Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Australian ISPs Claim Net Neutrality Is an 'American Problem'

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the rabbit-neutality-is-all-you,-though dept.

Communications 363

RATLSNAKE writes "The heads of some of the most popular Australian ISPs were all interviewed over at ZDNet about Net Neutrality. For once, they all seem to agree, and they say it's a problem with the US business model, or the lack thereof. They discuss why they don't think it's an issue in Australia. Simon Hackett, the managing director of Adelaide-based ISP Internode, had this to say: 'The [Net neutrality] problem isn't about running out of capacity. It's a business model that's about to explode due to stress. ... The idea that the entire population can subsidize a minority with an extremely high download quantity actually isn't necessarily the only way to live.' Of course, this also explains why we Australians do not have truly unlimited plans."

cancel ×

363 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184369)

I love it when you fags eat out my asshole. Work that tongue your shit skank!

Well.. (0)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184387)

It would make sense to me that costs on the network would be regulated to cost-distance acquired for said packet.

We have a QoS specifically built for cost-per-route. After all, a cost to hit the local backbone is cheaper than going transatlantic and back.

Perhaps we ought to work more on better predicative routing, but that is a nice NP problem :(

Re:Well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184459)

Neutral? I have mixed feelings about this!

Re:Well.. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184593)

It would make sense to me that costs on the network would be regulated to cost-distance acquired for said packet.

That's exactly what we need, having to watch all the time if we're not accidentally browsing transatlantic after we click a link, or chat with someone.

Other smart ideas :P?

Re:Well.. (3, Informative)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184677)

Oh, come on.

If you communicate within your ISP network, it would be the least cost, preferably 0 cost per packet.
If you communicate within the local network (peering ISP's, geographically local), it would be a low cost but non-zero.
If you communicate over large distances in which high utilization lines are used (undersea, satellite..) you have a high cost per packet.

One is only charged for sending, NOT receiving. This is usable using ONLY QoS already built in TCP/IP and could be set up per program or even per packet if the OS ever granted it.

Well, we see the bandwidth caps here in Oz, and the transatlantic cables are why there's caps and high costs. It costs a lot to communicate out of this island-continent.

The other thing is the local comm is free part: P2P sucks down every ounce of bandwidth. I'd rather have P2P coming from local than remote. It just makes sense.

Re:Well.. (5, Insightful)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184865)

The problem is that this idea undermines one of the main points of net neutrality, to make as many parts of the Internet as free and easily accessible as others.

I agree that P2P is holding us back, and unfortunatley current P2P systems aren't "smart" enough to prefer local connections over long distance ones (which might actually be a trivial fix, but I don't know enough about the inner workings of Bittorrent and others.

Plus, it kind of fits with one of the main truths of the Internet's capacity; demand will always meet or exceed availablity.

Re:Well.. (5, Interesting)

Dantu (840928) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185301)

I agree that P2P is holding us back, and unfortunately current P2P systems aren't "smart" enough to prefer local connections over long distance ones (which might actually be a trivial fix, but I don't know enough about the inner workings of Bittorrent and others

Ah, but they already are, to a large extent, based on three principals:

1. (Almost) All P2P systems will prefer high bandwidth and/or low-latency peers. These tend to be the ones that are local.

2. I've seen plugins/mods to several popular clients including eMule and Vuze that do a version of this by IP address look up.

The real problem is that ISPs don't encourage this, for example, by never throttling local connections and/or excluding that bandwidth from any caps.
I don't want to start getting charged different rates per country, but might not be so offended by a bandwidth cap if it excluded local peers; particularly if the ISP actively facilitated taking advantage of this feature.

What? (1, Flamebait)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184395)

Every Australian I've ever talked to seemed to completely hate their ISP.

From what I remember, isn't the Internet in Australia totally socialized?

Of course the government ISP wouldn't have a problem, they get to define "problem."

Re:What? (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184409)

Ah, it looks like it's a monopoly and not socialized. I must have been thinking of the rest of Asia. :)

Re:What? (3, Informative)

Lulfas (1140109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184463)

I play WoW with a couple of Aussies, and the easiest way to get them fired up is to complain about your internet. You'll start hearing about their month 10gb caps for 50 bucks. The reason it's an American problem and not an Australian problem is simply because the internet is almost as limited in Australia as it used to be here when everyone had 56k and was on AOL.

Whats the US isn't doing... (3, Interesting)

thetr0n (818575) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185025)

Two reason for this one being their cheap bastard or their choice of internet wasn't their decision

It was forced on them cause their parents/room-mate. whom makes the decision choose an ISP because the ad was on TV alot or Telephone provider with a monpoly that offers bundled Voice/Data + Mobile on a single bill.

Most likely these people are on a lower income to afford good ISP plan or under-contract, out of contract and CBF churning to another ISP.

I pay $150 for 8mbit service. This pays for 80Gb Download Cap and unmetered/free content offered by my ISP. Unmetered content includes File mirror, Shoutcast local relays, Large Gaming Network, Mirroring large media content (Revision3 and other online media)

US ISP don't do currently is investing in their network. Building array of unmetered content/services or build dedicated gaming networks/communites for customers.

Re:What? (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185239)

Ah, it looks like it's a monopoly and not socialized. I must have been thinking of the rest of Asia. :)

Not this part of Asia, or for that matter, ANY part of Asia (including China) I can think of. Do you have any basis for this interesting claim, or are you just assuming furriners are all commies?

Re:What? (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185285)

Uh, China Telecom, Hinet, Korea Telecom, etc.

Re:What? (3, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184467)

It's not actually like that - the simplest description is that it's a government mandated monopoly run by Mexican bandits. Nobody else can compete without the permission of the bandits.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184609)

I believe you mean Australian bandits.

Re:What? (2, Interesting)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184525)

isn't the Internet in Australia totally socialized?

fuck you have no clue. there is an existing previous monopoly that's fighting competition tooth and nail.

Re:What? (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184543)

You my friend, obviously do not follow entire threads.

Nice choice of grammar though. I like it, fancy.

Re:What? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184579)

I'm an Aussie and I love my ISP, iinet. (This is not a paid post, I'm simply giving credit where it's due).

