Comments on: Senator: Net neutrality may not happen

Senate Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens seems lukewarm to mandatory Net neutrality, and analysts say it's not a good idea.

Average Joe: CNet neutrality not happening

It is funny to see an article portraying Google and Yahoo as lobbying for a change to make the net neutral. The net already is neutral! It is the companies that own access that are trying to lobby to remove neutrality.

The sub-headline states "analysts think its a bad idea" The Wall Street analysts who know they can make a buck off of this too. Whatever happened to getting comments from public interest groups? Every one of them would tell you that this is a good idea.

The quality of News.Com has been going down hill for quite some time now. This is very disappointing news coverage

[thenet411]

You dumb dumb...

The net is currently neutral (so to speak), but the big telecommunist companies are trying to take that away. The change they are referring to is the fact that Google and Yahoo are behind making the idea LAW, not just a good idea.

This cannot happen. The big telecommunist companies must be taught a lesson here. Just because they are the biggest providers in America, does not mean they get to change the rules. The Internet was created to be a free medium to exchange information. The original architects never intended for any censorship or favoritism. These telecommunist companies need to step off and see the real world. Unfortuantely, they are so disconnected from reality they think they can do this kind of crap. The CEOs, CFOs, CTOs, and the armies of useless VPs are all so clueless they actually think they can get away with this.

I call on every Internet user to call their telecommunist companies and tell them that they must not do this or they will suffer a bigger backlash than has ever been seen before. And to the IT people on these boards, I urge you all to contact your upstream providers and tell them that if they go ahead with this plan that you will be only too happy to find another upstream provider that is not a communist. We ALL have to do this people or the Internet will become just one big commercial.

Average Joe: CNet neutrality not happening

It is funny to see an article portraying Google and Yahoo as lobbying for a change to make the net neutral. The net already is neutral! It is the companies that own access that are trying to lobby to remove neutrality.

The sub-headline states "analysts think its a bad idea" The Wall Street analysts who know they can make a buck off of this too. Whatever happened to getting comments from public interest groups? Every one of them would tell you that this is a good idea.

The quality of News.Com has been going down hill for quite some time now. This is very disappointing news coverage

[thenet411]

You dumb dumb...

The net is currently neutral (so to speak), but the big telecommunist companies are trying to take that away. The change they are referring to is the fact that Google and Yahoo are behind making the idea LAW, not just a good idea.

This cannot happen. The big telecommunist companies must be taught a lesson here. Just because they are the biggest providers in America, does not mean they get to change the rules. The Internet was created to be a free medium to exchange information. The original architects never intended for any censorship or favoritism. These telecommunist companies need to step off and see the real world. Unfortuantely, they are so disconnected from reality they think they can do this kind of crap. The CEOs, CFOs, CTOs, and the armies of useless VPs are all so clueless they actually think they can get away with this.

I call on every Internet user to call their telecommunist companies and tell them that they must not do this or they will suffer a bigger backlash than has ever been seen before. And to the IT people on these boards, I urge you all to contact your upstream providers and tell them that if they go ahead with this plan that you will be only too happy to find another upstream provider that is not a communist. We ALL have to do this people or the Internet will become just one big commercial.

[Turnabuck]

I hate the Internet!

...just kidding!

What a joke! What's new here? The guy that builds the big train and lays the most track gets the contracts. He in turn takes care of his clients to keep them happy.

Then the next guy builds a bigger train leases the track from the other guy, creates competition and steals the contracts.

The price goes down and we all get top rate service for $2 a month.

These companies are not investing in larger networks to better the internet...there trying to get the contracts. God give me a break!

[Turnabuck]

I hate the Internet!

...just kidding!

What a joke! What's new here? The guy that builds the big train and lays the most track gets the contracts. He in turn takes care of his clients to keep them happy.

Then the next guy builds a bigger train leases the track from the other guy, creates competition and steals the contracts.

The price goes down and we all get top rate service for $2 a month.

These companies are not investing in larger networks to better the internet...there trying to get the contracts. God give me a break!

[Egatlov]

Market Forces in a Monopoly market

Instead, I feel that at this point it is essential that market forces and consumer demand drive the economic model.

The problem with this approach is the companies which own the broadband infrastructure go to great lengths to ensure they have no competition in their service areas. Market forces can't decide (methinks they'd choose neutral offerings) on this issue if the market has to choose between two companies, neither of which has an option for net neutrality.

