Is Net Neutrality Really Necessary?

[Greg Bernhardt]

You don't have any local ISP's? Your local phone company doesn't offer internet? Can you get wireless broadband?

There are a few local ISPs but they end up just being affiliates of AT&T.

Just 2 years ago I had a dial up account, DSL, and wirless broadband all at the same time. Now I just have two accounts with two different providers for redundancy, cable & wireless broadband, I canceled the others to save money.

Dial up is not an option and DSL I think you need an active phone line? Neither Charter, Verizon, Qwest, or AT&T have service in my area. I do those "check for services in your area" forms all the time and nothing but AT&T show up, but they haven't had service to my street.

 

[Evo]

Dial up is not an option and DSL I think you need an active phone line? Neither Charter, Verizon, Qwest, or AT&T have service in my area. I do those "check for services in your area" forms all the time and nothing but AT&T show up, but they haven't had service to my street.

You probably wouldn't want anything to do with either Verizon or AT&T since they are the two that are really trying to push the "pay for heavy data usage" issue. So if you like to download, those are the 2 to be wary of if they get their way.

 

[JaredJames]

I'll say it again.. you.. cannot... block... content...

In the UK, certain ISP's are blocking specific file sharing websites. (Fileshare, Rapidshare, Fileserve, Hotfile etc).

The sites themselves aren't illegal, but they do hold a lot of questionable content so far as legality goes. So far, the majority of the blocks don't last too long because people go mad and they end up unblocking it.

Once blocked, you can't access their content. No prosecution required, they simply don't let you go there.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'll say it again... yes... you... can.

Just because there are illegal ways to get around it doesn't mean the content wasn't blocked in the first place. If an ISP doesn't want to deliver packets from a website to you, you're not getting the packets without resorting to piracy.

Everything I described was legal, because you're not access illegal material... just inaccessible material. I'm sorry, ISPs can't or don't stop the packets carrying child pornography most of the time, so I have a hard time believing they'll manage to block a galaxy of every-changing sites and services.

Oh, and given how many people pirate, and that as people grow and move on from that there are always new kids to take their place... I don't see this working legally or illegally. People are happy to use both means on the internet.

Greg: Could you get an active phone line?... If so, then it's not really unavailable, it's just another kind of opting out.

 

[nismaratwork]

In the UK, certain ISP's are blocking specific file sharing websites. (Fileshare, Rapidshare, Fileserve, Hotfile etc).

The sites themselves aren't illegal, but they do hold a lot of questionable content so far as legality goes. So far, the majority of the blocks don't last too long because people go mad and they end up unblocking it.

Once blocked, you can't access their content. No prosecution required, they simply don't let you go there.

Well, if you read my posts you now know how to access them anytime you want in a variety of ways.

 

[nismaratwork]

Allow me to quote some recent news that highlights how even direct legal action slides off the duck called 'Internet's' back.

Newspost - Dec/17/2010
Torrent Finder Domain Seizure
From their site:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thursday, the 25th of November 2010, the Torrent Finder domain ( www.torrent-finder.com ), registered with Godaddy, was seized by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) without any prior takedown notice or specific allegations of infringing activity. The Domain IP was suddenly changed without the registrar's knowledge and the system displayed a "Pending Registry Action" message on the domain's status. No contact was given until Wednesday, the 1st of December, when Godaddy replied to my inquiries, giving a contact for an ICE agent. On Thursday, the 2nd of December, David Snead who is representing Torrent Finder contacted the ICE agent in charge who told him that "the orders are under seal, but that the seal will be lifted today or tomorrow". However, we have not heard from them until writing this post. Another email from Godaddy clarified that the action was taken by VeriSign: "please understand that these actions were taken by Verisign at the Registry level; and not by Go Daddy". The story was first reported on TorrentFreak and NYTimes.com.

I don't condone or endorse demonoid or other forms of piracy, but its relevant, and published in the nytimes.

Edit: Oh I nearly forgot, that quote is taken from demonoid... how you ask?... well they simply moved to a new .** in Moldovia, and the tracker in question never even hiccuped as it moved slightly.

