Net Neutrality and our forum...

[eamarquardt]

Yup, we have the "best government" corporate money can buy.

Cheers, 73, K,

Gus

[fireaunt]

and I thought I could run to Australia to get away from the craziness

Fireaunt

[PaulC]

and I thought I could run to Australia to get away from the craziness

Fireaunt

Our telecommunication system is a direct copy of yours. I major Telco owns everything and the Govt tries to run it.

Good Hey


Cheers
Paul

[bve]

There you have it. AT&T installs equipment they now own and then they are forced to rent it to someone else for less than it costs them to install it and maintain it. No one in their right mind would go down that path and the path only exists because the "government" mandated that it be so.
(AB6KS)

Yes but it is a capital investment which gives them all kinds of ways to write off the expense. They shouldn't be recovering the WHOLE cost from wholesale competitors because THEY TOO (AT&T or any ILEC) will also generate revenue from THEIR non-wholesale consumers.

Interesting debate, started by CD, BUT at the end of the day what sort of push do you think you will have? Absolutely none, because the Govt and AT&T will negotiate a deal that looks after them. That's all they've ever done and it's all they'll do in the future. History proves it. No amount of discussion here will change what they have, probably, already agreed upon.

Cheers
Paul

Corporate governance at it's finest.

Up here in Canada, the 'spin' is it's related to traffic generated by P2P file sharing and bootlegging of copyright materials that are clogging the pipes. The simple fact is there is a whole lot of marketing plans to sell data consumption, i.e. Blackberry, iPhone, Palm Pre, IPTV, Apple TV, etc. There are HUGE dollars at stake and bandwidth consumption is growing at a much higher rate than infrastructure development.

We are facing more and more surcharges all the time - regardless of the service - in Alberta we are being charged additional fees (government approved) to upgrade the power grid. I'd like to know what ever happened to investing a portion of profits in network maintenance and upgrades. We now also have the major TV stations crying because they aren't getting their 'fair share' from the cablecos - campaigning that local TV will suffer if they don't get a larger slice of the pie from TV providers. Corporate greed is ruining the world and gov't just caters to it @#$%^.

BTW if you haven't watched The Corporation it's free for download.

[eamarquardt]

Bve wrote:
Yes but it is a capital investment which gives them all kinds of ways to write off the expense. They shouldn't be recovering the WHOLE cost from wholesale competitors because THEY TOO (AT&T or any ILEC) will also generate revenue from THEIR non-wholesale consumers.

I was an engineer, not a bean counter. Bean counters (I know cause I'm married to one) and statisticians can support virtually any conclusion they want to with logic and numbers that only they can make sense of. What I know is that we didn't have "unlimited" capital to purchase all of the equipment we would have liked to to keep the network as up to date as possible.So, if it were my business, I'd invest in equipment that I had "complete" control of versus equipment that the government could dictate who could use it and how much they'd pay to use it. Call me old fashioned or selfish but I RESENT the constant intrusion of government into our lives when we'd be better off left alone.

I get SSDI because I became to sick to be a reliable employee but I'd be much better off if I had the money that I and my employeers put into the SS system. The SS system is a bigger Ponzi Scheme than Bernie Madhoff ever dreamed of.

There you have it (again), the world according to Gus.

Cheers, 73, K,

Gus (AB6KS)

[bve]

What I know is that we didn't have "unlimited" capital to purchase all of the equipment we would have liked to to keep the network as up to date as possible.So, if it were my business, I'd invest in equipment that I had "complete" control of versus equipment that the government could dictate who could use it and how much they'd pay to use it. Call me old fashioned or selfish but I RESENT the constant intrusion of government into our lives when we'd be better off left alone.Gus (AB6KS)

In 2008 the Telecommunications industry was ranked 26 on the Fortune 500 list of most profitable industies cnn.com.
In 2009 Telecommunications is now listed as the 16th most profitable industry, and the 7th fastest growing industry.

In 2008 AT&T reported $12.8 BILLION in profit up 7.7% over 2007, exactly how much profit is enough?

No business has "unlimited" capital and I was NOT suggesting it - merely pointing out that they are not just spending, rather investing and being given tax incentives to do so, which DOES need to be considered along side what they are able to charge for use of their equipment.

The big problem with-out net-neutrality is the ability and the DESIRE to tier the service as a result - as mentioned previously - consumers will end up paying MORE - not less. Corporations do NOTHING for free, and CONSTANTLY look for ways to increase their ARPU (average revenue per unit).

Don't kid yourself, their arguments have nothing to do with their infrastructure COSTS, it has to do with INCREASING their revenues.

