Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 35 of 71
Like Tree62Likes

Thread: Net Neutrality

  1. #1
    "Thermionic Apocalypse" -JT nickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    2,418

    Net Neutrality

    I'm rather on a soap box here as this is something I feel is important - especially to non-profit forums and web-based educational / help sites such this, Khan Acadamy and stackexchnage.


    This issue on the table is the proposed roll-back of the net neutrality rules. In 2015 the FCC decided that net neutrality was a good thing,now with the new legislation, they want to roll that back and to start to prioritize packets based on how much you pay for them.

    More info here https://www.freepress.net/net-neutra...-need-know-now

    Get lobbying https://www.battleforthenet.com/

    Thanks for listening
    Experience is something you get, just after you really needed it.

  2. #2
    Senior Member SoulFetish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    451
    I'm glad you brought this up, Nick. One more example of a Presidential appointee... giving us the finger and implementing corporately funded policy changes. Dude, I don't even know where to begin with all this. Listening to Ajit Pai's reasoning for rolling back net neutrality regulations is like having someone piss on your leg and try and convince you it's rain. I mean, why the hell would comcast and verizon be spending 11M over the first half of 2017 to push this through, if they weren't planning on throttling competitors and filtering content??
    Meanwhile, our president throws out crumbs of twitter obscenities like clockwork to keep the public in a state of offended hypnosis just long enough not to notice the reality of what's actually happening. From pulling out of the Paris agreement, net neutrality, travel bans, removing consumer student loan protections, ecologically irresponsible energy policy, to what looks like treason during the campaign. It is really discouraging.
    (sorry, didn't mean to steer this off the rails)

    Ask Netflix about Comcast's intentions!:
    https://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-re...-with-comcast/

    ...and a brief history of violations:
    https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/...-brief-history
    If I have a 50% chance of guessing the right answer, I guess wrong 80% of the time.

  3. #3
    Supporting Member The Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    4,476
    It's the Republican way. As long as the rich folk can afford internet access, f%$k everyone else.
    Leo_Gnardo and DRH1958 like this.
    “Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”

  4. #4
    Senior Member Enzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    28,571
    if they weren't planning on throttling competitors and filtering content??
    I am not sure just where I sit on all this. But in industry there are parallels. I like to travel by train. PAssenger trains that go cross country with Amtrak run on the rails of freight railroads. Those railroads are required to allow this and charge reasonable rates to Amtrak. But their priorities are to their own freight traffic. So if an Amtrak train and a freight train arrive at a track at the same time, the freight train will get priority, and the Amtrak will languish behind the slow freight. I have been on trains thus delayed. What if Amtrak offered to pay them more money to get better access to track?

    SO in the world of high speed data communication, would they not want to be able to offer better access for greater use? At Mouser, I can pay 50 cents for one part, or 25 cents if I buy 50 of them. If they receive an order for one and an order for 50 and they have exactly 50 in stock, should they be required to fill the one order leaving them to be unable to fill the 50, or could they satisfy the larger customer at the expense of denying the smaller? I don't think that is black and white. I am not taking their side so much as pointing out everything need not be a conspiracy
    J M Fahey likes this.
    Education is what you're left with after you have forgotten what you have learned.

  5. #5
    Senior Member SoulFetish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by Enzo View Post
    I am not sure just where I sit on all this. But in industry there are parallels. I like to travel by train. PAssenger trains that go cross country with Amtrak run on the rails of freight railroads. Those railroads are required to allow this and charge reasonable rates to Amtrak. But their priorities are to their own freight traffic. So if an Amtrak train and a freight train arrive at a track at the same time, the freight train will get priority, and the Amtrak will languish behind the slow freight. I have been on trains thus delayed. What if Amtrak offered to pay them more money to get better access to track?

    SO in the world of high speed data communication, would they not want to be able to offer better access for greater use? At Mouser, I can pay 50 cents for one part, or 25 cents if I buy 50 of them. If they receive an order for one and an order for 50 and they have exactly 50 in stock, should they be required to fill the one order leaving them to be unable to fill the 50, or could they satisfy the larger customer at the expense of denying the smaller? I don't think that is black and white. I am not taking their side so much as pointing out everything need not be a conspiracy
    Someone needs to tell Enzo that commissioner Pai must've hacked his MEF account.
    J M Fahey likes this.

  6. #6
    Senior Member SoulFetish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    451
    Enzo, you make some interesting points. I want to think on them a bit, before I respond.
    If I have a 50% chance of guessing the right answer, I guess wrong 80% of the time.

  7. #7
    ToneOholic! big_teee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Mid-South USA
    Posts
    9,785
    I for one am for net neutrality.
    IMO, it has nothing to with freight trains, or amtrac!
    Everyone should have access to good fast internet!
    If the data pipe is getting clogged because of streaming, build a bigger pipe.
    That's why we need infrastructure in this country!
    https://www.savetheinternet.com/blog...neutrality-now
    The Open Internet: A Case for Net Neutrality
    https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-yout...ty-protections
    T
    Last edited by big_teee; 07-20-2017 at 06:16 PM.
    Leo_Gnardo likes this.
    Technicians Run the World, but Bankers, Lawyers, and Accountants, Take All The Credit!
    Keep Rockin! B_T
    Terry

  8. #8
    "Thermionic Apocalypse" -JT nickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    2,418
    I'll simplify.

