[tallscot]

If this trend continues, the entire internet will look like a passenger plane -- with a few web sites in "first class" and the rest of us crammed together in the coach section.
What trend are you talking about? Is there a trend here I'm missing?

[tallscot]

'd say that, at least in principle, compelling the companies that actually manage internet not to discriminate among packets on the basis of their origin and contents is more like enforcing laws against racial discrimination than advocating over-regulation.
That's hyperbole. Racism has nothing to do with this at all. I have DirectTV and I don't have every single channel that exists, right? Is that discrimination or is that a private company offering me a service that I have choosen to subscribe to?
All we need the government to do is to make sure there are no anti-competitive barriers in place. If you have adequate choice, the market will take care of it. If Yahoo/SBC starts restricting content to its customers, their customers will flee to another company. If there are no other companies to choose from because of laws, those laws need to be eliminated/changed.

[jmincey]

"Is there a trend here I'm missing?"
Yes, it's the trend emerging whereby telecom companies, whether in the US, Italy, or elsewhere, are seeking to establish two tiers of internet service at different rates/fees.

[tallscot]

Yes, it's the trend emerging whereby telecom companies, whether in the US, Italy, or elesewhere, are seeking to establish two tiers of internet service at different rates/fees.
You said if this trend continues. I don't see a trend. I see people who are saying the sky is falling, but I see no evidence.
Is there a single company in the USA that is restricting access to certain Web sites that refuse to pay them a fee?
If Yahoo/SBC DSL starts restricting my access, do I not have the choice to go with another company?
Are you consistent and think that Apple should be forced to open their DRM to other companies in France and other places where the government is trying to do what you are advocating here?

[jmincey]

"I don't see a trend."
There is an increasing number of telecom companies which are trying to change their policy vis-a-vis access to the internet (and the performance thereof). The key words here are increasing and change. The fact that this represents a change from the past AND that an increasing number of parties are coming down in favor of this change would seem to me to meet the definition of a trend.
The question as to whether companies have yet implemented this policy change is secondary to the reality that they do in fact advocate it and are seeking to put it in place -- provided no legislation prohibits it.
"If Yahoo/SBC DSL starts restricting my access, do I not have the choice to go with another company?"
Your going with another company won't matter. All the web sites accessible only via a given company's network will be subject to the two-tiered approach. Even if you personally don't use those companies as your ISP, it doesn't mean you don't at times access their networks, depending on the web sites you visit. So to one degree or the other, this will affect everyone, and the free market (so called) won't save us this time.

[tallscot]

There is an increasing number of telecom companies which are trying to change their policy
Ah, so it's your opinion that some companies are thinking about changing their business model and you call that a trend.
So the trend you are talking about is not action, but thought. There is a trend of companies thinking about changing their business model on the Internet.
Your going with another company won't matter. All the web sites accessible only via a given company's network will be subject to the two-tiered approach.
Which Web sites are only accessible via a single company? Again, be specific here. Don't talk theory.

[tallscot]

