That's ridiculous. Knowing how to configure microsoft exchange server does not in any way remotely qualify you to understand the consequences of government legislation regarding telephony. You'd need to find someone who is knows the history and development of telecom (as in, if you don't know in detail how telephones evolved into internet, you are out) which is more telecom management than IT, as well as understanding the consequences of government involvement in economy (so socialists are out).
The fact they don't know that speed is measured in megabits not megabytes is killing me. 10 megabits isn't even 1 megabyte per second. There is a huge difference. It's the difference between 10 cents and a dollar
Not entirely accurately, 10 Megabits is more than 1 megabyte per second (1.25). The point being made is it is certainly a lot faster than the 256k of dialup days. So what should be the definition of 'high speed'? I'm more concerned with the crux of the argument not the flub of speech by Nick.
I just now realized that the choice here is between giving the ruling power over the internet to ISPs or the Trump administration. I'm sorry for the US.
During Hurricane Sandy, everyone below 30th Street in Manhattan was unable to call loved ones, charge phones, or even get health services up 30 floors (homes). Nurses ran patients up and down with a back-up generator. Students showed up to class on 68th Street, and the gym was already being used by a City Emergency Shelter.
HTTPS still tells the ISP which website you connected to, and a VPN still tells the ISP which VPN server you connected to. That means they can still block or throttle based on server or protocol.
Why are there so many regions that has only one ISP that provide access speed of at least 25mbps? Maybe the residents of those regions don't care for anything more than 10mbps? If there's demand there'll be supply, as long as the government don't get in the way.
The reason ISPs have regional monopolies is not due to lack of consumer demand, but rather due to a combination of ISP mergers, high startup cost (laying fiber), and repeated lobbying and lawsuits from large ISP in order to keep new competitors (like Google Fiber) from entering the markets where they operate. If you followed tech news more closely over the past several years, you would know this.
I can tell you from personal experience that that is absolutely untrue. For instance: I was living in a area of what you might say is right between the size of a city, & a town. I had multiple choices of ISP’s, & they were all (for the most part) pretty good at competing. Now, I moved back to by smaller home-town, & suddenlink (now bought out by a bigger company) is the only real game on the street, & the Mps available here is only 15mps, & I’m paying THE SAME AMOUNT for lower internet speeds (where I was living had 25Mps & up.) The demand for higher speeds is clearly there, but they are quite slow to upgrade their infrastructure. Why? Because they essentially have a monopoly. There’s essentially no incentive to be proactive & upgrade it. There is no switching ISP’s in my hometown if they throttle or block certain aspects of the internet, unless you want even crappier speeds. This is a dilemma that AT LEAST 60% of the US population are facing, as they do not live in big cities, where there is healthy competition. 15 Mps is absolutely NOT enough speed to run several devices in the home at once (phones, Roku sticks, consoles, etc) efficiently without severe delays (high jitter, & ping) that almost everyone has become accustomed to. I’m sure that there is a better solution than Net-Neutrality as we are human, & often make mistakes before we “perfect,” or fine tune an idea-BUT, it’s the best working solution that we’ve got right now.
What’s more, is that I was talking to an employee of suddenlink that informed me that it had bought the rights to the infrastructure lines which internet flows from for at least another 7 years. How then, is another company supposed to come in & compete with them, as it would first involve setting up infrastructure?.. And how exactly is that fair? So I have to ask myself: “Do I really want an ISP like this having even MORE power over my internet options?..”
The reality is simple and YES, I've been affected by the LACK of net neutrality when comcast specifically targeted Netflix, and specifically blocked MY access in general thus giving me crappy service in general. Luckily unlike most places I've lived I could switched BUT I've lived in 3 different places in ONE city and this is the ONLY place that has a choice.
NN, as was in place was NOT the Net Neutrality we were looking for. The law as it was created a tragedy of the commons issue. Just try streaming Netflix on Sunday evening in an apartment complex or crowded housing development. No matter what your promised top download speed is, it gets slow. Sometimes it gets slow enough that you can't even stream Netflix well. That's a result of the Net Neutrality laws.