    The big companies see an opportunity to make more money by charging for packet prioritization. That money comes from the companies that will benefit by being able to get on your screen quickly, advertisers spring to mind. In order for their profits not to be compromised they will pass the cost on to, ultimately, you. In other words you will be paying more to benefit Verizon and so on's coffers and in return you get more ads. On the other hand, sites such as this one that cant afford priority access will become slower, and yes, you are paying extra for for it. Still think not protecting neutrality it's a good idea?

    I wrote to Marco Rubio and Ted Deutch. Rubio is clearly in favor of the change and responded with my disapproval. Deutech's response was rather non-committal.
    Justin Thomas and big_teee like this.
    Experience is something you get, just after you really needed it.

  9. #9
    Better Tone thru Mathematics bob p's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    3,809
    I'd like free fast internet as much as the next guy. Who doesn't like a fee lunch? Everyone should have them!

    But in a world where there are not unlimited resources, some sort of allocation of resources seems logical. The devil in the details is all about how resources are allocated. Because resources have value, and because people are inclined to consume to excess when resources are free, it makes sense for there to be some cost of consumption associated with them to facilitate rational allocation and to prevent abuse. It's unfortunate, but we don't live on the Starship Enterprise where there are unlimited resources available via a replicator so that everyone can have everything that he wants at no cost. In the real world, all resources are in finite supply, and supply-demand relationships shape the way we have to look at resources and value them.

    I didn't think Enzo's train analogy was at all invalid. I liked it. If you want something special, what's wrong with you paying a premium for it? If you're the only person who benefits by obtaining a widget, then who should pay for it? Obviously nobody has more interest in obtaining the widget than the person who consumes it, so it only seems fair that the person who consumes the widget should be the one who pays for it. The same is true for any resource.

    Right now I'm paying for "high speed Internet" and I notice that under the current paradigm of "neutrality" my connections suffer due to synchronous high bandwidth consumption by others. Sure, everything is fine during the daytime, but as soon as it becomes early evening, the "pipe" becomes "clogged" until midnight. Maybe the cause is server latency, maybe it's router congestion, but either way I notice that when it becomes early evening and people are banging on their Netflix and Youtube accounts, my connection slows to the point that surfing a plain old low-bandwidth site like this one suffers.

    I like to think that the problem is caused by people who watch Youtube like gluttons, or by people who are excessively consuming Netflix. After all, streaming video takes a lot of bandwidth. More likely, though, is that most of our favorite text-based sites are co-hosted on server farms, and our favorite sites aren't paying as high a rate for low-latency service as are the video content providers. The result is that the servers at ginormous hosts like Akamai are already giving preferential treatment to their high paying customers because they are high paying customers. To test this theory, I built a web server with a RPi and hosted it on my own internet account. Zero latency for other people even during prime-time high bandwidth consumption hours. This suggests that server latency at host sites is contributing to the problem and that it's not solely an issue of limited bandwidth that can be fixed by a bigger pipe.

    I'm not 100% sure whether the slow-response problem that I complain about in the evenings is one of server latency or of a network bottleneck. All that I can say is that like everyone else, I notice the latency problem and I don't like it. But I'm going to stop short of saying that everyone should have access to good fast internet, and if the data pipe is getting clogged because of streaming, then build a bigger pipe. The money required to build that pipe has to come from somewhere, and ultimately some of it is going to come out of my pocket. The question is whether I pay that cost in the form of higher taxes, or whether I pay that cost in the form of a subscription fee. Either way, I'm going to end up paying and I won't have a whole lot of choice about it.

    On the subject of how the money comes out of my pocket, I'd rather have the option of choosing whether or not to pay a subscription fee, and what tier of service I want to pay for. At least in that model I have a choice not to pay for something I don't want. If the money comes out of my pocket via taxation, then I don't really have a choice -- I end up being forced to pay for something that I don't want. Somebody ends up sticking their hand into my pocket and taking money out, regardless of whether or not I consent.

    If we want to provide free and fast internet for everyone by building a bigger pipe, that ends up costing me tax dollars that I'd prefer not to pay. My taxes are already high enough and I'd rather not pay more to get that big fat pipe so that everyone else can gobble up more free lunch. I'd rather have a pay-to-play paradigm where I can choose to buy only what I need to buy and not have to pay for anything more. I certainly don't want to contribute providing free unlimited bandwidth for everyone. I think that tax dollars could be better spent elsewhere.