They provide great customer service, their ADSL2 is always fast (unless I go over my monthly 45gb cap), they provide media services like I can watch EPL games streamed from their servers... ...and the best part is they tell companies like MediaSentry who demand personal information about users for alleged infringement to fuck off and get a warrant.

Some Aussie ISPs are still stupid, but there are a few very progressive ones who are well aware of issues like net neutrality, censorship, privacy, and who actively defend users rights.

Honestly I think the main complaint before was with "broadband" services that had 300mb (that's Mb) limits and then additional dollar charges for each mb (again, Mb) over that limit. Ridiculous. But now, it's much more sensible.

Re:What? (5, Insightful)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184591)

whenever conservatives talk about socialized services they seem to conflate problems of government corruption, bureaucratic inefficiency, and unpopular government with the socialized institution. but you're forgetting that public schools, law enforcement, fire departments, public libraries, roads, post offices, etc. are all socialized public infrastructure. if you really think that having government run infrastructure (in other words, having a government) is a bad idea, then wouldn't it be worse having them run the military, police, and writing laws?

if a country is a true democracy, then its government is merely a mechanism for carrying out the will of the people. i mean, most people like the idea of having free schools, but a single person cannot establish a free education system, so you do it through the government. likewise with roads, libraries, the legal system, etc.

if the government isn't acting in public interest, then that's a whole other fundamental problem that needs to be addressed regardless of whether ISPs should be socialized. i mean, why would a government ISP ignore problems any more than a commercial ISP would? would the gestapo come out and silence anyone who complains? or would they just ignore customer complaints like commercial ISPs do? at least the public has a voice in government, whereas they don't have a voice in private corporations.

all the people i've spoken to who've used public wi-fi access have commented on how great it is and seem quite satisfied with the way it works. there's no reason to think that just because a service isn't run based on corporate profits that it would be inherently inferior.

Re:What? (2, Interesting)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184757)

I'm not really a "conservative" but its nice of you to immediately try polarizing the conversation.

Are you serious about using public schools, law enforcement, public libraries, roads and post offices as examples of socialism "done right"?

For real? Maybe this is an American problem, but all of those groups have pretty poor records as far as efficiency goes.

Re:What? (0)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184797)

B-b-but! Corporations are merely a loose organization of individuals pursuing individual goals, while government is a hivemind of minimum-wage DMV workers pursuing a single, tyrannical, un-American, not-God-Blessed end. Only the Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists can lead us out of the darkness!

Yeah, you totally escaped the groupthink. Be prepared to be modded into oblivion, unfortunately.

Only addresing half the problem with socialization (2, Insightful)

untree (851145) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184839)

While the sluggish inefficiency of bureaucracy is a problem in terms of quality of service, it's even more of a problem in terms of cost.

Unless you tax the citizenry to heinous proportions, there is only a limited government budget to deal with. That budget should be allocated effectively into programs that, for whatever reason, cannot be provided effectively as anything but a government service. For the most part, this means programs that inherently must run net operating losses in order for the service to be at a price point where the public can take advantage of it (and services that are of great importance to the public). I would call these "minor" market failure points.

If the service is one capable of being profitable at a reasonable price point, then there is no reason to take money out of the pockets of taxpayers to run that system -- they will be able to pay someone else instead of the government, and thereby keep money in the economy rather than in the government coffers. And remember, so long as there is competition without antitrust violations, you DO have a say -- it's called voting with your pocketbook, I believe.

I don't see any reason an ISP would fall in the former rather than the latter category. Then again, I don't see any reason a lot of popular government programs do, either.

NOTE: There are of course other motivating factors (such as keeping dangerous powers out of the hands of the politically unaccountable) that tilt in favor of some services being provided by the government (e.g., military/police), but I just think people often forget the most important reason is that you are having to pay for these services either way. Perhaps you'd pay less per capita if you were just paying directly for the service rather than paying the government to employ bureaucrats to pay some independent contractors to provide the service.

Re:Only addresing half the problem with socializat (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25185295)

Unless you tax the citizenry to heinous proportions, there is only a limited government budget to deal with.

I live in Sweden - we pay an exorbitant amount of tax - something like a 56% income tax, with a nice 25% sales tax and then a 400% tax on alcohol - and believe me when I say that the Swedish government still have a quite limited budget to deal with. We can't even afford to buy a single Stealth Bomber.

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

decoy256 (1335427) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184889)

You don't think there is corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency in "public schools, law enforcement, fire departments, public libraries, roads, post offices, etc."? We have learned through sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, when they get a little power, to exercise that power corruptly. I live in a small town where everyone knows everyone else and there is corruption even here.

Have we not learned our lesson from communism? The more power and control of people's lives Government has, the more widespread and pervasive society's problems are. Most problems we encounter are CAUSED by government. The sad thing is that we need government to a certain extent. So, we tolerate some of the problems it causes, but we must keep a watchful eye on government to make sure it doesn't overstep its bounds and we must keep a watchful eye on ourselves and our neighbor, lest they ask government to overstep its bounds.

The Internet is one area that government does not need to interfere with. I pay $50 a month to get unlimited high speed Internet access. If my neighbor wants to save a few bucks, let him get a limited plan for $40. What do I care? What should my neighbor care? There is no need for the government to step in. Ever.

Re:What? (2, Interesting)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184893)

I'm not against government, I'm against federal government. Most of these should be controlled at the local and state levels, not by the feds.

Let's see. The local library, the police, the fire department (we have a volunteer fire department) are all controlled locally. Those work. Federal programs rarely do.

Re:What? (4, Interesting)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185031)

i completely agree with you. the way i see it, the larger a government gets (in terms of the size of the population it governs) the less democratic it becomes, not only due to bureaucratic inefficiencies which are incurred as an organization increases in size, but also because of the logistical problems presented by trying to satisfy such a large population.

there's a huge political spectrum covering the vast American cultural landscape. that diversity is one of our strengths. however, being part of one large nation creates a single political hegemon which rules over this diverse cultural landscape. it's impossible to homogenize such a vast population spread over such a large geographical area, and even if it were possible, it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing.

i think it would be preferable to adopt the European model, whereby "states" are actually states, but their political autonomy and cultural diversity do not prevent them from working together to achieve common interests through the European Union. you could still have federal-level initiatives, for things like FEMA, but they would be run as international agencies similar to UNICEF or the IPCC.

