2013-11-13, 01:28 PM
I'll press on a few of these issues [MENTION=8857]Sephie[/MENTION]
1. Considering how ISPs are (to some extent) bound by contract to provide the service we pay for, i.e. a connection at a certain bandwidth, can they (to some extent) be held responsible for not delivering acceptable bandwidth for a certain service if they do, however, provide acceptable bandwidth for others?
I imagine that this is what they would ultimately fall back on if they ever adopt content favoritism. Something like a speed test with their servers (or streaming from their OnDemand video services) would prove (legally at least) beyond the shadow of a doubt that they do hold up their end of the contract and absolve them of any responsibilities for your Netflix malfunctionalities.
Can they get away with this? The question essentially boils down to your experience with a service company fulfilling parts but not all of its obligations.
2. Problems with NN?
a.
So, this is one of the few complaints that are... for lack of better words, not vague as pineapple. It seems to be a serious complaint, a legitimate worry. So what bad things come with the cable networks becoming public utilities? I know we all love it and can hardly wait for this to happen, but why is it cited as a negative effect of NN? What is bad about it for us consumers?
b.
Another problem posed against NN is the efficiency of its enactment by the FCC. There are several existing technologies that require discrimination amongst data to work well, which alledgedly under Net Neutrality laws are sanctioned by the FCC. The potential problem is future technologies like them which will also have to go through FCC (or a legal entity responsibile for upholding NN), and this process is said to be more often than not very slow.
Is this true? Close to true? How seriously slow?
Not that I care about such a minor drawback when there is so much (mostly safety) to be gained with NN, but since I'm in this to understand it, I might as well see both sides.
3. To bring newcomers up to speed on the situation, here's a recap:
1. Considering how ISPs are (to some extent) bound by contract to provide the service we pay for, i.e. a connection at a certain bandwidth, can they (to some extent) be held responsible for not delivering acceptable bandwidth for a certain service if they do, however, provide acceptable bandwidth for others?
I imagine that this is what they would ultimately fall back on if they ever adopt content favoritism. Something like a speed test with their servers (or streaming from their OnDemand video services) would prove (legally at least) beyond the shadow of a doubt that they do hold up their end of the contract and absolve them of any responsibilities for your Netflix malfunctionalities.
Can they get away with this? The question essentially boils down to your experience with a service company fulfilling parts but not all of its obligations.
2. Problems with NN?
a.
Forbes Wrote:For many of net neutrality’s proponents, transforming packet-switching from an engineering principle into a broad set of rules enforceable by the FCC is the first step in a larger program to transform next-generation networks into public utilities
So, this is one of the few complaints that are... for lack of better words, not vague as pineapple. It seems to be a serious complaint, a legitimate worry. So what bad things come with the cable networks becoming public utilities? I know we all love it and can hardly wait for this to happen, but why is it cited as a negative effect of NN? What is bad about it for us consumers?
b.
Another problem posed against NN is the efficiency of its enactment by the FCC. There are several existing technologies that require discrimination amongst data to work well, which alledgedly under Net Neutrality laws are sanctioned by the FCC. The potential problem is future technologies like them which will also have to go through FCC (or a legal entity responsibile for upholding NN), and this process is said to be more often than not very slow.
Is this true? Close to true? How seriously slow?
Not that I care about such a minor drawback when there is so much (mostly safety) to be gained with NN, but since I'm in this to understand it, I might as well see both sides.
3. To bring newcomers up to speed on the situation, here's a recap:
Quote:2005, AT&T proposed discriminatory services for the tech companies. Basically, Google, for example, signs up for the internet with ISP A, so Google is connected to the web; I have service with AT&T, so I am connected to the web. I want to use Google's services, so I make a request and Google's server sends data to me in packets through the two ISPs (A and AT&T). Say Google is paying A $100/month for 5Mbps uplink bandwidth and I am paying AT&T $60/month for 5Mbps downlink bandwidth, we should be communicating at 5Mbps maximum (not accounting for physical obstacles). Now AT&T is proposing that in order to reach me (efficiently), Google has to pay AT&T some money. Alternatively or additionally, they can charge us extra to let us communicate with Google.
ELI5: There used to be a common playground where everyone can talk to everyone as long as they're in the playground. Sam used to play with Mary and several other friends at the playground. In order to get there, each kid has to ask their parent for permission. Now what AT&T is proposing is that if Sam wants to play with Mary, he has to get his parent's permission AND Mary's parent's. This makes it a lot harder for Sam because each kid he wants to play with will require one permission more than what he had to work for before.
This of course makes no sense since each of those kid already has permission to go to the playground; they just don't have permission to play with Sam because Sam hasn't cleared with their parents.
This is why the innovation issue is brought up a lot in these NN talks. At least I think so. This is especially worrysome if you consider that the ISPs can shut traffic out for any reasons, or no reasons at all, should they be allowed to do as they please. Romeo will never get to be with Juliet because the Capulets can be persuaded with neither money nor love.