 

[JaredJames]

Well, if you read my posts you now know how to access them anytime you want in a variety of ways.

Yes, and I'm very grateful for said information. (No thumbs up on here so you'll have to settle for a big grin)

It will certainly save me a lot of grief if it works next time they block them!

 

[xxChrisxx]

In the UK, certain ISP's are blocking specific file sharing websites. (Fileshare, Rapidshare, Fileserve, Hotfile etc).

The sites themselves aren't illegal, but they do hold a lot of questionable content so far as legality goes. So far, the majority of the blocks don't last too long because people go mad and they end up unblocking it.

Once blocked, you can't access their content. No prosecution required, they simply don't let you go there.

They aren't usually blocked, they are traffic shaped to hell (effectively blocked). Orange is one that does it, I didn't know that before I signed up. (hence my earlier rant)

I use rapidshare as a back up and as a way of storing large files that i'll need to access from a few locations.

What winds me up is that they blatantly lie that there is 'faults on the line'.

EDIT: Nismara, you mean I have to acutally read your posts.. oh noes. :P As I'm lazy, linky?

 

[nismaratwork]

They aren't usually blocked, they are traffic shaped to hell (effectively blocked). Orange is one that does it, I didn't know that before I signed up. (hence my earlier rant)

I use rapidshare as a back up and as a way of storing large files that i'll need to access from a few locations.

What winds me up is that they blatantly lie that there is 'faults on the line'.

Hmmm... That's what Sandvine was meant to do for Comcast... here in the USA it never got off the ground. I'm sorry you're subject to such a stupid and dishonest practice.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, and I'm very grateful for said information. (No thumbs up on here so you'll have to settle for a big grin)

It will certainly save me a lot of grief if it works next time they block them!

My pleasure good sir.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Hmmm... That's what Sandvine was meant to do for Comcast... here in the USA it never got off the ground. I'm sorry you're subject to such a stupid and dishonest practice.

It's annoying having it throttled, but it would be marginally tolerable if they were just honest about it.

As it happens because they've blatantly lied to me, the second my contract is up I'm canceling (would cost to much to cancel now). And I'll cancel my mobile contract to boot. so they can kiss goodbye to £50 a month from me.

 

[JaredJames]

Virgin Media went all out and blocked access to certain sites such as RapidShare at one point (much to my displeasure). They still have some blocks in place (I have no problem them doing so with sites that are strictly for illegal activity).

Other ISP's are looking at blocking places such as those I mentioned in my previous post.

 

[Al68]

Websites "not being part of your package" just doesn't make any sense.

It does if it increases the ISPs profits, or in the case of ISPs owned by cable companies, increases the profits of other divisions.

there logically can't be

Yes there can and there are financial/political/economic reasons to do it.

Did you miss my point entirely? An ISP is not a package of websites. If an ISP chose to offer a package of websites, no matter how inclusive, instead of WWW access, nobody would buy it. Not after so many years of buying access to the WWW, which contains an uncountable and indeterminable number of websites that are not a part of any package system.

It would be like selling a car with a predetermined "package of destinations". Possible, yes. Profitable, no.

 

[JaredJames]

Did you miss my point entirely? An ISP is not a package of websites. If an ISP chose to offer a package of websites, no matter how inclusive, instead of WWW access, nobody would buy it. Not after so many years of buying access to the WWW, which contains an uncountable and indeterminable number of websites that are not a part of any package system.

It would be like selling a car with a predetermined "package of destinations". Possible, yes. Profitable, no.

It would be more like selling a "media web package", a "just surf package" etc.

One would be designed for use of services such as youtube, the other would let you use basic web browsing only.

That, they can do, but it would be difficult and would have to be via bandwidth control I would imagine.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Did you miss my point entirely? An ISP is not a package of websites. If an ISP chose to offer a package of websites, no matter how inclusive, instead of WWW access, nobody would buy it. Not after so many years of buying access to the WWW, which contains an uncountable and indeterminable number of websites that are not a part of any package system.