No, that's a result of the fact cable Internet operates on a shared node. That's a downside of cable Internet (compared to DSL) that existed before the 2015 Net Neutrality regulations were put in place. You're likely just noticing it more because in more recent years we more people using more devices and doing more streaming of HD and 4K video at peak hours.
Thank you IQ2 for this debate, though I share in the disappointment expressed by other commentators. I found much of what Katz said to be extreme ideological overstatement, including, as another commenter alluded, Amazon's ability to overnight packages (as though net neutrality didn't exist when Amazon was able to institute this service in the first place) and Wolfenstein Classic (!?!?) I was grateful when Tom pointed out at the end that free and open internet does not preclude prioritization of emergency services (tele-surgery, etc.) Few have remarked on Mitchell's points about trust. What we should 'trust' ISPs to do is maximize their profits. We 'trust' that Comcast, Cox, etc. given the opportunity, will throttle sites that don't meet their agenda or outright block direct competitors--basic bottom-line market logic, profits over people. Gillespie's shortsighted assertion that because it hasn't happened yet, it won't happen in the future is madness. The FCC's repeal, against the will of the people, will harm the public in favor of business. The difference between this and what Mulvaney has done with CFPB, or Pruitt and the EPA, is neither a difference of kind nor degree, it's the same! The widespread destruction of the commons is here to pave the way for corporate plutocracy.
I remember AT&T/Bell, and in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and after a large company went Bankrupt, the whole infrastructure was co-oped by AT&T. It was fiber-optically wired-- the entire city-- and now we have the most earthquakes (seems like a logical fallacy, or flawed reasoning, but it's connected). The lack of transparency, has brought health and safety issues to my hometown, and my mother is still worried about paying basic phone bills, in cash, because she's retired. It takes open and integrated technology, and educated, culturally diverse policy makers to create individualized practice plans for clinicians, and effective policy.
Rural residehts do not have a choice of isp's and they certainly do not have access to high speeds and they pay a great deal for very slow speeds. We are discriminated against because they are not investing in these areas.
Timanator opening statement of the first guy against. is really just filling time and saying they're against, not why... like get to the point m8 some data on the availability of choice in different providers. "There is not a problem with net neutrality, there is not a problem with throttling or blocking sites." No explanation whatsoever, he just repeats he's against the notion... cmon the word 'because' exists for a reason, use it to tell me why. I'm guessing you can't, if you beat around the bush like this"
Privacy issues have real health consequences, for clinicians, that is called consent, and without consent, there are life-altering outcomes. It requires a clinician to understand and be able to integrate the product into their practice quickly. Basically, one needs to have a programming background, just to get asthma medication without violating HIPAA (health privacy laws).
i knew the against side would win while still being the minority. i expected the margins to be bigger though (95% vs 1% -> 90% vs 4% or something like that)
I also understand that on certain websites content that you post is owned by the website. Would the website then be liable if you slandered or otherwise broke the law with your post? Presumably the answer is they would not be liable, but why not?
The against side is ridiculous. Sure, I don't like my connection I'll just use my phone! When I'm in Vermont that's about 2 Mb and 500ms base ping. I can totally game on that! [Please note heavy sarcasm.] But right now in SF? 40ms base, 130ms jitter, 12 Mb down. That's maybe enough for a MOBA but an FPS? I'm dead. Every time. Also, it is a flat-out lie to say that ISPs have not done things that would be blocked by Net Neutrality. And sure, maybe ISPs would just focus on the big dogs (I personally doubt it but maybe), why should I be punished as a consumer for choosing a popular service?
Their point in arguing that was that 5G will be coming out soon and those speeds will easily rival wired broadband connections, so the argument that the majority of the country only has one choice for broadband speeds over 25MB/s will soon be irrelevant.
