Please go to the Staff Blog Message Board and read Eric's very important message about Net Neutrality.

Link?

---

As stated in your Cafe Thread of same name; done.

Good luck to us all.

---

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

Link?

Here you go Spitfire_mk_2:

SETI Staff Blog.

---

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

Link?

Here you go Spitfire_mk_2:

SETI Staff Blog.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=75141

---

Pour la communauté française qui souhaite en savoir davantage au sujet de la perte de neutralité du Net, quelques articles récents :
Le principe de neutralité du Net adopté au Parlement européen
Neutralité du Net : les FAI vont-ils gagner la partie aux Etats-Unis ?
Neutralité du Net : la FCC bridée par un hébergeur
Neutralité du Net : la FCC américaine adopte les "voies rapides"
Neutralité du Net : une perte de temps, selon un ex-commissaire de la FCC

---

Please go to the Staff Blog Message Board and read Eric's very important message about Net Neutrality.

Thank you Angela,

SETI@home is the scientific experiment that most excites the imagination of people worldwide.

I sure hope we don't lose SETI@home :(

Best Wishes
Byron

Please go to the Staff Blog Message Board and read Eric's very important message about Net Neutrality.

Thank you Angela,

SETI@home is the scientific experiment that most excites the imagination of people worldwide.

I sure hope we don't lose SETI@home :(

Best Wishes
Byron

Me too, the election in November 2014 is critical, if Repubs win, Seti could be doomed. And that's all I'll say on that.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

Me too, the election in November 2014 is critical, if Repubs win, Seti could be doomed. And that's all I'll say on that.

You are doomed.

A Republican started the whole thing by saying the net should be free. An effort was made by businesses to un-free it. A Republican FCC Chairman issued a rule that said "Stop doing that!" to the businesses. A Democrat judge said (correctly, in my opinion), "Hey, FCC, you don't have the power to do that!" Another Republican tried to issue new rules that he thought would get-around the court's objections, but they were weak (in order not to conflict with the law). That lead to a Democrat issuing "rules" that allowed the problem we're facing. Those rules were blasted by a Republican as being unneeded and those rules were voted against by Republicans. One Democrat voted for them, but wished he had voted for something that wasn't offered. He saw this coming.

This has been a mess for many years, yes, it is true.

It is a staunch, some would even say overbearing, Democrat who issued these rules with holes you could drive Comcast corporate headquarters through, on purpose, touting the needs of businesses.

Everyone has known for a long, long time what THIS FCC Chairman wants. THIS FCC Chairman is a President Obama appointee.

Before the rules were written, there were potential legal issues. Now that the rules have been written (over the objection of the Republicans), we've got one heck of a mess.

Read a little. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

I doubt it Tbret, this is on Social Media, lots of people are for Net Neutrality and against net metering and against ISPs throttling access to sites, right now I can't access the FCC server, too much traffic to file a comment, maybe later. Eric made a posting online on Facebook, oh and I wouldn't count on Repubs/baggers winning in 2014, Democrats out number them and are energized. The natives are restless and there are Republicans who are voting Blue in 2014. Without Net Neutrality ISPs could throttle access to any Project, the Universities would not pay up, so Seti and other would go bye bye, no more Seti at Home, so are you and others for that? I'd hope not.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

Thank you Tbret. :-)

---

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

I doubt it, this is on Social Media, lots of people are for Net Neutrality and against net metering and against ISPs throttling access to sites, right now I can't access the FCC server, too much traffic to file a comment, maybe later.

Yeah, you haven't seen it, but I've been commenting about this for a long time. I want the same thing you want. I'm just not confused like you seem to be. The President is a Democrat. The FCC Chairman who issued the rules to allow this is a Democrat. Which part of that don't you understand?

Just because a thing fits with your obviously hateful internal narrative does not make it true. It was the energized who put this man where he is. I suggest you enjoy his energy.

Eric made a posting online on Facebook, oh and I wouldn't count on Repubs/baggers winning in 2014, Democrats out number them and are energized. The natives are restless and there are Republicans who are voting Blue in 2014.