It would be like selling a car with a predetermined "package of destinations". Possible, yes. Profitable, no.

If the alternative was no access at all, then yes, people would buy it.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The rules were just approved
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703581204576033513990668654.html

 

[JaredJames]

EDIT: Ah, wrong part of article.

So now providers can't restrict access?

 

[xxChrisxx]

Well this is going to create a ****storm.

Hang on I may have misunderstood, that article is confusing me (it's late and it's been a long day working). Is this passing a good or bad thing?

EDIT: You need a better profanity filter.

 

[JaredJames]

Seems like a good thing to me, stops the ISP's interfering with your web access.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Seems like a good thing to me, stops the ISP's interfering with your web access.

It appears you made the same mistake I did :)

 

[Evo]

Seems like a good thing to me, stops the ISP's interfering with your web access.

It's a shame.

The new rules:

Wireless providers would be allowed to block other applications, however, that they say could take up too much bandwidth on wireless networks.

So anything you wish to download or view on a wireless device can now be legally blocked.

The rules would allow phone and cable companies to offer faster, priority delivery services to Internet companies willing to pay extra.

That's fine, it's always been that way, but this was a big deal when the whole "net neutrality" thing started. Net Neutrality advocates didn't want this.

We have now given the Government control of the internet in the US.

 

[Al68]

If the alternative was no access at all, then yes, people would buy it.

Of course that's true, but that's not the situation I was referring to. I specifically said:

As long as there is competition and freedom from regulation...

As long as there is demand for general WWW access, and government doesn't restrict it, there will be a company to sell it. There is no reason to believe that every company in the country would coincidentally and inexplicably refuse to offer a profitable product.

 

[JaredJames]

We have now given the Government control of the internet in the US.

Well let's be honest, would you prefer it to be the government or a private company?

The former answers to you (or is supposed to). The latter doesn't answer to anyone.

 

[nismaratwork]

Of course that's true, but that's not the situation I was referring to. I specifically said:As long as there is demand for general WWW access, and government doesn't restrict it, there will be a company to sell it. There is no reason to believe that every company in the country would coincidentally and inexplicably refuse to offer a profitable product.

I tend to agree with this. If the USA actually DOES anything with this, they'll just be shooting themselves in the foot... assuming that any law born of this isn't struck down in the courts with an injunction. The government simply can't afford to do what some of their interests want, and there are competing interests with huge clout who want things to remain MOSTLY open (see google).

 

[nismaratwork]

If the alternative was no access at all, then yes, people would buy it.

If there's no alternative then that person lives in an area where this is unlikely to effect them, or we're living in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust. I'm sorry Greg, but "no alternative" in this case is a fantasy. That said, in your restricted and unreal scenario, yeah, people would tend to take something over nothing, but how do you not see something else emerging from that?

 

[Evo]

Well let's be honest, would you prefer it to be the government or a private company?

The former answers to you (or is supposed to). The latter doesn't answer to anyone.

Consumers would drive the competition in the market. Remember when the WWW started, you paid by the hour. Consumer backlash forced flat rate pricing. Competition and consumer behavior greatly affects the success of what a company tries to do. I, for one, don't want the government dictating to me what my choices are.

This ruling should have been delayed until more details were hammered out and the public had more input. Why it was rushed through the way it was so some politician could get his name on it isn't right, IMO.

 

[nismaratwork]

Consumers would drive the competition in the market. Remember when the WWW started, you paid by the hour. Consumer backlash forced flat rate pricing. Competition and consumer behavior greatly affects the success of what a company tries to do. I, for one, don't want the government dictating to me what my choices are.

This ruling should have been delayed until more details were hammered out and the public had more input. Why it was rushed through the way it was so some politician could get his name on it isn't right, IMO.

Yes, but now it's going to be in the courts for god-knows-how-long until it's eventually struck down. In the meantime... nothing... I'm OK with that.

As for the last bit... yeah, that isn't right, but it's essentially the heart of politics, or so it seems.