Except... 1. 5G will only hit the touted 1 Gbps connection speed under very specific circumstances and most users will never see a tenth of that (for the same reason LTE is way slower most places than it is in prime locations). 2. 5G can only solv the throughput problem it won't solve latency for the same reason a wired connection at home always has lower latency than even the most optimized wifi solution. And I say that as someone who's spent a great deal of time, money and effort into solving that exact problem. 3. It assumes that the cost and usage restrictions won't make that prohibitive. I use a couple hundred gigs every month (lots of streaming and gaming) but even the best unlimited cell plans tend to throttle you after something like 10-20 GB of download (depends on the company). That makes cell a non-viable replacement for a lot of normal users. 4. That further assumes a speedy rollout except huge sections of the country still don't have serviceable LTE. I mean there are still populated areas in the continental US that don't have signal at all... 5. 5G won't be cheap when it comes out. New wireless tech never is. It'll be a flagship feature for at least the first year or two. Not to mention someone will actually have to build out the infrastructure and hardware to start selling it for commercial home use (a sector that doesn't even exist yet). So, at least at the start, most people wouldn't be able to afford it even if they wanted it. 6. Let's assume that 5G does go everywhere, latency isn't an issue, and it's cheap enough that everyone can have it. You're still assuming that the telecoms won't try to pull the exact same nonsense the ISPs are. Oh, and why do I know this? Ask Verizon about the crappy iTunes competitor the killed after even not including streaming on it as part of your bandwidth no one wanted it. But hey, it's OK. It's not like any large media companies own telecoms, right? Comcast? Hmm? So... No. Nope. Still going to be relevant.
Doug Stewart - more regulations will mean less competition and less options and less innovation. Cellular networks have been exempt from Net Neutrality and as such have expanded and improved much faster than cable ISPs.
I'm not sure we can be certain of a cause or solution until we actually have a free marketplace. If you look at how the internet was before it became a worldwide phenomenon, it suggests state interference in the market has been detrimental. I'm not saying I'm certain that's the case but that's what the data suggest to me.
Michael Katz's analogy about Amazon offering free overnight shipping as being a fast lane doesn't seem to make sense. Them offering free overnight shipping doesn't block other stores from doing the same. Whereas if UPS/FedEx/USPS was being paid by Amazon to slow down packages from other stores, then that would seem like an apt analogy. Free overnight shipping seems more akin to ISPs offering users faster speeds or more data for the entire internet, not just specific sites.
Don't you think that ISPs should be able to charge bandwidth hogs like Netflix more for overwhelming their network capacities? After all, the ISPs have to add more hardware like servers and routers to accommodate the ever growing traffic caused by data providers putting out greater and greater amounts of data. Net Neutrality doesn't allow that sort of flexibility. It forces ISPs to subsidize data providers.
If the service level you provide to your consumers is saturated by those consumers actually USING the full extent of the service they're paying for, your service is crap.
From someone with a background in IT (and libertarian perspective) the "against" arguments are just a bit cringey. Lacking so much actual knowledge in internet and tech, just lots of charm.
This debate needed to happen in the room full of IT guys, not bunch of dumb lawers
That would be a debate practically nobody would understand or want to watch.
I think the only lawyer type was Tom Wheeler.
That's ridiculous. Knowing how to configure microsoft exchange server does not in any way remotely qualify you to understand the consequences of government legislation regarding telephony. You'd need to find someone who is knows the history and development of telecom (as in, if you don't know in detail how telephones evolved into internet, you are out) which is more telecom management than IT, as well as understanding the consequences of government involvement in economy (so socialists are out).
IT clinicians present.
The fact they don't know that speed is measured in megabits not megabytes is killing me. 10 megabits isn't even 1 megabyte per second. There is a huge difference. It's the difference between 10 cents and a dollar
Not entirely accurately, 10 Megabits is more than 1 megabyte per second (1.25). The point being made is it is certainly a lot faster than the 256k of dialup days. So what should be the definition of 'high speed'? I'm more concerned with the crux of the argument not the flub of speech by Nick.
This is what I got from this- For: Equal access , Against: Higher profits
I just now realized that the choice here is between giving the ruling power over the internet to ISPs or the Trump administration. I'm sorry for the US.
Lol yea?
During Hurricane Sandy, everyone below 30th Street in Manhattan was unable to call loved ones, charge phones, or even get health services up 30 floors (homes). Nurses ran patients up and down with a back-up generator. Students showed up to class on 68th Street, and the gym was already being used by a City Emergency Shelter.
