only hurts your position. - - - Updated - - - So ignore the cheating of consumers, that's okay.