 

[Al68]

Well let's be honest, would you prefer it to be the government or a private company?.

The reasonable choice is between government or nobody. I choose nobody. Currently no private company has any such power, and as far as I know, nobody supports giving a private company any such power. A private company can only control what they want to sell to me, not what I can or can't buy (from their competitors or potential competitors). Big difference.

 

[nismaratwork]

The reasonable choice is between government or nobody. I choose nobody. Currently no private company has any such power, and as far as I know, nobody supports giving a private company any such power. A private company can only control what they want to sell to me, not what I can or can't buy (from their competitors or potential competitors). Big difference.

The government is as good as nobody in this context... they both will have the same capacity to control the relevant issue.

 

[Al68]

The government is as good as nobody in this context...

Nope. "Nobody" is far better to a libertarian, obviously.

...they both will have the same capacity to control the relevant issue.

Nope. Government can control all access, a private company can only control the access provided by that company. That's as different from "the same" as one can get.

 

[WhoWee]

The government is as good as nobody in this context... they both will have the same capacity to control the relevant issue.

"Nobody" doesn't have the power to tax - Government, on the other hand can first create a new bureacracy - then tax to pay for the expansion -. then find a way to tax to justify the expansion -> then tax the increased fees required to pay for the tax -> then increase the size of the bureacracy in the name of enforcement - etc.

 

[Evo]

Once the FCC gets it's claws into something, it doesn't let go. It's going to be a long, hard, costly struggle to stop this.

Net Neutrality A 'Threat To Internet Freedom'

The Huffington Post

Later this week, the FCC is set to vote on net neutrality rules, which would prohibit Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon from discriminating in how they handle information traveling over their networks. Both supporters and opponents of net neutrality are unhappy with the FCC's plan, some arguing it is toothless while others asserting that the rules will stifle innovation. Al Franken called the draft regulations "worse than nothing," while McDowell accused FCC leadership of tackling an "imaginary problem."

"On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation," McDowell wrote. "The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/fcc-commissioner-net-neut_n_798998.html

 

[nismaratwork]

"Nobody" doesn't have the power to tax - Government, on the other hand can first create a new bureacracy - then tax to pay for the expansion -. then find a way to tax to justify the expansion -> then tax the increased fees required to pay for the tax -> then increase the size of the bureacracy in the name of enforcement - etc.

Yep, which is why doing so, or even starting to do so would simply cause an alternative to WWW to emerge, or a WWW centered in another country.

Evo: You're right, but in the meantime I suspect nothing will be done due to injunction.

Al68: You misunderstand, even before this the government could physically cut undersea cables, or take other drastic measures to end service, although perhaps not legally. Beyond that, they really don't have the capacity to monitor their own usage, never mind everyone else's. This is only harmful if the regulation is used to some end, and any end it's used to would be challenged in court. I would bet the challenge wins.

In fact Al, Google could shut down in protest and we'd have no way to get google... the government is all or nothing. In this case, private industry has MUCH more leverage than the government... see facebook.

 

[pantaz]

...
So anything you wish to download or view on a wireless device can now be legally blocked. ...

Do you believe that it is currently illegal to do so?

 

[Al68]

Al68: You misunderstand, even before this the government could physically cut undersea cables, or take other drastic measures to end service...

I don't misunderstand at all. I oppose government doing that as well.

In fact Al, Google could shut down in protest and we'd have no way to get google... the government is all or nothing. In this case, private industry has MUCH more leverage than the government... see facebook.

"Private industry" is not monolithic like government. Saying private industry has "leverage" in this sense is like saying barbers have leverage to determine how long people's hair should be, by each choosing to provide only specific types of haircuts, and therefore would be "the same as" government using force to mandate specific hairstyles. Better the government restrict hair length than barbers who answer to nobody?

It's fallacious logic to define separate entities as a group, then treat the group as if it were a monolithic entity. And it's fallacious logic to equate the choices of private entities whether to provide a service or not with government using force to prevent/require people to buy/sell a service.