Welcome to the Lounge

User 84207-Dec-17 6:31

7-Dec-17 6:31

Considering the current Net neutrality rules were not in effect when Facebook and Twitter were born and became giants I'm not sure how you can be so sure. Seems like we're doing a little "Minority Report" here, no?

Jörgen Andersson7-Dec-17 7:04

7-Dec-17 7:04

No, it's simply because they have enough money.
Comcast vs Netflix has already shown the way.
They want to charge at both ends.

A better solution would be to charge the enduser per GB, but that won't happen.

Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello

User 84207-Dec-17 7:34

7-Dec-17 7:34

Jörgen Andersson wrote:
No, it's simply because they have enough money.

I'm confused. When Twitter and Facebook first started they were poor start-ups - no different from today's start-ups. At the time there were no Net neutrality rules... yet they thrived. IMHO it's silly to claim that start-ups cannot compete without these rules.

Richard Deeming7-Dec-17 9:15

7-Dec-17 9:15

Before the internet, computers didn't get regular security updates, and they survived. So why do we need them now? Roll eyes | :rolleyes:

"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer

User 84208-Dec-17 2:35

8-Dec-17 2:35

False comparison and it's also untrue.

Untrue because we did need regular security updates before the internet. Viruses and hacks existed before the internet - they spread via internal networks, floppy disks, etc...

False comparison because hackers are criminals while US based ISP's are legal companies operating in a free market economy.

Personally I'd prefer my government keep it's hands out of things and let the free market do its magic until it's actually proven that regulation is required.

Richard Deeming8-Dec-17 3:02

8-Dec-17 3:02

OK, clear something up for me.

Do you believe that ISPs were doing the kind of blocking/throttling that's forbidden by Net Neutrality laws before those laws were introduced, and that poor start-ups like Facebook and Twitter thrived despite that?

Or do you believe that the ISPs who are spending a lot of time and money campaigning to revoke Net Neutrality laws are not intending to do that kind of blocking/throttling once the laws are revoked?

"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer

User 84208-Dec-17 3:28

8-Dec-17 3:28

Richard Deeming wrote:
Do you believe that ISPs were doing the kind of blocking/throttling that's forbidden by Net Neutrality laws before those laws were introduced, and that poor start-ups like Facebook and Twitter thrived despite that?

I believe that ISPs will have no need or desire to block / throttle small start-up traffic because it will be inconsequential. I believe the folks pushing that story are fear mongering.

Richard Deeming wrote:
Or do you believe that the ISPs who are spending a lot of time and money campaigning to revoke Net Neutrality laws are not intending to do that kind of blocking/throttling once the laws are revoked?

I believe that I'd like the free market economy to be given a chance to deal with any issues before involving the government. ISPs may do any number of things, but unlike the government which can hide their actions in red tape the tech community will be able to "out" any ISP blocking / throttling quite easily and businesses & the public will be able to take their ISP business elsewhere or shame the ISP in the court of public opinion.

I believe that western societies are fast becoming nanny states that want their governments to cater to their every whim and I believe that this in itself is detrimental to our long term success.

Richard Deeming8-Dec-17 3:45

Are you aware? Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of ... - Xfinity Help and Support Forums[^]

8-Dec-17 3:45

Mike Mullikin wrote:
I believe that ISPs will have no need or desire to block / throttle small start-up traffic because it will be inconsequential.

That's a very optimistic view.

I believe it's highly unlikely they would be campaigning to have the laws revoked if they weren't planning on doing things that are currently forbidden by those laws.

And the concern is not so much about throttling traffic to small sites, but the idea that they might start charging sites to be included in their standard bundle, as cable TV providers do. In which case, only the large sites would be able to afford to pay, and most users wouldn't be able to access the smaller sites. Only those who paid for the "unlimited" bundle would be able to reach beyond the ISP's walled garden.

But as you say, that's just speculation. I'm sure the accountants aren't currently rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of gouging both ends of the pipe for extra cash.

I mean, it's not like large ISPs can't be trusted, right? Roll eyes | :rolleyes:

"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer

User 84208-Dec-17 3:52

8-Dec-17 3:52

Richard Deeming wrote:
I mean, it's not like large ISPs can't be trusted, right?

I personally can change my ISP or drop internet service all together if my ISP gets out of line. Much more difficult (ie. almost impossible) for me personally to change my government.

I trust neither...

Richard Deeming8-Dec-17 4:02

8-Dec-17 4:02

Mike Mullikin wrote:
I personally can change my ISP or drop internet service all together if my ISP gets out of line.

