Comments on: Net neutrality: A web of deceit http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/06/09/net-neutrality-a-web-of-deceit/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: DW6 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/06/09/net-neutrality-a-web-of-deceit/#comment-86951 Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:34:33 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=31563#comment-86951 What nonsense! Content providers pay network providers to upload content to the internet. Consumers pay their ISP to receive content. In the middle, interconnect agreements between major network providers allow them to pass each other’s traffic back and forth for free. Otherwise, accounting for it alone would be a nightmare.

It’s no more complicated than that.

If network providers want to raise their rates to recover costs, they are free to do so at any time. But hiding it by trying to introduce a third payment to the equation is disingenuous. They’re essentially extorting money from content providers like Netflix, etc. by threatening, and in Netflix’s case, actually slowing down their content delivery.

There’s a growing amount of propaganda, like this article, out there.

Major network providers (Verizon, Comcast, etc.) had record profits this year. Google it. But this type of article is designed for people who don’t understand how internet plumbing actually works. Don’t fall for it!

]]>
By: MacMan http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/06/09/net-neutrality-a-web-of-deceit/#comment-86857 Fri, 13 Jun 2014 20:37:53 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=31563#comment-86857 What a load of FUD!

Mr. Forbes either know next to nothing about the internet, or is invested heavily in Comcast.

If net-neutrality is killed by corporate interests, the US will slip further behind in connectivity and smaller entrants into the market will be effectively blocked by the large monopolies currently running the industry.

Shame on you, Mr. Forbes!

]]>
By: thilips http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/06/09/net-neutrality-a-web-of-deceit/#comment-86761 Wed, 11 Jun 2014 03:41:55 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=31563#comment-86761 WOW!!! I amazed at how little Mr. Forbes understands about Net Neutrality but yet seems able to make such an “informed” article. 1. What is an “Internet” company. Is it a company that provides carrier service to access Internet services; does he mean companies that sell merchandise on the Internet like ?Best Buy? or ?EBay? which is an intermediary between people selling goods; Mr. Forbes had a picture of Netflix does he realize Netflix is a streaming video company not an ?Internet? company; does Mr. Forbes mean companies that have web pages like churches and non-profits ? Maybe he should have started their, defining what he means by ?Internet? companies. 2. The basis of “Net Neutrality” insures that any Internet based service (Internet based services are but not relegated to: http, vpn (private tunnels to your corporate or home network), H.323/SIP (common VTC protocols like Skype), VoIP (Vonage, MagicJack), streaming media (iTunes, Youtube, etc?)) is delivered at the same speed no matter what or who the company is or what they believe in. To understand what ?Net Neutrality? protects we need to understand how and what the Internet is comprised of. A very brief summary is the Internet is an umbrella of different protocols that help to deliver desired services. Web pages and other sites that use the top level domain (WWW) are a gateway to those services that flow over those protocols. So an example is lets say you use a VPN to log on to your corporate network to work, without ?Net Neutrality? I can charge more or completely block VPN protocol. Within the VPN protocol you can block ?http? protocol, ?ssh? if you use that or other services so I can grant one and not the other or, deny both or, charge you and your company and exorbitant fee to use a vpn connection. ?Net Neutrality? keeps a company from blocking content based on political views or other beliefs but without it companies can block, not just slow down access to content based on belief. 3. ?Net Neutality? prevents the opposite from happening as well. Let?s use Netflix as an example since Mr. Forbes has done so. Maybe Mr. Forbes does not realize how much bandwidth, how many OC (?Optical Carrier?, information over fiber optic lines and ?fiber optics? are physical cables made of thin glass thousandth?s of millimeters thick which send information by reflecting light allowing for speeds that have yet to maxed out by current networking devices) 192, OC292, or gigabit ether lines Netflix has to lease, how many servers they have to buy to provide streaming video service. So let say Netflix decides to start buying up networks and decides they will only stream Netflix movies (i.e movies they make themselves) or Google buys up networks (which it more than has the ability to do) and only allows content to companies and sites they own, that would be about 10% of most Internet usage. ?Net Neutrality? prevents this from happening. It allows writers like Mr. Forbes to make unintelligible comments like this without being discriminated against just because an ISP does not like Reuters or Forbes. 4. Does Mr. Forbes actually think it cost $100 a month to deliver 50mb of bandwidth. That $100 pays for installation of media as well as networking equipment that has already been in place for years maybe even a decade. 5. Lastly ?Net Neutrality? prevents a Gestapo media. We have seen in the news, whether you agree or not, how the government or particular intelligence agencies have targeted ISP?s. Now imagine an ISP that can block content at will based on it?s own desires but these companies are under government pressure to give up information on users and users search habits. What stops them now. I can block content based on search habits when in actuality it is the government directing these companies to do so. We need to think about the far reaching effects of removing ?Net Neutrality? especially since individual ISP?s are increasingly being eaten up by major network corporations . Maybe Mr. Forbes would do well to research in detail such an important subject before he decides to comment on it for his constituents.

