Intel, IBM and Qualcomm come out swinging against Net Neutrality

[silberdrachi]

http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/11/turkeys-vote-against-christmas/?ncid=rss_truncated

 

 

In an open letter to both congress and the FCC, a group of 60 companies that include Qualcomm and Cisco, argue that proper regulation of the internet will risk the end of national investment in telecommunications infrastructure.

 

 

As far as companies like IBM and Intel are concerned, reclassifying broadband as a utility will prompt the networks to halt their building plans altogether. Were that to happen, it's claimed that US investment in broadband could fall by as much as $45 billion in the next five years.

 

Sounds like some companies are trying to protect their interests first and foremost. But with big names pushing so hard for Net Neutrality's demise, its not a good sign.

[Atmos]

I'm glad at least that the president however little power he has in our government at the moment still sides with net neutrality, i wouldn't put it past a politician to drop his values for cash though, we've already seen far too many do that so far...

[LAwLz]

Intel, IBM and Qualcomm are essentially saying "ISPs are threatening to stop buying our stuff if we don't agree with them, therefore we have to".

I am really disappointed in them for doing this. I don't even understand how it's legal for ISPs to threaten with this. To me this is just more evidence that we need net neutrality.

ISPs are already abusing their power to push their agendas and manipulating other companies. Do we really want to give them more power or should we take some power away from them? Once you start abusing the power you got I think it's justifiable to take some power away.

[Techhog]

That's all she wrote I guess. Slow internet, high prices, and low data caps are all that await us. I officially give up.

[Guest]

Can't wait for construction companies to campaign for toll roads that charge people based on where they're going.

[silberdrachi]

Can't wait for construction companies to campaign for toll roads that charge people based on where they're going.

 

You know they do this a lot right? Its just not as common in the US.

[Guest]

You know they do this a lot right?

A toll road could be charging you on how long a stretch you're using or on a city-to-city transfer basis.

It can't say 'It'll be $5 to get to city X, but if you're going to city X to visit grocery shop Y, it'll be $10 or your top speed will be 10mph, cause grocery shop Y isn't paying us protection money', which is what the ISPs want to implement.

[Toddwjp]

Jesus fcking Christ, the reason these companies don't invest in infrastructure has nothing to do with net neutrality it because they basically have a monopoly. They dont need need to make there product better because there the only dam service provider in that area. its why they lobby so hard against municipal broadband.

 

and onto the topic of net neutrality.

 

it should exist and the arguments that they make for getting rid of it are stupid. the customers has already paid for that connection speed, just because alot of those customers all goes to one site doesn't mean you get to charge that site a fee "because there using too much of your bandwidth", that bandwidth has already been paid for by the customers.

[patrickjp93]

Intel, IBM and Qualcomm are essentially saying "ISPs are threatening to stop buying our stuff if we don't agree with them, therefore we have to".

I am really disappointed in them for doing this. I don't even understand how it's legal for ISPs to threaten with this. To me this is just more evidence that we need net neutrality.

ISPs are already abusing their power to push their agendas and manipulating other companies. Do we really want to give them more power or should we take some power away from them? Once you start abusing the power you got I think it's justifiable to take some power away.

Huh?! That's not at all what they're saying! They're saying they don't want to have to innovate their technologies since there's basically an established networking duopoly between Qualcomm and Intel where they don't really compete. It took me a while to figure out why IBM would be in the same boat, but then I remembered they were the ones who designed my university's wifi infrastructure. They want to be able to sell all the old stuff and services at high prices as long as possible.

[Orblivion]

Well there is a small crumb of comfort, and it is that there were some heavy hitters lobbying FOR net neutrality recently as well.

[patrickjp93]

Well there is a small crumb of comfort, and it is that there were some heavy hitters lobbying FOR net neutrality recently as well.

The three biggest chip makers and the ISPs in the world vs Apple, Google, and Netflix. This is going to be a bloodbath of lobbying.

[Sidiox]

The three biggest chip makers and the ISPs in the world vs Apple, Google, and Netflix. This is going to be a bloodbath of lobbying.

The three biggest chipmakers who make chips for the servers of all those ISP and make the servers for Apple, Google and Netflix.... A very interesting situation....