Eh (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185113)

Looking at the actual European model, I'd say that the federal model looks better. Besides the EU is gradually becoming a government. I doubt it'll stay where it is.

Re:What? (1)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185241)

Guess what? Consider that they are called states instead of provinces. That's the way the US was originally conceived. Unfortunately, the civil war put an end to that and resulted in an ever strengthening federal government that continues usurping duties that would realistically be better left up to the individual states.

Re:What? (5, Informative)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185023)

I'm quite happy with my ISP.

I am with Optus, I get full ADSL2+ speeds and 20/40GB (20 peak, 40 off peak, and yes, peak is 12 noon to 12 midnight, off peak is the reverse).

I download enough to satisfy my needs, and the price is quite fair ($70 p/m).

I've only ever gone over my cap once, and that was to rebuild a Linux server for a mate.

I'd rather have a realistic cap than have some fucktard diddling with my packets.

As for "every Australian" you've ever talked to... what, is that a grand total of 5? I am a self confessed geek with lots of geek friends, we all love our ISPs because we're not idiots. We don't go for price, we go for quality and download capacity. I can only think of maybe 5 or 6 people I know that hate their ISP, and they aren't geeks - family members who didn't consult the family geek before getting their plan.

Net "neutrality" (I am still bewildered about how that term is valid) seems like a big excuse for ISPs in the US to punish their customers. I think the main downfall of the US is not having body like the TIO (http://www.tio.com.au/) to deal with ISPs fucking you over. I've had bad ISPs in the past that have tried to screw me, what do I do? Contact the TIO and have them fight my case for me. I don't go to court, I don't really need to do much other than contact them, give them details, and they do the investigations. They pull server logs, demand details of the case, and basically make the ISP think twice before dicking their customers. They don't enforce the laws, or even make them up, they are purely there to mediate cases. They have a "fee" structure that makes it hard for ISPs to see a net gain from screwing customers.

Case in point:

An ISP wasn't delivering advertised speeds for my connection, I said I wanted out due to false advertising. They returned saying I needed to pay AU$550 to release from the contract. Well, I wasn't going to take this laying down, so I went to the TIO. They investigated the case and ended up ruling in my favour. While they weren't fined (this is something for Fair Trading or Consumer Affairs, depending on the state), they were liable for AU$1500 in fees due to not responding at the first and second level of investigation. I ended up paying nothing, they ended up $2050 in the hole for being dickheads about it.

I digress, if you want to hear about people bitching about ISPs, talk to a Kiwi... or an American...

Re:What? (0, Flamebait)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185063)

Ok, so you have actually had to pursue legal action against one of your ISPs.

And now you tell me how much you love the situation down under.

Well, I guess that proves you're Australian.

Australians++

Re:What? (5, Informative)

nabsltd (1313397) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185145)

Net "neutrality" (I am still bewildered about how that term is valid) seems like a big excuse for ISPs in the US to punish their customers.

It's a big excuse for ISPs in the US who chose not to re-invest in their ifrastructure with the billions of tax break dollars they received in the past decade .

In particular, cable companies here have done nothing to improve their core. They kept ramping up the claimed speeds in the last mile, but never bothered to fix their core networking so it could handle all those leaf nodes at full speed. Pretty much every cable company in the US requires transit from some other ISP before they hit major backbones, and they pay dearly for that.

But, the ISPs that did any forward thinking and build out are not punishing their customers with total byte caps or speeds reduced from maximum.

Not just a US problem. (4, Informative)

urbanriot (924981) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184439)

The Australians claim it's only a US problem? The CRTC here in Canada would disagree.

Ironic (1)

JonTurner (178845) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184665)

The idea that the entire population can subsidize a minority with an extremely high download quantity actually isn't necessarily the only way to live.'

However, they seem perfectly okay using that economic model for their medical care, retirement, welfare, etc.

Re:Ironic (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184699)

The idea that the entire population can subsidize a minority with an extremely high download quantity actually isn't necessarily the only way to live.'

However, they seem perfectly okay using that economic model for their medical care, retirement, welfare, etc.

With medical care, at least, it isn't generally something you choose to need. It's not like I can say "doctors are too expensive, I think I'll just decide to never get sick".

I agree, its an American problem (-1, Troll)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184447)

But so is having a free market. So is having constitutional rights. I could go on, but you see the point.

We prefer to be as free as possible, and not live under an oppressive government ( or government blessed monopolies ).. But if Australians want to have their lives restricted/controlled to this extent, then have at it, its their right..

Re:I agree, its an American problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184631)

Free market in america? Constitutional rights? To be free as possible? No government blessed monopolies? Hahahaha. My ass.

Get off your high horse Mr Patriot and PRO-IP acts. Your country has not been a shining beacon of freedom or an example for anybody even remotely sane to follow for a decade.

Re:I agree, its an American problem (-1, Flamebait)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184783)

Every country has their road-bumps to get over, we are currently going thru one. It does not mean we don't prefer what i just said and are still more free then anyone else around..

So, go crawl back under your socialist rock with your smart ass comments, and have a nice day.

Re:I agree, its an American problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184911)

Aha, you see? Another "REPUBLIKAN CRONY/SYCHOPHANT/STOOGE/ASSKISSING-BOOTLICKER/LACKEY" replies with his name calling. Love the results your "fine POLITIKAL LEADERS" in "KORPORATE AMERIKA" have yielded in the stockmarket, banking industry, and wallstreet... alongside your "war for freedom" (whose freedom? the majority stockholders of war profiteering entities like KBR, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Haliburton, & Raytheon, only?) This is not just a "bump in the road", you spinmaster with cheap tricks. It's ruination that is taking people's life savings and pensions and ripping them off (enron ring a bell here?), as well as impoverishing the entire middle class via outsourcing you soulless pitiful sad example of a human being (whose only 'savior' is the illusion he gets of being accepted & cared for via the thickness of his wallet which was built off ill gotten gains). You don't get it, do you? Money, and the illusion of making it "your god" is just that: A trap. It's not going to make your puny pencil between your legs bigger, and its only going to get you surrounded by more just LIKE you, attempting to weasel you out of your ill gotten gains. It's always that way with rats, and they're too stupid to see it, or care. They'd sell their children in Puerto Rico (casey case going on nowadays, big news), or pimp their wives out for a profit, no questions asked, & not a moments sleep lost over it. You & your kind? Despised and hated the world over, and it makes me sad to know that others worldwide think the same of you, but unfortunately, some put that cast on ALL U.S. Citizens.

