Page 2 - Virgin to throttle net for it's users

My bias is that I have zero problem with ISPs and other network providers providing cheap fast access for 'most' users, and charging more for some who use more bandwidth.

But I don't see that as a topic properly called "net neutrality".

I've consulted to a lot of corporations about their AUP, and had many discussions about porn and gambling sites being accessed using corproprate assets. The discussions are pointless, and blocking ports is idiotic. (It just starts an arms race). You solve it simply by stating that the company provides computers to do company work, and if you do inappropriate things on them, you can, and will, be fired.

Post blocking has to be a red herring, anyone can get around it, using TOR, proxies, etc.

I'm still not getting the real issue, perhaps there is not one.

I agree there is some situations where being net neutral is not an important factor. but there are other situations where there is. I personally take different stances depending on the exact scenario.

Virgin is essentially holding websites for ransom. Which anyone has to agree that is seems very unethical. If your going to offer a service, you should provide it as advertised. If you misjudged the amount of bandwidth your customers would use, then thats your fault.

Though, I doubt they are keeping their customers from accessing these sites because they are using too much bandwidth. It's more likely they saw a chance to make free money. "Hey johnny really loves facebook, he visits facebook everyday, I should demand he gives me 20 bux if he wants to see facebook ever again"

A lot of methods to keep people from accessing certain online resources may not actually work as well as they want it to (because of things like proxies) but it's still just the principle of things. Also most methods you can use to work around your restrictions are available to users who are computer savvy. Other people just don't have the knowledge or capacity to do it.

I'm not heard anyone seriously suggest this scenario. Perhaps they have and I missed it. That looks like more red herrings or hype and disinformation to me. What I have heard is that Johnnie's ISP will demand that Facebook pay some kickback to get the fastest routing, and if not, then Johnnie will get slower response.

This is really the same as the old "peering" discussion back in the early 90s, where someone like Digex would build a national fiber optic network, and others would want to get free access to it. Instead, Digex did 'peer' business relationships with other ISPs, and setup their routing tables to give preferred routing to packets from their peers, and send other packets off into other links.

What this mostly did was cause the peering points, like the infamous MAE East, to get overloaded.

Consumers are used to paying extra for the cable TV tier that has HBO, its really not that much of a reach to say that the worlds fastest links to Facebook and google are on a more expensive tier.

But without serious real world examples, this is all speculation. And far more smoke than light.

Your right, i read the article backwards.

Its still the same sort of thing, their trying to bring in extra free money.

Facebook should only be paying for the bandwidth they use to their ISP, if Virgin thinks facebooks's ISP is using too much bandwidth on the Virgin network and needs to pay for their bandwidth usage, then take that beef to facebooks's ISP, not facebook.

I can see where your coming from, from your point of view this sort of thing happens all the time in other industries (pay a premium for better access). Sort of like a VIP room.

I personally disagree with it, because they arent offering better service to those who pay more, they are threatening to give inadequate service to those who don't pay up. To me, its nothing like offering HBO in HD or anything, its like sony making a radio that turns certain radio frequencies into static unless the radio stations gives them money.

The problem with "Net Neutrality" in a capitalist world is that if you take away the ability of for-profit corporations to make obscene profits, they may not support and upgrade the network that they "own".

But this does not take into account things like the fact that public dollars and valuable public right-of-ways are what built substantial amounts of these networks. And, there are all the benefits of being "common carriers" rather than ISPs.

The bottom line is that Western nations, both the UK and the USA, have some of the slowest consumer connections in the world at the highest access prices.

I say nationalize them all.

Agree that the US has pityful slow and over priced broadband. The FCC has been inept on this topic forever, including the Clinton administration's time.

I don't like your nationalization idea, the US is nominally a capitalist country, bank bailouts, etc. the exception.

The fundamental question driven from the argument that telcos are natural monopolies. Hence 98% of the country has one telco and one cable TV company. Some competition. The monopoly franchises are just opportunities for the local politicians and bureaucrats to extract bribes. I would argue that the solution is more competition, not less.

Which drives the discussion into whether there is a 'right' to high speed internet access, which probably is better suited to the outhouse.

I wouldn't say this is outhouse material. I also wouldn't say it's about consumer rights. It's more about ethics, and about if it's whats best for the internet. Do we really want to have an internet in which you can only access information from the richest corporations?

The beauty of the internet now, as I see it. Is that it takes away the limits of things like television and radio. Where on broadcast media, you need to have big bucks to get your word out; perhaps millions of dollars. On the internet, anyone can put their word online (for an affordable price ).

Just imagine what would happen to Opensource projects if there were lesser net neutrality. Most open source projects generate little or no revenue.

Very much a Consumer Rights issue. But like many things, most Americans are quite willing to let Big Biz walk all over them, and pay for the privilege.

Off-topic, not related to the post, out of place in the Lounge, abusive, incoherent.

This is a non-sequitur. What makes the argument about "richest corporations"??

And a tad overly broad. I see no evidence that "network neutrality" is international, and this thread is about a single UK ISP. What context do you address "best for internet"? Who decides what is best for the Internet? Is such a thing even possible?

Still sounds like a rehash of the commercialization arguments back in the early 1990s. Back then "the internet" was run by the US government for its own needs, with some corporations and a large number of universities. It was not a mass market thing. Commercialization is what made the Internet an important part of international culture.

Laugh all you want about AOL, it was "the Internet" for a huge percentage of people for many years. And it was not a charity or government effort. Neither was Netscape.

The thread is about a single UK ISP. but we happened to be discussing what net neutrality means.

The situation in which how the internet originates has nothing to do with what the internet is now. The internet now is very different than 20 years ago. We need to focus on how the internet is used now.

Yes this is not a charity, but a business still needs to act ethically.

Much like how monopolies are not legal in most countries (except in certain situations). Yeh the biggest and best businessess would naturally take over the market. But it makes everyone else slaves to those companies, it also gives no reason for a company to create newer or better products because they have no competition. Which is why governments create laws to stop monopolies from happening.

The same sort of problem will happen if there is no net neutrality, we can only get information from the big boys, and they have no incentive to better the quality of what they offer. If someone doesn't say that stopping this from happening isn't "good for the internet" then they ought to have a good argument to back up their opinion.