1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!
    Dismiss Notice

Net Neutrality -- the wolves are circling

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by John Varela, Apr 14, 2010.

  1. John Varela

    John Varela Guest

    On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:26:33 UTC, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

    > It would be at best sophomoric and at worst patronizing to stop by here and
    > "tell you" you how important the Internet is to our economy and political
    > culture now.
    > But when you're talking about almost 200 billion emails sent each day and
    > more than $3 trillion in e-commerce a year ago, it's more than clear we've
    > just scratched the surface of what the Internet can do, both as a platform
    > for commerce and discourse.


    It seems reasonable to me that people who use a lot of bandwidth
    should pay more than people who only use a little bit of bandwidth.
    But maybe I don't understand the issues.

    --
    John Varela
     



    › See More: Net Neutrality -- the wolves are circling
  2. From: "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net>

    | On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:26:33 UTC, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

    >> It would be at best sophomoric and at worst patronizing to stop by here and
    >> "tell you" you how important the Internet is to our economy and political
    >> culture now.
    >> But when you're talking about almost 200 billion emails sent each day and
    >> more than $3 trillion in e-commerce a year ago, it's more than clear we've
    >> just scratched the surface of what the Internet can do, both as a platform
    >> for commerce and discourse.


    | It seems reasonable to me that people who use a lot of bandwidth
    | should pay more than people who only use a little bit of bandwidth.
    | But maybe I don't understand the issues.

    I do NOT want to pay a per MB/GB tax quota!

    --
    Dave
    http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
    Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
     
  3. Per John Varela:
    >It seems reasonable to me that people who use a lot of bandwidth
    >should pay more than people who only use a little bit of bandwidth.
    >But maybe I don't understand the issues.


    The way I understand it:

    I go to the supermarket to buy milk.

    ABC Dairy milk is $2.10 for a half-gallon.

    Soprano Brothers' Dairy milk is $2.00 for a half-gallon.

    So I buy Soprano Brothers' milk.

    Eventually ABC Dairy goes broke and/or is bought out by Soprano
    Brothers because they cannot compete on retail price.


    But what I don't know is:

    1) ABC's cost of production is $1.25

    2) Soprano Brothers' cost of production is $1.50

    3) The reason Soprano Brothers' milk costs less retail is that
    they're paying off the Turnpike Authority to let their trucks
    travel the road for fewer dollars per mile and can afford to sell
    to the supermarket for a lower cost (production +
    transportation).

    ABC is not paying off the Turnpike Authority, so their cost of
    transportation is higher - so high, in fact, that it wipes out
    their competitive advantage from being a more efficient producer.

    Bottom line: the system becomes perverted. The most efficient
    producer is now losing out to a less efficient producer - and the
    consumer is not informed.


    Extrapolate that to web sites and response time instead of
    Turnpike Fees and you've got my understanding of the issue.

    Want to order something from ABC, who is not paying off the ISP?
    Well, you can do that... but you'll wait 15-20 seconds for their
    page to load whereas XYZ'page (XYZ is paying off the ISP) loads
    in a fraction of a second. The problem being that you don't
    know who is paying off the ISP and who is not.
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
  4. NotMe

    NotMe Guest

    "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:dxizd0mOwXzR-pn2-49p0bQCeksjx@localhost...
    | On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:26:33 UTC, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
    |
    | > It would be at best sophomoric and at worst patronizing to stop by here
    and
    | > "tell you" you how important the Internet is to our economy and
    political
    | > culture now.
    | > But when you're talking about almost 200 billion emails sent each day
    and
    | > more than $3 trillion in e-commerce a year ago, it's more than clear
    we've
    | > just scratched the surface of what the Internet can do, both as a
    platform
    | > for commerce and discourse.
    |
    | It seems reasonable to me that people who use a lot of bandwidth
    | should pay more than people who only use a little bit of bandwidth.
    | But maybe I don't understand the issues.

    Uncompetitive environment is one issue as is who uses how much but the real
    issue seems to be the desire of the carriers to charge a premium to the
    providers for access to 'their' client base. Recent examples: ATT cut
    content from a web based concert because ATT management did not agree with
    the lyrics in the song.

    Other issues: introducing latency problems to VoIP for competitors to the
    carrier's copper phone services.

    Filtering in and out bound email for content or scanning in/out bound email
    and adding advertising. I can see all sorts of possabilities with the
    latter. I send an email to a client and included in the email is an advert
    that just happens to have an offer a few buck less than my quote.
     
  5. Travis

    Travis Guest

    On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:21:05 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

    > Per John Varela:
    >>It seems reasonable to me that people who use a lot of bandwidth should
    >>pay more than people who only use a little bit of bandwidth. But maybe I
    >>don't understand the issues.