I don't understand the point of these debates if debaters can lie to convince the audience.
The biggest problems is with law enforcement and legal when it comes to privacy in our homes.
North America centric, we need a global debate on this topic, yes fine, we can discuss regionally, but this is a global issue.
The network has more data on us than Facebook? HTTPS? VPN?
HTTPS still tells the ISP which website you connected to, and a VPN still tells the ISP which VPN server you connected to. That means they can still block or throttle based on server or protocol.
I didn’t see the final voting tally & who won the debate. Did anyone else?.. 😔
Perspective is very important. Students have $1Million student activity fee budgets, yearly, at one of 26-28 institutions.
Why are there so many regions that has only one ISP that provide access speed of at least 25mbps? Maybe the residents of those regions don't care for anything more than 10mbps? If there's demand there'll be supply, as long as the government don't get in the way.
Accelerationist North Korea is waiting for you, it's a Socialist paradise.
The reason ISPs have regional monopolies is not due to lack of consumer demand, but rather due to a combination of ISP mergers, high startup cost (laying fiber), and repeated lobbying and lawsuits from large ISP in order to keep new competitors (like Google Fiber) from entering the markets where they operate. If you followed tech news more closely over the past several years, you would know this.
I can tell you from personal experience that that is absolutely untrue.
For instance:
I was living in a area of what you might say is right between the size of a city, & a town. I had multiple choices of ISP’s, & they were all (for the most part) pretty good at competing.
Now, I moved back to by smaller home-town, & suddenlink (now bought out by a bigger company) is the only real game on the street, & the Mps available here is only 15mps, & I’m paying THE SAME AMOUNT for lower internet speeds (where I was living had 25Mps & up.)
The demand for higher speeds is clearly there, but they are quite slow to upgrade their infrastructure. Why? Because they essentially have a monopoly. There’s essentially no incentive to be proactive & upgrade it.
There is no switching ISP’s in my hometown if they throttle or block certain aspects of the internet, unless you want even crappier speeds.
This is a dilemma that AT LEAST 60% of the US population are facing, as they do not live in big cities, where there is healthy competition.
15 Mps is absolutely NOT enough speed to run several devices in the home at once (phones, Roku sticks, consoles, etc) efficiently without severe delays (high jitter, & ping) that almost everyone has become accustomed to.
I’m sure that there is a better solution than Net-Neutrality as we are human, & often make mistakes before we “perfect,” or fine tune an idea-BUT, it’s the best working solution that we’ve got right now.
What’s more, is that I was talking to an employee of suddenlink that informed me that it had bought the rights to the infrastructure lines which internet flows from for at least another 7 years. How then, is another company supposed to come in & compete with them, as it would first involve setting up infrastructure?.. And how exactly is that fair? So I have to ask myself: “Do I really want an ISP like this having even MORE power over my internet options?..”
The infrastructure was present in Oklahoma decades ago, and yet, inner city public schools still can't get an antiquated laptop.
The reality is simple and YES, I've been affected by the LACK of net neutrality when comcast specifically targeted Netflix, and specifically blocked MY access in general thus giving me crappy service in general. Luckily unlike most places I've lived I could switched BUT I've lived in 3 different places in ONE city and this is the ONLY place that has a choice.
When the internet server went down in a dorm, our student managers were scrambling to renegotiate $10,000-$100,000 yearly printer ink contracts.
NN, as was in place was NOT the Net Neutrality we were looking for. The law as it was created a tragedy of the commons issue. Just try streaming Netflix on Sunday evening in an apartment complex or crowded housing development. No matter what your promised top download speed is, it gets slow. Sometimes it gets slow enough that you can't even stream Netflix well.
That's a result of the Net Neutrality laws.
No, that's a result of the fact cable Internet operates on a shared node. That's a downside of cable Internet (compared to DSL) that existed before the 2015 Net Neutrality regulations were put in place. You're likely just noticing it more because in more recent years we more people using more devices and doing more streaming of HD and 4K video at peak hours.
