Net neutrality legislation

[CaptainHaplo]

Folks,

Let me deal with this one at a time.

First Mookie - I specified part of what I typed is opinion - and if you quote only PART of an opinion, instead it in context, your twisting it. When you take my arguement that this is designed to make ISP's fail, then yes - it would limit access to free information. Kindly quote me in context since I made it clear it was my opinion.

Now - regarding VoIP.

""Managed" or "specialized" services, such as VOIP or subscription video services, may fall into a special category since they "may differ from broadband Internet access services in ways that recommend a different policy approach, and it may be inappropriate to apply the rules proposed here." The FCC is looking for input on how to approach this special class of services. "

Key word here is MAY!!!! There is NOT a problem with the Net as it is. Yet you want me to support somethning that will "fix" a problem that only "MAY" occur but hasn't yet and might not at all, with a "fix" that "MAY" (or by definition - MAY NOT) exclude vital economic technologies. On one hand, your saying "FEAR AND WORRY WHAT MAY HAPPEN - LET US DO THIS" - and on the other, your saying "Well our fix MIGHT not screw up some important things, we really haven't decided, but you shouldn't fear or worry about what MAY happen, trust us, we are the government."

There is a bit of contradiction there. No one has YET to give me one reason this is necessary. Its all "what if" and "if this happens". Its fearmongering. If the net was being controlled like this, then there would be a need to discuss some form of it. But your talking sweeping changes of what is CURRENTLY WORKING because traffic prioritization is going on today and no one is getting cut out! Your talking about accepting changes to a HUGE, interconnected system when those changes haven't even been clearly defined yet. Your saying "support rule changes" when all you have is some feel good, nebulous description of what the "intent" of the rules are supposed to be, because the FCC hasn't figured out what the rules will be yet.

Define the rules clearly - not with "may be" but "IS". Don't overreach, define a minimum QoS that must be met regardless of the customer, and then allow the free market to define the rest!

You want to make sure no one is "cut out"? Ok - a minimum QoS level does that. Why remove the rights of companies to offer above minimum at a premium? As long as the minimum is sufficient for reasonable access, whats the problem?

Or are you saying that Google shouldn't be allowed huge server farms because that gives them an advantage over say, ask.com? Their farms give them a response ability ask.com can't match. A minimum QoS level insures that someone that wants to get to ask can, regardless of how much GOOGLE pays for "premium" service and server farms.

I don't disagree with the ideals of real net neutrality. But this isn't it. The net is a major source of innovation. Having the government with its hand in it even more isn't going to make it more innovative.

Progress is present when government pursues its proper role, ensures a basic level field, and then gets out of the way while market forces level and relevel the field through innovation. A minimal Qos would do exactly that. This current proposal is a whole lot more than that!

************************************************** *****

Letum,

There is a direct relationship to the "size of the pipe" and your connection speed. You can only push so much data, water or whatever else through a pipe a certain size. Connection speed is determined by the smallest part of the pipe. If you have a water line that can push 3k gallons a minute, but a center section that can only push 2k, 2k is the fastest your going to get water out of the line. Same with network "pipes".

With networks though, lets say your data is water, and mine is oil. If my data is already "in the pipe" and taking up half the room, you are not going to get 2k gallons of water every minute. You will get half of it, and I will get half. The problem is, think of that same pipe, but with 5000 people using it for their own, distinct liquids. Now your only getting a little of what you could. The problem here is, as you add people, the amount of substance you can send in that pipe decreases.

The lines are not infinite in what they can carry people. There is a limit and its called bandwidth. The problem with this is that, according to the current rules, a company can PAY to get 2 or 3 (or 200/300) shares of that pipe. With these proposals, they would remain limited to one, regardless of their business need, because service providers will not be ALLOWED to offer higher levels of service.

In a capitalist, free market economy, if you are need something and can afford it, you purchase it. That won't be allowed with this. If your ok with getting rid of capitalism, thats your choice. I am not.

Want that pipe to grow "fatter" with new technologies that can push more data faster? Then the last thing you want to do is yank the revenue out from under service providers.

Now, if you set a MINIMAL QoS for EVERY customer, business or private, then you can rest assured no one will get cut out, but you can allow a service provider to decide how much of HIS pipe he wants to dedicate to each segment.

Take that same pipe, 100k GPM capacity. The ISP says ok, I have 40 major businesses, and 2000 private customers. I have a minimum service I must offer to everyone. To meet that, 20% of the pipe must be set aside for the private customers. Ok great. I have 80% pipe left. I can offer to double the minimum level to my private customers for a few bucks extra a month as an option, and if they all take it, I still have 60% of the pipe. I will offer various packages of service to the businesses, they can choose how much of the remaining pipe they want to get. The overhead I have left when that is done, I can sell to other providers, or use when my customer base grows, or maybe additional packages to private subscribers. Now lets say the businesses pay for 50% of the capacity. With the "net neutrality" proposal, that means that 1 customer (in this case equaling .001% of the total pipe) doing a download should have his packets going through the pipe at the same LEVEL of priority as someone paying for 50% of the pipe. How exactly does that make sense? How is it "equitable" or "fair"? Someone else is paying far more for their amount of the pipe - and he has a right to HIS share, but his share is not an EQUAL share.

Let me go further. In this case, lets say he is guaranteed 1 Gallon per minute flow. The businesses combined, because of the premium they pay, are entitled to 50,000 GPM flow. This is why a MINIMUM QoS is fine, but not a "level" one. He pays to get his gallon in one minute. That's his right. he doesn't have the right, just because he uses the same pipe, to get his gallon at the flow rate that the companies are paying scads extra for. He can buy a higher flow rate - thats fair. He could even buy a 10k GPM if he wanted. But the "NN" proposal means that he has to get the "same flow rate" as the groups who bought 50% - and that isn't "fair".

But wait - there is more! See, with this plan, there is not going to be anyone getting 50% of the pipe, because the ISP won't be allowed to OFFER an upgraded package. So you get what you get, and you will LIKE it.

Talk about taking choice and free market economics out of it. Its nothing but a governmental agency, the FCC, telling private companies how they MUST do business.

And you wonder why I have an issue with it?

The pipe belongs to the ISP, not you or the government.

************************************************** **

August,

Yes your money is just as good as someone else's. Agreed. But in this case, an individual is paying a lot LESS than a company. Your money is worth X amount of the pipe. More money buys more of the pipe. If your paying the same as a company for your internet service, then I could agree with the premise of your arguement. And while I can't claim to know your internet service charges, I would bet that your not paying what most companies are......

Call your local cable or phone company and inquire about the price of residential internet - and then ask about the cost of "business class" service.

With the arguement your making - your saying your $20 fee should entitle you to the same access as someone paying $100 or $1000. That's not how the system works. This is designed to remove the capitalist system from the industry, among other things.

*************************************************

In closing, its simply not needed - especially done this way.

If your going to put down rules - why do it for something that ISN'T a problem? Why the fearmongering of "we must do this now!"?

If it must be done, do it right and stop overreaching.

Set a minimum QoS and define the rules of what it will and won't cover. Let ISP's do BUSINESS provided they meet those minimal guidelines. Then get out of the way!

Or pass this huge boondoggle and make everyone's internet QoS the "same" and then watch how much this facet of technology impacts the rest of our economy.

I am telling you now - I will say "I told you so".