Re:I agree, its an American problem (0, Troll)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185261)

I love when the mythical middle class gets brought up. Strange how its always defined in such a way that it includes the largest voting block. I guess we have reached the stage of bread & circuses. The Visigoths will be coming soon.

Re:I agree, its an American problem (1, Insightful)

iamacat (583406) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184645)

and not live under an oppressive government ( or government blessed monopolies )

You got to be kidding! If a business is failing and a government gives it $700bn cash to stay afloat, how is that not a monopoly? I would rather have a government-run ISP than government-run banking and airlines.

Re:I agree, its an American problem (3, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184949)

You may want to look up "monopoly" in the dictionary.

A dictionary is a book that has sentences which describe what an individual word is. You can go to a library or bookstore (they have pages of paper with words written on them, which is the form a dictionary tends to come in). Or search the web for information (probably using Google, which is a good example of an actual monopoly).

When the government loans money to a business to keep it afloat, its usually called a "bail out." It has nothing to do with monopolies. There is an entirely different term for this type of situation.

Do the research, you'll find your answers.

Remember, I believe in you! :)

Re:I agree, its an American problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25185027)

You got to be kidding! If a business is failing and a government gives it $700bn cash to stay afloat, how is that not a monopoly? I would rather have a government-run ISP than government-run banking and airlines.

I, as an American, am absolutely appalled at the 0.7 trillion dollar bailout. I don't think we should ever subsidize failing businesses. It makes the cost of failure pretty low (to the business owners, that is).

Re:I agree, its an American problem (1)

dosius (230542) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185035)

As if Americans these days know anything about freedom. While those of us who give a shit about freedom are getting buried under the masses of those who would happily sell their soul for a government that would micromanage their lives cradle to grave.

At any rate, I could see tiered usage, so long as it's neutral (no "long distance charge" if my packets happen to be routed off to East Jamunga, no special charge to carry access to certain domains, etc.), and as long as a high usage option is available. I would certainly prefer unlimited; I am a relatively heavy user, and I run a server. (Business class connection)

-uso.

Unlimited plans (5, Informative)

Yokaze (70883) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184455)

> "Their problem is that unlike Australia, they [offer] truly unlimited plans."

Except that the following countries also provide unlimited plans: Canada, Japan, Korea, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Singapore ...

Wait... if I am not mistaken, it is faster to list the (quasi-industrialised) countries, which don't provide unlimited plans: Australia, New Zealand.

Re:Unlimited plans (4, Interesting)

daemonburrito (1026186) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184491)

I had the same thoughts.

I would be much more interested in hearing what the top ten Japanese or Korean ISPs have to say about U.S. broadband.

Re:Unlimited plans (1)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184691)

No it'd go something like this:

BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Re:Unlimited plans (4, Funny)

Mistshadow2k4 (748958) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184697)

I would be much more interested in hearing what the top ten Japanese or Korean ISPs have to say about U.S. broadband.

It would probably be something along the lines of, "Why do they [the US companies] get all the good suckers? Why can't our customer base be willing to pay so much for so little?"

Re:Unlimited plans (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184541)

those are all subject to an AUP, the same as australia.

Re:Unlimited plans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184877)

Um, yeah. So? Every communications service contract in existence is subject to a "AUP" or analog.

What. The. Fuck. Is. Your. Point. ???

Re:Unlimited plans (1, Informative)

urbanriot (924981) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184551)

Canada does not have any ISPs with unlimited plans. In fact, of all my many choices of ISPs in my area, all of them have *lower* caps than USA's nefarious Comcast.

Re:Unlimited plans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184685)

Canada does not have any ISPs with unlimited plans. In fact, of all my many choices of ISPs in my area, all of them have *lower* caps than USA's nefarious Comcast.

Fail - No national player offers unlimited plans but most regional ones do.

Re:Unlimited plans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184789)

there are some Bell DSL reseller in Canada which offer high or no caps. Acanac is one of them. However, I read that this is to change since Bell will limit it to 60 GB/month soon. Also, Bell throttle bittorrent and other p2p protocols.

But it's true that most "regular" ISP have very low caps. I have videotron with 20GB/month for the 7 Mbps plan.

Re:Unlimited plans (1)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184803)

and my cap is supposedly 20gig of transfer (up/down no longer matters. yay!). I've gone over a couple of times, but no one's ever bothered me. These are pretty soft caps, and only once has an ISP attempted to charge extra for the bandwidth, when my roommate left a torrent running full upload for 10 days straight.

Re:Unlimited plans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184907)

acanac.ca, teksavvy.com, etc...

Torrents are throttled, but this can be bypassed with MLPPP.

Re:Unlimited plans (1)

illama (1275186) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185051)

Canada does not have any ISPs with unlimited plans. In fact, of all my many choices of ISPs in my area, all of them have *lower* caps than USA's nefarious Comcast.

Wrong.
There are many places with unlimited plans.

Teksavvy
$30 for 200GB/month
$40 unlimited
http://www.teksavvy.com/en/resdsl.asp?ID=7&mID=1 [teksavvy.com]

Execulink
$30 (without modem rental) Unlimited
http://www.execulink.ca/residential/internet/dsl.php [execulink.ca]

Those are just 2 examples of service available in my area. There are many more. Please don't spread lies.