As such, it should not reside in the hands of any single entity -- whether a single government or a single corporation.
That's impossible.
The internet should be a level playing field.
But there are people with broadband and people who don't have broadband. There are people with broadband but have slower speeds than others. What does "level playing field" mean? That's just the typical rhetoric I hear from people advocating quotas, $10 minimum wages, etc.
The internet should be a level playing field. Quick and easy access to a specific web site should be determined by the merits of the web site and not by back-room deals. National governments are the only parties which can ensure this.
I respectfully disagree.
How much did long distance cost 30 years ago, before the government stopped regulating it? It was many times more expensive. How many phones did you have to choose from during government regulation? Two? How many companies could you choose from? One?
It was after deregulation that choice exploded and prices went down.
What's best for private corporations is not synonymous with what's best for the internet, and thus some provision has to be made to safeguard the integrity of this important resource.
Private companies compete for the customer's business. The government's job is to make sure there is adequate competition and no barriers for other companies to enter the market.
And while Americans worship the idea that the free market solves all problems, the rest of the civilized world has moved beyond this discredited notion that the random, self-motivated actions of individual profit interests just happens in the aggregate to coincide with what is best for all.
Yeah, socialism works great. What's the unemployment rate in Spain, Germany, France? LOL!
As both a consumer and a service provider on the internet, I want equal access to sites across the board. This has served us well all these years and I see no reason to tamper with this success.
No, you are wrong. It wasn't like this "all these years". It use to be regulated by the government and you had little choice, poor service, and higher costs. The government deregulated telecom and now you have a lot more choice, better service, and lower prices.
So now that American corporations (predictably) want to do for the internet what unfetterred laissez-faire capitalism has done for America as a whole -- to wit, turn it into a landscape of haves and have nots -- I advocate that oversight of the internet lie in the hands of a multi-national body which has no economic vested interest in it nor any monolithic political agenda, (because of its multi-national composition). This way neither would a single corporation, industry, or government exert undue sway.
Sure, the United Nations has no political agenda. LOL!!!! The United Nations as effective. LOL!!!!
You think there aren't haves and have-nots in France, India, China, Cuba?!!! LOL!!
Jeff, the United States' poor live better, on average, than the average German or French and in some areas, the Brit. In fact, numerous government reports indicate that most "poor" Americans today are better housed, better fed, and own more personal property than average Americans throughout most of this century. Today, inflation-adjusted expenditures per person among the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the average American household in the early 1970s.
http://www.heritage....fare/BG1221.cfm
Facts about what the 2000 U.S. census classified poor:
In 1995, 41 percent of all "poor" households owned their own homes (a greater number than the average German/French -- not considered poor).
The average home owned by a person classified as "poor" has three bedrooms, one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Over three-quarters of a million "poor" persons own homes worth over $150,000; and nearly 200,000 "poor" persons own homes worth over $300,000.
Only 7.5 percent of "poor" households are overcrowded. Nearly 60 percent have two or more rooms per person.
The average "poor" American has one-third more living space than the average Japanese does and four times as much living space as the average Russian. 2
Seventy percent of "poor" households own a car; 27 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent have a color television. Nearly half own two or more televisions.
Nearly three-quarters have a VCR; more than one in five has two VCRs.
Two-thirds of "poor" households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Sixty-four percent of the "poor" own microwave ovens, half have a stereo system, and over a quarter have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, the "poor" are far from being chronically hungry and malnourished. In fact, poor persons are more likely to be overweight than are middle-class persons. Nearly half of poor adult women are overweight.
Despite frequent charges of widespread hunger in the United States, 84 percent of the "poor" report their families have "enough" food to eat; 13 percent state they "sometimes" do not have enough to eat, and 3 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.
The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms.
Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes that are 100 percent above recommended levels.
Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, growing up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

[jmincey]