    Here's wild idea -- Maybe it makes sense to have the people who use the resources the most be the ones that pay for them, instead of making someone else foot the bill for expanding the pipe so that everyone is subsidized in their consumption of Netflix and Youtube. Of course this idea falls flat on it's face if our primary interest is getting something for nothing, with the expectation that it's always better for someone else to foot the bill.
    "Stand back, I'm holding a calculator." - chinrest

  10. #10
    g1
    g1 is offline
    don't forget the joker g1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canada, somewhere north of Fargo
    Posts
    8,998
    While I do see that there are valid points on both sides of this, I think it comes down to whether you consider net access like a public utility or not.
    bob p and SoulFetish like this.
    Certified Dotard

  11. #11
    Better Tone thru Mathematics bob p's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    3,809
    ^^^ Good point. I don't know what public utilities are like where you live, but where I live I pay for my phone, natural gas, electric, and water service according to my level of consumption.

    There are three sections on the bills: one is a flat base rate for monthly service, two is a rate-based charge for consumption of resources, and three is where I'm taxed.

    For long distance phone calls I get charged by the minute; for water, I get charged in 1000 gallon increments; for electricity I pay by the kilowatt-hour; and for natural gas I pay by the number of therms I have consumed.

    I can see a pay-to-play argument for the net, especially if it's treated as a public utility.
    "Stand back, I'm holding a calculator." - chinrest

  12. #12
    Senior Member SoulFetish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    451
    G1, the point you bring up is central to the debate. At this point, internet access has become a utility.
    Because it has grown into a utility that relies on a a physical network infrastructure (for the most part), we can draw parallels to the 100 years or so of history in telecom antitrust law for analysis. In my view, Net Neutrality regulations "Title II", was the response to a trend in unfair business practices which really can only be leveraged by a monopoly holder.
    Bob P, right now, the paying consumer dictates content under Neutrality regulations. Which seems to be what you are advocating for. By deregulating Neutrality, you as a paying customer will have much less power over what gets through, in speed and content.
    Lets say you hate youtube bandwidth horders- if google enters into a business contract with comcast, they get to allocate what ever percentage of YOUR bandwidth that they want for youtube, regardless of whether you stream it or not. You will still have to pay for the "space" occupied by youtube content and what ever you wanted high speed service for gets throttled to a trickle or barred completely from access. That is what is at stake here.
    If I have a 50% chance of guessing the right answer, I guess wrong 80% of the time.

  13. #13
    Better Tone thru Mathematics bob p's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    3,809
    If my ISP decides to enter a third party agreement with someone else and I don't like how that agreement effects me, it's not as if I'm left without options. I can shop elsewhere as long as the markets are open, free and competitive. I can even completely opt out of using Youtube and Netflix, or owning a "smart" device if that option suits me.

    What I don't like happening is when I opt out of all three of those services, and I still have the taxes that support those services being tagged onto my land-line my telephone bill. At present my land-line telephone bill is comprised of 60% basic telephone service and 40% taxes ... taxes that I'm paying to support parasites. It would be much more fair if the cost of using those services were actually being paid by the people who use them instead of apportioning the cost among people who don't use them.

    If I used those services and my ISP charged me by the byte then I would quickly learn that hoarding becomes expensive enough that I would have to make a decision about whether or not the bandwidth that I'm consuming via Youtube and Netflix is worth the money I'm spending. If it's not, then my monthly bill will provide me with incentive to regulate my own bandwidth consumption.

    The problem comes along when there is a disconnect between behavior and the cost of that behavior. When the bandwidth hog pays the same price as a low-impact user and the low-impact user gets squeezed as the hog fills up the "neutral" pipe. That hardly seems fair.

    Quality of Service is a double-edged sword. Video streamers expect to watch video without buffering. Sometimes they consume the whole pipe in doing that, causing others to suffer. In contrast, transferring a text page like this one consumes virtually no bandwidth. A page of text is literally a drop in the bucket compared to streaming video. Maybe a bandwidth limit isn't such a bad idea -- though it sure won't appeal to the worst of the bandwidth hogs.

    Bandwidth is a commodity like everything else. I don't see anything wrong with asking people to pay for how much they actually use. If we did that, then small time users would pay small bills and big time users would pay big bills. And if someone doesn't like how much their usage is costing them, then it's their responsibility to regulate their own behavior or to pay the price for failure to do so. Usage then reaches a simple supply-demand equilibrium that's dictated by a free market. Personally, I think that a free market for data is a good thing. The only people that seem to be against a free market are the people who want to get something for nothing. Usually those people are high bandwidth consumers who have grown accustomed to having low bandwidth consumers subsidize their activities when everyone pays a flat rate.
    "Stand back, I'm holding a calculator." - chinrest

  14. #14
    "Thermionic Apocalypse" -JT nickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    2,418
    Bob, your point is well made but fundamentally I don't see it as an issue of paying for bandwidth. These providers want to dispense with neutrality because they will make more money, not because it's fairer or is going to improve your service. Do you think it's OK then for valuable but non-profit educational organizations to be pushed to the back of the bandwidth queue? This will hurt both those organizations and those who use them

    Paying a subscription fee for a better service as a consumer is a different matter altogether and is a different discussion.
    Justin Thomas and SoulFetish like this.
    Experience is something you get, just after you really needed it.