Re:Unlimited plans (5, Informative)

debrain (29228) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185057)

Please. My quick search shows that the *vast* majority of Canadian ISPs have unlimited bandwidth. Most that do have bandwidth caps set it at a reasonably generous 200GB.
See: http://www.canadianisp.ca/cgi-bin/ispsearch.cgi [canadianisp.ca]

I have Teksavvy.com, which is $40/month (in Ontario, at least) for unlimited bandwidth.

It's only if you have the misfortune of subscribing to the services of a monopoly like Rogers or Bell that you'd be scraping the bottom of the ISP barrel. These companies profit by marketing to the ignorant masses, and peddling the lowest common denominator. The quality of their service is irrelevant, so long as it meets the basic expectations of a statistically significant segment of the masses.

Contrast this with the plethora of competitive ISPs in Canada who must compete on quality of service.

That's not to say that your area has much choice in ISP. However, if it's anywhere halfway urban, there ought to be at least one non-monopoly choice.

Re:Unlimited plans (1)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185229)

They all offer unlimited plans. They tend to come with static IPs and cost a touch higher than $30 a month.

Re:Unlimited plans (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184709)

> which don't provide unlimited plans: Australia, New Zealand.

, UK,...

Re:Unlimited plans (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184833)

I live in the UK. I'm using an ISP with an unlimited plan [bethere.co.uk] . By unlimited, I mean COMPLETELY unlimited. I've regularly downloaded hundreds of GBs a month and never heard a word from them. And it's an ADSL2+ connection with no restrictions (i.e. if I live close enough to the exchange, I DO get 24Mbit down/1Mbit up - if I pay a little extra, I get 2Mbit up). And it's not overpriced, either. I currently pay £18 a month (A cheaper, ADSL1 plan that's still unlimited, is available) for this connection, albeit on top of line Rental because BT are a bunch of cunts.

Re:Unlimited plans (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184867)

Ooh, had forgotten of the unbundlers, good point. Not here yet, but apparently next month...

Re:Unlimited plans (1)

dosius (230542) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185067)

bethere.co.uk seems to port-throttle. Friend uses it, has trouble uploading on ftp, dcc send is slow and unstable, and sftp, which I think uses the SSH port, is fairly stable and incredibly fast.

-uso.

Re:Unlimited plans (1)

legirons (809082) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184969)

> which don't provide unlimited plans: Australia, New Zealand.

UK,...

uhh, what? [bethere.co.uk]

Re:Unlimited plans (2, Informative)

kandresen (712861) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184825)

Canada is in the same situation as US, and there are often bandwidth caps too; Shaw for exampel have these plans:
High-speed internet Lite (256kbps with max 10GB/month) CAD $22/month (standalone $29.95)
High-speed (5mbps with max 60GB/month) CAD $32/month (standalone $40.95)
High-Speed Xtreme-I (10mbps with max 100GB/month) CAD $42/month (standalone $50.95)
High-Speed Nitro (25mbps with max 150GB/month) CAD $93/month (standalone 101.95)

Source http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/ [www.shaw.ca] (prices from each service sub-page)

Re:Unlimited plans (1)

Klaus_1250 (987230) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185103)

The Netherlands

Almost. Most providers here have a FUP (Fair User Policy). So you have an unlimited plan, but if you belong to the top whatever-percentile and/or there is congestion somewhere on the network, you may get a letter/email asking you to watch and reduce your bandwidth-usuage. In practice, this means you have to be moving serious amounts of bandwidth though, e.g. Terabytes per month.

Re:Unlimited plans (1)

thetr0n (818575) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185173)

Both AU/NZ are unique cause where a remote Giant Island in the middle of no-where with not alot of internet connectivity and peering options

In Europe/Asia it's alot different.

Cause the geography and country size in simple words. It's not hard to chuck a network cable over each neighbouring countries backyard fences. The countries you mentioned have alot neighbours to not only increase connectivity, But peering too

In Australia. You have limited Internet submarine cables options and quite expensive to buy capacity from them.

If you want to build your own. There alot of planning, preparing infrastructure upgrades and investment required. Just for laying cable from SYD to Guam or US to LA/San-Jose.. For a good example or read see pipeinternational.com

When you get to those large IX points like Guam, Japan and the US. You have increase in connectvity and access to bandwidth, Which for the ISP means cheaper overral bandwith bill. But the Customers get the biggest pay-off with cheaper cost or more quota.

When PIPE cable comes online. Australia internet service cost is expected to drop and ammount data customers can have will double.

unmetered != unlimited (1)

perlchild (582235) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184465)

Australians do not have truly unlimited plans

Unless the definition of unlimited changed neither does anyone else. At best, places get unmetered, and call it unlimited...
How can it be unlimited if you can want some and not have it?

Re:unmetered != unlimited (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184601)

Simple:
I have a 1.5Mbps download, 256 Kbps upload connection(not very fast by today's standard, but it's all I need)
My monthly download cap is a bit over 30*24*60*60*1.5 Mb.
My monthlyupload cap is a bit over 30*24*60*60*256 Kb.

Problem solved.

Shock and awe (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184479)

Are you saying that if someone builds a maintenance-heavy canal from a perpetually filling freshwater lake, and charge people a fixed fee to draw "unlimited" water from it, then there would be a problem if a few select individuals decided to build fifteen bakeries and twenty-seven car washes next to it?

I'd even go as far as saying that downloading continuously at max capacity is somewhat immoral in itself, so long as you know that you are using far more than everyone else _and_ that it causes congestion problems. You are like the person founding a car wash next to the canal and saying that the contract stated unlimited access.

I think the ISPs have indeed gotten things wrong, with falling into the "unlimited" trap (inspired by the 'unlimited e-mail' concept?) that is impossible to follow up on, and so only a number of half-arsed and unclear stopgaps are implemented to avoid the inevitable. People should not really have a problem with a monthly download limit of even 100gb, with more expensive tiers above, so long as there isn't a "cash trap" on the other side (i.e. you get a fair warning when approaching). Unlimited download for private individuals is like a product looking for a customer.

Re:Shock and awe (3, Interesting)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184679)

I'd even go as far as saying that downloading continuously at max capacity is somewhat immoral in itself, so long as you know that you are using far more than everyone else _and_ that it causes congestion problems. You are like the person founding a car wash next to the canal and saying that the contract stated unlimited access.

