Comments on: Broadband giants say Net neutrality fears are misguided

Verizon, AT&T offer companies special pipes. They want to extend that concept to content delivery.
Photo: Ciccone, Tauke talk

Appears disingenuous to me...

- The new Internet2 backbone demonstrates best-effort packet delivery works well for HDTV streams
- The hardware Cisco and other network vendors are hawking to the carriers appears designed to filter, restrict, and monitor third-party traffic
- Will VoIP providers like Skype and Vonage be blocked or degraded?

No one is asking the carriers the key, detailed questions on these points. Someone needs to ask. More info here on a recent blog post:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/02/end-of-internet-another-fantastic-deal.html

[vampares]

Limit the discussion to reality please

Investing in or promoting nonproven or even nonexistant technology/specs is how we got here in the first place. I can give you 2 dozen websites that say "tetrabits of data over fibre optic" "10 gigabit connections" are the future but none of them can sell it to me at a competative rate. Almost all can't sell it to me at all.

Scroll down, see that privacy policy job? Ever click on it?

Appears disingenuous to me...

- The new Internet2 backbone demonstrates best-effort packet delivery works well for HDTV streams
- The hardware Cisco and other network vendors are hawking to the carriers appears designed to filter, restrict, and monitor third-party traffic
- Will VoIP providers like Skype and Vonage be blocked or degraded?

No one is asking the carriers the key, detailed questions on these points. Someone needs to ask. More info here on a recent blog post:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/02/end-of-internet-another-fantastic-deal.html

[vampares]

Limit the discussion to reality please

Investing in or promoting nonproven or even nonexistant technology/specs is how we got here in the first place. I can give you 2 dozen websites that say "tetrabits of data over fibre optic" "10 gigabit connections" are the future but none of them can sell it to me at a competative rate. Almost all can't sell it to me at all.

Scroll down, see that privacy policy job? Ever click on it?

[asdf]

Divide and Conquer.. it won't affect YOU, yet ;)

OK so what Verizon et. al. are trying to do is this- stop the public furor by presenting their plan as something which will only affect Big Players who have too much money for anyone to feel sorry for.

Obviously, once the principle of net neutrality is broken, there will be no stopping a "future CEO" of these said-same companies from concluding that they need to do exactly the same thing to mom and pop internet-store owners.

Get it straight- no one is going to hold up their fist and cry "no! you can't do that because your former CEO, five years ago, said that wasn't what you intended to do when.. er... oh ...never mind".

Of COURSE they know this and so do your policy-makers in Washington; those two players are just waiting to see if YOU dear taxpayer, understand this too.

In case you weren't aware of it, you, taxpayer have already PAID for the creation of internet, many times over. It isn't profit-seeking companies like Verizon who pay for the years and years and years of research it's YOU.

Verizon makes plenty of money (looked at you phone bill lately)? Their CEO is MORE than handsomely compensated for sending what used to be your job overseas. If they can't figure out a way to make money without destroying net neutrality, then they should do what the fre market says they shoudl do- get the hell off the stage and let the scores of other, younger, more creative and hungrier companies who CAN find a way take their place.

Can you afford your own TV show or political talk show on the TV? That's because there's a limited resource and lots of people who want it. The price gets bid up and the big players are the only ones who can afford it.

Now ask yourself this question- are your views represented on TV? That's because to be a big player and afford the aritime, you have tow the corporate line, or see the money tap in the form of advertising turned off.

Well that suits corporations just fine. It especially suits the CEOS and other NON WORKING people who live off their investments just fine.

And that's what Verizon and AT&T will turn the internet into if this is permitted to go through. The REAL forms of persuasion and communication and the ability to reach anything like a meaningful audience will be the sole "property" of the corporate elites and those who can afford to pay their rent, that is, those who the corporate elites control.

It's a pretty good scam- get the taxpayer to pony up billions and billions for the new invention (because we dont' invent anything around here, buster, that would cut into our CEOs pay...) then hand it over to corporations so they can create artifical "shortages" of "good" bandwidth and profiteer from the ensuing market economics, thus solidifying your power position in Washington (we have the money) while also conveniently being able to destroy any voice the people may try to develop to change things.

Yep sounds like we're headed back to the good old days of the MSM (Mainstream Media).

[asdf]

Divide and Conquer.. it won't affect YOU, yet ;)

OK so what Verizon et. al. are trying to do is this- stop the public furor by presenting their plan as something which will only affect Big Players who have too much money for anyone to feel sorry for.

Obviously, once the principle of net neutrality is broken, there will be no stopping a "future CEO" of these said-same companies from concluding that they need to do exactly the same thing to mom and pop internet-store owners.