  15. #15
    Better Tone thru Mathematics bob p's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by nickb View Post
    Do you think it's OK then for valuable but non-profit educational organizations to be pushed to the back of the bandwidth queue? This will hurt both those organizations and those who use them
    It's interesting that you'd ask me that question, as I donate my service as an executive officer for a 501(c)(3) publicly funded educational charity. I see that you're in the UK and I'm guessing that you're not familiar with what I'm talking about. In the USA a 501(c)(3) entity is a public charity that derives no less than 1/3 of it's donated revenue from a fairly broad base of public support.

    What is a 501(c)(3)

    No, I wouldn't want us to be pushed to the back of the bandwidth queue, but to be fair, we have no business being at the front of the queue either. When it comes to buying bandwidth we're paying customers just like everyone else and just because a we're a registered non-profit doesn't mean that we are "special" or privileged in some way that should allow us to leap-frog over someone else in the queue. We don't get free office supplies at the office supply store. We don't get free utilities. We pay for everything that we consume, just like everyone else. And hopefully there's enough money left over after operating expenses for us to complete our mission. I don't believe in special treatment for special people. Because we're no different than anyone else when it comes to bandwidth usage, we pay for our internet service just like everyone else and don't have any business being in any position in the queue other than the position that we're paying to occupy.

    For a charity to be a charity, it has to be funded by voluntary contributions. It's not really a charity if people are compelled to contribute, either in the form of compulsory donations (ie: funding through taxation) or being provided a special place in a queue through a government action.

    I understand that that might sound strange to you, but that's because I believe there's a fundamental difference between charities that are supported by individual contributions, where individual members of society decide whether or not we are worthy and vote with their wallet, vs. a charity that automatically gets afforded special privileges and support by mandate, where the decision about funding is made by an administrative edict and money gets taken from taxpayers for involuntary redistribution. For a charity to be a true charity, it has to be funded by the generosity of people who give away their own money with the charitable intent to do good. I don't believe that we should get special treatment just because we're a charity. We're already afforded tax-exempt status and that gives us an advantage that real people who send us their money don't have.

    I don't buy into the charities will suffer argument. Our charity will not suffer if net neutrality changes. I think bringing charities into the discussion amounts to a red herring argument. In the big scheme of things, the debate about net neutrality is not about supporting or not supporting charities.
    "Stand back, I'm holding a calculator." - chinrest

  16. #16
    Supporting Member The Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    4,476
    One of the larger issues is the potential for glorified censorship. Someone other than yourself is going to be deciding bandwidth allocation. For instance, let's say a politician named "Chump" is running for election or reelection. He has large donor, let's call them "Cock Brothers" for example, who might be invested in a service provider. Let's call them "Cobcast" for example. Then, there is a campaign competitor named "Binton" and multiple other "anti-Chump" websites. What is the likelihood or at least possibility that Cobcast will put any Binton related sites at the end of the pack when it comes to bandwidth. They could, in theory, make them so hard to get to that users give up trying. Or what if a large chain store like "Ballmart" can afford the payola to have more bandwidth than your neighbor Joe's little grocery store's website. I see the end of net neutrality as just another way the rich and powerful can/will control the less fortunate. It's a slope to the propaganda machine that other countries ruled by dictators use. My examples here may or may not be exaggerated. But, hopefully, the point is made. There would almost certainly be less obvious abuses of this power. My opinion is that the freedom of expression and right of people to view what they want when they want far outweighs any sort of preferential pricing.
    “Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”

  17. #17
    "Thermionic Apocalypse" -JT nickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    2,418
    Quote Originally Posted by bob p View Post
    I
    No, I wouldn't want us to be pushed to the back of the bandwidth queue, but to be fair, we have no business being at the front of the queue either.
    ..err... so you do support neurtrality then

    Acutally, I am a US citizen and do know something about 501(c), not as much as you do naturally. And quite a few other IRS rules, sadly. That's why I could contact my home State's senators.

    Honestly I'm surprised, given your laudable contribution of your time, that you don't want to fight that corner a bit harder. You seem to be saying that it's OK for your charity to pay for better access, and to be clear we are talking about getting your web site in front of people which I presume has a direct effect on contributions and getting your mesage out. I wonder if those who contribute to it might be dissapointed by your postion.

    I certainly didn't throw it out as a red herring. I have a genuine concern that the many forums, small businesses, charities, educational sites will be sidelined by the cash push of the big commericials.
    Justin Thomas likes this.
    Experience is something you get, just after you really needed it.

  18. #18
    Senior Member SoulFetish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    451
    Bob, which charity? If you dont mind me asking
    If I have a 50% chance of guessing the right answer, I guess wrong 80% of the time.

  19. #19
    Senior Member SoulFetish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    451
    Nick, you were from Florida once upon a time, no?
    If I have a 50% chance of guessing the right answer, I guess wrong 80% of the time.