[eamarquardt]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I loath, hate, despise, have nothing but contempt for AT&T. ANY QUESTIONS!!!!! After becoming too ill to work every day I was "forced" to utilize the benefits I'd worked for and had been promised! AT&T's (and Sedgwick CMS the plan administrator) goal of defrauding me of the money owed me became increasingly clear over time. They eventually did fabricate an excuse and terminated my benefits cheating out of enough money to pay for my two son's college educations (and we're doing it on the cheap!). If AT&T is willing to defraud their sick and disabled employees, they'll (IMHO) cheat ANYONE!!! Any questions as to how I feel and what I think about their honesty, ha!

I don't belive a word they or the government says. My comments are based upon my (and the experience of other telecommunications engineers representing well over 100 years of service) knowledge of networks and how they function.

If you overload a net, it will go "belly up" and no one will go or get anywhere. So, we (the human race) better get together and figure out a solution (just like global warming) before the net/world does go "belly up".

As Mark Twain said: "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."

And Honest Abe said: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"

Maybe I'm speaking out too much, but I also harbor no illusions, we're not going to solve a thing here, but I've tried to share that I beleive the real issue is MONEY and not simply as related to steering people towards or away from websites but compensation for traffic transport.

By the way, I "retired" (disability) in 2002 and SBC had only recently purchased Pacific Telesis and not yet purchased AT&T which were good companies to work for. SBC is EVIL, undid a lot of good things that were being done, does not (IMHO) care about maintaining the network health (I know that they aren't paying attention to detail as I was the only one that understood how to review certain circuits for redundancy in the LA area and when I left, no one asked me how to do it or requested the records I had amassed to facilitate the reviews so I can only conclude it AINT bein done no more, no more).

Cheers, 73, K,

Gus

[caseydog]

My concern is what has happened in China. The government controls the media. If I remember correctly, while the Tenamen Sq. uprising was happening people were able to get outside information on the web even though the government was not allowing reports about the events. Since then the government has now put content controls in place. To market to China, Microsoft had to include the software filters for the government to shut down info they don't like. I don't want the government to control any of it. I think people are resourceful enough to deal with connections and they should pay or some smart person will figure out how to do it better. Maybe Netflix needs to stay with CDs and postage or "charge and pay" for the net delivery they are using at a relatively free rate.

just my 2 cents

Fireaunt

Whoa. Net Neutrality is not about government "controlling" what we can and can not access. It is the opposite -- it is to ensure an internet that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as long as the use of the network is not for something illegal, of course.

CD

[caseydog]

I think what is being lost in all this discussion is how the FCCs Net Neutrality efforts and the opposing "Internet Freedom Act" (why does every piece of legislation include the word "freedom" these days) effect each of us.

Since the ISPs support the "freedom" bill, one can assume that it will be good for them. But, would it be good for us?

Yes, there is the potential for a broadband "crisis" in the future without more investment in more and better technologies. But, do we have to give up our consumer protections in order for the industry to afford this investment?

As a consumer, do I mind paying extra for extra bandwidth (faster connection)? No.

As a consumer, do I want to have ISPs to control where I go once I am on the internet? No.

As a mac user, I don't want to see a marketplace where Microsoft owns the top ISPs, and they won't let macs connect.

As a member of this forum, I don't want my bandwidth choked when I visit this forum, because Mike didn't pay my ISP for faster services.

As a consumer, I don't want my ISP to partner with Yahoo, and choke my connection to Google.

Look at both sides, and think about the effects of them on you as a consumer.

CD

[eamarquardt]

I dunno, but ask yourself: Am I better off now than I was before the breakup of the Bell System. Do I have more choices for telephone service, is the service better or worse than it used to be, and is cost of telephone service (adjusted for inflation) more or less than it used to be.

There are some lessons to be learned from opening up the playing field and keeping it somewhat level. But I'm going to keep quiet and let you decide for yourself.

Cheers, 73, K,

Gus

[bve]

I think what is being lost in all this discussion is how the FCCs Net Neutrality efforts and the opposing "Internet Freedom Act" (why does every piece of legislation include the word "freedom" these days) effect each of us.

Since the ISPs support the "freedom" bill, one can assume that it will be good for them. But, would it be good for us?

Yes, there is the potential for a broadband "crisis" in the future without more investment in more and better technologies. But, do we have to give up our consumer protections in order for the industry to afford this investment?

As a consumer, do I mind paying extra for extra bandwidth (faster connection)? No.

As a consumer, do I want to have ISPs to control where I go once I am on the internet? No.

As a mac user, I don't want to see a marketplace where Microsoft owns the top ISPs, and they won't let macs connect.

As a member of this forum, I don't want my bandwidth choked when I visit this forum, because Mike didn't pay my ISP for faster services.

As a consumer, I don't want my ISP to partner with Yahoo, and choke my connection to Google.