 

How the fuck would you think that it is okay to charge more for certain bytes? You already pay for the amount of bytes you want to receive per second and sometimes also for the amount you can receive per month, and now they also want to start charging based on where those bytes came from..... 

And honestly I am yet to see any sensible argument why removing Net Neutrality would be a good thing, for any one (well except from the ISPs who won't get to charge even more if they don't get it removed) 

If their argument is that Netflix, YT etc are using too much bandwidth they shouldn't have stated in the first place that they can offer this bandwidth, or raise they amount of money charged for a faster connection (which is already quite a large sum in most places).

 

The one very very important thing in the implementation of netneutrality in the law is that it should be written in such a way that it won't still be helpful to large ISP but instead it should promote smaller ISP's, to improve competition. The biggest problem with internet is that creating an infrastructure for it is very expensive and very very hard, creating fiber that runs through an entire city and then also from city to city is a tremendous project. That is also why (at least here where I live) stuff like electricity infrastructure is handled by a different company then the ones that sell that power. (And as far as I know the same goes for internet and telephone here, although that works a bit different with fiber and such) 

 

I think the best thing would be one main company to manage all infrastructure, and this company is controlled by the government to make sure that internet infrastructure is maintained and upgraded fast. Then the ISP's should just provide the internet using this infrastructure, perhaps paying to the infrastructure company for extra upgrades to get more bandwidth on the network. (Although there are probably flaws with this plan as well)

 

(Too bad that the incompetent governments, be that the Dutch one or US one, will most likely fuck this up for the consumer, while in the mean time spending billions on this)

[cesrai]

I'm glad at least that the president however little power he has in our government at the moment still sides with net neutrality, i wouldn't put it past a politician to drop his values for cash though, we've already seen far too many do that so far...

I don't think it matters it's all about Tom I don't remember his exact statement but it was very bad when the President said that he support net neutrality, I will try to get the statement.

[cesrai]

The three biggest chipmakers who make chips for the servers of all those ISP and make the servers for Apple, Google and Netflix.... A very interesting situation....

 

How the fuck would you think that it is okay to charge more for certain bytes? You already pay for the amount of bytes you want to receive per second and sometimes also for the amount you can receive per month, and now they also want to start charging based on where those bytes came from..... 

And honestly I am yet to see any sensible argument why removing Net Neutrality would be a good thing, for any one (well except from the ISPs who won't get to charge even more if they don't get it removed) 

If their argument is that Netflix, YT etc are using too much bandwidth they shouldn't have stated in the first place that they can offer this bandwidth, or raise they amount of money charged for a faster connection (which is already quite a large sum in most places).

 

The one very very important thing in the implementation of netneutrality in the law is that it should be written in such a way that it won't still be helpful to large ISP but instead it should promote smaller ISP's, to improve competition. The biggest problem with internet is that creating an infrastructure for it is very expensive and very very hard, creating fiber that runs through an entire city and then also from city to city is a tremendous project. That is also why (at least here where I live) stuff like electricity infrastructure is handled by a different company then the ones that sell that power. (And as far as I know the same goes for internet and telephone here, although that works a bit different with fiber and such) 

 

I think the best thing would be one main company to manage all infrastructure, and this company is controlled by the government to make sure that internet infrastructure is maintained and upgraded fast. Then the ISP's should just provide the internet using this infrastructure, perhaps paying to the infrastructure company for extra upgrades to get more bandwidth on the network. (Although there are probably flaws with this plan as well)

 

(Too bad that the incompetent governments, be that the Dutch one or US one, will most likely fuck this up for the consumer, while in the mean time spending billions on this)

I think by the law you meant Title 2, I totally agree.

[AlexGoesHigh]

so they claim net neutrality will halt progress on infrastructure, aren't ISP doing that now anyways, throttling and capping the crap out of customers because they don't want to invest in servers, that lowshit

[cesrai]

so they claim net neutrality will halt progress on infrastructure, aren't they doing that now anyways, throttling and capping the crap out of customers because they don't want to invest in the server, that really lame

Yep I mean they aren't even using the tax money to upgrade the infrastructure, some of them already have great infrastructure but they are throttling, one time Jayztwocents said on the tech talk when his ISP upgraded his speeds a guy came and just took a piece of hardware out of the tower//line//thingy -don't remember exactly the name of it- they were putting a resistor for the speed I mean it's a damn resistor.

