This net neutrality is a joke . All that will happen in the end if there are allowed to get away with it ,is people will just go to the onion net work and bypass any blocks . People are all ready using VPN's .

You Americans can do us all a favor and charge Rupert with phone hacking cancel all his licences break up Foxtel and sell it off to the highest bidder 1 of the reasons Murdock is against the Labour Party here is because they have wonted to have a Royal Commission into Rupert's ownership of the tabloids and he knows this .

And to our pommy friends for F sack charge the bastas it did happen in your country and the buck always stops with the CEO

---

This net neutrality is a joke.

Many who understand the issue would disagree with that statement.

All that will happen in the end if there are allowed to get away with it ,is people will just go to the onion net work and bypass any blocks.

Net neutrality isn't about blocks. It is about ISPs extorting content providers out of more money. They won't block the content. They'll just slow it down.

People are all ready using VPN's.

VPNs allow users to get around network-specific routing, among other things, but VPNs do not alleviate the increased costs that businesses, and by extension their customers, have to pay.

You Americans can do us all a favor and charge Rupert with phone hacking cancel all his licences break up Foxtel and sell it off to the highest bidder 1 of the reasons Murdock is against the Labour Party here is because they have wonted to have a Royal Commission into Rupert's ownership of the tabloids and he knows this.

I'm not sure why you think Rupert Murdock has anything to do with this, but he has very little to do with it, if anything at all. Focusing your attention toward him shows a lack of understanding the issue at hand.

Actually Rupert does and shows you guys don't understand what Foxtel is doing so i'give 2 examples which are going on here in ozz .

First gov was going to build fibre to the house but mister Rupert back Lib's and now no Fibre to the house the fibre will be outside your house but unless you $3000 to pay for it to be connected you wont have it. why have mr Rupert done this .

Second i will use game of thrones . Rupert does deal with HBO to have exclusive contract . So we in ozz can't watch it by paying subscription to HBO and are left with only 1 option pay Foxtel for 6mth contract at $80 per moth now the last season was avalible i believe on Itunes for $30 for the whole season.
Now mr Rupert is getting gov to change laws to stop ppl from downloading via torrents as Mr Ruperts idea of his deal with HBO backfired ppl did not sign up to Foxtel they downloaded Game Of Thrones via torrents.

So while you mite think it's about extorting providers it's all so about limiting ppl from downloading Torrents after all why pay Foxtel when you can download a torrent for free how to stop it well 1 way is to limit the dam speed at which you can download things as all the other things they have tried have not worked so ther are other reasons why this is happening and don't think Rupert hasn't got his greedy little fingers in on it he has and that's very clear here in oz maybe not so over your way . Gues whom own a major part of Foxtel here ... TELSRA the ex gov phone company which just happens to own the whole dam copper phone network and would be out in the cold if Labour had been able to complete the NBN as they would not have control over the NBN as the gov would have owned it 100% as the copper network would be switched off so if you think Rup isn't involed well now you know he's in cahoots with the biggest isp there is here in ozzand you can bet his finger are in the pies of some of your isp's too

---

And just so you get some idea when you use Telstra as you ISP you also get Foxtel T-Box (tivo as you guys call it) and can download movies and shows via the agreements Foxtel has done and it's 1 of the most expensive isp there are here minimum they what ppl to pay is about $120 per month .

So i'm saying there is more to it that you mite think like a war amounst the biggest comm's company's Foxtel being 1 off them and your biggest ISP's Comcast and verision for control of content and users . As a a added they get to make it hard for ppl to download torrents .So don't think pirating hasn't got anything to do with it as it does .

---

That may be the price you pay when you don't have nationwide providers? In Sweden we can choose from a variety of ISP's regardless of where one lives, both cable and mobile providers.

---

At the moment there are other providers but if company's like Fox get there way people won't have a choice as most country's are building or in the planning stages of building fibre and if there in control of it well there goes net neutrality once they start turning copper networks off . At the moment the copper network's price at the whole sale . What other pay Telstra is regulated but Telstra has and is doing everything to stop or delay or change the Fibre roll out like insisting that wireless 4g is better and is and has used Murdocks papers and cable to bash , kick , and go against the gov . I believe in the states fibre is being stoped in some places and there company taking each other and councils to court to stop each other from rolling it out

To my American friends free markets don't all ways work if we don't relise this then before we all know it we will be paying through the teeth for a crappy service and big brother will be watching but BB wont be the Gov !

