[TheHopFather]

$1:

Read the government's own words and tell me how this administration's plans to regulate bias in online journalism are not something to be concerned about?

That is a FTC document, the Federal Trade Commission. Title II is being implemented by the FCC, this isn't "the administration's" plan at all. ISP's were already regulated under Title II up until 1996, the world didn't end then I'm not sure what everyone is so worried about now. Is Title II perfect? No, but it is something. Ideally the government wouldn't have to regulate at all, the real problem with the US telecom scene is the lack of competition. If you didn't have a duopoly in the US these rules wouldn't be necessary however when these companies have an effective monopoly in their markets and consumers have no choice to switch providers some common sense rules need to be put into place.

Again, Title II has nothing to do with regulating the internet, or content on the internet. The rules are regulating the internet service providers by forcing them to treat all content equally. How we get from "all content is equal" to "regulating bias in online journalism" is beyond me.

[herbie]

The point I was trying to make is that the infrastructure isn't up to par everywhere. Neutrality is hard to deliver with some of the bandwidth available.
The whole Netflix argument, from the point of an ISP, is like you opening an online store and then convincing customers and lobbying gov't that Purolator should deliver for free.

[TheHopFather]

$1:

Now you tell me that's not what reclassification is and really it's just a big, fat nothing. I mean after all "Tom Wheeler himself" said nothing to see here, right?

You seem to put a lot of weight to what main stream publications are saying on this issue, I think that is a mistake. Would you feel better about a quote from ISP Sonic's CEO Dane Jasper concerning net neutrality and Title II?

Dane: I think that the more substantial risk is to the Internet and web properties, particularly new innovative web properties. If there isn't some regulation around what carriers who dominate the marketplace can do to that traffic. So that I see, the threat to the Internet is the top priority, and Brett talks about an insurmountable amount of red tape. Today, Internet service providers are required to publish for the FCC a disclosure of traffic management practices. So we publish a disclosure. I think it says we don't touch your bits. We don't modify, we don't filter, we don't engage in deep pack inspection. So, I think from a compliance perspective, if the assumption is that Title II will be by and large gutted, or rather they engage in forbearance of all provisions and begin to re-enable provisions that allow them to assure the traffic is treated equally, my expectation is those of use that treat traffic equally will have a pretty light regulatory burden.

The ITU has been trying to get greater control over ICANN for a long time now. Title II in the US has nothing to do with that. Do you understand what ICANN does? Do you know who runs ICANN right now (hint, it isn't the US government)? Even if the UN had more control over ICANN would that be a bad thing? They might create a TLD that you don't like? A .sex or a .pot perhaps? I don't see the big deal, or get your fixation on that issue. Either address net neutrality or address the UN/ITU issue, they aren't the same.

[TheHopFather]

herbie herbie:

The point I was trying to make is that the infrastructure isn't up to par everywhere. Neutrality is hard to deliver with some of the bandwidth available.
The whole Netflix argument, from the point of an ISP, is like you opening an online store and then convincing customers and lobbying gov't that Purolator should deliver for free.

Last time I checked I paid my ISP for access to the internet. I'm pretty sure that Netflix is also paying for access to the internet. So who is asking for free delivery? Without content online (CKA or Netflix for example) an ISP has no value. Who is going to pay for access to an internet without anything on it. The entire value of an ISP comes from that connection, that is it. How an ISP structures their business and pricing has nothing to do with net neutrality.

[Tyler_1]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I know I can connect my computer to my TV but how does that help? For example, if my computer is hooked up to my TV to watch a movie, can I still play something like Lord of the Rings Online on the same computer without it showing up on the TV screen instead of the movie?

0:

yes you can.jpg

[BartSimpson]

What the hell are you watching?

[Tyler_1]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

What the hell are you watching?

\
Now back on topic or who knows what.

[Zipperfish]

Shameless.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Shameless.

I assume it's a documentary on Donna's life.

[herbie]

TheHopFather TheHopFather:

herbie herbie:

The point I was trying to make is that the infrastructure isn't up to par everywhere. Neutrality is hard to deliver with some of the bandwidth available.
The whole Netflix argument, from the point of an ISP, is like you opening an online store and then convincing customers and lobbying gov't that Purolator should deliver for free.

Last time I checked I paid my ISP for access to the internet. I'm pretty sure that Netflix is also paying for access to the internet. So who is asking for free delivery? Without content online (CKA or Netflix for example) an ISP has no value. Who is going to pay for access to an internet without anything on it. The entire value of an ISP comes from that connection, that is it. How an ISP structures their business and pricing has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Then maybe I should correct it and say "convincing customers and Canada Post they should pay the same price for delivering a letter or a refridgerator"?

NetFlix built its service on the backs of someone else's delivery system and its so popular they've overwhelmed it. The fiber running into our town is saturated at peak hours, now the telco has to light up more.

[DrCaleb]

herbie herbie:

Then maybe I should correct it and say "convincing customers and Canada Post they should pay the same price for delivering a letter or a refridgerator"?

NetFlix built its service on the backs of someone else's delivery system and its so popular they've overwhelmed it. The fiber running into our town is saturated at peak hours, now the telco has to light up more.

It's not the same, delivering an envelope or a fridge. It is the same, delivering a data packet and a data packet.

But your other example is exactly why the 'net must remain neutral. There might be someone out there who has the next big idea that can replace Netflix with a cheaper, faster and less data intensive service and they must be allowed to pursue that. Until then, ISPs will have to lay more lines to augment their oversubscribed service and continue overcharging for it.

[Tricks]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I know I can connect my computer to my TV but how does that help? For example, if my computer is hooked up to my TV to watch a movie, can I still play something like Lord of the Rings Online on the same computer without it showing up on the TV screen instead of the movie?

Sure can. And if it opens on the wrong screen hold Control + Shift And hit the left and right arrows. Moves it to the next screen (assuming it's in expanded mode).

[Tricks]

TheHopFather TheHopFather:

You seem to put a lot of weight to what main stream publications are saying on this issue, I think that is a mistake.

100% this. Journalists can't get simple concepts right. Let alone anything related to technology.

[TheHopFather]

$1:

Then maybe I should correct it and say "convincing customers and Canada Post they should pay the same price for delivering a letter or a refridgerator"?

NetFlix built its service on the backs of someone else's delivery system and its so popular they've overwhelmed it. The fiber running into our town is saturated at peak hours, now the telco has to light up more.

You can tell that you used to be an ISP with a thought process like that. People pay for internet access to access things like Netflix. Without the Netflix's of the world what value would an internet connection have? If you don't have capacity to handle the traffic it is time to add more. The ISP sold me a connection, I pay for 30Mbps down (with an unnecessary data cap) and I feel that I am entitled to use it. The fact that the ISP over subscribed their lines and people are actually using what they paid for is not a good argument against net neutrality. Boo-hoo, the telco's have to provide what they are selling people, the horror.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It's not the same, delivering an envelope or a fridge. It is the same, delivering a data packet and a data packet.

But what's different is the volume of data being sent and delivered.

CKA, in the grand scheme of things, takes up little space on the net.

Netflix, OTOH, probably uses more bandwidth every second of every day than CKA uses all year.

So why should Netflix pay the same as Trevor?