  20. #20
    Better Tone thru Mathematics bob p's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
    One of the larger issues is the potential for glorified censorship. Someone other than yourself is going to be deciding bandwidth allocation...
    That's as good an argument as I've heard for getting the government out of the picture. Unfortunately, when anyone calls for regulation what they're really asking for is government oversight and control. The result is more input and more control on the part of a government bureaucracy. We've already got government involvement in 99.99% of our daily activities. Some people want there to be more government responsibility in our lives. Some people want less.

    I'm 100% with you WRT freedom of expression and freedom of speech. It's a basic human need and a fundamental right. People have the right to say what they like. But I'll stop short of saying that we have to provide anyone with the vehicle to propagate their opinions. Freedom of speech requires that you have the freedom to express your ideas, but it falls short of requiring anyone to provide you with a means of disseminating your ideas. Free speech gives you a stump to stand on, it doesn't mean that you are provided with media to spread your ideas. That's what the basement printing press is for.

    When freedom of speech is supported directly or indirectly through taxation, regulation or any other form of government interference, it's not really free speech. When ideas expressed via a vehicle that is regulated by government become too extreme, someone can choose to shut you down. If anyone wants freedom of speech, IMO they're being dumb if they look for a government controlled dissemination medium as their medium of expression. What you really want is a medium that is not controlled in any way by any government.

    I think you make, perhaps without intent, a great argument for why the government needs to stay out of the data transmission market. Personally, I think government has grown to a big enough size that they already have their fingers in every aspect of our lives. I'm not eager to provide an administrator with the prerogative to make even more administrative decisions that effect the transmission of thought. My preference is for less government involvement, not more.

    If we're concerned about the rich controlling the poor -- and that is a valid point -- it only takes a moment to flip the big red switch and to stop sending them your money.
    "Stand back, I'm holding a calculator." - chinrest

  21. #21
    Senior Member Enzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    28,571
    I see a lot of world is going to end on both sides here, but what I don;t see is practical numbers. Like the discussion of an amp circuit where we change the low end rolloff at the input stage, and the differnce between the choices is either 5Hz or 4Hz. Well arguably 4Hz is wider bandwidth and somehow "better", but in terms of guitar, meaningless. SO if this internet thing is implemented, exactly what would it do to my surfing this web page? How about my shopping at Mousre, or receiving email? Or even the closer comparison watching You tube? if it means my forum loads 2.6 seconds slower, I will never notice. If it means come back later and I might get through, that is a problem.

    I see mentions of utilities. Utilities have tiered rates already. My electricity comes at 10 cents a kwh at light use, and some weird schedule of fractional cents up to a couple thousand kwh. In any case, the General Motors plant in town certainly pays a lot less for their consumption per unit. Their total bill is of course a staggering amount higher. Even public utilities. if I mail a letter (remember those?) a stamp costs me almost 50 cents. If I mail out 10,000 ad letters, I pay a much lower bulk rate.
    Education is what you're left with after you have forgotten what you have learned.

  22. #22
    Supporting Member The Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    4,476
    Quote Originally Posted by bob p View Post
    ...... I'll stop short of saying that we have to provide anyone with the vehicle to propagate their opinions. Freedom of speech requires that you have the freedom to express your ideas, but it falls short of requiring anyone to provide you with a means of disseminating your ideas. Free speech gives you a stump to stand on, it doesn't mean that you are provided with media to spread your ideas.....
    That is precisely my point. Why should one group of people (the rich and powerful) be given a vehicle to disseminate their ideas and not the rest? It's a recipe for disaster. I don't see it as any more regulatory than the government stepping in to break up a monopoly. I understand your "less government" philosophy, but there are times when it is necessary for the government to step in for the common good. It's part of the government's job to do so. IMO, this is one of those times.
    octal likes this.
    “Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”

  23. #23
    Supporting Member The Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    4,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Enzo View Post
    I see a lot of world is going to end on both sides here, but what I don;t see is practical numbers. Like the discussion of an amp circuit where we change the low end rolloff at the input stage, and the differnce between the choices is either 5Hz or 4Hz. Well arguably 4Hz is wider bandwidth and somehow "better", but in terms of guitar, meaningless. SO if this internet thing is implemented, exactly what would it do to my surfing this web page? How about my shopping at Mousre, or receiving email? Or even the closer comparison watching You tube? if it means my forum loads 2.6 seconds slower, I will never notice. If it means come back later and I might get through, that is a problem......
    This is a repost of the link SoulFetish posted in #2. These are all violations of Net Neutrality. If you want to see a small sample of "practical data", imagine those things not being illegal. IMO, not having the law allows providers way too much levity.

    https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/...-brief-history
    “Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”

  24. #24
    Better Tone thru Mathematics bob p's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by nickb View Post
    ..err... so you do support neurtrality then
    Yes or no, depending on how it actually gets defined. The devil is in the details, and those details could change my opinion.

