I agree to Idea Net is not neutral now
Voting Disabled

7 votes

I disagree to Idea Net is not neutral now

Rank191

Idea#147

This idea is active.
Reasonable Network Management »

Net is not neutral now

A large ISP (DSL provider) in California sells *their* VoIP service.

If you order their VoIP service, all is well, quality is good, it works.

If you DO NOT order their VoIP service, they sabotage your VoIP packets, you cannot use their DSL for voice service (another provider, or build-your-own).

Basically, they implement a tiered service, or a $39 surcharge for the ability to use VoIP through their DSL.

What next? Perhaps a $39 surcharge if you want to use some other email service, or for watching YouTube, or for browsing OpenInternet.gov

Let's make the net neutral again!

Submitted by taneli 4 years ago

Vote Activity Show

(latest 20 votes)

Comments (7)

  1. If you don't like the product, go to another supplier.

    Have few choices? Then ask why.

    (Since you live in California, you can guess why. Limitations and favoritism by city and state politicians, subsidies by the feds. I feel sorry for folks in California, they have it worse than folks in most states.)

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  2. Dar, if you don't like this post, go to another discussion.

    Have few choices? Then ask "am I the reason?"

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  3. I want more choices too. Right now I can't get any real competition in my area for cable OR internet. And I live in a downtown!! /end rant

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  4. I will go so far as to name this company: Comcast.

    When I lived in Las Vegas, I didn't have any problem with Cox. Instead, I move to San Jose, and Cox isn't out here, it's only Comcast -- which shapes (to destruction) all external services that compete with its own.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  5. taneli Idea Submitter

    Actually...

    Comcast, while they munge the packets... at least in my area they don't oversubscribe the network too badly.

    It's Speakeasy -- they both oversubscribe, and purposely de-prioritize packets.

    It was refreshing to see, that AT&T (SBC), on the other hand, did not... same DSL, same everything...

    If net neutrality doesn't come to fruition, the minimum I want, is "fair and honest labeling" -- so that people can vote with their wallets.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  6. Yes we need to stop discrimination and prioritization. I just made a comment concerning this issue for another post.

    My main concern is with cable companies owning content they can then prioritize said content and discriminate against content they don't own. Worse with Comcast's NBC Universal merger they could prioritize NBC content for their digital cable TV service -- every year cable and broadcast TV networks renegotiate with providers a new contract for the year to keep channels on the provider's service. Often times the networks demand higher fees from the cable providers which have to be passed on to consumers. Cable providers pretend to complain about the higher fees and refuse to accept them, even notifying the public about the cable network's demands to raise rates but then ultimately go along with the network's demands even if they ask viewers to vote on whether to roll over or get tough and viewers vote for get tough -- the cable providers still roll over. What if Comcast can say since they own NBC Universal Comcast Digital Cable TV subscribers never have to worry about higher rates each year for NBC Universal owned channels ever again but viewers of other providers may be forced to still pay the higher fees each year.

    Even worse what if Comcast with their anticompetitive and anti consumer TV Everywhere scheme says that their high speed Internet customers from now on have to also subscribe to their digital cable TV service to watch TV online. They set up an unfair and unnecessary anticompetitive pay wall forcing Internet users to pay for their expensive TV service. They force users to bundle Internet and TV in order to access YouTube, Hulu, or other video sharing sites and services designed for viewing TV over the Web -- even the legit paying services. They don't want competition from cheaper, more affordable, legal, online video on demand systems like the Apple iTunes Store and Apple TV, Microsoft's XBox 360 Live Video Marketplace for purchasing and downloading movies (or renting and downloading movies) or purchasing episodes of your favorite TV Shows in either SD or HD, or even streaming TV Shows and Movies via Netflix Watch Now to be available. They say if you want to download movies from iTunes using your Comcast High Speed Internet service you also have to have Comcast's Digital Cable TV service.

    That is prioritizing and discrimination which would be impossible with Net Neutrality. Comcast in fact should be forbidden from merging with NBC Universal as it would cause a conflict of interest. All ISPs should be dumb pipes taking us to the same Internet -- just providers of Internet service and perform the same way as wireline phone service providers do. What we do online, how we use the Web, how often we use the Web that's up to us. So they should not be able to institute unfair and arbitrary bandwidth caps on legit users either. Unless a user is spamming they should not have service slowed down, blocked or terminated. Also the Net Neutrality protections should extend to wireless also so cellular phone carriers cannot unfairly discriminate against VOIP apps on their network -- AT&T should not be able to ever again restrict Skype's iPhone app for example to Wifi ever again. There was no technical reason for the block they had on Skype back in 2008 but it was an anti competitive, anti consumer business decision.

    Also worth noting for those who say if you don't like your provider just change it -- when 1 company has a monopoly on the regional market and you have to move from California to escape Comcast -- or you have to move from your current city to get better Internet from another provider that is not right. There should be competitive, affordable access in all cities and all states. Moving to another town just so you can have another provider should not have to be an option.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  7. I am pretty sure Comcast treat VoIP with the same best effort as regular internet traffic. The same thing you are complaining about is the same thing you want to force them to keep doing by law???

    I am not as familiar with speakeasy, but my guess is that they do the same thing. You tend not to notice the congestion as much with standard traffic but VoIP suffers badly trough it, hence the need for QoS for protocols such as VoIP and videoconferencing, again, the same thing you propose to outlaw.

    Almost every major company in the country today is using QoS in some way shape or form.

    3 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed