December 4, 2006
Here at GamePolitics we're ever so appreciative when lobbyists for a monopolistic market sector like the cable TV industry try to help mere consumers understand important issues like Net Neutrality.I mean, it's not like National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) has a vested interest in controlling data traffic. Oh, wait...
The NCTA spot (watch it here) features not-so-subtle attacks on Google, which backs Net Neutrality.
GP: A shout-out goes to reader Kevin Axe for the tip!
Comments
::Storms off to go create a "Cable CEO" charecter in smackdown to beat the crap out off::
Google may not be perfect, but the Telco/Cable industry is FAR more evil by comparison.
*prays for Google counter-ad*
When I was up in Philly in August I saw a couple Pro-Net Neutrality ads which is surprising since Comcast owns City hall.
The effect on the consumer will be small to non-existant.
The solution is to find a way to increase competition. Regulation usually has the opposite effect.
The main issue at hand is common carrier status. The telcos wanted common carrier status back in the day, to protect them from being held responsible for the content being "transported". But the ISPs didn't, because they didn't want to be regulated. For a while, it worked. But now the ISPs and telcos that built the trunk lines are the same, and they no longer want to be regulated, or follow common carrier rules (non-net-neutrality would violate common carrier rules, as it would give preferencial treatment to "goods" coming from certain companies). So they want to drop the common-carrier/net-neutrality thing, and move to "squeeze every last dollar, even if we get to do it twice".
Thing is, common carrier status is the only thing that saved the telcos from back when everyone was "sue Napster" happy. They argued that since they were common carriers, they weren't responsible for filtering the content.
Wikipedia: Common Carrier
Slashdot: Verizon violates common carrier rules?
UserFriendly: Senate explains how Verizon is now responsible for all the llama pr0n on teh interweb
As a Brit - or, more broadly, a *not American* - I'm really offended by this whole Net Neutrality debate. The mere fact it's being debated by American legislators in America offends myself and other *not Americans* simply by the fact that it implies that lawmakers - regardless of their position on the issue itself - have taken at face-value the utter fallacy that the Internet in some way belongs to America.
The point of Net Neutrality (which is, contrary to the claim of that advertisement, in effect and has been since the Internet's very beginning) is that the Internet is totally free for everyone, so given its availability not only in *not America* but also in non-UN countries, there is only one possible place on Earth wherein anyone has anything close to the right to discuss this.
The Internet.
Zing!
Oh, and the way it affects you, is that your ISP could now charge you extra for reading GP, because they cut a deal with CNN (for example) to make all news sites BUT CNN have horrible bandwidth.
OR, it could be that a telco somewhere BETWEEN your ISP and GP's could do the same, and there's no way you could use competition to stop them from doing it. Unless you want to spend a few billion building some trunk lines between your ISP and GP to go around them.
And you can't just go with another ISP, because they'd still be using the same trunk lines (there's that common carrier dealy again), and so your data could still be filtered...
Keep the rest of the world out of your goddamn laws. If you do not comply, get ready for the internet flaming of the century.
Thanks,
The World
the flipside is that net neutrality legislation may effectively prevent ISPs offering viable video on demand or fast game download services over their networks because this would involve offering high bandwidth to high paying content providers.
The reason I'd prefer more encouragement for competition is so that I could switch to someone who will provide the sites I like.
The intermediate ISP could conceivably cut a deal with CNN but is there any suggestion they want to do that?
Ah, but how would anyone flame without Net Neutrality?
This is about the worst mistruth I have ever seen! Hope it bits them in the ass.
You make it sound like websites are like cable channels. Sure, I may not read FOX News at all, but if I'm doing research for a paper (since being a student and all that), I may find that Fox News has a really awesome article on the subject I'm researching.
But... without Net Neutrality, my access to that website could be cut off because of some corporation saying "well, CNN paid us more."
And the argument about not being able to provide high speed access - humbug I say! Humbug.
Right now, using my neutral internet access - it takes me about 3 minutes to download an episode of the Office from iTunes. 3 whole minutes for 250 megabytes.
I almost bet you that you will not notice a change in speed for the better under the service providers plan. They want to make you think that they are supporting you - but really, they are only covering your eyes.
Let me put this way. Remember soapbox racing cars? Imagine if you have two of those ramps set up. With Net Neutrality - all those cars will make it to the finish provided that there is nothing wrong with the cars. However, under the non-neutrality act - certain cars will get to go ahead of other cars, and other cars might not even end up there at all.
Plus, there are other ways they can compete - like overall speed of the whole internet, customer service, and other offers they can make. But censorship... I rather go without the internet than that!
the flipside is that net neutrality legislation may effectively prevent ISPs offering viable video on demand or fast game download services
That's the load of bull the telco's are feeding you to get you on their side...
If the ISP and the common carrier seperate themselves properly, with some independance between the two, then what Verizon did would have been perfectly legal.
See originally, railroad companies decided they would get into the shipping business, and so gave preferential treatment to their own companies when it came to shipping prices. Well that was monopolistic (because only a few companies had built rail lines, yet there were many shipping companies who used them) so the feds set out anti-trust laws, and said that if you allow one company to ship on your rail line, you can't deny someone else to ship, or charge them more to ship the same product as everyone else.
The problem right now is that some telcos are also ISPs, or feel they can treat one ISP more preferentially than the other because they either own it or they were pressured to. See the slashdot story I posted earlier, where Verizon violated it's common carrier status to deny a website the ability to be seen by anyone, anywhere, because Verizon provides connectivity to the ISP that was hosting it. The site was 100% legal, so under common carrier status, Verizon had no legal grounds to block the site from getting onto the internet. And the ISP can't just go with another service provider, because Verizon owns all the high speed lines going into the city...
Imagine if Verizon interrupted your phone calls, because you weren't talking about their product. Or gave you busy signals because you weren't calling another Verizon customer. You'd be pretty f'ing pissed right? Now imagine Verizon was the only phone company in your state. Then what? Competition? Not unless your startup has a few hundred million to rebuild parrallel lines to match Verizon's connections to other states. And you better hope that Verizon isn't the main company in those states too, or you won't be able to connect to their phones either. That's what common carriers were introduced to deal with.
It still amazes me how different the media is here and in the U.S.
I really hate these people.
DONT MESS WITH MY INTERNETS TUBES!
The entire content of the advert is "Net Neutrality=BAD. Don't ask why, it's way too complicated for you to understand". Seems like they're going for the "stupid" voter segment.
Ah, so the same demographic that thinks the McDonald's ads are "clever". ;)
http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?hidenavlink=true&type=lpubtp11&cont...
DERMOT O'CARROLL: As Dave mentioned, we don't block or hinder our base traffic, but we have a higher priority traffic that we charge more for. I mean, I don't know about in the U.S., but in Canada, we have mail service. And they have a base mail service. It's Best Efforts. They drop some packets, and eventually it gets to you. And then for quality of service, they have a priority post. You can track it. It's on a different channel. And you pay a little more. So, I don't see how that's any different from what we do.
Now, I personally don't have a huge problem with allowing high-bandwidth access for high-access sites that pay more for it. I mean, that's part of the whole free market thing. I have no problem with that, so long as it doesn't limit the ability of the regular sites to get through.
CNN wants to pay so it can come up faster? Fine by me.
But if that makes GP come up slower, that's getting into legal issues.
To me, it's like this. If I own an Italian restaurant, I can send out fliers and I can place TV ads. I can also make the best damn spaghetti in the world and place my restaurant on the largest street in town with a huge parking lot. I paid tons for this, and if this drives my competitors out of business so be it. But if I start putting roadblocks up on the streets around my competition, or kidnapping their customers while they're waiting in line, or anything that hinders their ability to attempt to compete, then I'm going against the free market, and in many cases breaking the law.
This is how I view net neutrality. So long as it doesn't hinder the ability of smaller sites to compete, I have no problem with larger corporations purchasing "premium" channels. I doubt massively increased bandwidth would benefit too many CNN-type sites anyways.
If you respond with well-thought out answers, you may very well change it.
Of course the reality is that this won't happen. They'll just change the regular channels's name to "premium" and pretend you're getting a better service.
Our local ISP did something like that. They introduced "premium" high speed, but didn't upgrade their networks, so when people started using the premium high speed, it started overwhelming the network, making the regular high speed suck...
Unfortunately, there are many on the pro-neutrality side that go to the other extreme, giving everyone the exact same bandwidth with no chance to pay for more. This doesn't work, as some sites are high-bandwidth and need to get more.
The best way to meter out bandwidth would be to divvy it up depending on usage. That would be fair. It would also be communism, which our societies have a problem with.