    Acutally, I am a US citizen and do know something about 501(c), not as much as you do naturally. And quite a few other IRS rules, sadly. That's why I could contact my home State's senators.
    I was wondering how you got a response from Rubio, given that you're located in the UK. Every time that I've written to any legislator because they're on a specific committee, they always respond that I can go pound sand because I'm not one of their constituents. They like to be on committees so that they can control policy, but they like to be able to dodge input from everyone they can. If you're not from their state then they ignore your letter. Personally, I think that when a legislator gets appointed to a committee then they should have to answer to everyone they represent, not just their pool of electors. Unfortunately they don't see it that way.

    Honestly I'm surprised, given your laudable contribution of your time, that you don't want to fight that corner a bit harder. You seem to be saying that it's OK for your charity to pay for better access, and to be clear we are talking about getting your web site in front of people which I presume has a direct effect on contributions and getting your mesage out. I wonder if those who contribute to it might be dissapointed by your postion.
    I'm not sure exactly what we're talking about in terms of getting the web site in front of people. Are we talking page load speed? Being indexed in search engines?

    When a charity becomes big enough peoples' jobs end up being compartmentalized. Because I'm not in fundraising I am insulated from that aspect of things. My understanding is that the fundraising people, for whatever reason, don't rely heavily on an internet presence. The money comes from other activities, primarily from events that provide interaction with people. My title is Financial Secretary. The treasurer is responsible for controlling the money once we have it and paying bills. My job is to oversee the treasurer's activities by keeping the books, creating financial reports, and preparing the books for the audit committee. It's a purely administrative task that's far removed from the "trenches" where most of the real work gets done.

    One thing that I feel very strongly about is that it's essential for charities to maintain complete independence from government. If and when you accept money from government, you're forced to play by a special set of rules. Government money comes with strings attached that are intended to shape a charity's behavior. We don't want the strings so we don't take any government money. Another part of independent funding that's essential is that people are allowed to support charities that they believe in, and people are free to choose to deny support to charities that they do not believe in. By definition, that means that a charity has to be funded by voluntary donations from people, not through compulsory wealth redistribution (forced donation through tax collection and government support of charities). I for one, would definitely not want to support a charity that supports educating the public on the beauty of internet kittens, and I would not want them to be provided preferential bandwidth. I'm not a fan of internet kittens, don't want to support them, would prefer that such a charity did not exist, to hell with their bandwidth needs. Granted that's an extreme example, but it makes the point that there are lots of charities out there, some of which an individual might prefer not to support. The choice to support or not support goes away as soon as we have government involvement in any way.

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails two_cute_kittens_wallpaper.jpg  
    "Stand back, I'm holding a calculator." - chinrest

  25. #25
    Better Tone thru Mathematics bob p's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
    That is precisely my point. Why should one group of people (the rich and powerful) be given a vehicle to disseminate their ideas and not the rest?
    I'm not understanding how the rich and powerful were given the vehicle. The obvious, albeit unpopular response, is that they have access to the vehicle that you and I don't have access to because they paid for it and we didn't. I hate to say that, because I'm in agreement with you that rich and powerful people already control the media and I hate it -- but the idea that the media should be given to anyone like you or me solely because we are not rich and powerful is a Marxist idea that I don't subscribe to. We don't have a right to free access. What we do have the right to do is to ignore their media and to speak against it, like we're doing here.

    It's a recipe for disaster. I don't see it as any more regulatory than the government stepping in to break up a monopoly. I understand your "less government" philosophy, but there are times when it is necessary for the government to step in for the common good. It's part of the government's job to do so. IMO, this is one of those times.
    Another option would be for people to educate themselves that they're wiser to ignore the media and turn off the television rather than to keep watching it. I live by that idea. If it weren't for the Cubs games I wouldn't even own a TV.

    Looking at that post about net neutrality offenses, I realize that I've been bitten by them. I remember when my ISP created a policy of dropping any packets related to file sharing. They didn't want their network bandwidth to be consumed by illegal file sharing, so they started filtering packets. People responded by encrypting their data. At the network level, once data becomes encrypted it becomes quite difficult for any ISP relaying the data to determine exactly what it's relaying, and their QoS routing paradigms fail. Problem solved.
    "Stand back, I'm holding a calculator." - chinrest

  26. #26
    "Thermionic Apocalypse" -JT nickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    2,418
    Bringing out the kittens was underhanded
    The Dude likes this.
    Experience is something you get, just after you really needed it.

  27. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    29
    Hello everyone,

    Have been lurking for a bit, but had to register to comment on this. My excuse is that my guitar is at my local luthier to get a proper setup in order to help my newbie playing as much as possible. So here goes.

    We had the net neutrality debate here in the EU a few years ago or rather, the claims of the ISPs were quickly debunked and laughed out of existence. Subsequently net neutrality was passed as law in the EU parliament and later ratified as the land of the law in the various EU countries.