"So the trend you are talking about is not action, but thought."
So what? It's still a trend. But actually, no, you have it wrong. It's not about thought; it's about plans. The trend is that an increasing number of companies are making PLANS for a tiered internet.
"Which Web sites are only accessible via a single company? Again, be specific here. Don't talk theory."
It's not theory. Have you already forgotten that less than a year ago a spat between a couple corporations resulted in denying to huge blocks of people access to certain web sites? This idea that the internet is fault-tolerant and full of redundancies is not true anymore -- at least not to the degree it once was. Today certain communications companies control big slices of the internet pie.
"there are people with broadband and people who don't have broadband. There are people with broadband but have slower speeds than others. What does "level playing field" mean? That's just the typical rhetoric I hear from people advocating quotas, $10 minimum wages, etc."
Don't play dumb. I think you know that level playing field means that if you have broadband and live in Denver and I have the same broadband and also live in Denver, then we should be able to have equal access to the FULL web. It also means that if you put up a web site and I put up a web site -- all variables being equal (such as web host, server architecture, load, pipes, etc) -- then the access of our web sites to visitors should be equal and should NOT be based on which of us pays an extra fee.
"Private companies compete for the customer's business. The government's job is to make sure there is adequate competition and no barriers for other companies to enter the market."
The problem with this mantra is that Americans apply it across the board. The internet is a global utility. Think of a sewer system. It's a network of pipes and it is a utility which all citizens rely on. If we parcel out sections of the pipes to individual corporations, and give no concern for how all the pipes together operate as a system, then it would quickly be unworkable. Competition and the free market are not solutions for everything.
Or imagine if we turned oversight of US freeway system over to private corporations.
I know the American right thinks the solution to all problems is to privatize them. Corporations can do no wrong and governments can do no right -- or so the thinking goes. But human nature, ego, turf wars, empire building, politics, bureaucracy, complacency, etc. don't disappear simply because an organization is structured as a corporate entity in contrast with any other kind of entity.
"Yeah, socialism works great."
I know that to your ears anything other than unregulated capitalism is socialism, but you need to parse the issue more finely. Capitalism is never practiced in its pure, laissez-faire form. It always carries at least some regulation. Arguing that corporations should not be allowed to do whatever they want is not equivalent to advocating socialism. (Not to mention that at certain periods capitalism has produced very high unemployment rates anyway -- if that is to be your measure.)
"The government deregulated telecom and now you have a lot more choice, better service, and lower prices."
Actually, the median prices went up, and at least for cable companies the choices for consumers have been reduced. The only thing that saves us right now is VoIP and the lower prices it offers -- but don't the telecoms just love running to government to bail them out if they see a competitive threat on the horizon. Companies don't want governments to regulate them but they certainly want government to regulate their competition. Can we spell hypocrisy?
"Sure, the United Nations has no political agenda. LOL!!!! The United Nations as effective. LOL!!!!"
Who said anything about the United Nations?

[tallscot]

Again, you think the government should step in in regards to Apple's DRM?
The trend is that an increasing number of companies are making PLANS for a tiered internet.
Proof?
have you already forgotten that less than a year ago a spat between a couple corporations resulted in denying to huge blocks of people access to certain web sites?
Maybe I have, or maybe I didn't read about it. Which companies denied access to which Web sites? And you are saying that those people who were denied access weren't customers of the companies?
Today certain communications companies control big slices of the internet pie.
Define "control" for me.
Also, if Company A spent millions on land rights, digging lines across America (Sprint), it's their network. If Company B wants a network like that, they have to buy time on Company A's network or build their own network.
If the government is going to regulate it, they should build a public network and regulate that, like the sewers.
Don't play dumb. I think you know that level playing field means that if you have broadband and live in Denver and I have the same broadband and also live in Denver, then we should be able to have equal access to the FULL web.
The same is the same.
But today, I can pay more to get faster broadband than you. I can pay more to get more channels of TV, BTW.
It also means that if you put up a web site and I put up a web site -- all variables being equal (such as web host, server architecture, load, pipes, etc) -- then the access of our web sites to visitors should be equal and should NOT be based on which of us pays an extra fee.
But all things are not equal. I guarantee you that Nike's Web site gets a lot more exposure than my Web site, today. Should we pass a law that says Yahoo can't charge to have Nike show up at the top of the list? Should we pass a law that all Web sites be treated the same by search engines?
Slippery slope.
The problem with this mantra is that Americans apply it across the board.
No, the problem is you keep making sweeping generalizations.
The internet is a global utility.
But not a public utility.
Think of a sewer system. It's a network of pipes and it is a utility which all citizens rely on.
That's a public utility, paid for by the tax payers.
Sprint's network was built by Sprint, with their dollars.
If we parcel out sections of the pipes to individual corporations, and give no concern for how all the pipes together operate as a system, then it would quickly be unworkable.
Hogwash. We have standards. With your logic, nobody using computers can communicate with each other or use each other's documents. Gosh, how do we email each other and chat with each other if the government didn't create it like the sewer system?
Or imagine if we turned oversight of US freeway system over to private corporations.
And yet private corporations oversee the Internet and not the government.
I know the American right thinks the solution to all problems is to privatize them
And the American left thinks the solution is to have the government fix it. What have they fixed again? Poverty? No. Education? No. Hmmm. Immigration? No. I'm sure there's something the government oversees well.
But human nature, ego, turf wars, empire building, politics, bureaucracy, complacency, etc. don't disappear simply because an organization is structured as a corporate entity in contrast with any other kind of entity.
And the government's role is to make sure there are no barriers for entry into a market place, that there is no anti-competitive behavior. They did really well with Microsoft, didn't they? Humpf!
I know that to your ears anything other than unregulated capitalism is socialism
No, what you are proposing with the whole "haves and have-nots" is socialism.
I know that to your ears anything other than unregulated capitalism is socialism
No, to my ears having the government dictate to private companies how they use their private networks is socialism/fascism.
You do realize that DirecTV isn't even allowed to offer their service in Canada, right? That their government dictates how much a doctor and nurse can make, right? (which is why they have a shortage because many move to the USA).
That's the government dictating to private organizations. The government building sewers and then charging me for the use of their sewers is public.
Not to mention that at certain periods capitalism has produced very high unemployment rates anyway -- if that is to be your measure
No, my measure would be compared to socialism.
Actually, prices went up and at least for cable companies the choices have been reduced.
Cable TV isn't fully deregulated yet. There is local regulation and state regulation too.
Your phone rates have gone down. You have more choice for phone service than you do before deregulation.
Companies don't want governments to regulate them but they certainly want government to regulate their competition. Can we spell hypocrisy?
Apple, Microsoft...backers of the Net Neutrality Bill, but neither want the government to step in in regards to Apple's DRM or Microsoft's document formats. What's your point?
Who said anything about the United Nations?
I just did in response to your "I advocate that oversight of the internet lie in the hands of a multi-national body which has no economic vested interest in it nor any monolithic political agenda".
There is no such thing as a multi-national body that has no economic vested interest or political agenda. Seriously, let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya and ignore reality and just keep repeating the same mistakes over and over...

