If geeks love it, we’re on it

Howdy, Stranger!

You found the friendliest gaming & tech geeks around. Say hello!

A net neutrality history lesson: how US telecom became such a trainwreck

ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Watch Slut, Mumble Hivemind DroneAustin, TX Icrontian
edited Apr 2011 in Science & Tech

Comments

  • AlexDeGruvenAlexDeGruven Not as tall as Bobby Tallbeer. Twilight Sparkle is overrated. Meechigan Icrontian
    edited May 2010
    I LOVE that they all, with one accord object to common carrier status, yet they want all of the protections afforded under that status (just without the responsibilities).
  • Cliff_ForsterCliff_Forster Baltimore, MD Icrontian
    edited May 2010
    The is a bookmark piece here. I worked sales in telecom for a short time after the initial dereg. Rob you have really done your research.
  • BlackHawkBlackHawk Bible music connoisseur There's no place like 127.0.0.1 Icrontian
    edited May 2010
    People should email this article to their congressmen.
  • Cliff_ForsterCliff_Forster Baltimore, MD Icrontian
    edited May 2010
    Black Hawk, I think thats a great idea.
  • ZenModeZenMode Royal Oak, Mi Icrontian
    edited May 2010
    Excellent piece.
  • Options
    edited May 2010
    train wreck is two words. FYI
  • NullenVoydNullenVoyd Orlandish Icrontian
    edited May 2010
    This makes me wonder what our experience with the internet would be if it had been built much like the major US highway system, and was treated more as a public service than a thing to buy and sell.

    Also on a side-note, remember the days of startup free dial-up services, that would let you connect for free but would require you use a program that displayed adds?
  • BlackHawkBlackHawk Bible music connoisseur There's no place like 127.0.0.1 Icrontian
    edited May 2010
    NullenVoyd wrote:
    This makes me wonder what our experience with the internet would be if it had been built much like the major US highway system, and was treated more as a public service than a thing to buy and sell.?

    Well, the US did know what the Interstate Highway System would be back when it was created and what it would be now. The same thing can't be said for the internet or whatever it was called in its inception.

    That and that the US wasn't the sole country that invented it. Even if US does implement some sort of net neutrality doesn't mean every country will follow suit.
  • spin498spin498 mississauga ON New
    edited May 2010
    black hawk
    "That and that the US wasn't the sole country that invented it. Even if US does implement some sort of net neutrality doesn't mean every country will follow suit."

    What relevance is that to what's discussed in the article? That's akin to arguing the US. has freedom of speach but other countries don't. That's somehow a bad thing?
  • BlackHawkBlackHawk Bible music connoisseur There's no place like 127.0.0.1 Icrontian
    edited May 2010
    spin498 wrote:
    black hawk
    What relevance is that to what's discussed in the article? That's akin to arguing the US. has freedom of speach but other countries don't. That's somehow a bad thing?

    It's relevant to what I quoted in my post.
  • NullenVoydNullenVoyd Orlandish Icrontian
    edited May 2010
    Black Hawk wrote:
    It's relevant to what I quoted in my post.

    And while the (excellent BTW) article focuses on US telecom and communications policy, I think how it relates to the rest of the world is very relevant given this medium is one of the major, if not THE primary way a country's people connect with other nations. Probably enough on that subject to write another long article, if not a book, on.
  • deepseadeepsea Lancaster, PA
    edited May 2010
    Net neutrality should also prevent selected applications/uses from receiving priority treatment, i.e., VOIP and on-demand video. Is the lag in my gaming less important than my neighbor's viewing of sex and the city reruns?
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI Icrontian
    edited May 2010
    If internet providers would just provide you with the bandwidth and speed that you're paying for at all times, you could set up your own, house-level quality of service and figure out your own net priority. But God forbid they don't oversell their infrastructure. Gotta maximize those profits and mislead your customers!
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA Icrontian
    edited May 2010
    Phenomenal article. This is a subject that we all need to be concerned with.
  • M46h1n3M46h1n3 Member
    edited May 2010
    TLDR
  • Options
    edited May 2010
    If we can get net neutrality in place, all the other invasions of citizen privacy will fall as everyone hops onto darknets.
  • PreacherPreacher Potomac, MD Icrontian
    edited May 2010
    Thrax,
    thanks for an informative and interesting article. It seems we constantly have to learn and relearn the old lesson that the free market and corporations (whether banks, mining companies, oil companies, or telecoms) often do NOT act in the best interest of the public or their customers. They act in the best interest of their shareholders to maximize profits. On the other hand, even though it is inefficiently bureaucratic, governments do need to step in to regulate certain critical services. Net Neutrality is one where the corporations need to have a governmental regulator's boot on the back of their neck. In my mind and many others, the internet is the modern equivalent of electricity, water, highways, and railroads. I'll take some inefficiency any day over trusting AIG, Massey, BP, or Comcast...
  • SpencerForHireSpencerForHire Clawson, MI
    edited May 2010
    I'm currently outlining an email to Gary Peters complaining that he is an easily bribed man and criticizing his values if 20,000 dollars is all it takes to get him to sell the values of the people he represents.
  • SpencerForHireSpencerForHire Clawson, MI
    edited May 2010
    *sell out on the people he represents.*