]]>
By: elutheria http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/06/09/net-neutrality-a-web-of-deceit/#comment-86760 Wed, 11 Jun 2014 03:24:20 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=31563#comment-86760 I agree with many on who have made comments

]]>
By: Benny27 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/06/09/net-neutrality-a-web-of-deceit/#comment-86751 Tue, 10 Jun 2014 21:23:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=31563#comment-86751 Shame on you, Reuters, for printing this propaganda.

Why anyone would believe a single word from this self-serving clown is beyond me. He manages to get this exactly backwards while pretending that large corporations are the only ones pulling for net neutrality…they are not!

I am sure this obfuscation on this crook’s party is no accident, but rather is calculated to confuse people who he condescendingly assumes to be even more stupid than he is. He owns media companies for Christ’s sake! This is not some neutral party

]]>
By: CosmikDebris http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/06/09/net-neutrality-a-web-of-deceit/#comment-86750 Tue, 10 Jun 2014 21:09:33 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=31563#comment-86750 So companies like Netflix(and their customers) are soaking up all the bandwidth. Companies like Time Warner and Comcast need to spend money to upgrade their infrastructure so they can deliver the content. With the new proposed regs, the cost, I assume, would be passed on to the consumer. Nothing has been decided, yet Time Warner keeps jacking up my internet bill. Why is that?

]]>
By: CosmikDebris http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/06/09/net-neutrality-a-web-of-deceit/#comment-86749 Tue, 10 Jun 2014 20:51:53 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=31563#comment-86749 It seems to me Forbes is for maintaining net neutrality. It’s the proposed net neutrality regulations that are going to hurt the average user and benefit the big companies. I mean that is what he is saying. These companies are saying in order to maintain net neutrality they need to implement these new rules. Which is bogus, and I that’s what I got from this article

]]>
By: akita96th http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/06/09/net-neutrality-a-web-of-deceit/#comment-86744 Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:54:36 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=31563#comment-86744 Hey money has changed hands campaign checks have been signed…and now that bribery in washington has been all but made legal…I would say the fix is already in..the rest is just a dog and pony show to appear like they really care…yeah rightttt…

]]>
By: ThommyG http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/06/09/net-neutrality-a-web-of-deceit/#comment-86734 Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:03:40 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=31563#comment-86734 Google/Netflix “hogging bandwidth” = people going to those sites more = people’s choice

If people get dissatisfied with Google/Netflix, something newer, better, and cheaper will come along that displaces them, as long as startup costs aren’t prohibitive (which they probably would be under the proposed rule). Shouldn’t we allow the people to choose which service is better? We already have one monopoly at the ISP level. Should we really have another one, where Google, Netflix, etc. are de facto monopolies because startup companies can’t pay the “pizzo” or mafia protection tax to bring competition and innovation to the industry?

Even though you gloss over the stifling effect the proposed rule would have on everyone besides ISPs, you talk about stifling investment in networks. Do you think keeping cable company profits at around 90% of revenue or perhaps a slight reduction will really affect investment in this field? Economics 101 says no.

]]>
By: njglea http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/06/09/net-neutrality-a-web-of-deceit/#comment-86732 Tue, 10 Jun 2014 15:21:11 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=31563#comment-86732 Overcast, you ask, “Does the public have to shoulder the costs when Wal-Mart wants to update their stores or McDonalds installs new cooking equipment? Does the public have to shoulder the costs when a paper company updates their paper machines or when a doctor’s office updates their officers?” Yes, we do because companies write all these expenses off their taxes and businesses like Wal Mart – and Boeing – get huge tax incentives to locate in a certain market. That’s the game – we “little people” pay for it all. The internet is a utility and should be regulated as one. When AT&T was the only telephone provider we all had regulated, same time access to telephone use and costs. Of course, the idea then was that government-backed business was to serve the public – not investors aka the top 1% global financial elite like Mr. Forbes.

]]>