    >
    > The way I understand it:
    >
    > I go to the supermarket to buy milk.
    >
    > ABC Dairy milk is $2.10 for a half-gallon.
    >
    > Soprano Brothers' Dairy milk is $2.00 for a half-gallon.
    >
    > So I buy Soprano Brothers' milk.
    >
    > Eventually ABC Dairy goes broke and/or is bought out by Soprano Brothers
    > because they cannot compete on retail price.
    >
    >
    > But what I don't know is:
    >
    > 1) ABC's cost of production is $1.25
    >
    > 2) Soprano Brothers' cost of production is $1.50
    >
    > 3) The reason Soprano Brothers' milk costs less retail is that they're
    > paying off the Turnpike Authority to let their trucks travel the road
    > for fewer dollars per mile and can afford to sell to the supermarket for
    > a lower cost (production + transportation).
    >
    > ABC is not paying off the Turnpike Authority, so their cost of
    > transportation is higher - so high, in fact, that it wipes out their
    > competitive advantage from being a more efficient producer.
    >
    > Bottom line: the system becomes perverted. The most efficient producer
    > is now losing out to a less efficient producer - and the consumer is not
    > informed.
    >
    >
    > Extrapolate that to web sites and response time instead of Turnpike Fees
    > and you've got my understanding of the issue.
    >
    > Want to order something from ABC, who is not paying off the ISP? Well,
    > you can do that... but you'll wait 15-20 seconds for their page to load
    > whereas XYZ'page (XYZ is paying off the ISP) loads in a fraction of a
    > second. The problem being that you don't know who is paying off the
    > ISP and who is not.


    The roads are free to drive on out here.

    The government subsidizes milk production.


    --

    Travis in Shoreline Washington
     
  6. John Varela wrote:
    > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:26:33 UTC, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
    >
    >> It would be at best sophomoric and at worst patronizing to stop by here and
    >> "tell you" you how important the Internet is to our economy and political
    >> culture now.
    >> But when you're talking about almost 200 billion emails sent each day and
    >> more than $3 trillion in e-commerce a year ago, it's more than clear we've
    >> just scratched the surface of what the Internet can do, both as a platform
    >> for commerce and discourse.

    >
    > It seems reasonable to me that people who use a lot of bandwidth
    > should pay more than people who only use a little bit of bandwidth.
    > But maybe I don't understand the issues.
    >


    I wish someone would define "Net Neutrality".

    I'm sure I don't understand the issues, couched in buzzwords as they
    seem to be!

    What I have right now is what I want.
     
  7. NotMe wrote:
    > "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote in message
    > news:dxizd0mOwXzR-pn2-49p0bQCeksjx@localhost...
    > | On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:26:33 UTC, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
    > |
    > | > It would be at best sophomoric and at worst patronizing to stop by here
    > and
    > | > "tell you" you how important the Internet is to our economy and
    > political
    > | > culture now.
    > | > But when you're talking about almost 200 billion emails sent each day
    > and
    > | > more than $3 trillion in e-commerce a year ago, it's more than clear
    > we've
    > | > just scratched the surface of what the Internet can do, both as a
    > platform
    > | > for commerce and discourse.
    > |
    > | It seems reasonable to me that people who use a lot of bandwidth
    > | should pay more than people who only use a little bit of bandwidth.
    > | But maybe I don't understand the issues.
    >
    > Uncompetitive environment is one issue as is who uses how much but the real
    > issue seems to be the desire of the carriers to charge a premium to the
    > providers for access to 'their' client base. Recent examples: ATT cut
    > content from a web based concert because ATT management did not agree with
    > the lyrics in the song.
    >
    > Other issues: introducing latency problems to VoIP for competitors to the
    > carrier's copper phone services.
    >
    > Filtering in and out bound email for content or scanning in/out bound email
    > and adding advertising. I can see all sorts of possabilities with the
    > latter. I send an email to a client and included in the email is an advert
    > that just happens to have an offer a few buck less than my quote.


    That's not nearly as bad as the advert having a URL that sends your quote into
    the great spam bucket.
     
  8. Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > John Varela wrote:
    >> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:26:33 UTC, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>> It would be at best sophomoric and at worst patronizing to stop by
    >>> here and
    >>> "tell you" you how important the Internet is to our economy and
    >>> political
    >>> culture now.
    >>> But when you're talking about almost 200 billion emails sent each day
    >>> and
    >>> more than $3 trillion in e-commerce a year ago, it's more than clear
    >>> we've
    >>> just scratched the surface of what the Internet can do, both as a
    >>> platform
    >>> for commerce and discourse.

    >>
    >> It seems reasonable to me that people who use a lot of bandwidth
    >> should pay more than people who only use a little bit of bandwidth.
    >> But maybe I don't understand the issues.
    >>

    >
    > I wish someone would define "Net Neutrality".
    >
    > I'm sure I don't understand the issues, couched in buzzwords as they
    > seem to be!
    >
    > What I have right now is what I want.