Thank you IQ2 for this debate, though I share in the disappointment expressed by other commentators. I found much of what Katz said to be extreme ideological overstatement, including, as another commenter alluded, Amazon's ability to overnight packages (as though net neutrality didn't exist when Amazon was able to institute this service in the first place) and Wolfenstein Classic (!?!?) I was grateful when Tom pointed out at the end that free and open internet does not preclude prioritization of emergency services (tele-surgery, etc.)
Few have remarked on Mitchell's points about trust. What we should 'trust' ISPs to do is maximize their profits. We 'trust' that Comcast, Cox, etc. given the opportunity, will throttle sites that don't meet their agenda or outright block direct competitors--basic bottom-line market logic, profits over people. Gillespie's shortsighted assertion that because it hasn't happened yet, it won't happen in the future is madness. The FCC's repeal, against the will of the people, will harm the public in favor of business. The difference between this and what Mulvaney has done with CFPB, or Pruitt and the EPA, is neither a difference of kind nor degree, it's the same! The widespread destruction of the commons is here to pave the way for corporate plutocracy.
To bad you weren't at the debate. You have a lot more sense than these folks.
I remember AT&T/Bell, and in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and after a large company went Bankrupt, the whole infrastructure was co-oped by AT&T. It was fiber-optically wired-- the entire city-- and now we have the most earthquakes (seems like a logical fallacy, or flawed reasoning, but it's connected). The lack of transparency, has brought health and safety issues to my hometown, and my mother is still worried about paying basic phone bills, in cash, because she's retired. It takes open and integrated technology, and educated, culturally diverse policy makers to create individualized practice plans for clinicians, and effective policy.
In Scotland, Speedy Gonzales in Gaelic was the first exposure to everything "South of the Border" in North America. These are children's programs.
Internet did not work in our building on several floors; homework was a technological challenge.
they win the debate - not the principle. They're 1/3rd of those decided...
Rural residehts do not have a choice of isp's and they certainly do not have access to high speeds and they pay a great deal for very slow speeds. We are discriminated against because they are not investing in these areas.
These are the best you can find to argue net neutrality?
Timanator opening statement of the first guy against. is really just filling time and saying they're against, not why... like get to the point m8
some data on the availability of choice in different providers. "There is not a problem with net neutrality, there is not a problem with throttling or blocking sites."
No explanation whatsoever, he just repeats he's against the notion... cmon the word 'because' exists for a reason, use it to tell me why. I'm guessing you can't, if you beat around the bush like this"
Privacy issues have real health consequences, for clinicians, that is called consent, and without consent, there are life-altering outcomes. It requires a clinician to understand and be able to integrate the product into their practice quickly. Basically, one needs to have a programming background, just to get asthma medication without violating HIPAA (health privacy laws).
I get Twitter alerts on the train, and I can't even read a textbook underground in New York City.
i knew the against side would win while still being the minority. i expected the margins to be bigger though (95% vs 1% -> 90% vs 4% or something like that)
Who decides? How about the market, NOT partisan governments
I have t Mobile and i can stream Netflix and Pandora without effecting my data. Is that a fast lane? Is that favoritism in the market?
Substratum Network will solve this issue. Blockchain technology is here!
This aged well😂
I also understand that on certain websites content that you post is owned by the website. Would the website then be liable if you slandered or otherwise broke the law with your post?
Presumably the answer is they would not be liable, but why not?
They can be, it depends a lot on how involved they are with the content and how they react to judicial orders to remove it.
Doug Stewart interesting.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
I wonder if isps are allowed to alter your data?
600,000 students in New York City
@59 PERFECT QUESTION: ARE there really multiple choices ?? THEIR AREN'T!
*THERE (not possessive)
The people against the motion have next to no idea what they are actually talking about. This is by far the worst IQ Squared debate I have seen.
The against side is ridiculous. Sure, I don't like my connection I'll just use my phone! When I'm in Vermont that's about 2 Mb and 500ms base ping. I can totally game on that! [Please note heavy sarcasm.] But right now in SF? 40ms base, 130ms jitter, 12 Mb down. That's maybe enough for a MOBA but an FPS? I'm dead. Every time.