---

All I can say is I didn't vote for this administration!

---

All I can say is I didn't vote for this administration!

Me either. ...and, I'm glad I didn't.

---

TimeLord04
Have TARDIS, will travel...
Come along K-9!
Join Calm Chaos

Ah yes, Eric forgot that everyone also has access to a telephone network. Some of these are run Verizon (remember the breakup of ATT). We also have access to a cable network. Some of these are run by Comcast. He is saying that in some areas of the US both of these companies are co-located. This might mean that those two companies colluded in reducing the size of the pipe to any provider.

I however have to deal with ATT and Charter. ATT max speed is 3Mb (supposed to be 6Mb but I'm to far away) and Charter is 30MB. Each charges about the same.

I've been rambling but the idea I'm trying to put forward is in certain parts of the country both Verizon and Comcast operate. The some of the rest of us have to deal with ATT and Charter. Others some combination of the other broadband providers.

---

Ah yes, Eric forgot that everyone also has access to a telephone network.

Not sure what that has to do with internet neutrality!

There a very few dial up connections available here in the UK

If it is not a dial up then what are you trying to say.

---

Bernie dsl and adsl use the copper networks not fibre . even phone numbers are changing to isp nunbers . Whom ever own the Fibre will own the net and all communications . But will that be Fox , Cnn , Verison , Telstra ....

It needs to be regulated . It's 1920's all over again but not phones but data

---

Bernie dsl and adsl use the copper networks not fibre

Yes and they connect to the internet at the exchange, as does fibre,it might be different in other countries but fibre and copper are going to exist side by side here in the UK for some while.

But all of that still has nothing to do with the ISP's charging twice to deliver the data you requested to your PC either by fibre or copper.

---

i got my name on that thing. im not liking it at all and i will do everything in my power to stop it. i also have links on Facebook as well for it. we need to keep this program alive.

If you wish to see the filings and make comments on them at the FCC, visit this link and scroll down a little. You'll see filings and how many comments are already in each section and can add your own.

This nonsense of the greedy to ditch Net Neutrality must be stomped completely and irrevocably so they never even get an itch to try to deny American Citizens Liberty whether its digital or not.

http://www.fcc.gov/comments

:)

---

You had it and missed it at the same time Eric. Those peering agreements are why Netflix was throttled. They were the cause. You do not on average, get to be 22% of net traffic and up to 40% at prime time in some markets. The smaller networks that Netflix was using to link up to the big boys did nothing but dump in and were taking nothing back. The balance was broken. Netflix would not pay for equipment to help the choke points that were forming so throttling began. This was done to leave bandwidth for us and everyone else. Yes, that does mean the throttling was a good thing. Comcast is currently looking at 500 gigs per month per account. The average user is 17 gigs per month. Extra 50 gig blocks will be $10. That won't help heavy video users and it shouldn't. You got upset with the wrong companies. The system simply cannot handle personal video streaming for the masses. Later.

Added: I myself have been lucky, the tree in my neighborhood does not get a lot of use. I have a lot of retired neighbors. I usually break a terabyte each month and Comcast leaves me alone. If they implement the new pricing I'll take a hit but crunching should not be more than $10 a month of that total. We buy our machines and pay for electricity, heck we are even hit up for donations to support projects. So maybe it won't be the end.

Netflix would not pay for equipment to help the choke points that were forming

Nor should they. That is the responsibility of the provider of the network. The money they charge for the use of it should be used to maintain it.

This was done to leave bandwidth for us and everyone else.

No, it was done with the intent of charging Netfilx for supplying content, to the users it has already charged for the use of their network. And of course Netflix will then pass on it's increased costs to the consumer. Awesome! The consumer gets charged 3 times for something that should only be charged for once.

The system simply cannot handle personal video streaming for the masses.