[Egatlov]

Market Forces in a Monopoly market

Instead, I feel that at this point it is essential that market forces and consumer demand drive the economic model.

The problem with this approach is the companies which own the broadband infrastructure go to great lengths to ensure they have no competition in their service areas. Market forces can't decide (methinks they'd choose neutral offerings) on this issue if the market has to choose between two companies, neither of which has an option for net neutrality.

He's still cranky about that Bridge to Nowhere

Can we put the good senator out to pasture yet?

He's still cranky about that Bridge to Nowhere

Can we put the good senator out to pasture yet?

[bigpicture]

WHO SHOULD OWN THE INTERNET

The internet infrastructure has become too important as a security, communications, cultural tool the be in the hands and whims of privateers. Its usefulness to the citizens, as possibly an essential service, gets lost in the interests of SHAREHOLDERS.

It has become as indispensable as the national highways and should be infrastructure managed the same way. How the physical network is distributed, and it's ownership should be by the people, and not by AT&T. Since it seems that the privateers are going to find a way to tax us anyway, then why not pay a government tax and become "THE SHAREHOLDERS"

[freemarket--2008]

True Tele-Communism

n/t

[bigpicture]

WHO SHOULD OWN THE INTERNET

The internet infrastructure has become too important as a security, communications, cultural tool the be in the hands and whims of privateers. Its usefulness to the citizens, as possibly an essential service, gets lost in the interests of SHAREHOLDERS.

It has become as indispensable as the national highways and should be infrastructure managed the same way. How the physical network is distributed, and it's ownership should be by the people, and not by AT&T. Since it seems that the privateers are going to find a way to tax us anyway, then why not pay a government tax and become "THE SHAREHOLDERS"

[freemarket--2008]

True Tele-Communism

n/t

[viperpa]

Perfect example

Cable company Shaw in Canada is a perfect example of applying 2 Tier internet. The people who use Vonage, Shaw wants to charge an extra $10 a month for better access. For that extra $10 a month, Shaw is increasing your download speed just a bit. No guarantee that your service will be better since it will be traveling over the same pipe as the rest of the internet. Shaw can't stop the bottle necking once your Vonage call leaves the Shaw's network.

It's a way for the Telco's to get free money for nothing. They won't have the incentive to upgrade there networks. Why should they when they packet shape. I bet you will lose up to 50% of the content that's on the net. Only the big boys like Yahoo, Microsoft and Google will be supplying all your content needs. Cause they are the one's who will be able to pay the high Telco's extortion costs.

[viperpa]

Perfect example

Cable company Shaw in Canada is a perfect example of applying 2 Tier internet. The people who use Vonage, Shaw wants to charge an extra $10 a month for better access. For that extra $10 a month, Shaw is increasing your download speed just a bit. No guarantee that your service will be better since it will be traveling over the same pipe as the rest of the internet. Shaw can't stop the bottle necking once your Vonage call leaves the Shaw's network.

It's a way for the Telco's to get free money for nothing. They won't have the incentive to upgrade there networks. Why should they when they packet shape. I bet you will lose up to 50% of the content that's on the net. Only the big boys like Yahoo, Microsoft and Google will be supplying all your content needs. Cause they are the one's who will be able to pay the high Telco's extortion costs.

[jacomo]

Network Neutrality and the Cry Babies at Google/Yahoo etc

Give me a break.
The RBOC and the other Service Providers are not out to restrict the subscribers access to anything. Number 1, I don't think they could do that if they wanted to and it would not make sense economically because we have something called competition from the MSo and the merging new Wireless Mesh Providers like Earthlink who would quickly jump on this and bypass everyone to the home.
The COntent providers are getting a free ride on the last mile Broadband Networks that exist today and they are forcing the local last mile providers to upgrade as they continue to expand their services with more and more Video/Gaming and Audio services. They are getting premium Ad fees and not paying for any last mile.
In addition, the average user who wants true broadband downloads would not have a serious problem with being offered premium access at higher speeds for a higher fee as long as they had a low to medium speed (like todays Cable Modem and DSL)options: CHOICE is KEY.

Let competition loose and this would be solved.

Trust me as soon as one of the big Search and COntent engines signs a deal with AT&T or Verizon the game is over.

Jacomo

[curtiscarmack]

How are they not paying for the last mile?