    Guess I had a brain fart.
  • Options
    edited Jun 2010
    This article does an excellent job of regurgitating the corporate party line of corporate monopolist Google, which -- like the Bell System of old -- has multiple monopolies on the Internet. (It has monopolies on Internet search, Internet search advertising, Internet banner advertising, and Internet video, and is working on monopolizing mobile advertising via a forthcoming acquisition). Free Press and Public Knowledge, groups which are benefactors of Google, lobby for it in DC. The actual text of the so-called "network neutrality" regulations is not "neutral" at all. Written by Google lobbyists to regulate ISPs and Google's competitors but not Google itself, the regulations would strip ISPs of all control of the future development of the Net, leaving Google in the driver's seat. What's more, they would raise the price of Internet service, deter broadband deployment, harm quality of service, and reduce competition (leaving consumers with fewer choices of ISPs). The many members of Congress who oppose Google's agenda (virtually every member of Congress receives some money from telephone companies regardless of his or her position, so in fact there are no "sellouts" here) are looking out for their constituents by opposing regulation that would shore up Google's monopolies -- which are much more insidious than that of the old Bell System because they are worldwide (not just nationwide). "Network neutrality" regulation is bad for everyone but Google, and we all should oppose it.
  • KwitkoKwitko Sheriff of Banning (Retired) By the thing near the stuff Icrontian
    edited Jun 2010
    [citation needed]
  • RyderRyder Kalamazoo, Mi Icrontian
    edited Jun 2010
    That just sounds like a position from the opposite side, which we welcome :)
  • ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Watch Slut, Mumble Hivemind Drone Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited Jun 2010
    Sounds like a list of slippery slope talking points.
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited Jun 2010
    Even a half dumb swede such as myself can fully understand whats going on thanks to Mr. Hallock's excellent presentation.

    Salute!, Robert!

    https://www.goldandbrownstore.co.uk/images/P/old%20speckled%20hen.jpg
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI Icrontian
    edited Jun 2010
    I fail to see how allowing ISPs to determine what I can see and at what speeds is in any way preferable to allowing Google alone to advertise to me.

    They may both be ill-advised, but nobody should restrict or inhibit what I can access.
  • Options
    edited Apr 2011
    I think some here is taking they just want to see. I see that DSL was under FCC rules for a long time and because of the taxes and reg's it could not compete. The speeds of the net picked up because those other companies did not fall under the reg's of the FCC. Place all under the reg's will be the starting of taxes on all and hinder the growth of the net.
  • ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Watch Slut, Mumble Hivemind Drone Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited Apr 2011
    That's one way to look at it, but I think the current state of the industry disagrees. In the US and Canada, a deregulated market has been patently anti-consumer fraught with reducing bandwidth caps, throttling and other deleterious mechanisms.
  • TushonTushon I'm scared, Coach Alexandria, VA Icrontian
    edited Apr 2011
    Your ideal does not equal reality, papaj. Sorry coach!
  • ardichokeardichoke Icrontian
    3 year necro. Looks like a US appeals court feel that the US broadband market is so teeming with diversity that net neutrality is not needed.

    What examples did they cite to back their decision up? Google Fiber. Which is in 3 markets. Wow.

    http://bgr.com/2014/01/14/net-neutrality-court-ruling/
  • NiGHTSNiGHTS San Diego Icrontian
    A few noteworthy points from the Reddit thread on this:

    Isolated to DC area for time being
    Will probably be appealed to another district
    Will probably be appealed again to Supreme Court
    If upheld at Supreme level, it will affect country
    Findings reversed themselves within 30 pages of one another, stating that there is not enough competition for a fair market to saying that if consumers wanted another option they could use competing services
Sign In or Register to comment.

The 5¢ Tour