So having a baseline bandwidth level, with the ability to pay for more, would (to me) be the best solution I can see.
So having a baseline bandwidth level, with the ability to pay for more, would (to me) be the best solution I can see. "
Isn't that the way the intarwebs work already?
RE: The Commercial
That thing is right up there with the Mac "LOLZ PCs are trying to sell themselves...which is totally not what Macs are doing with this very ad..." ad in terms of stupidity.
"Isn’t that the way the intarwebs work already?"
Pretty much, to my knowledge.
I'm just saying that I don't agree with either of the major sides in the argument.
Also, yeah, I hate that Mac ad too. It's the second-worst of the bunch, right before the "Macs don't get viruses" one. (They do, though they're rarer. They also tend to be much worse once they're acquired, and the Intel Mac stuff will make them more common anyways.)
It’s the second-worst of the bunch, right before the “Macs don’t get viruses” one. (They do, though they’re rarer. They also tend to be much worse once they’re acquired, and the Intel Mac stuff will make them more common anyways.)
I see you've been reading the FUD pages...
a) there has yet to be a "malicious" virus for OS X, all so far have been "proof of concept" to illustrate how to exploit a hole in the system that has later been (usually) patched. so technically there haven't been any viruses for mac OS X so far. research projects for anti-virus companies don't count. that would be like saying that break-ins are on the increase just because a locksmith keeps picking a lock over and over. until a burgler does it, it's just an insecure lock, not a B&E statistic...
b) "much worse"? wtf? mac's don't let you install major system stuff without an administrator password, so a virus can't propogate far without constantly asking for user permission. provide examples if you're going to make such a silly claim...
c) "intel macs make it easier" not really, unless you're writing processor specific code, that is independant of the OS, which most viruses aren't. Most exploit a specific flaw in the OS, not the core hardware...
For a company that only has 5-6% market share, the other 95% seems to get it's panties in a bunch anytime Apple introduces something new or different...
Cnn is part of Time-warner. Time-Warner-aohell MIGHT be a telco but gee, I'm not sure. Oh yeah, they're like the biggest.
Here's the thing: boo fucking hoo I won't be able to download games from comcast, I'd rather play MMOs and FPSes and RTSes without paying moar at retail or more in monthly fees.
Microsoft has two horses in this race: xbl and windows updates/validation. Apple has itunes and osx updates which will become more common as more people have apple computers. I think they need to call a temporary truce and combine forces with google, amazon, craig, tom, etc and do an advertising campaign beyond anything we've seen before.
Fuck this dystopian 1984 bullshit. They need to show ted tuner fucking ben franklin in the ass then wiping his dick with the bill of rights then saying to the camera "this is exactly what I want to do!".
Consumer: Mr. Telco, what's Net Neutrality?
Mr. Telco: Well sucker... I mean... consumer, Net Neutrality is an evil bad thing that kills puppies!
Consumer: Oh noes! I must vote against it!
Some time later...
Consumer goes on myspace
Consumer: Hey! Why is myspace so slow!?
Mr. Telco: Oh, because it's evil and not paying us money. Thanks to you voting against net neutrality, we can make it nigh impossible to access these sites.
Consumer: But I LIKE myspace!
Mr. Telco: It's ok, you can use our version, PieSpace! It's less user friendly and has less features. Plus, you have to pay for it!
Consumer: Noooooooooooo!!!!!!!
Yeah, I admit I'm only going off what I've been told. I'm not a Mac user (it doesn't support half the software I use, and they're too expensive for me). My main problem with that specific commercial is that they pass the Mac off as "virus-proof" (which it isn't, even if there aren't major ones around, which I don't know), which encourages less-experienced users to be lazy about viruses and security. That's not a good habit on any OS.
As far as the commercials go, I just don't enjoy them anyways. There have been maybe one or two of them that I've actually liked, and I'm not talking about the content, just the presentation.
That's not to say PC commercials are any better, or that I'm against Macs in any way. The computers just don't work for me, and neither do the commercials.
Rejected ad concepts:
Net Neutrality is communism. Support America! Don't you support the troops?
Net Neutrality prevents us from keeping creeps off the Internet. If you support it, your sons and daughters will be cyber-raped, e-sodomized and i-turned-gay.
The three leading causes of poverty (*) in America are: Liberalism; poor people; and net neutrality. (* Among billionares.)