I agree with some of what you say, but I don't understand how you can say that the content providers are not paying for the last mile? If Google pays for its pipes and I pay for the last mile, and there are peering arrangements in place among the backbone providers -- all of which is true today, then the only way anything is not being "paid for" is if the telcos are not charging for it. If they are not charging enough to afford the upgrades, then that's their problem, not Google's. If they feel they can't charge more and compete, then that's good for all of us. This whole argument, first lofted by SBC, that somehow the Yahoos and Googles of the world are not paying the freight is completely bogus and doesn't hold up under the lightest scrutiny.

[jacomo]

Network Neutrality and the Cry Babies at Google/Yahoo etc

Give me a break.
The RBOC and the other Service Providers are not out to restrict the subscribers access to anything. Number 1, I don't think they could do that if they wanted to and it would not make sense economically because we have something called competition from the MSo and the merging new Wireless Mesh Providers like Earthlink who would quickly jump on this and bypass everyone to the home.
The COntent providers are getting a free ride on the last mile Broadband Networks that exist today and they are forcing the local last mile providers to upgrade as they continue to expand their services with more and more Video/Gaming and Audio services. They are getting premium Ad fees and not paying for any last mile.
In addition, the average user who wants true broadband downloads would not have a serious problem with being offered premium access at higher speeds for a higher fee as long as they had a low to medium speed (like todays Cable Modem and DSL)options: CHOICE is KEY.

Let competition loose and this would be solved.

Trust me as soon as one of the big Search and COntent engines signs a deal with AT&T or Verizon the game is over.

Jacomo

[curtiscarmack]

How are they not paying for the last mile?

I agree with some of what you say, but I don't understand how you can say that the content providers are not paying for the last mile? If Google pays for its pipes and I pay for the last mile, and there are peering arrangements in place among the backbone providers -- all of which is true today, then the only way anything is not being "paid for" is if the telcos are not charging for it. If they are not charging enough to afford the upgrades, then that's their problem, not Google's. If they feel they can't charge more and compete, then that's good for all of us. This whole argument, first lofted by SBC, that somehow the Yahoos and Googles of the world are not paying the freight is completely bogus and doesn't hold up under the lightest scrutiny.

Secret War against Cable

This is really about Cable getting into the phone business and now the telcos are steaming mad! I am a gamer, now I have only a few choices when it comes to my connection speed: Dial up, Isdn, Dsl or Cable. I have opted for DSL because I have to have phone service as well; this used to be my only option, but now I can have phone from cable. Now I can re-think my options because of voip.

I added the highest speed I could for a "Home DSL" line, but sometimes do not think it is worth it. I have never downloaded at an Actuall 1.5 megabytes per second! Tell my why? If this new tiered system lets me get premium content at the actuall freaking advertised speed then SO BE IT! I am sick of not getting the stuff I want at the speeds that were advertised when I bought the package.

Basically the teclos want a new ace up the sleeve.

Secret War against Cable

This is really about Cable getting into the phone business and now the telcos are steaming mad! I am a gamer, now I have only a few choices when it comes to my connection speed: Dial up, Isdn, Dsl or Cable. I have opted for DSL because I have to have phone service as well; this used to be my only option, but now I can have phone from cable. Now I can re-think my options because of voip.

I added the highest speed I could for a "Home DSL" line, but sometimes do not think it is worth it. I have never downloaded at an Actuall 1.5 megabytes per second! Tell my why? If this new tiered system lets me get premium content at the actuall freaking advertised speed then SO BE IT! I am sick of not getting the stuff I want at the speeds that were advertised when I bought the package.

Basically the teclos want a new ace up the sleeve.

[CodyJo]

Double Dipping

Your cable or DSL provider is responsible for providing the consumer access to the web at the high speeds they promise. They are trying to double dip!

This would be like your power company going to Magnavox and saying "If you pay us X amount of money a month, we will supply better power to your devices." Does GM, Ford and other car manufactures? have to pay for better roads because they benefit from the highway infrastructure?

That would be ridiculous! Just as ridiculous as what the ISPs are trying to do.

[CodyJo]

Double Dipping

Your cable or DSL provider is responsible for providing the consumer access to the web at the high speeds they promise. They are trying to double dip!

This would be like your power company going to Magnavox and saying "If you pay us X amount of money a month, we will supply better power to your devices." Does GM, Ford and other car manufactures? have to pay for better roads because they benefit from the highway infrastructure?

That would be ridiculous! Just as ridiculous as what the ISPs are trying to do.