Also, it is a flat-out lie to say that ISPs have not done things that would be blocked by Net Neutrality. And sure, maybe ISPs would just focus on the big dogs (I personally doubt it but maybe), why should I be punished as a consumer for choosing a popular service?
Their point in arguing that was that 5G will be coming out soon and those speeds will easily rival wired broadband connections, so the argument that the majority of the country only has one choice for broadband speeds over 25MB/s will soon be irrelevant.
Except...
1. 5G will only hit the touted 1 Gbps connection speed under very specific circumstances and most users will never see a tenth of that (for the same reason LTE is way slower most places than it is in prime locations).
2. 5G can only solv the throughput problem it won't solve latency for the same reason a wired connection at home always has lower latency than even the most optimized wifi solution. And I say that as someone who's spent a great deal of time, money and effort into solving that exact problem.
3. It assumes that the cost and usage restrictions won't make that prohibitive. I use a couple hundred gigs every month (lots of streaming and gaming) but even the best unlimited cell plans tend to throttle you after something like 10-20 GB of download (depends on the company). That makes cell a non-viable replacement for a lot of normal users.
4. That further assumes a speedy rollout except huge sections of the country still don't have serviceable LTE. I mean there are still populated areas in the continental US that don't have signal at all...
5. 5G won't be cheap when it comes out. New wireless tech never is. It'll be a flagship feature for at least the first year or two. Not to mention someone will actually have to build out the infrastructure and hardware to start selling it for commercial home use (a sector that doesn't even exist yet). So, at least at the start, most people wouldn't be able to afford it even if they wanted it.
6. Let's assume that 5G does go everywhere, latency isn't an issue, and it's cheap enough that everyone can have it. You're still assuming that the telecoms won't try to pull the exact same nonsense the ISPs are. Oh, and why do I know this? Ask Verizon about the crappy iTunes competitor the killed after even not including streaming on it as part of your bandwidth no one wanted it. But hey, it's OK. It's not like any large media companies own telecoms, right? Comcast? Hmm?
So... No. Nope. Still going to be relevant.
Doug Stewart - more regulations will mean less competition and less options and less innovation. Cellular networks have been exempt from Net Neutrality and as such have expanded and improved much faster than cable ISPs.
Get a leased line, don’t fuck with net neutrality.
I'm not sure we can be certain of a cause or solution until we actually have a free marketplace. If you look at how the internet was before it became a worldwide phenomenon, it suggests state interference in the market has been detrimental. I'm not saying I'm certain that's the case but that's what the data suggest to me.
Michael Katz's analogy about Amazon offering free overnight shipping as being a fast lane doesn't seem to make sense. Them offering free overnight shipping doesn't block other stores from doing the same. Whereas if UPS/FedEx/USPS was being paid by Amazon to slow down packages from other stores, then that would seem like an apt analogy. Free overnight shipping seems more akin to ISPs offering users faster speeds or more data for the entire internet, not just specific sites.
Thank you for pointing this out.
Its SO STUPID to talk about SPEEDS vs. access. Just because you have the speed doesn't mean you'll get the access.
*It's (not possessive)
Don't you think that ISPs should be able to charge bandwidth hogs like Netflix more for overwhelming their network capacities? After all, the ISPs have to add more hardware like servers and routers to accommodate the ever growing traffic caused by data providers putting out greater and greater amounts of data. Net Neutrality doesn't allow that sort of flexibility. It forces ISPs to subsidize data providers.
If the service level you provide to your consumers is saturated by those consumers actually USING the full extent of the service they're paying for, your service is crap.
we need to make ajit pai lose
Nick Gillespie loves kool-aid.
From a giant Reese's Pieces coffee mug.
From someone with a background in IT (and libertarian perspective) the "against" arguments are just a bit cringey. Lacking so much actual knowledge in internet and tech, just lots of charm.
Who is John Galt?
Nick kept rolling his eyes at everything Tom said, Makes it impossible to take him seriously and believe anything he said
They were all quietly laughing and sneering at each other's arguments. Kinda par for the course in a political debate.
NeverEvenThere Tom Wheeler is the Obama Lackey that brought us this nonsense in the first place
SoHo Forum > Intelligence Squared