God answers prayer based on merit. We only want the same on earth. Do the Christian thing.
Look! Over there! *Yoink!*
In Soviet France, neutrality nets you! (c/o /.)
Terrorism. Terrorism! TERRORISM!!
Unfortunately, I can actually see that happening. If you bring in the child factor into ANYTHING, you'll get more sympathy which equals more votes.
When I first saw the commerical on YouTube. I thought it was a parody someone made. Unfortunately, I was wrong.
I like how the commericals "Mumbo Jumbo" texting is similar to Google's. It's as if they are implying that Google is evil or confusing.
How f@#$in' stupid do you think I am? Shut the f%$# up!
Warmest Regards,
GPK
If I could post a bullshit meter here, I would, and it would probably break.
By the looks of these comments its seems its been around for monthes (btw who the hell faved this?????), I don't live in America, did this come about on TV recently?
What's the worst part of this commercial is that the complete opposite is true. Without Net Neutrality, the "multi-billion dollar silicon valley tech companies" will have greater expenses due to having to pay att-sbc/comcast/cox/etc more for the "higher" bandwidth. And how will they make up the difference? Raising rates, of course!
Plus I find it pretty hilarious that the telco's are using "multi-billion dollar silicon valley tech companies" as ammunition against websites, when in fact telco's are even LARGER companies. A simple reading of the fine print shows you why you cannot trust this ad.
The bill itself did not make it out of committee in time before the legsilative session ended, so nothing regarding Net Neutrality took place. If the bill is brought up in committee again, Inoue will have a stronger say in its content, and will be in a positiion to preserve Net Neutrality.
We'll be okay, for now.
Now say that Google decided to pay off your ISP for premium service, and say you bought the premium service. And just for grins, lets say Google decided to pay off their ISP too - it doesn't matter, because Google forgot to pay off the middle man - the Tier 1 provider. And they throttle the connection down to 56k. The premium service that you paid for suddenly means nothing, because someone in the middle decided they weren't being paid enough. Consider that there are literally MILLIONS of ISPs out there, all interconnected, and potentially any of them could slow down your connection.
The ISPs are NOT going to offer premium services under the tiered system, because they KNOW they won't be able to deliver. They are only going to use this as an internet tax to throttle the connections to content providers that don't pay up.
I am on Hughes net and they do everything they can to keep me downloading at 6KB daily if I go above 6KBS an hour and get around 300MB I am forced into a no faster than 6KBS speed for 4 hours,just think if coreprations could control bandwidth all they wanted you'd be paying 3 times are much for the same bandwidth you are getting now. of coarse a 20KBS line would be 20-30$ but dose anyone want 20KBS as the normal non preimuim speed of the internet?
its simple make the consumer pay more first then go after the lesser businesses then go after the larger ones.....it wont take them long to start eating themselfs and making everyone suffer.
Long rant I posted soemwhere else.
Like with link sang the corperations want to impose their regioning will and might where they see fit.
its like doubling the price of a item in the UK from 20 US to 40 EU thats 80 US they want to stop all small time importers so that can make more money off less sales,it boggles the mind on how they think and act,you could be saleing world wide consoles and games via link but no just because they where going to try and sale a few doszen PS3s in the Euro market before you.
Movies and music is the same the price keeps away msot if they sale it abit above cost they would double their rep sell more units and be making alittle less money than they are now.so they are using stale lazy mans logic "OMG if we raise min wage prices will go up and the enconimy will suffer"...ever think at worse if the min wage was doubled prices would go up but since people are making more things would not change much,and if things did not go up people would be buying more....
I so love corporate logic less(sales) = more(money)
Finaly I want to add the main reason that I doubt downloading is such a bad thing people who are willing to spend 100 a month for net and don't buy much wont buy new stuff even they had didn't have the net they would buy used to maximize their money so using corperate logic selling/buying/ trading used things is the most evil thing you can do.
----------------------------
rant end
I will say it again
I so love corporate logic less(sales) = more(money)
Frankly I'm offended by it. I'm in advertising, and I'm a uber nerd, so when I see blatant propoganda material such as this it drives me mad. Never mind after watching it having to explain to my girlfriend (who is neither) what net nuetranilty really is, and what she just watched wasn't a public service announcement.
Grrr...
Are these the same people who made "phonies" phone company flamin ads?