I never said anything about who was voting for who in 2014. I said you don't know what you are talking about and suggested you read and become informed.

EDIT: For everyone's sake, if you want to continue a Democrat / Republican argument, I suggest moving it to the politics forum where people will argue anything without ceasing even when they are shown to be mistaken.

Net Neutrality is all about access to sites being throttled, so yes I do know something.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

Regardless of what an individual thinks of, be it throttling or bandwidth, it all boils down to having access.

If this is passed then the Internet as we know it now will be dead & further down the road big business will own it completely: -

No more blogs/social media/forums that denigrate those in charge whether they be corporations or governments - all we'll see on our screens will be...

Access Denied

---

No more blogs/social media/forums that denigrate those in charge whether they be corporations or governments <snip>

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

This really has been going-on for a very, very long time. "My company spent the money to lay the cables. We raised the money. We got the permits. We got it done. You cannot possibly be telling us that we have to allow someone else to use it for free. You just can't. That's insane!"

The counter-argument is, "Yes, you did build-out the infrastructure, but every provider can't possibly lay their own lines. So in the name of "competition" we want the right to use your infrastructure."

"Ok, then we'll charge you for using our infrastructure."

"Well, you are charging us more than you paid for it, so we can't fairly compete with you if you control our costs!"

"Help! Regulators!"

Think "Bell Telephone."

Think about Netflix, or YouTube with HD streaming. Spotify, Rhapsody, etc... They burn a lot of bandwidth and someone has to "provide" that bandwidth. So is it fair to tell Comcast (who sells pay-per-view movies) that they have to provide Netflix with unlimited bandwidth "for free?" Of course there is nothing the least bit just or fair or reasonable about that.

On the other hand, if Comcast can charge Netflix whatever it wants to provide bandwidth, then Comcast has a conflict of interest, don't they?

We've seen this same thing with "TV Stations" on a provider. If they don't pay for access via revenue sharing of adequate size, the provider has shut them down.

In the meantime, the consumer who thinks they should get NBC from Comcast since they subscribed and that included NBC, screams and the advertisers scream, and the regulators scream and something gets worked-out, but Comcast doesn't have to lose money to distribute NBC.

It really is overly-complicated with one party or the other able to hold the other hostage.

BUT, in my opinion, (and my intuition) is that what this is about is not some fresh new concern for either the provider or the distributor or the consumer. These regulations are meant to *cause* a "new" internet backbone to form. Anyone who connects to it will pay dearly (this seems to be what Eric is concerned about) for access to the "public" super-internet. The FCC really, really wants the same kind of control of the internet that they already have of "the airways."

You will have to "prove" being on it for "the public good" and they will control access and content and tax and charge fees for licenses. Like everything they touch (the V.A. Hospital system, for instance) they will bureaucratize it, raise its cost, the quality will sink, the burden to participate will go up, and it will become so heavy with crud that the inertia will stop innovation.

They don't care. All they really want is control. They've been licking their chops for a long time. Nothing can go without their destruction and the corruption that comes with it.

It won't happen immediately. This is going to take time. I have no hope that it won't eventually happen, though. We've got some awfully smart and sinister people in government. They aren't actually evil. They just think they know better than you do. Know what? Everything. Just like Blue Cross is happy to be paid as the administrator for Obamacare, eventually Comcast will be happy to process internet bills for a fee. You'll be able to get everything they tell you is fit for you to get (but they'll do it with money, not dictates)

Assume crash position.

That's just my opinion because it's a bleak way of looking at it and I feel pretty bleak.

Think about Netflix, or YouTube with HD streaming. Spotify, Rhapsody, etc... They burn a lot of bandwidth and someone has to "provide" that bandwidth. So is it fair to tell Comcast (who sells pay-per-view movies) that they have to provide Netflix with unlimited bandwidth "for free?"

No, not for free. Those companys pay to their ISP for the used bandwidth like everyone else, who has own website, they don't get it for free, just like for example SETI don't get access to internet for free too, they have to pay for it. The users, who use these websites pay for the access to internet as well. So half way is paid by the owners of the websites, the other half by the users. So there's nothing for free, even if ISPs try to convince everybody, that website owners get access to the internet for free. That's a lie. Actually the ISP want to have the 2nd half of the way paid twice, once by the user and once by the website owners.