    Basically you are all being lied to. There is no bandwidth crunch, as there is in fact vast excess capacity on most long distance trunk lines of the 'net. Look up 'dark fiber' at your preferred search engine. This is due to the fact that when you do build new fiber optical links, you don't just put down enough fiber to meet the demand of today. You drop 10 or 100 times the needed capacity into the hole, as the cost of the actual fiber is negligible, compared to the cost of digging the holes and paying the salaries etc. Once the fiber is in the ground, then it is trivial to upgrade the optical equipment at the endpoints as technology improves, thus vastly upgrading the link bandwidth over time.

    The 'congestation' you are experiencing in prime time is solely due to your respective local ISPs being cheap on the 'last mile' with the equipment at your local phone central, and the cabling from there to your home. Most technologies in use today have the advertised bandwidth, which usually sounds impressive on paper, *shared* between a very large group of people in a very small, geographical area, like a group of apartment blocks. When you are experiencing slowdowns it is not due to 'people' somewhere out there. It is due to your immediate neighbors also watching NetFlix and YouTube at the same time as you do.

    Consider: We live on a spherical planet. If bandwidth congestation was due to long distance capacity issues, or problems at Google etc., then why does *your* problems always follow your local timezone, regardless of where you live? Shouldn't any capacity problems mostly occur when the most people are home from work in the evening as an absolute number, considering the whole planet at once? I note in passing that there are four distinct timezones in the continental US alone.

    If you get your data through a wireless connection, then stop doing that. Unlike copper cables and optical fibers there is a physical limit to how much data can be squeezed through the physically available radio bandwidth in a given neighborhood. No amount of extra payments to the ISPs is going to fix this.

    In many places you can still pay to get your own, personal old school DSL line using the decades old copper wires in the ground. With a modern DSL router and suitably upgraded equipment at the phone central, you can frequently get upwards of 50 Mbit/s bandwidth, which you won't be sharing with anybody. This is much better than getting 1 Gbit/s - shared between you and your closest few hundred neighbors...

    Here in the EU it was revealed that the large, backbone net providers has a profit marging of about 2000%, meaning their expenses are about 5% of the income. This includes expenses like building new transatlantic cables etc. The reason for this is that the very large bandwidth 'hogs' that the ISPs like to complain about, like YouTube, NetFlix, Facebook etc. are in a sense already paying extra for their bandwidth. They do this by building local data center mirrors scattered around the globe, so that the data they put on the net only has to travel relatively short hops on the local net to get to the end users. So for instance NetFlix data for viewers in the EU is emphatically *not* transmitted over the transatlantic cables as you watch your latest soap opera.

    The intuitive analogy of comparing ISPs to for instance railroads is completely wrong. If railroads operated on the same conditions as the large network providers, then:

    *) They only ship exactly one type of cargo, intermodal containers. They are not responsible for filling or emptying of the containers, the shippers and recipients are.

    *) The rail links as built will have 100x the needed capacity, and if needed said capacity can mostly be upgraded further still by replacing just the locomotives.

    *) The cost for fuel, personell and upkeep is a constant, irrespective of how many containers are shipped on your network in a given timespan.

    *) If for some reason the capacity of a given rail link *is* temporarily exceeded, then the stream of containers can instantly and automatically be rerouted through other links, possibly incurring a huge detour. Yet despite the detour there will be no negative effects to either you or your customers. Keep sipping that coffee.

    *) Most of the large scale shipping companies, who pays for your services the same as the container recipients do, have voluntarily built local replication hubs scattered around the world. Through magic they ship a single container with unique contents to the various replication centers, where the container and its contents are magically replicated the moment an order for one just like it comes through. Only then is the copied container shipped a short distance on your railroad to the local recipient.

    *) Your main operational bottleneck is the local parking lots at your various intermodal distribution centers. By deliberately refusing to upgrading the parking lot facilites once and for all, you can lobby your local politicians to allow you to charge the shipping companies for which recipient(s) should be allowed to skip the parking lot queue and get their containers ahead of everybody else. Additionally, you would also be allowed to completely refuse any and all container deliveries to, say, that pesky upstart company, who makes better widgets than those your good friend Bob and his company does.

  28. #28
    Better Tone thru Mathematics bob p's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Thoriated Tungsten View Post
    ...Additionally, you would also be allowed to completely refuse any and all container deliveries to, say, that pesky upstart company, who makes better widgets than those your good friend Bob and his company does.
    Wow. Your first post and you accuse me of being the evil widget maker who makes an inferior product but uses graft to ensure my spot in the marketplace.
    "Stand back, I'm holding a calculator." - chinrest

  29. #29
    Old Timer J M Fahey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    9,349
    No, Bob´s your uncle.
    Justin Thomas and SoulFetish like this.
    Juan Manuel Fahey

  30. #30
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chill-Ville, VA
    Posts
    2,190
    I thought Bob was your big brother who got it together, with a haircut and a real job...

    All jokes aside, I myself am guilty of using "Bob" as a name for "everyman" without consideration for the fact that I actually know many real Bobs, and they may not appreciate it. I'm willing to let the Euro go one time, and will reserve judgment for the reaction... Just trying to give the benefit of the doubt to the new guy...