Some of us are paying for 3Mbps down/ 384kbps up, I see nothing immoral about actually using it. If the business did not anticipate that people would use what they pay a a premium on, then the business needs to change. We're not here to second guess them, if they offer a service, expect us to use it. They absolutely have, and always have had, the ability to regulate our bandwidth to the contracted rate. You won't get a penny more than you pay for.

It's very easy to caclulate the total "bytes" needed to accomodate this, although it's misleading to do so. Unlike your reservoir model, the actual limitation is the flow rate through the pipe, not the "available bytes". At certain times of the day the flow rate might be maxed out and they start dropping packets. More importantly they already have the models to know what they need to do to meet their capacity demands. No one can drain the reservoir, unless someone is selling a product he can't deliver on. Who wants to start that class action suit? Count me in.

The real issue is the networks are horribly out of date, since there has never really been a push to give customers better service, only service to more customers. The question they want to get answered is "who is going to fund upgrades?" because in a monopoly, you don't take the cost of upgrades out of your net profits, you make customers pay. On this I can't blame them, why should they suffer just to deliver a product that won't deliver a single extra dollar?

No, karma doesn't count, that they've been robbing us for half a century has been long forgotten, at least by them.

Re:Shock and awe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25185203)

I was not arguing that the reservoir is going empty, which would be an absurd analogy in this context, but that the canal has a maximum capacity. If someone wants to draw a lot, then that must mean less for others. Either no water for them, or only a trickle.

Or, the supplier might say that "we're going to build a divider down the middle, and everyone who wants to do a car wash will have the water on one side, and everyone who is just drinking and showering will have the water on the other side". Which is what they have done in some cases and in some way allows the "unlimited" access to be true.

I can't see how it would be an easy calculation - it's certainly easy to calculate the maximum, by doing 10mbps or whatever is the highest speed offered, multiplied by the number of customers. The US had 38m broadband subscribers in 2005 (source google), times 10mbps, which is 2.5m OC3 lines. According to this page (http://www.infobahn.com/research-information.htm) an OC3 line is 155mbs and costs $20k-$45k per month (although that's business customer charged rates), which in this case is the equivalent capacity of 15 people at 10mbps each paying $60 per month.

The alternative way of calculating it is by saying "99% of customers use Xmb per day, distributed in such a such way, while 1% uses Ymb per day, and the optimal setup when moving into a new area will be 0.99*X plus 0.01*Y to allow for everyone." The problem then is when you have new technology and social changes that suddenly means everyone downloads three times as much - suddenly your projections and capacity models are completely broken.

I do however agree that the business models do look to have serious issues, because "unlimited" never COULD be delivered on. It was just based on yesterday's usage patterns "almost certain" to be delivered on, but that has changed solely due to changes in usage patterns (if you want to argue about this - I am quite sure no statistics will show the capacity has actually _fallen_ over the last twenty years). If "unlimited" is now impossible to delivery without painful and unclear stopgaps, then we should both agree that offers promising that needs to change. Hence, I can't exactly see a big public uproar because the logic is difficult to argue with.

Karma doesn't count indeed - people who worked at a company half a century ago are now either dead or retired. Treating people badly for their historic company actions is like treating people badly for their historic country actions.

Re:Shock and awe (1)

b1gb1rd (1334679) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184953)

I think your analogy is flawed. This isn't about contracts or access or even the word "unlimited." It's about the evolution of technology. It's really not too much to ask to use 6mbits continuously every second out of the month. I don't know about you, but I haven't had one single "truck roll" on my behalf in the 8 years I've subscribed to broadband. Where is my $60/mo going? I'm using equipment paid for hundreds if not thousands of times over. I'm seeing the effects of at least 4 solutions to a problem that has nothing to do with me.

In Soviet Austrailia (0)

introspekt.i (1233118) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184483)

you don't download the Internet. The Internet downloads you!

Re:In Soviet Austrailia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184671)

Hiliarious! Took an old joke, added some spin to it to fit the context and bam! introspekt.i hits again!

The Australians miss the point. (1, Insightful)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184553)

At least partly, they don't get it. They are right that it's a business model that we use. It's called "You get what you pay for." As long as that is the case, AND you realize what it is you are actually paying for, then how exactly is this business model about to 'explode'? In a free market competition defines the minimum quality of the products. The broadband companies need to be more clear I guess. When I sign the contract for broadband I am not getting 100% of my theoretical maximum bandwidth or minimum latency 100% of the time. That's just part of the clause. I understand that. I expect that. If you go into it expecting to get those things then you had better damn well be paying a hell of a lot more than I am, because that kind of level of service is just not part of the agreement in a day-to-day contract.

You know what, fuck all of what I just said. It overcomplicates the issue. It's simple: You pay for 'unlimited' usage, and that means you get usage that is as unlimited as the resource permits. It's the only way this sort of resource distribution should ever work. It's fair: if you want to take your share, then go out and take it. But don't sit there and cry that other people are doing what they are paying for. Don't try to get the government involved in something that they should stay the hell out of.

These Australians are wrong.

Re:The Australians miss the point. (4, Interesting)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184617)

It's simple: You pay for 'unlimited' usage, and that means you get usage that is as unlimited as the resource permits.

And since that isn't really unlimited, there's a bit of a problem. You're paying for one thing, and they're providing something else. That's usually called "fraud" or "false advertising", and it tends to annoy people who want to actually know (and get) what they're paying for. That they probably put something like "unlimited doesn't mean what you think it does" in the fine print only matters from a legal "see, you can't sue us, nyah nyah" perspective, not a "this isn't what I paid for, you bastards" perspective.

Re:The Australians miss the point. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184941)

With due respect, I think your missing the point here. What these guys are saying is net neturality has become an issue because US ISP are crying out for more cash to pay for their networks. This itself implys that their business model is flawed. And thats the point about all this. US ISP want someone else to pay for their network. Competition in the US has produced a competitive environment where the US ISP's are not prepared to start charging for a usage based model. And this is the key here. What the Aussie ISP's are saying is you can architect plans that don't affect 95% of the user base and the 3% that use 50% of the resources get penalised. That sounds more like a viable business model to me. (Its like the all-you-can-eat buffet is never a good business model, well not is most parts of the world).