---

Think about Netflix, or YouTube with HD streaming. Spotify, Rhapsody, etc... They burn a lot of bandwidth and someone has to "provide" that bandwidth.

Here in Australia the ISP provides the bandwidth, and the user pays for it. The more they use, the more they pay.
Having to pay a second time, for something you've already paid for, is not right.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I agree with Link. The way I see it, I am paying my ISP “X” amount of dollars for “Y” amount of bandwidth and because of that my ISP is obligated to have sufficient capacity in ensure that I have that bandwidth. That sufficient capacity is not only for last mile but also for their peering routers so that I actually receive that bandwidth even when I connect to IP addresses not on their network. It really doesn’t matter what IP address I am connecting to. It could be SETI, Google or even Netflix and my ISP shouldn’t care because I am paying them for bandwidth, not content.

It has always been that way but now the ISPs want to collect fees from content providers for the same capacity I am already paying for. That to me is just plain greed. It would nice if both political parties recognized that and really represented their constituents.

What we really need are term limits so the politicians can concentrate on how to do the best thing for their constituents without thinking about which vote, yea on nay, will result in the most money for their reelection war chest, but that is another topic.

I think one of the issues is that ISPs have painted themselves into a corner. Offering higher and higher bandwidth to users for the same or at a lower cost.

Over 10 years ago I started with 1.5Mb/384Kb for $50/mo. Now I get 25Mb/2Mb for the same cost. Which they did to compete with other ISPs. Now that people are actually using all of this bandwidth they said they could have & the government is enforcing that ISPs actually provide what they say. They have to spend the money to provide it. Instead of increasing the cost of the service which users wouldn't like. They are trying to stick it on the other end. Which is wrong.

IT is like having a toll road that leads to an amusing park. You pay to use the toll road, but they are trying to charge the amusement park for you using the toll road as well.

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[

Those companys pay to their ISP for the used bandwidth like everyone else, who has own website, they don't get it for free, just like for example SETI don't get access to internet for free too, they have to pay for it. The users, who use these websites pay for the access to internet as well. So half way is paid by the owners of the websites, the other half by the users. So there's nothing for free, even if ISPs try to convince everybody, that website owners get access to the internet for free. That's a lie. Actually the ISP want to have the 2nd half of the way paid twice, once by the user and once by the website owners.

Not so much a lie as an over-simplification.

Your position seems to imply that all necessary capacity exists.

Just because you pay to get "X" and someone else pays to get "Y" doesn't mean that the infrastructure exists at all points between X and Y to get you the same access to "X" as you might have to "Z."

This same sort of thing has been going-on with electric utilities for years. There was an instance where a university was going to co-generate. They were going to be able to produce a large percent of the campus' needs. The "access fee" that the electric company was going to charge was 100% of the campus' bill. Why? Because the utility had to be able to take-on the entire load in the event that the co-generation facility went down. The infrastructure has to exist whether it is being used or not and the capacity has to be on-line whether it is being used or not. The university scrapped the plans to co-generate. The regulations allowed the electric utility to act the way they did.

Of course Verizon and Comcast want someone else to guarantee to pay for their infrastructure. Of course they do. They cannot "force" that deal on anyone and you would expect Netflix (and a lot of others) to resent having to pay for their own infrastructure plus pay a bill to use it. Of course they do. Only a governmental body can coerce such a "deal."

In the meantime, anything Comcast can do to raise the price of a competitor (say, for PPV movies) is something they want to look-into. The more they can twist an argument to their favor, so much the better for them.

I believe the FCC as an ulterior motive, but that may just be my mistrust of power. Where concentrated power is concerned, I believe unintended consequences are not as important to them as the intended consequences. I may be a little paranoid, but I don't think the real intentions are even being discussed.

In no way, and in no measure, am I in favor of this or any other mandate, edict, or coercion.