    And, in return I get a simulpost! . :O.

    Justin
    "Are you practicing in the lobby of the municipal library? It's still a guitar amp and it SHOULD make some noise (!!!)" - Chuck H. -
    "When receiving a shock I emit a strange loud high pitched girlish squeak." - Alex R -
    "All I ever managed to do with that amp was... kill small rodents within a 50 yard radius of my practice building." - Tone Meister -

  31. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by bob p View Post
    Wow. Your first post and you accuse me of being the evil widget maker who makes an inferior product but uses graft to ensure my spot in the marketplace.
    Sorry, thought I had made myself clear. I was talking about Bob, not bob.
    Justin Thomas likes this.

  32. #32
    Old Timer Leo_Gnardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Dogpatch-on-Hudson
    Posts
    4,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Thoriated Tungsten View Post
    We had the net neutrality debate here in the EU a few years ago or rather, the claims of the ISPs were quickly debunked and laughed out of existence. Subsequently net neutrality was passed as law in the EU parliament and later ratified as the land of the law in the various EU countries.

    Basically you are all being lied to.
    It would take a leap of logic & science for that to apply in the USA, things that are evidently in short supply here these days. And we have a large segment of population that enjoys being lied to, they're mostly hooked on watching the "fair and balanced" TV channel and other news & communication networks that follow that model.
    bob p, soundmasterg and eschertron like this.

  33. #33
    ToneOholic! big_teee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Mid-South USA
    Posts
    9,785
    Net Neutrality in all probability is fixing to die next month.
    It gets voted on Dec. 14.
    Bad Juju ghana !
    It's time to make your NetNeu opinions known!
    T
    nickb and g1 like this.
    Technicians Run the World, but Bankers, Lawyers, and Accountants, Take All The Credit!
    Keep Rockin! B_T
    Terry

  34. #34
    Better Tone thru Mathematics bob p's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    3,809
    We've already discussed in this thread that net neutrality can mean many different things, depending upon how you define it. I'm still waiting for an operational definition of what "net neutrality" actually means in this legislation. Can anybody fill that gap?

    I'm all for the idea of having QoS thrown away and all traffic being treated with equal priority, if the condition is met that people are made to pay for the amount of bandwidth they actually consume. I don't have any problem treating it like a metered utility. You use X amount of bandwidth, you pay for X amount of bandwidth. Paying by the byte provides the consumer with an incentive not to waste bandwidth. The fact that bandwidth is being given away at flat rates ends up causing a lot of the network bottlenecks. When a commodity is free there is no incentive for people to conserve it, so consumption rises to the point that the commodity becomes unvalued and gets wasted. A prime example of this is that people are inclined to stream youtube and neflix and walk away from the PC when they become distracted. They leave the stream running, wasting bandwidth, and then when they come back if they're still interested in the show then they'll rewind it show and stream the same block of data all over again. People wouldn't waste bandwidth like that if they had to pay for those wasted bytes.

    If it weren't for streaming video would bandwidth even be important?
    "Stand back, I'm holding a calculator." - chinrest

  35. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    The 26th state
    Posts
    589
    One thing this could do that I haven't seen anyone write about yet (unless I missed it), some people, like myself, would reach the point where accessing the 'net isn't worth doing at all. As it is I have spent more time working on my original hobby - model car building - in the last six months than I have in recent years. Partly due to health issues that I've spoken about previously, but partly due to the fact that I'm pretty much fed up with all the crap I've seen online the last couple of years. Most of us are old enough that we did just fine before the internet, and most of us would be fine if it got to be another useless tech tool and we stopped using it. Of course those who sell products and/or services online would obviously suffer, but to be brutally honest I wouldn't be lost without it. It might even be what saves our species from total self-destruction.

    I fondly remember the days when we would make a weekend out of going to a model car/toy show. We'd stay in a hotel the night before, attend the show and vendor areas, TALK to real people and generally have a good time. My brother and I made it a point to go to two shows in the last couple of months and that was fun, despite our physical limitations (he's partially disabled, I'm still healing from my last surgery) but boy was it nice seeing old friends that we used to hang around with. The same could be said for any hobby type activity where you were actually looking at the people you were talking to. I've missed those days.

    But that's just my .02, take it for what it's worth.
    g1 and eschertron like this.
    --Jim


    He's like a new set of strings... he just needs to be stretched a bit.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Vox Owner's Safety Net and Footswitches Manual
    By R.G. in forum Maintenance, Troubleshooting & Repair
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-07-2017, 07:41 AM
  2. Vox Owner's Safety Net and Footswitches Manual
    By R.G. in forum Plug Your Product/Service
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-22-2016, 06:32 PM
  3. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-12-2016, 02:37 AM
  4. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-12-2011, 04:58 AM
  5. ReCap kit from Fliptops.net for my V4
    By Bernardduur in forum Maintenance, Troubleshooting & Repair
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-10-2009, 01:38 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •