<<   <   Page 5 / 11   >   >>
rjs 12/5/2012 | 2:59:20 PM
re: Group Questions Comcast's Net Neutrality BOLLOCKS (post 38):

The issue at hand is the natural monopoly of access providers ... the competition is severely limited.

How about putting it this way, COMCAST Should get
off the internet and setup their own private network and stop using the fact that they are giving access to "internet."
What they are doing is misrepresentation and they should be penalized for it.

Imagine if the power company did that to its customers. They cut your power out because you are using the cable system and the computer to view what they might consider "immoral" and
fringe content.
They are very well justified because it results in
overloads and blackouts. And if it were not for the servers and computers and cable tvs and entertainment the power overload would not occur.
Now tell me how does it feel to be at the receiving end? Will you take your own advice and setup a home generator?

I repeat, be careful of setting precedents for the monopolies. The consequences are dire.


rjmcmahon 12/5/2012 | 2:59:20 PM
re: Group Questions Comcast's Net Neutrality This is about Comcast not SBC.

Seven, I think the data networking parts of these companies will ultimately become one. (Kinda like what happened with gas and electricity.) It may just take awhile to get there. I see fiber access as a natural monopoly and any breaking up of it into components as government meddling. Regulators trying to create "market competition" where it doesn't really work, similar to what the 1996 Telco Act tried to do with local/long distance voice markets. I don't think it will happen until the access fiber is laid. And that won't happen while the revenue is w/legacy services. New revenue sources have to open up. Hence my frustration with everybody "sharing" things that aren't theirs and too few paying.
paolo.franzoi 12/5/2012 | 2:59:20 PM
re: Group Questions Comcast's Net Neutrality

I find it interesting that you are posting your Telephone company arguments in the Cable section....

This is about Comcast not SBC.

rjmcmahon 12/5/2012 | 2:59:19 PM
re: Group Questions Comcast's Net Neutrality RJS; The monopolists aren't censoring based on content per se. They are discriminating based on financial signals. Their ultimate goals is to maximize revenues. They'll deliver any content that pays. P2P doesn't really pay much using their current billing models.

On the government side, people fear that government *will* censor based on content, like you mentioned in China. Political power comes from influencing the masses so controlling the message via the messenger is a primary goal.

The optimal solution is probably a delicate balance between the two, e.g. raise the sunk costs monies via low cost government bonds and let for profit service providers manage the operations. Provide exclusivity so the bonds can be repaid.

In the short term, P2P users can move to servers on the internet, start paying for bw used, and almost completely bypass the shenanigans associated with the access networks. I hope users would also respect copyrights as that's another part of the problem that needs to be addressed, i.e. if people don't get paid digital content of value won't get produced.
bollocks187 12/5/2012 | 2:59:19 PM
re: Group Questions Comcast's Net Neutrality RJS (Post 43)

As I have said COMACST is not a monopoly to internet access you can sign up with your local RBOC.

They are proving access to the Internet it is simply that not all "traffic types" are regarded as equal. I think this is a fair statement.

The power companies do "protect their network" by rolling blackouts in the somer. The water companies protect their sources and impose fines for watering your front yard or washing your car in the heat of the day. They do this to protect the whole community.

Comcast is blocking certain traffic types that are creating more traffic than presumabley thier access network can handle.

This goes back to the lack of QoS for services that is NOT DESIGNED into the INTERNET Switch and Routers. It will be in the future and as soon as it is guess what YOU will pay for services like P2P performance because now they can track and trace to an end user.

Comcast has the right to protect its network resources using its own network traffic management. If you do not like it get off the comcast networks and sign up with an RBOC xDSL/fiber solution.

bollocks187 12/5/2012 | 2:59:19 PM
re: Group Questions Comcast's Net Neutrality RJM (Post 39)

Comcast DOES NOT have a monopoly on internet access. You can sign up with your local RBOC to get internet access. The utilities companies HAVE A MONOPOLY.

Comcast has the right to control its ACCESS infrastructure - if this means throttling traffic from undesirable sources then they can and should be allowed to do it.

It is not censoring content in any way.

fgoldstein 12/5/2012 | 2:59:19 PM
re: Group Questions Comcast's Net Neutrality RJ, you totally, completely missed the point of my previous post.

I'm not talking about "paying for the content" because the Torrent traffic I am talking about is totally above board. Either it's paid for and uses Torrent for distribution (Mandrive Powerpack, for instance) or it's put out there with no requirement of paying (lots of artists trying to get discovered).

And yet you give a stock reply as if I were trying to justify warez or movie rips or whatever copyright violation you want to liken to "theft" (a very different concept, legally, btw). No, you're not listening. Torrent is a substitute for FTP, and how its handled is a valid technical and policy question. But my downloading Linux DVD-ROMs is not a copyright issue, or related to TV/radio, property rights, or any of the other things you talk about in your reply (36).
whyiswhy 12/5/2012 | 2:59:18 PM
re: Group Questions Comcast's Net Neutrality "Go to any area of the world where people don't respect property rights and the whole area is dilapidated. It's not conducive to human based improvements. Some may think humans don't improve things anyway so that's ok. But w/intellectual property that isn't so, i.e. it's only human improvements that can advance things along."

I live in a city. We lock the doors on our home, our cars, our garage. We have a burgular alarm and service. My daughters have good locks on their bikes, cellphones, earned their brown belts.

Meaning: we take care of ourselves and our property. Reasonable care.

We don't have barbed wire, an electrified fence, watch towers, search lights, concealed weapons, an armed patrol, mace, tasers, etc.

We have never been robbed. We have never been ripped off, my girls never date raped.

Mickey Mouse laws lead to contempt of IP. Disney is reaping the whirlwind.

US = best government money can buy.


ThurstonHowell3rd 12/5/2012 | 2:59:18 PM
re: Group Questions Comcast's Net Neutrality Everybody to your corners...

1. Its not about content - its about network management. If a user complains that his or her all you can eat internest service is restrictive because of its useage for 2 way (upstream and downstream) traffic - then they should PAY for it. Its Comcast's right to charge for its service... and its the consumer's right to pay for it or to walk.

2. There is no monopoly in the Internet game anymore - and its not cable - or - telco - or - wireless. Its IP - period. Cable/Telco/wireless - they are all competitors of each other. If a P2P weenie feel's he's been wronged then change providers - but stop the whining.

3. It's about free commerce - If Bit Torrent and the rest feel they are being wronged then THEY should go put the investment in to build a network - in the mean time they are over just top service providers getting a free ride on someone elses investment.

4. Comparisons to the power company only underscore my very salient points - you want to run the crap out of all your electrical appliances - then knock yourself out - and wait for the next month - because your local electric company is going to be more than happy to present you with a bill.

Now everyone settle down - and Gilligan go fetch me a Tequila Sunrise... and make it snappy!!
paolo.franzoi 12/5/2012 | 2:59:18 PM
re: Group Questions Comcast's Net Neutrality

The point is that you have argued for several years that there is no competition in residential broaband access.

You have now argued that both the Telcos and the MSOs are both monopolies in the same market. You have argued that there is no thing as bi-modal competition. You argue this in the face of ever increasing speeds delivered to consumers for no increase in price (and lowering of prices for the same speed).

So, can you point to a single fact that supports your claim that MSO and Cable do not compete for consumer broadband services?

<<   <   Page 5 / 11   >   >>
Sign In