The argument going on right now in technology is the idea that American telecom companies which dominate a large portion of internet traffic handling in the west and the world should be forced, by regulation from the government, to treat all traffic at the same capacity regardless of who its coming from or where its going. there is an idea being floated that 'but for government intervention, the greedy internet companies will start charging website systems extra money to 'guarantee' their users traffic always runs fast, instead of just actually working to make everyone's traffic always run fast.' but to me, this is stupid to even be discussing. thats because to have a discussion on this is to have admitted defeat on the idea of increasing competition in internet service providers. Follow me here: Instead of asking why we in the USA are paying more than 4 times as much for internet service for end-user speeds that are below half the developed world's average, we're asking why a network management technique isnt more transparent. Which of these two questions do you think the internet company would rather be forced to answer if it had to chose? All this talk about net neutrality is arguing over the inane. The communications companies are likely to enjoy this derailing topic as it keeps them further and further away from dealing with the question about lack of competition in the USA for internet services, or their legislative lobbying to keep down smaller alternative companies, or to secure regional monopolies. Arguing about net neutrality is a resignation that we are ok with the status quo on high prices for crumby services. The reality is, if there was a serious alternative to 1 phone company and 1 cable company in a given area, there would be no need to have a discussion on net neutrality. the customer's demand, fueled by choices, would render any debate on it meaningless. There would be no competitive advantage to being a back end provider who cherry-picked what sites to prioritise based on their own business interest (like Comcast's video on demand vs a Netflix type company. Unless the Comcast product was vastly superior to Netflix on its own merits, not because of preferential treatment, then people would want Comcast anyway. If it wasn't, and Comcast gave theirs preferential treatment to the detriment of Netflix, then their customers would just go somewhere else.) So, I say treat anyone, especially the President, with skepticism that talks about net neutrality needing to be enforced by the government. It means whoever you're talking to has already given up on getting more competition into the industry.
It's a giant scheme to take control of more of our freedoms. It's absurd that a Government/President thinks it's in their "power" to control everything that we as citizens do. This is going to be a very very long next 2 years.
Superdude is correct. The site by site throttling portion is just the tip of the iceberg. Go watch the TSA : Toliet Safty episode of southpark. The bathroom is the last bastion of american freedom.
The problem in this case is getting people to understand that government is both the problem and the solution, because it has to undo what it has done. But ONLY to undo what it has done. What net neutrality supports are doing, either by ignorance or compliance, is trying to heap more NEW government (regulation) onto a problem that was caused by older government (crony capitalism). Its easy to throw around words like Neutrality because it becomes easy to damn anyone who opposes you. IE "You dont want neutrality??"
Some regulation is good, over regulation is bad. Its up to the government to decide how much is to much, and how little is to little. However the people that are in government dont understand the issue because it technical so they cant make educated choices, but what they do know is that large companies grease member of government so they will choose in their favor.
I apologize for this rant, but it is what it is. The large providers created the current problem themselves. They decided to grandfather in "unlimited" data packages from the dial-up days. It was great marketing, but they did not foresee people streaming the amount of data we do now. Data centers have always charged for 3 things: space, connectivity, and throughput. The large providers will and are moving to this type of pricing. Mainly connectivity and throughput. We need more choices so we can do some effective voting with our collective wallets. Competition is good and Uncle Scam hasn't been really good about regulating what should be handled by the Feds. Some of the hot button topics in politics exist because those in office aren't willing to make tough decisions. ie:immigration (always been an issue) and health care. When somebody goes to the ER for the sniffles because they don't have coverage we all pay for it. Most elected officials do nothing but make sure they can get elected again in the next cycle. Voter turnout was the worst in something like 70 years last week. Seems most feel it doesn't matter. By continuing to pay companies that you don't agree with you are essentially voting for how they are doing business. Ignornace is indeed bliss. I keep beating my head against the wall/desk, but I cannot forget what I already know. So I continue to vote for the challengers and I don't spend my money with companies I don't agree with. Does it matter? Probably not, but I will keep trying anyway...because FU.
like i said, i think the argument is actually the lack of competition before its an argument of neutrality... but what I dont get is the same politicians who want to re-classify ISP as common carriers with the rational that they don't want "internet fast lanes" are the same ones that upvote tolls on actual fast lanes, like on I-85. .... ...actually, that makes perfect sense. regulate internet, then setup a tax on it for luxury service that hamstrings everyone else...
just another ponzi scheme that creates a nice tax revenue stream otherwise it will be business as usual. Funny thing is I just got a notice today that my modem is not capable to handle the new speeds and can be exchanged free of charge.
Comcast? Does your current one have built in wireless capable of broadcasting Comcast's ssid without giving you the ability to turn it off?
You just need to go the the store and buy a more updated one. Its actually fairly legit, but they do add on a sales pitch for a Comcast one that you rent from them. I'd have to go look up the standard, but there is a 3rd new level that's been out for about a year now that you can upgrade to. That being said I still havent upgraded mine and I got the notice about 2 months ago.