If not, the ISPs should then charge an appropriate amount for such services. They should not charge both the supplier & the user for it.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Well it's not hard to see that you're blinded. Google, Microsoft, Hulu and on and on have paid for these hubs to even out bottlenecks where they jump on. It was not an industry concern until Netflix made it one. Netflix has only now started to reach agreements to pay for this equipment. You honestly think a single company can be over 1/5 of the internet. Grow up! You are flat out wrong about why they got throttled, read more and stop thinking your emotions have figured it out. All four carriers started about the same time and they will do it when needed. Seeing as Netflix single handedly destroyed the give and take that networks had created. You just do not understand how these systems work and you only saw what you wanted in my post. Netflix is abusing a balance, flooding a network they do not own. Go flame someone else please. My post was dead on.

Well it's not hard to see that you're blinded.

Actually your post shows that's the case with you, as does the rest of this post I'm responding too.

Google, Microsoft, Hulu and on and on have paid for these hubs to even out bottlenecks where they jump on.

Actually, that's not what they've done.

It was not an industry concern until Netflix made it one.

?
It has been a concern for those with some knowledge of the internet & how it works for well over a decade. I was aware of it back in the mid 90s.

You are flat out wrong about why they got throttled, read more and stop thinking your emotions have figured it out. All four carriers started about the same time and they will do it when needed. Seeing as Netflix single handedly destroyed the give and take that networks had created.

You wouldn't happen to be affiliated with an ISP or Telco would you?
You appear to be either ignoring what is really going on, or just don't understand, or do you feel a need to promote your employer's agenda?

You just do not understand how these systems work and you only saw what you wanted in my post.

Given what you've been saying in your posts I suspect my understanding, as limited as it is, is greater than yours.

Netflix is abusing a balance, flooding a network they do not own.

They do not flood any networks.
They provide a product, if people like it they pay to make use of it. Rather novel concept for the internet where people expect to get everything for nothing. But all the same, people are prepared to pay.
ISPs charge their customers for the use of their network. If the network isn't up to scratch, then they need to spend some of their income to make it so. Otherwise people will go elsewhere (except for the fact that in many cases, people don't have that option).

Go flame someone else please.

I have yet to do so.

My post was dead on.

If only it were.


Here is a video that might help you understand what Net Neutrality is about.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Pfft. "Don't Panic"

If companies were to cut off all interaction with any .edu or .org domains, could you imagine the public backlash and kneejerk legislation? Individual small and medium sized church's couldn't afford to stream their sermons, public national park "scenery" webcams would go offline, small companies couldn't have VPN or WebEx ability, etc. The public rage would drop their share prices like lead balloons. If there was a noticeable hiccup in access to so many of the non-profit sites, the resulting frenzy would force public apologies out of them, if not sparking marches and riots.

At worst, some time would pass and more competition would spring up offering access.

I think you are overestimating their long-term ability.

Just sayin.

"Net Neutrality" is the opposite of what the mobile phone, or cell phone, companies do now. What the landline ISPs want is total parity with the mobile/cell phone companies. They want to be able to charge per byte, charge per minute, charge extra for some types of content and charge a monthly fee in addition to all of those, as well as add service charges and VAT or local, federal and state sales taxes on top.
It's a very profitable business model, as any mobile/cell phone data carrier will tell you.
What I would prefer is to remove ISPs and mobile/cell phone carriers from the system entirely. To close those companies and to nationalise, or, more accurately, globalise their facilities under a UN mandate.
Internet services should be cost free at the point of use and should be supported out of the general tax fund.
They should be run by a non-partisan global party for the ultimate benefit of every human and machine that needs them.
That way, neutrality would be guaranteed for all time.
Of course, that's never going to happen.
Profit above all.

Addendum: I am not against Netflix selling stuff online, I am opposed to AOL charging me to access Netflix *and* Netflix charging me. One of those is dead wrong. It is easy to see which.

I want to comment but they want a state and a zip number, any ideas?

Fake them.
Lie, extensively. Add, inside the comment, that you were forced by the restrive validation scripting to lie extensively.
Pick 90210 and Washington, D.C.
America invented and built the earliest parts of the Internet but they no longer own it. It is well past time their lawgivers knew this.