Maybe I've misunderstood, but I got the impression that large parts of the USA don't have that choice; that there's only a single ISP serving each area. Confused | :confused:

Of course, dropping internet service would still be possible. But I suspect many of the younger generation would rather put up with a crappy ISP than go off-line. How would they ever find out what idiotic things their friends have been doing if they couldn't poke them on TwitFaceGram? Laugh | :laugh:

Mike Mullikin wrote:
I trust neither...

A wise decision. Thumbs Up | :thumbsup:

"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer

User 84208-Dec-17 4:17

8-Dec-17 4:17

Richard Deeming wrote:
large parts of the USA don't have that choice; that there's only a single ISP serving each area.

Geographically... yes. Population wise... no. Look at a population map of the US and you see huge concentrations in the cities and along the coasts. It's common to have high speed internet from cable TV providers, telephone providers and independent ISPs in these areas. Google Fiber is expanding to many of the big cities and will continue to do so. If you live in rural Idaho you're probably f***ed.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see Net neutrality as a non-issue. I just prefer we let it play out a bit more before jumping to conclusions and involving the government.

One last point: When (if ever) was the last time you said "Wow! The government did a great job on this. Really nailed it. Exceeded my expectations!" For me the answer is never... not once in 54 years. Yet once or twice a year I can say it about some product or service I buy from a business.

Richard Deeming8-Dec-17 4:51

8-Dec-17 4:51

Mike Mullikin wrote:
When (if ever) was the last time you said "Wow! The government did a great job on this. Really nailed it. Exceeded my expectations!"

Have you seen the omnishambles that claims to be the UK government these days? Laugh | :laugh:

Never mind a brewery - this lot couldn't organize a piss-up in a beer festival!

"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer

Jörgen Andersson7-Dec-17 10:05

7-Dec-17 10:05

Net neutrality is what we mostly have now, you pay for your connection (and speed) and the ISP has nothing to say about what you do on the net.
This is part reason why small startups can quickly thrive.

Some ISPs, (read the large ones having local defacto monopolies) want to charge money at both ends, and will effectively control what you do or watch if there is no net neutrality. Imagine that your ISP has political opinions and they set the cost differently for CNN or Fox and you end up on the wrong end of your own opinions.

It would be a bit going back to the walled garden of Compuserve if you remember them, but a lot worse.

Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello

User 84208-Dec-17 2:38

8-Dec-17 2:38

All very scary and all very hypothetical.

I'd much prefer we let the free market have a chance before we let the heavy hand of government (which can also show blatant bias) control the internet.

Jörgen Andersson8-Dec-17 4:25

8-Dec-17 4:25

That's assuming you have a free market. But you hardly have a selection of cable companies to choose from do you?

Do you remember why AT&T we're split up in 11 parts where the most important part was to split service providers from cable providers?

The reason was and still is that the market doesn't work on monopolies.

The cable companies only task is to provide profits to the owners.

Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello

User 84208-Dec-17 4:35

8-Dec-17 4:35

Jörgen Andersson wrote:
But you hardly have a selection of cable companies to choose from do you?

We're not talking about cable TV - we're talking about ISPs and most American's have choices (from Cable TV providers, wired telephone providers, cellular providers, independent providers, Google Fiber, etc...).

Jörgen Andersson wrote:
Do you remember why AT&T we're split up in 11 parts where the most important part was to split service providers from cable providers?

1) They also de-regulated them because government regulation usually sucks.
2) Over the years nearly all the "baby Bells" have merged back together without a fight from the government or the public.

Jörgen Andersson wrote:
The cable companies only task is to provide profits to the owners.

And they can do that best by providing superior service to their customers rather than working under a government yoke.

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

Jörgen Andersson8-Dec-17 8:53

8-Dec-17 8:53

I'm ok with that.
I have personally really bad experience with companies ending up in monopoly situations, so I'm a bit less optimistic.

Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello

Nathan Minier8-Dec-17 1:55

Nathan Minier

8-Dec-17 1:55

No, companies with a large capital base will lock down services on the cloud side of the business and that will be that. The ONLY internet you'll see is the one approved by the telecom industry, which means those who pay, and FB is certainly one that could, so would.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli

User 84208-Dec-17 2:47

8-Dec-17 2:47

Scary... but only hypothetical.

I prefer we let the free market have a chance before involving a government that is already too involved in our lives. Government regulation has its place but not every place and not all the time.

Nathan Minier8-Dec-17 3:38

Nathan Minier

8-Dec-17 3:38

I agree, but in this case these are things that have already been attempted by telecom as far back as 2004, which is why those regulations exist today and have existed since that time. These concepts are not hypothetical, but rooted in historic challenges to those regulations.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli

User 84208-Dec-17 3:55

8-Dec-17 3:55

I just don't believe we (our budding nanny state) gave the free market economy enough time to sort things out.

History also proves that government regulation can strangle growth and innovation.