[debohun]

>>So now that American corporations (predictably) want to do for the internet what unfettered laissez-faire capitalism has done for America as a whole...<<
What an incredibly naive statement, there hasn't ever been "unfettered laissez-fair capitalism" in America, and not even anything close to it, for say, at least the last 80 years. This has nothing to do with capitalism, and everything to do with corrupt government, corrupt (and stupid) voters who provide the government efficacy, corrupt businessmen, and the very immoral concept of incorporation--all of which receives equal amounts of support from both the ruling parties.
Put the blame on Mame, not some bogeyman that hasn't been seen anywhere on the planet since before the Chinese reclaimed Hong Kong.

[jmincey]

"...you think the government should step in in regards to Apple's DRM?"
Not yet, but I don't rule out the possibility and I'm not reflexively opposed to it.
"Proof?"
You know, if this were an issue several years old, I might do some research and present you with a few URLs. But this issue is hot and current and I'm not your personal news service. The web and newspapers across the US are full of articles about how telecoms are positioning themselves to provide tiered service. Google it if you are interested.
"Which companies denied access to which Web sites? And you are saying that those people who were denied access weren't customers of the companies?"
I don't remember the names of the companies -- I might perform a search for it after dinner later tonight. But as to your second question, yes, even those who were not customers were affected. Also, you should realize that these network companies have ISPs as customers. This isn't something that ordinary consumers can opt out of.
"Define 'control' for me."
After I've just pointed out how only in the last year two bickering network companies pulled the plug on a large number of internet users, you want me to define control?
"Should we pass a law that says Yahoo can't charge to have Nike show up at the top of the list? Should we pass a law that all Web sites be treated the same by search engines?"
Probably not -- but that's a different kettle of fish. I don't propose that we apply the same standard to service/content providers that we apply to the infrastructure of the internet itself.
"And yet private corporations oversee the Internet and not the government."
This statement is too broad. ICANN is not a private corporation, for example. But private corporations DO oversee the internet backbone and network -- and I find that very problematic.