    That is Net Neutrality
     
  9. QN

    QN Guest

    IMHO the real issue is not bandwidth, but rather the intent of ISPs to
    protect their other products such as cable TV or VOIP service.

    I gather Europe has better bandwidth engineered into their system, but I
    also heard the the high speed internet service is pricy.

    Where I live, the only choice that can deliver streaming video is my cable
    company. The phone company has internet service too, but their fastest
    speed is 2.4Mbps. A duoploy is about as bad as a monopoly. -That is why
    these kind of companies used to be handled as Public Utilities.
     
  10. Golden California Girls wrote:
    > Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    >> John Varela wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:26:33 UTC, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> It would be at best sophomoric and at worst patronizing to stop by
    >>>> here and
    >>>> "tell you" you how important the Internet is to our economy and
    >>>> political
    >>>> culture now.
    >>>> But when you're talking about almost 200 billion emails sent each day
    >>>> and
    >>>> more than $3 trillion in e-commerce a year ago, it's more than clear
    >>>> we've
    >>>> just scratched the surface of what the Internet can do, both as a
    >>>> platform
    >>>> for commerce and discourse.
    >>>
    >>> It seems reasonable to me that people who use a lot of bandwidth
    >>> should pay more than people who only use a little bit of bandwidth.
    >>> But maybe I don't understand the issues.
    >>>

    >> I wish someone would define "Net Neutrality".
    >>
    >> I'm sure I don't understand the issues, couched in buzzwords as they
    >> seem to be!
    >>
    >> What I have right now is what I want.

    >
    > That is Net Neutrality


    So what's the evil alternative?
     
  11. QN wrote:
    > IMHO the real issue is not bandwidth, but rather the intent of ISPs to
    > protect their other products such as cable TV or VOIP service.
    >
    > I gather Europe has better bandwidth engineered into their system, but I
    > also heard the the high speed internet service is pricy.
    >
    > Where I live, the only choice that can deliver streaming video is my cable
    > company. The phone company has internet service too, but their fastest
    > speed is 2.4Mbps. A duoploy is about as bad as a monopoly. -That is why
    > these kind of companies used to be handled as Public Utilities.
    >
    >


    There are other things in life besides "streaming video". And it's a
    hell of an inefficient way to distribute video.
     
  12. Geoff

    Geoff Guest

    On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:23:33 -0400, "Richard B. Gilbert"
    <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:

    >So what's the evil alternative?


    Content providers would pay the telecoms for efficient delivery or
    priority over other traffic. In effect, they would have to pay for
    preference. Furthermore, this preferential treatment would extend to
    delivering the preferred content to those who were accessing it even
    over the traffic of other users accessing other content.
     
  13. Topo Gigio

    Topo Gigio Guest

    NotMe wrote:

    > But we need to show them that we're going to fight even harder to make sure
    > the Internet stays in the hands of the American people, that we get to set
    > the rules to benefit all of us, not just a few huge corporations.


    Fool the interweb is in the hands of pirates and panders of porn; the
    pipe owners have to hustle a buck or no FiOS for U.
     
  14. Topo Gigio

    Topo Gigio Guest

    Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

    > I wish someone would define "Net Neutrality".
    >
    > I'm sure I don't understand the issues, couched in buzzwords as they
    > seem to be!
    >
    > What I have right now is what I want.


    Fool U want the ISP to can spam yet let the porn flow. Idiot.
     
  15. Topo Gigio

    Topo Gigio Guest

    Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    \
    > So what's the evil alternative?


    A natural monopoly with government oversight; "One system it works". Oh
    U fools drank MCI's Kool-aid; now die.
     
  16. Topo Gigio

    Topo Gigio Guest

    QN wrote:
    > IMHO the real issue is not bandwidth, but rather the intent of ISPs to
    > protect their other products such as cable TV or VOIP service.
    >
    > I gather Europe has better bandwidth engineered into their system, but I
    > also heard the the high speed internet service is pricy.
    >
    > Where I live, the only choice that can deliver streaming video is my cable
    > company. The phone company has internet service too, but their fastest
    > speed is 2.4Mbps. A duoploy is about as bad as a monopoly. -That is why
    > these kind of companies used to be handled as Public Utilities.
    >
    >

    Well Duh!! You don't understand; drink more MCI Kool-Aid.
     