[Sidiox]

I think by the law you meant Title 2, I totally agree.

I haven't got the foggiest what Title 2 is, I presume some US legal thingy, but I was also speaking about net neutrality in other countries, don't forget its also an issue else where. 

[AlexGoesHigh]

Yep I mean they aren't even using the tax money to upgrade the infrastructure, some of them already have great infrastructure but they are throttling, one time Jayztwocents said on the tech talk when his ISP upgraded his speeds a guy came and just took a piece of hardware out of the tower//line//thingy -don't remember exactly the name of it- they were putting a resistor for the speed I mean it's a damn resistor.

lol i always thought that shit was controlled on the servers, that some BS

[cesrai]

lol i always thought that shit was controlled on the servers, that some BS

You have your opinion so do I, they can controlled more than way, Wendell said that they have some inside sources that they throttle people.

[BroliviaWilde]

Yep I mean they aren't even using the tax money to upgrade the infrastructure, some of them already have great infrastructure but they are throttling, one time Jayztwocents said on the tech talk when his ISP upgraded his speeds a guy came and just took a piece of hardware out of the tower//line//thingy -don't remember exactly the name of it- they were putting a resistor for the speed I mean it's a damn resistor.

 

Cable guy that came to my house referred to it as a "filter",.  Those things not only can limit your connection speeds but also limit/block what channels you can get on cable TV(if you have that service, but I did away with that years ago)

[cesrai]

Cable guy that came to my house referred to it as a "filter",.  Those things not only can limit your connection speeds but also limit/block what channels you can get on cable TV(if you have that service, but I did away with that years ago)

Perhaps the same thing, thank m8.

[LAwLz]

Huh?! That's not at all what they're saying! They're saying they don't want to have to innovate their technologies since there's basically an established networking duopoly between Qualcomm and Intel where they don't really compete. It took me a while to figure out why IBM would be in the same boat, but then I remembered they were the ones who designed my university's wifi infrastructure. They want to be able to sell all the old stuff and services at high prices as long as possible.

Well maybe I am reading it wrong but that's how I interpret it. They are saying that if we get Net Neutrality, ISPs will stop upgrading/expanding their networks, which means they won't buy new equipment.

AT&T has already gone out and said that they will already stop investing into fiber Internet until the FCC makes a decision.

 

It is clear as day that the ISPs are threatening to stop upgrading their networks if we get Net Neutrality. No upgrades for the network = less sales for Qualcomm/Intel/Cisco/etc = these companies makes less money.

 

I have no idea how you came to your conclusion. So what you're saying is that without Net Neutrality, Intel and Qualcomm would be able to sell more of their existing products than they currently have, and not have to invest in developing new ones? That makes no sense.

 

Also, are you sure it was IBM that designed your uni's WiFi config? I don't think IBM actually have any network equipment other than SANs.

[cesrai]

Well maybe I am reading it wrong but that's how I interpret it. They are saying that if we get Net Neutrality, ISPs will stop upgrading/expanding their networks, which means they won't buy new equipment.

AT&T has already gone out and said that they will already stop investing into fiber Internet until the FCC makes a decision.

 

It is clear as day that the ISPs are threatening to stop upgrading their networks if we get Net Neutrality. No upgrades for the network = less sales for Qualcomm/Intel/Cisco/etc = these companies makes less money.

When we force Title 2 they will upgrade or they will lost against competition, also they won't be getting anymore on the tax money. 

[Victorious Secret]

I'm still trying to understand why those 3 have any real reason to be against NN...

[Darkman]

I am so fucking disappointed in you three companies. Why the hell are you against it?

If this happens with net neutrality, I guess I'll never get off of this fucking shit internet.

 

Ah, nothing like seeing a Twitch stream going live and not being able to watch it, 480p videos are so nice... Barely able to stream at 480p is the best fucking thing ever... /s