The thing US customers should realise is, US ISP charge their local customers a fixed price for unlimited bandwidth, yet they charge international connections to other countries at volume based pricing. So when US ISP's do start talking about charging either content providers or how dare I say it; start charging their customers a volume based model, There won't be much sympthy. When US ISP start to use a more realistic business model, net neturality will be a thing of the past. As they say, its a US problem, not a global issue.

the clueless comment. (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184565)

australia is a huge country with less people per mile than most other nations, so the enconomies of scale don't apply.

An American problem? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184573)

Australian ISPs Claim Net Neutrality Is an 'American Problem'

What a bunch of self-serving assholes. They're no better than Comcastoff.

This is a problem for any nation that wants its citizens to have more than basic email and Web browsing, and doesn't want said citizens to have their services curtailed at the whim of anticompetitive monsters. Apparently, the U.S. doesn't have a monopoly on those, either.

At some point, more and more nations are going to have to put connectivity in the same class of service as electricity and fresh water, and start applying some meaningful quality-of-service standards to these bastards.

Re:An American problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184633)

Please refrain from using disparaging terms when discussing Comcast, Comcast Inc. or any of its distributors or partners.

We prefer the terms "Comcastic" or "Comcastration."

We know what porn you download and we will not hesitate to cut off your access and/or publish your web browsing habits on the Internet for public consumption.

You agreed to all of this when signing up, as part of our EULA.

Thanks and have Comcastic day!

-- Your local Comcast representative

Who is saying this, telus? (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184659)

Of course telus and the government cronies propping them up would say that.

They have worse business practices than the monopolies which spawned the sherman act!

They have a 100% monopoly on australian pipes, and they don't allow peering agreements like every sane nation has.

This means they charge by the bit for every australian ISP.

This results in internet service which is an utter joke. The statues on easter island get better access, and they are stones!

Re:Who is saying this, telus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184843)

Don't you mean Telstra?

Telstra: the largest provider of both local and long distance telephone services, mobile services, dialup, wireless, DSL and cable internet access in Australia. (Wiki)

Telus: a crappy Canadian ISP known for ripping off customers. (former Telus customer)

No Shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184713)

Of course ISP's in Australia are going to say that.
The situation is very good for Australian ISP's, they can charge
extraordinary amounts for what is basically proxied traffic.

The Australian people are used to paying exorbitant prices for communication services,
a history of supporting subsidies to provide services to remote locations.
They dont blink an eyelid at the current prices, so ISP's are cutting hay while the sun shines.

The market is completely tied up, the results of uncompetitive behavior from Telstra.

Australia needs more independently controlled undersea cables,
so that the people of Australia can have regular prices like in Europe or Asia.

It is only an American problem because the Australian system is basically a cartel controlled system and incomparable.
BTW: A system the ISP's in the U.S. would like to have.

You are NOT paying enough to complain, STOP IT (3, Insightful)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184765)

I'm getting seriously fed up of this. You are not paying even in the same ballpark of the actual cost of supplying your full connection's worth of bandwidth for an entire month. If you want to use that much bandwidth, buy a leased line. If you don't like that you get more kb/s than you can use all the time, move back to a 56kb/s modem.

Why on earth the US ISPs have tried telling you that you can just use as much bandwidth as you want, for so long, I'll never understand. Comcast's model of "this much, then we write to you, then we cut you off if you do it again" is absurd, doubly so given they don't provide any easy metering, but that doesn't change the reality of what you're paying for vs what you wish your money covered.

Re:You are NOT paying enough to complain, STOP IT (1)

ccguy (1116865) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184813)

I'm getting seriously fed up of this. You are not paying even in the same ballpark of the actual cost of supplying your full connection's worth of bandwidth for an entire month.

Yet the telcos make shitloads of money every month.

Re:You are NOT paying enough to complain, STOP IT (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184883)

> Yet the telcos make shitloads of money every month.

So, they're overcharging the average person to balance the extreme? My point is that bandwidth is about the most expensive thing in providing the connection, and personally I think having the cost of Internet access more closely resemble the cost of providing it is a good thing...

Re:You are NOT paying enough to complain, STOP IT (2, Interesting)

ccguy (1116865) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184989)

So, they're overcharging the average person to balance the extreme?

I'm sure the telcos prefer to give 'all you can eat' to everyone, and live with the fact that there is a percentage of people that will actually use their bandwidth 24x7, than charge a proportional amount.

At least in Spain, they charge a minimum (I think it's around 20 euros per month now) just for access, even if you don't use the service at all. And when you have 10 million lines, that's a lot of money. If they decide to switch to a pay per use model it's possible that the regulator makes the telcos reduce that outrageous 'just for having a line' fee.

They make good money, they have more or less 'social peace' with the customers (a few years ago a telco was by definition the enemy), and some of those bandwidth hungry users provide technical support to families which prefer to call them than the telco when things don't work.

Why change a successful model?

Re:You are NOT paying enough to complain, STOP IT (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184875)

I'm getting seriously fed up of this. You are not paying even in the same ballpark of the actual cost of supplying your full connection's worth of bandwidth for an entire month.

I don't care that I can't constantly max out my connection, I do care if the ISP lies about it.

Why on earth the US ISPs have tried telling you that you can just use as much bandwidth as you want, for so long, I'll never understand.

I suspect it has to do with how misleading advertising tends to give you more customers in the short term.

Re:You are NOT paying enough to complain, STOP IT (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184955)

> I don't care that I can't constantly max out my connection, I do care if the ISP lies about it.

YES! An attitude I wholeheartedly agree with.

> I suspect it has to do with how misleading advertising tends to give you more customers in the short term.

Good answer!

Re:You are NOT paying enough to complain, STOP IT (1)

b1gb1rd (1334679) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185053)

I notice there are a lot of republicans on Slashdot.

Re:You are NOT paying enough to complain, STOP IT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25185291)

what you're paying for vs what you wish your money covered.

