scott wrote:
> Oh that's different here, the government-enforced monopoly that owns the 
> wire for the phone is forced to let any other company use it.

So that's what the law is trying to overturn, you see. The law would 
basically be saying that the ISP would be able to filter packets from any 
other ISP.

> happened quite recently (I think 5-10 years ago in the UK), but now 
> there are plenty of ISPs to choose from with a wide range of prices.  

And that's *because* of the presence of the law that they're trying to 
overturn, you see, that says they have to carry those packets.

> Anyway, if you want to start up an ISP, I don't see any reason why you 
> can't, there are enough of them around (in UK and Germany at least).

OK. It used to be more monopolistic a while back. Still is, for some kinds 
of connectivity in the USA.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:13:32 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> With the cable companies in the US, they behave as a common carrier in
>> that they are the sole provider of the line, but you can't (AFAIK)
>> choose to use a different ISP if you use the cable provider.
> 
> Sometimes you can. But then what happens is you have things like Time
> Warner, who provides ISP, VIOP, and IPTV services, giving lower priority
> to traffic destined for Vonage's VOIP servers, Hulu, and so on.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. :-)

> I.e., by saying "It's my ISP, I can do whatever I want," they can
> provide VOIP at $50/month, and then refuse to connect you to the
> $20/month VOIP service, or provide cable TV service expensively and
> refuse to let you watch TV provided by someone else online like Hulu. TW
> already does this to some extent, until people complained to the PUC.
> 
> Then Time Warner gets pay-per-view, and decides that you shouldn't be
> allowed to hit CinemaNow or NetFlix download servers.

Yup, and that's something that should be illegal - and I think people are 
perfectly reasonable to complain to the PUC about it.

>> What I think needs to happen is that the line provider needs to be
>> classified as a common carrier.  Common carrier status means they have
>> to treat all data equal, and the service providers (ie, the one
>> providing the network address and access to the Internet at large) then
>> compete on features, access, availability, and bandwidth options.
> 
> Exactly.

I worked for a company that owned a common carrier; as a common carrier, 
they were required by law to carry signals for competitors in the primary 
business (food and drug retail - yeah, I know, how they came to own a 
common carrier....well, I do know the history) and had to do so in a very 
clearly segmented way so as to not expose competitor data to our primary 
lines of business.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:49ee4dfd$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> > news:49ee1019$1@news.povray.org...
> >> somebody wrote:

> >>> If you don't like it, don't buy the Sony TV.
> >> That's not what I asked. I asked why it's a good thing.  I.e., why are
you
> >> in favor of this becoming a law?
> >
> > I'm in favour of the law not restricting what ISPs can deliver.
>
> I 100% understand that. But for the third time you haven't answered the
> question. What's the benefit that comes from allowing ISPs to refuse to
> deliver certain kinds of content, or content from certain providers of
> information that are otherwise legal?

Actually, I don't know. It's like asking what's the benefit of allowing
portable audio devices that pick up FM but not AM to be manufactured and
sold. I think the decision should be with the manufacturer / service
provider, and not with government. Beyond that, it's a technical / strategic
matter that depends on particulars and needs. For someone needing NNTP, for
instance, it's I guess not a good thing to allow ISPs to remove NNTP access.
Someone who never uses that will not care. Personally, if I'm going to be
charged the same, I want it all, just in case. If there's going to be
discounts or other incentives for limited access, say for those who don't
use P2P filesharing, I would certainly welcome that. Now that more and more
things are being delivered over the internet, customization of services may
be a good idea.

> If you just reassert "it's bad", then you're not saying *why* you think
it's
> bad. Convince me with logic, not "proof by repeated vigorous assertion."

I wasn't aware my assertions were particularly vigorous. Just stating my
opinion on the matter, as does everybody else. I do feel strongly, however,
that in a free market, producers and providers should have the freedom to
define their products with minimum government involvement, except when
obvious health hazards are involved.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > I 100% understand that. But for the third time you haven't answered the
> > question. What's the benefit that comes from allowing ISPs to refuse to
> > deliver certain kinds of content, or content from certain providers of
> > information that are otherwise legal?

> Actually, I don't know. It's like asking what's the benefit of allowing
> portable audio devices that pick up FM but not AM to be manufactured and
> sold.

  I don't think that comparison is valid. Supporting both FM and AM radio
requires additional circuitry and hardware. In other words, supporting only
eg. FM and not AM means that there is less circuitry needed, the user
interface of the radio becomes simpler, etc.

  In this case it's not a question of the ISP hardware or software becoming
more complicated/expensive if they support two information providers (which
are equivalent to each other in the amount of content), but the opposite:
Providing both is simpler and less expensive than building a filtering
logic which would filter one but not the other.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:32:04 -0400, Warp wrote:

>  Supporting both FM and AM radio
> requires additional circuitry and hardware.

Unless you're REALLY close to the transmitter.  Like under it.

I have an FM receiver that - in close proximity to US airports - can be 
used to tune into the ATC frequency for the airport.  US ATC (not sure 
about other parts of the world, but I imagine it's the case) is 
transmitted using AM equipment.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 21-4-2009 21:09, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 21-4-2009 17:52, Darren New wrote:
>>> scott wrote:
>>>> The ISP business is open and follows market demands, they will 
>>>> provide for whatever the customers want.
>>>
>>> Not in the USA.  Aren't most telecom companies state-run in Europe? 
>>> Am I allowed to open a new telephone company in (say) Germany and dig 
>>> up the road and all, running new wires to houses in new developments?
>>
>> The way that is handled here 
> 
> Where is "here"?

Netherlands

>> Needless to say that quite often it does not work as expected.
> 
> Tell me about it. :-)

I think you can imagine what happens.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I don't think that comparison is valid. Supporting both FM and AM radio
> requires additional circuitry and hardware.

Plus, nothing prevents you from buying an FM radio *and* an AM radio, or one 
radio from someone else that supports both.  ISPs aren't quite so fungible.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49ef62a4@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:

> > > I 100% understand that. But for the third time you haven't answered
the
> > > question. What's the benefit that comes from allowing ISPs to refuse
to
> > > deliver certain kinds of content, or content from certain providers of
> > > information that are otherwise legal?
>
> > Actually, I don't know. It's like asking what's the benefit of allowing
> > portable audio devices that pick up FM but not AM to be manufactured and
> > sold.

>   I don't think that comparison is valid. Supporting both FM and AM radio
> requires additional circuitry and hardware.

I'm pretty sure providing NNTP a sever service, especially with the volume
of binary postings, isn't all that cheap either. At the very least,
eliminating certain servies or implementing filters will cut down on
bandwidth and related infrastructure, which isn't a free lunch even for
ISPs. Of course no analogy is perfect, but I think it's a fairly OK
comparison.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> I'm pretty sure providing NNTP a sever service, especially with the volume
> of binary postings, isn't all that cheap either.

But that's not what the bill is about. It's about the ISP disallowing you 
from using someone else's NNTP server unless you pay extra. It's about the 
ISP saying "you have to pay more to get to news.povray.org than to 
www.povray.org."  It has nothing to do with the cost of providing the bits 
and everything to do with the profit to be made from popular content.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:46:12 -0600, somebody wrote:

> I'm pretty sure providing NNTP a sever service, especially with the
> volume of binary postings, isn't all that cheap either.

And many providers don't provide NNTP service as a result.

I don't know of any in the US who explicitly block port 119 to prevent 
the customer from accessing a third party server, though.

Or who charge a premium to open those ports rather than use their own 
hosted service.

*That's* the topic under discussion.

Jim

Post a reply to this message