Look at both sides, and think about the effects of them on you as a consumer.

CD

Well stated, however in Canada our CRTC (equivalent to the FCC) tends to side with providers more often than not - thus my frustration with government - they have already approved measures to some extent which allow ISP/Telcos to impose traffic shaping and throttling.

Here is a good visual from Gizmodo to punch home the consumer implications possible with the loss of net-neutrality.

I dunno, but ask yourself: Am I better off now than I was before the breakup of the Bell System. Do I have more choices for telephone service, is the service better or worse than it used to be, and is cost of telephone service (adjusted for inflation) more or less than it used to be.

Gus - POTS service is a poor analogy in this case - this is not about choice of provider - it is about content delivery fees akin to those in Cable TV. You can still call anywhere in the world using POTS for roughly what it used to be - however internet services like Skype which are FREE and allow you to 'call' anywhere in the world will become 'pay per view' like services without net-neutrality.

How will you feel if our friends from overseas like Heikki or PaulC are no longer able to connect to T&TTT because the access to North American content is too cost prohibitive for their ISP's (not a likely scenario, however not out of the realm of possibilities) if net-neutrality goes away.

[eamarquardt]

Hi again. My point is that phone service is CHEAP today after competition was turned loose in spite of some unfair government rules. As a teenager I had a GF that lived 38 miles away. Once had a $5 phone call (when $5 would buy over 20 gallons of gasoline here in So. Cal. home of the original freeways!!!). Today for the amount of money that will buy the same 20 gallons of gasoline, I get service, lots of vertical services (voicemail, call waiting, caller id, etc) unlimited long distance (including Canada, I think), and DSL!!! I wish the price of gasoline had behaved as the price of telecommunications.

In addition to POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service for those outside the industry-really that's the acronym) I have voicemail, caller id, etc, etc, etc.....(to quote the King of Siam-by the way I just downloaded a song for a friend in Thailand and emailed it to him!!!!!!! as Amazon won't do business in Thailand, he now owes me $.99 and I warned him not to leave the country, I digress).

All I'm saying (I do not support service providers indiscriminately restricting traffic) is that if the playing field is not level and fair, ie: you should pay for what you get (little and big customer alike) and if big users are not shouldering their fair share of the cost, we, the little guys, are going to suffer.

The networks are ENGINEERED for a certain traffic flow. Phone companies have ALWAYS (well, recent history) had the ability to limit the service of those who were disrupting the network (call shows, telemarketers, telethons, in effect all out of the ordinary high traffic generators) because these "customers" could adversely affect the network and ultimately deny service to all of us. Some of the restrictions/choking/redirections now taking place are NOTHING NEW and probaby aimed at network preservation (though as we know the service providers do have THEIR best interests at heart).

Being a capitalist at heart, I feel you ought to pay for what you are getting. I think that I pay a fair amount for my DSL service that I use for just poking around on the net. Say, the 50 page downloads a day as I mentioned earlier. Now, should I create a website that generates 8.6 million page loads a day (again based upon my earlier example), I think that my provider ought to be able to charge me more for all of the traffic they are now transporting for ME. Net neutrality has nothing to do with it. However, should I be hogging the resources to the point others who are paying just as much as I am, downloading 50 pages a day, and now have degraded or no service because of my activities, I don't think they will feel that they are getting a fair shake and I'd agree with them. The logic I'm hearing others argue is that they are paying for 10 jigabyte service (although the network is engineered for them to really only use it a fraction of the time), they should be able to blaze away at 10 jigabytes/second 24/7 for what they are paying now. I DON'T agree. Look at some companies that sell server service. They charge for how many downloads/pages or however they measure the traffic your site generates, regardless of the speed of the downloads.

So, I don't think service providers should be limiting traffic to point customers to certain businesses, but, if a business is adversely affecting the net as a whole, if it isn't addressed, we'll all suffer and no one will get service.

Those are the FACTS that network engineering realities dictate.

Call it "net neutrality" or whatever but we're really talking two different issues that are interwoven and the public isn't (IMHO) getting all of the facts. All camps are distorting the realities to push their agenda.

There you have it AGAIN, the world according to Gus.

Cheers, 73, K,

Gus

[robertaw]

Interesting debate, started by CD, BUT at the end of the day what sort of push do you think you will have? Absolutely none, because the Govt and AT&T will negotiate a deal that looks after them. That's all they've ever done and it's all they'll do in the future. History proves it. No amount of discussion here will change what they have, probably, already agreed upon.

Ditto!

I already pay nearly $100 a month for crappy internet that cuts me off for 24 hours if I actually use it for more than just browsing - Hughes Net - It's the only high speed I can get in the boonies. I hope things don't get worse!