Get it straight- no one is going to hold up their fist and cry "no! you can't do that because your former CEO, five years ago, said that wasn't what you intended to do when.. er... oh ...never mind".

Of COURSE they know this and so do your policy-makers in Washington; those two players are just waiting to see if YOU dear taxpayer, understand this too.

In case you weren't aware of it, you, taxpayer have already PAID for the creation of internet, many times over. It isn't profit-seeking companies like Verizon who pay for the years and years and years of research it's YOU.

Verizon makes plenty of money (looked at you phone bill lately)? Their CEO is MORE than handsomely compensated for sending what used to be your job overseas. If they can't figure out a way to make money without destroying net neutrality, then they should do what the fre market says they shoudl do- get the hell off the stage and let the scores of other, younger, more creative and hungrier companies who CAN find a way take their place.

Can you afford your own TV show or political talk show on the TV? That's because there's a limited resource and lots of people who want it. The price gets bid up and the big players are the only ones who can afford it.

Now ask yourself this question- are your views represented on TV? That's because to be a big player and afford the aritime, you have tow the corporate line, or see the money tap in the form of advertising turned off.

Well that suits corporations just fine. It especially suits the CEOS and other NON WORKING people who live off their investments just fine.

And that's what Verizon and AT&T will turn the internet into if this is permitted to go through. The REAL forms of persuasion and communication and the ability to reach anything like a meaningful audience will be the sole "property" of the corporate elites and those who can afford to pay their rent, that is, those who the corporate elites control.

It's a pretty good scam- get the taxpayer to pony up billions and billions for the new invention (because we dont' invent anything around here, buster, that would cut into our CEOs pay...) then hand it over to corporations so they can create artifical "shortages" of "good" bandwidth and profiteer from the ensuing market economics, thus solidifying your power position in Washington (we have the money) while also conveniently being able to destroy any voice the people may try to develop to change things.

Yep sounds like we're headed back to the good old days of the MSM (Mainstream Media).

[johnericanderson]

Verizon

My experience with Verizon.
They DO impede competative services that operate on their network. (and I can prove it in court, so come on).

The mere fact that they are talking about "not being able to offer the same quality of service to competative vendors over the public network" Proves they are already doing this.

Their own movies travel over the very same network to their subscribers.

In order to NOT provide the same QoS they must go out of their way to throttle the opponants traffic.

Again, the mere fact that they are saying they won't guarantee equal QoS is because they ARE guaranteeing unequal QoS.

Now why whould they do that? Profit?
Naw!

Enter the throttle wars.
Cox should now throttle Vz movies.
AOL should now throttle Vz and Cox...
Ad naseum.
The cash paying customer is the one that will suffer the most.

[johnericanderson]

Verizon

My experience with Verizon.
They DO impede competative services that operate on their network. (and I can prove it in court, so come on).

The mere fact that they are talking about "not being able to offer the same quality of service to competative vendors over the public network" Proves they are already doing this.

Their own movies travel over the very same network to their subscribers.

In order to NOT provide the same QoS they must go out of their way to throttle the opponants traffic.

Again, the mere fact that they are saying they won't guarantee equal QoS is because they ARE guaranteeing unequal QoS.

Now why whould they do that? Profit?
Naw!

Enter the throttle wars.
Cox should now throttle Vz movies.
AOL should now throttle Vz and Cox...
Ad naseum.
The cash paying customer is the one that will suffer the most.

[oldgrapeape]

Verizon, bad giant

I have found Verizon to be far less than an honest People Business, and more like the Ghost of Jessie James and his gang. The difference I find is the form of lacking integrity used by both. The James gang robbed the rich without using lies, deceit, and cheating them out of their money. Verizon on the other hand, are far greater enemies to the people because they do use lies, deceit, cheat and steal people's minutes. It is for sure Verizon is not a company inwhich a person's word or the old hand shake would be a contract agreed upon and fulfilled. Therefore on a scale of one to ten of business integrity. I would have to put Verizon right beside of RCA, that being a one (1), and only because they have a product to sell. Neither are the people friendly local neighborhood business America grew up with. The long lists of complaints about the same things and servie seem to be never ending. It is all about their god of dollars. But their barns will also one day be full, then there will be enough mustard to cover those hot-dogs.
Jimmie King

[oldgrapeape]

Verizon, bad giant

I have found Verizon to be far less than an honest People Business, and more like the Ghost of Jessie James and his gang. The difference I find is the form of lacking integrity used by both. The James gang robbed the rich without using lies, deceit, and cheating them out of their money. Verizon on the other hand, are far greater enemies to the people because they do use lies, deceit, cheat and steal people's minutes. It is for sure Verizon is not a company inwhich a person's word or the old hand shake would be a contract agreed upon and fulfilled. Therefore on a scale of one to ten of business integrity. I would have to put Verizon right beside of RCA, that being a one (1), and only because they have a product to sell. Neither are the people friendly local neighborhood business America grew up with. The long lists of complaints about the same things and servie seem to be never ending. It is all about their god of dollars. But their barns will also one day be full, then there will be enough mustard to cover those hot-dogs.
Jimmie King

[skeptik]

oh yeah sure...