[tallscot]

Not yet
Why not? One company controls the legally downloaded music market and the portable music player market. We should "level the playing field", right?
The web and newspapers across the US are full of articles about how telecoms are positioning themselves to provide tiered service.
Then it should be easy for you to prove your point to me. I'm not going to prove your points, you have to do that.
Where's that trend?'
After I've just pointed out how only in the last year two bickering network companies pulled the plug on a large number of internet users, you want me to define control?
Yes. You have yet to explain anything with evidence.
I don't propose that we apply the same standard to service/content providers that we apply to the infrastructure of the internet itself.
And you have yet to prove to me that a) the infrastructure is public, or b) one company controls the infrastructure, which is the basis of your position.
This statement is too broad. ICANN is not a private corporation
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is a corporation and private. Your mistake is you are assuming non-profit means it's government. It's not government. It's private.
But private corporations DO oversee the internet backbone and network -- and I find that very problematic.
I don't. They oversee the Web standards so we can communicate with each other, standards-based media like MPEG and H.264, etc. There isn't a problem. You think there may be a problem because you say some companies are thinking about changing their business model. You have yet to explain how they will do this and affect everyone so that we won't have the ability to go to another provider.
What's funny about your position is in your first post you talk about how the government is bought, so I don't have a clue why you still think the government is the answer. You want a multi-national body to regulate the Internet ignoring the fact that the United Nations is blatantly corrupt, which is evidence that regulation from a multi-national body isn't the answer either.
There is no problem, and if there ever is a problem, the only answer is not the government. (OT -This is where we right-wingers clash with lefties -- lefties say right-wingers don't want to help the poor. That's not true, we just don't think the government is the best solution. Private organizations like Goodwill, United Way, Red Cross, The Salvation Army do a lot more than the government and the government has spent billions on a war on poverty and the poverty rate is basically unchanged since The Great Society was created.)

[RichardBronosky]

In reply to:

---

turn it into a landscape of haves and have nots

---

You are forgetting about the "dos and do nots".
Most of the "haves", like myself are "had not, had child, had too much pride to use food stamps, taught child to do, the child did, the child didn't get anyone pregnant, now the child is a have, now the child is expecting his first child in January, someday he hopes to pass on this knowledge and some of his haves to the child without people hating them both and calling them privileged."-s
It's much funnier when you pronounce the "s" on the end. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[RichardBronosky]

In reply to:

---

two tiers of Internet service at different rates/fees.

---

Many DSL providers offer 4 or more tiers. It is viewed by the customers as a feature! They say, "I don't need the 8Meg service that the Cable company charges so much for, I'm going to pay much less for the DSL-Lite" Is this bad for the consumer?
If the DSL company wants to use a CD-less install kit, but does not want the DSL-lite customer to have to wait hours for the download, is it hurting the consumer if the provider throttles up the connection to full speed for the 650MB download?
If Apple wants to start offering full HD downloads of shows via iTunes, the DSL-Lite users won't (easily) have access to it. If Apple chooses to subsidize the cost of 3 minutes worth of the difference between DSL-Lite and DSL-Grande so that the DSL-Lite users can be potential customers (which would allow Apple to go HD many years earlier), has the consumer been defecated upon?
If Ultimate Fighting Championship decides to stop using Pay-Per-View and offer title fights exclusively via Real-Time High-Definition Web Streaming, they will need more bandwidth than consumers currently have access to today. The Internet providers cannot offer this high speed throughput to all users at all times. The infrastructure is not ready for it. But with the money they would save by not going through Pay-Per-View, UFC could finance the transmission, and help finance the way for faster speeds for all in the future. If this happens, have the consumers had their elbows broken in a proverbial arm bar?
Just for the record I was in favor of "Net Neutrality", but when we fail to see both sides of the argument we expose ourselves as hateful, uninformed, and irrelevant.