  17. Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > Golden California Girls wrote:
    >> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    >>> John Varela wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:26:33 UTC, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> It would be at best sophomoric and at worst patronizing to stop by
    >>>>> here and
    >>>>> "tell you" you how important the Internet is to our economy and
    >>>>> political
    >>>>> culture now.
    >>>>> But when you're talking about almost 200 billion emails sent each day
    >>>>> and
    >>>>> more than $3 trillion in e-commerce a year ago, it's more than clear
    >>>>> we've
    >>>>> just scratched the surface of what the Internet can do, both as a
    >>>>> platform
    >>>>> for commerce and discourse.
    >>>>
    >>>> It seems reasonable to me that people who use a lot of bandwidth
    >>>> should pay more than people who only use a little bit of bandwidth.
    >>>> But maybe I don't understand the issues.
    >>>>
    >>> I wish someone would define "Net Neutrality".
    >>>
    >>> I'm sure I don't understand the issues, couched in buzzwords as they
    >>> seem to be!
    >>>
    >>> What I have right now is what I want.

    >>
    >> That is Net Neutrality

    >
    > So what's the evil alternative?


    Since you presumably are on Verizon, if you want anything but Verizon.com you
    (or someone) pay a per byte transfer charge.
     
  18. Golden California Girls wrote:
    > Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    >> Golden California Girls wrote:
    >>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    >>>> John Varela wrote:
    >>>>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:26:33 UTC, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> It would be at best sophomoric and at worst patronizing to stop by
    >>>>>> here and
    >>>>>> "tell you" you how important the Internet is to our economy and
    >>>>>> political
    >>>>>> culture now.
    >>>>>> But when you're talking about almost 200 billion emails sent each day
    >>>>>> and
    >>>>>> more than $3 trillion in e-commerce a year ago, it's more than clear
    >>>>>> we've
    >>>>>> just scratched the surface of what the Internet can do, both as a
    >>>>>> platform
    >>>>>> for commerce and discourse.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It seems reasonable to me that people who use a lot of bandwidth
    >>>>> should pay more than people who only use a little bit of bandwidth.
    >>>>> But maybe I don't understand the issues.
    >>>>>
    >>>> I wish someone would define "Net Neutrality".
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm sure I don't understand the issues, couched in buzzwords as they
    >>>> seem to be!
    >>>>
    >>>> What I have right now is what I want.
    >>> That is Net Neutrality

    >> So what's the evil alternative?

    >
    > Since you presumably are on Verizon, if you want anything but Verizon.com you
    > (or someone) pay a per byte transfer charge.
    >


    Well, Web browsing is not really practical on my phone and also too
    expensive. I could maybe live with the tiny screen but trying to input
    a long URL via the keypad is too daunting. I use my phone as a phone
    and use a desktop computer to handle my e-mail, web browsing, etc.
     
  19. Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > Golden California Girls wrote:
    >> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    >>> Golden California Girls wrote:
    >>>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    >>>>> John Varela wrote:
    >>>>>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:26:33 UTC, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> It would be at best sophomoric and at worst patronizing to stop by
    >>>>>>> here and
    >>>>>>> "tell you" you how important the Internet is to our economy and
    >>>>>>> political
    >>>>>>> culture now.
    >>>>>>> But when you're talking about almost 200 billion emails sent each
    >>>>>>> day
    >>>>>>> and
    >>>>>>> more than $3 trillion in e-commerce a year ago, it's more than clear
    >>>>>>> we've
    >>>>>>> just scratched the surface of what the Internet can do, both as a
    >>>>>>> platform
    >>>>>>> for commerce and discourse.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It seems reasonable to me that people who use a lot of bandwidth
    >>>>>> should pay more than people who only use a little bit of bandwidth.
    >>>>>> But maybe I don't understand the issues.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> I wish someone would define "Net Neutrality".
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I'm sure I don't understand the issues, couched in buzzwords as they
    >>>>> seem to be!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What I have right now is what I want.
    >>>> That is Net Neutrality
    >>> So what's the evil alternative?

    >>
    >> Since you presumably are on Verizon, if you want anything but
    >> Verizon.com you
    >> (or someone) pay a per byte transfer charge.
    >>

    >
    > Well, Web browsing is not really practical on my phone and also too
    > expensive. I could maybe live with the tiny screen but trying to input
    > a long URL via the keypad is too daunting. I use my phone as a phone
    > and use a desktop computer to handle my e-mail, web browsing, etc.
    >


    Yes, a per byte charge for your desktop computer! We aren't talking about
    cellular data plans.
     
  20. stevev

    stevev Guest

    "Geoff" <geoff@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
    news:1o6ds5t5uo9k576720d87aftu1ierb0m1i@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:23:33 -0400, "Richard B. Gilbert"
    > <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    >>So what's the evil alternative?

    >
    > Content providers would pay the telecoms for efficient delivery or
    > priority over other traffic. In effect, they would have to pay for
    > preference. Furthermore, this preferential treatment would extend to
    > delivering the preferred content to those who were accessing it even
    > over the traffic of other users accessing other content.


    Back in the day they called that Payola!


    --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?