'We promise not to abuse our power if you give us control' sounds a bit too much like 'I promise not to *** in your mouth, baby' to me.
Meanwhile Verizon has crippled my motorola phone solely for the purpose of forcing consumer to purchase more services from them and increase their revenue by eliminating consumers ability to do things for themselves.
No thanks.

[skeptik]

oh yeah sure...

'We promise not to abuse our power if you give us control' sounds a bit too much like 'I promise not to *** in your mouth, baby' to me.
Meanwhile Verizon has crippled my motorola phone solely for the purpose of forcing consumer to purchase more services from them and increase their revenue by eliminating consumers ability to do things for themselves.
No thanks.

[gparshal]

Sounds like protection money to me

Yeah. "See, Mr. Google, we can make sure your customers coming up to your store aren't "roughed up" by any Internet thugs hanging around. Just put some money in this envelope and hand it to "Lefty" here every week and youse will be fine. Pleasure doin' business wit' ya. Nah, don't worry about the FCC, neither - they know who owns these piece of the neighborhood."

[gparshal]

Sounds like protection money to me

Yeah. "See, Mr. Google, we can make sure your customers coming up to your store aren't "roughed up" by any Internet thugs hanging around. Just put some money in this envelope and hand it to "Lefty" here every week and youse will be fine. Pleasure doin' business wit' ya. Nah, don't worry about the FCC, neither - they know who owns these piece of the neighborhood."

[LarryLo]

We need Eliot Spitzer

Someone please call Eliot and tell him, when he is done with the RIAA, these guys deserve a visit.

Quite simple you can own the pipe or you can own the content but when you own both, you will by default create a conflict of interest (at the very least).
I can?t wait for a DSL customer to prove the Telco ISPs are interleaving, dropping or re-ordering packets.

[LarryLo]

We need Eliot Spitzer

Someone please call Eliot and tell him, when he is done with the RIAA, these guys deserve a visit.

Quite simple you can own the pipe or you can own the content but when you own both, you will by default create a conflict of interest (at the very least).
I can?t wait for a DSL customer to prove the Telco ISPs are interleaving, dropping or re-ordering packets.

[200mbpsBPL]

we need another BROADBAND wires to compete with monopoly

one is New Broadband over Power lines !!!

re: http://broadbandoverpowerlines.blogspot.com/

[200mbpsBPL]

we need another BROADBAND wires to compete with monopoly

one is New Broadband over Power lines !!!

re: http://broadbandoverpowerlines.blogspot.com/

[NJSolly]

Net Neutrality

I am glad to see the "bad guys" from the telcos explain clearly what it is they want to do. Now maybe we can move ahead so that I can see [a movie] clearly. There is no need for the Congress to get involved and no reason to fear the bogeyman in the internet closet.

[NJSolly]

Net Neutrality

I am glad to see the "bad guys" from the telcos explain clearly what it is they want to do. Now maybe we can move ahead so that I can see [a movie] clearly. There is no need for the Congress to get involved and no reason to fear the bogeyman in the internet closet.

[challman]

Handful of companies?

"This debate is all about movies," he said. "A handful of companies who have plans to stream movies want to ensure their product is as good as ours. Or they want ours to be dumbed down for them."

Who are these companies? They didn't mention any names. Furthermore, who needs a VPN to their home for movies? If you want to be able to guarantee Qos from content provider to content consumer, why not utilize basic open standards to do so? Because they don't want to. IPv6 has better built in Qos than IPv4 also it has better addressing too. But by deploying this. they will be standardizing the net as a whole and subsequently will not be able to boast that they have any differentiating features about their network versus their competition thus losing a potential revenue stream.

[challman]

Handful of companies?

"This debate is all about movies," he said. "A handful of companies who have plans to stream movies want to ensure their product is as good as ours. Or they want ours to be dumbed down for them."

Who are these companies? They didn't mention any names. Furthermore, who needs a VPN to their home for movies? If you want to be able to guarantee Qos from content provider to content consumer, why not utilize basic open standards to do so? Because they don't want to. IPv6 has better built in Qos than IPv4 also it has better addressing too. But by deploying this. they will be standardizing the net as a whole and subsequently will not be able to boast that they have any differentiating features about their network versus their competition thus losing a potential revenue stream.