The funny thing with capitalism is that I don't have to "wish". Either the company is charging enough to support it's own business plan or it's not. It is neither my fault nor my responsibility either way.

Re:You are NOT paying enough to complain, STOP IT (4, Insightful)

Jimmy_B (129296) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185315)

I'm getting seriously fed up of this. You are not paying even in the same ballpark of the actual cost of supplying your full connection's worth of bandwidth for an entire month.

This is a common misconception. Bandwidth is actually very, very cheap; if you use your full connection's worth of bandwidth, it costs only a tiny bit more than if you let it sit idle. In order to provide more bandwidth, you need two things: routers and fibers. Routers are cheap. In fact, thanks to Moore's Law, the price per unit bandwidth for a router falls exponentially over time. On the other hand, running new fiber is expensive, because it involves digging, which is both expensive in itself and requires expensive planning (to make sure you don't damage someone else's infrastructure) and bureaucracy (for the same reason). Fortunately, when you install fiber, you can install as much as you want for little extra cost. The problem that the US cable companies are experiencing is that they need to run new fiber to a lot of places, but they would rather put it off as long as possible. But this is a strictly one-time expense; once they've run the fibers, adding more bandwidth just means buying more cheap routers.

Fool around tonight, honey? (1)

b1gb1rd (1334679) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184775)

Why are we relating Net Neutrality to the current condition in the states (corporate greed) then saying it's not about capacity?

Ignore the Australians/New Zealanders (0, Troll)

QCompson (675963) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184801)

Never listen to Australians/New Zealanders when they start babbling about the internet and ISP policies. Their argument always boils down to this: We have crappy expensive internet service so therefore the rest of the world should too.

If they had their druthers everyone would be on dial-up with a download cap of 1 gig a month.

Summary (0, Troll)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185147)

Net Neutrality: Geeks, gamers and techopundits demanding that they pay the same as everyone else for ten times the bandwidth and three times the quality. They are demanding to pay the same $19.95 as their grandma who only checks her email once a day.

The "One Price Fits All" model that we have necessitates a Lowest Common Denominator product. We should be sending market demands to networks that we want differentiation, but instead we're sending political demands to Congress to forbid differentiation.

Re:Summary (5, Informative)

Garse Janacek (554329) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185263)

Except that's not what net neutrality is. Net neutrality isn't about charging everyone the same price regardless of how much bandwidth they use, or requiring that everyone has unlimited network capacity. That's silly. It's not even about saying that certain types of traffic can't be prioritized over others -- net neutrality wouldn't prevent ISPs from throttling bit torrent, for example (though there is overlap in the people who support net neutrality and the people who oppose such throttling).

Net neutrality means that Microsoft can't pay your ISP to improve your bandwidth to MSN search while throttling the bandwidth to Google. Net neutrality means that your ISP is not allowed to charge you for bandwidth and then also charge websites to actually connect you to them. (Google is already being charged quite a lot for bandwidth.) Traffic of different types (web vs. bittorrent vs. whatever) can behave differently, but traffic from different sources should be treated the same, to avoid protection-racket style abuses (nice site you got there, it sure would be a shame if my 50 million subscribers were no longer able to reliably access it...)

So, no, net neutrality is not at all about all users paying the same amount regardless of their level of usage. But some of the ISP monopolies have managed to frame it that way by implying that the rules that would apply to destination sites (Yahoo vs. Google) are actually rules about individual subscribers (large versus small bandwidth demand from a single individual). The intent of net neutrality is that ISPs should only be charging for throughput at the network endpoints they control, not at both endpoints of all connections, so we don't end up quadruple-charging for every transmission (as opposed to the current double-charging, which is reasonable since it allows the two parties to the connection to share the cost of the bandwidth they both use).

The whole argument is a scam (5, Informative)

moxley (895517) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185155)

I think the whole entire "Net Neutrality" argument is a scam. IMO it's about two things primarily:

First, I think it's about making a whole lot of money for, and giving corporate welfare/protectionism to large communications companies that have had plenty of the subsidies from the govt and taxpayers in the past - technology is making things they used to charge an arm and a leg for free, or practically free - look at VOIP for one - and every year the web and our networked society seems to progress more.

Second though, and more importantly, I think it is about control and censorship. The government and these large media conglomerates don't like that people can get any sort of unfiltered information they'd like from around the world in real time. They don't like the fact that people can get news up to the minute from anywhere on any subject that they are interested in that is likely less biased, more accurate, and less full of "agenda setting talking point spin" than they can from TV News* (which has really become absurd, it's Paris/Britney mixed with a health dose of paranoia-behavior-control). They don't like it that instead of having some fascist douche like Bill O'Reilly telling people "what the news means to them," people can either look it up on their own or find their own place full of smart people with diverse views to have conversations with (Slashdot being a perfect example).. They don't like how the net can be used as a tool for orgaqnization and mass communication by practically anybody.

When one of your main goals is control, and knowledge and information are pwoer - the internet is your enemy.

*Now everything I have stated as populist advantages to a free internet can also have their downsides, for example - not all news online is accurate, honest, agenda free - but compared to what you see on TV it is, especially if you are even halfway savvy consumer of media you can find it easily. Also, anything that can be used to spread information can also be used to disinform - but I don't think anything comes close to the amount of disinformation/one-sided information and societal control as network television does.

So these are the real drivers of anti-net neutrality: Money and control. All of this stuff about not having enough capacity, and how strained the internet is - those issues can be solved so many ways properly without creating a digital ghetto for non-corporate/big money websites.

Australians do not have truly unlimited plans as t (0)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185161)

Australians do not have truly unlimited plans as the over seas links are not that big I think that some do have Unlimited plan for in Australia Data.

"problem with the US business model" (2, Insightful)

wfstanle (1188751) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185219)

Recent events indicate that net neutrality isn't the only "problem with the US business model, or the lack thereof". It seems that big business wants the profits privatized (as they should be) but any losses should be socialized.

There is plenty of blame to go around but the majority of the blame rests on the shoulders of big business. By the way, for the companies not incorporated in the US, there are some of the same problems. They are not quite as extreme as in the US but people not living in the US shouldn't feel smug, it could happen to you if you are not vigilant.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>