Conservatism a confirmed brain illness?

[Lorizael]

Eventually high speed wireless internet will be as readily available as radio and we won't need to deal with this bull**** at all.

[Sava]

Verses the folks who want something for cheap/free . The cable companies built all these cables. Why shouldn't they charge for people who want to use those cables? Especially folks they are in competition with using their infrastructure?

Yes. Only a fool would want to pay less for a higher quality product.

Also, check your simpletonny view of "fairness". That doesn't even come close to outweighing the benefit (and the vastly overall greater moral argument) of low cost high speed internet access.

So why shouldn't those corporations be allowed to charge whatever they want? Because FUCK THEM.

and anyone who doesn't like it can suck on my anus

[Imran Siddiqui]

This, by the way, is necessary reading from Wired Magazine (no shill for the cable companies):

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/

The only trouble is that, here in the year 2014, complaints about a fast-lane don’t make much sense. Today, privileged companies—including Google, Facebook, and Netflix—already benefit from what are essentially internet fast lanes, and this has been the case for years. Such web giants—and others—now have direct connections to big ISPs like Comcast and Verizon, and they run dedicated computer servers deep inside these ISPs. In technical lingo, these are known as “peering connections” and “content delivery servers,” and they’re a vital part of the way the internet works.

“Fast lane is how the internet is built today,” says Craig Labovitz, who, as the CEO of DeepField Networks, an outfit whose sole mission is to track how companies build internet infrastructure, probably knows more about the design of the modern internet than anyone else. And many other internet experts agree with him. “The net neutrality debate has got many facets to it, and most of the points of the debate are artificial, distracting, and based on an incorrect mental model on how the internet works,” says Dave Taht, a developer of open-source networking software.

We shouldn’t waste so much breath on the idea of keeping the network completely neutral. It isn’t neutral now. What we should really be doing is looking for ways we can increase competition among ISPs—ways we can prevent the Comcasts and the AT&Ts from gaining so much power that they can completely control the market for internet bandwidth.

Because these companies are moving so much traffic on their own, they’ve been forced to make special arrangements with the country’s internet service providers that can facilitate the delivery of their sites and applications. Basically, they’re bypassing the internet backbone, plugging straight into the ISPs.

The problem today isn’t the fast lanes. The problem is whether the ISPs will grow so large that they have undue control over the market for fast speeds—whether they can independently decide who gets access to what connection at what price. “The question is which kinds of fast lanes are problematic and which kinds are not,” says Marvin Ammori, a lawyer and net neutrality advocate.

Does this give companies like Google and Netflix a potential advantage over the next internet startup? Sure it does. But this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In fact, this rewiring has been great for consumers. It has allowed millions to enjoy House of Cards, YouTube, and Kai the hatchet-wielding hitchhiker. It’s the reason why the latest version of high-definition video, Ultra HD 4K, is available for streaming over the internet and not on some new disk format.

Plus, although Google does have an edge over others, not every company needs that edge. Most companies don’t generate enough traffic to warrant a dedicated peering connection or CDN. And if the next internet startup does get big enough, it too can arrange for a Google-like setup. Building the extra infrastructure is expensive, but making the right arrangements with a Comcast or a Verizon is pretty cheap—at least for now.

So the idea of eliminating fast lanes does indeed seem to be an extreme position. Better positions involve ways to increase ISP competition, not eliminating the fast lane concept (which is basically direct peering).

[regexcellent]

Not only that but Google actually owns a lot of its own cable so that its services can be faster, and that's not a bad thing.

By the way Imran, it's not the same thing as direct peering. That's a somewhat different concept. Peering refers to sharing routes (typically BGP) on an equitable basis.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well there is much I need to learn.... which goes for a lot of people on this debate. I think the Wired point that we should encourage competition of ISPs is valid as a way to help deal with any issues that we may worry about when it comes to one provider having adverse power of content.

[Sava]

naivety like that is part of the problem

[regexcellent]

Eventually high speed wireless internet will be as readily available as radio and we won't need to deal with this bull**** at all.

There are theoretical limits to the capabilities of wireless networks that we're rapidly approaching, sadly.

[Lorizael]

There are theoretical limits to the capabilities of wireless networks that we're rapidly approaching, sadly.

Bah. I'm sure if we just put the word quantum in front of it it'll all be okay.

[pchang]

The equipment I sell is perfectly capable of rate shaping specific web sites and it is very easy to install and configure. All of the major service providers have been buying my stuff for years.

[onodera]

Why throttle traffic based on content providers? Why not throttle it based on your customer data plans? If you want less latency or more bandwith for *all* sites, pay more. This doesn't affect net neutrality, unlike throttling content providers or content types.

[N35t0r]

It's as if cars came with unlimited fuel, and then car salespeople wanted to put tolls on highways to offset the costs of all the fuel that's being spent. (bad analogy, but you get the idea)

[onodera]

No, it's like Highway Administration installing toll booths in front of Wal-Marts because all the people driving there create jams that inconvenience other drivers.

[Sava]

installing toll booths in front of Wal-Marts

I would support this

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why throttle traffic based on content providers? Why not throttle it based on your customer data plans? If you want less latency or more bandwith for *all* sites, pay more. This doesn't affect net neutrality, unlike throttling content providers or content types.

Because customers have gotten used to unlimited data (albeit at different costs per speed, yes). To start instituting rate caps or tiered data (a la the phone companies) would result in some consumer backlash - esp if you were the first one to do it.

[Lorizael]

There's no current global warming thread, so here seems like a good place for this: