Net Neutrality Paradigm Shift

I am confused over this.

One side is advocating regulation of the internet so that there can be no regulation of the internet, the other side is advocating no regulation of the internet so that they can regulate the internet.

Who to believe? I tend to favor the proponents of the bill, such as Microsoft, Amazon, Goolge and other software providers and E-vendors because they are the core of the economic and intellectual thrust of the internet.

On the other hand, the opponents are the ones putting money into expanding the networks and physical access points around the world and I wouldn't want them to be hampered.

In the end, I believe that the net has the most potential to educate the worlds poor of any program in human history, at least since the phoenetic alphabet. I want there to be a level playing field. I'd be willing to pay a little bit more so that the poor could access the web and I don't beleive it is sensible to limit content and bandwith to those who can't pay for it.

On the other hand, the web is a physical reality as well as an electronic and surrealistic reality, so somebody has to pay for access. The fact remains that internet searches and usage take up real energy, space and time and need to be paid for somehow. The arguement that the poor should be given expensive access for free will link itself to questions like "If the web access should be free, what about food and health care?". By the end of that line, people will be providing freebies to those who are unable or unwilling to work for it and we have even more overbearing entitlements than before.

On a third hand, unlike the endless consumption cycle of free health care, welfare and food stamps - the web has the potential to teach people how to fish while feeding them. Health care, food stamps and welfare are a self perpetuating pit, but the web is more akin to school. It can help people become self reliant where the other programs fail. The web IS commerce and education. Simply using it creates value for all of us.

Gah. Help me. As of the last line I am in favor of the Net Neutrality act.

Unfettered and cheap access to huge volumes of human knowledge? Why would we ever want to censor such a thing?

Then again I have no idea at all what Bill you are talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Unfettered and cheap access to huge volumes of human knowledge? Why would we ever want to censor such a thing?

Then again I have no idea at all what Bill you are talking about.

---

I don't believe it is a specific bill per se, rather the specter of one.

Hmm, the ISP's are the ones who make the huge investments in bandwidth, right?

Right now they aren't regulating the speed to sites; the whole problem is invented.

The net neutrality folks have invented a problem as an excuse to regulate the internet. And besides, what ISP would throttle access to certain sites? People would just abandon them. The regulation, on the other hand, would make it much less attractive to build more bandwidth because they couldn't control it even if they wanted to.

Keep the @()$&($@&%)( government out of the internet.

CR

The principle of net neutrality from Wiki:

Quote:

---

The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.

---

This would prevent ISPs from filtering or slowing content from some sources, which is censorship either in content or bandwidth form.

In the US, if I'm not mistaken ISPs are generally considered common carriers, which means they are not responsible for the content transmitted on their lines because they are supposed to be ignorant of it. Filtering or access tiers breaks this.

If net neutrality is ditched, essentially the major content providers and ISPs will collude and turn the internet into what TV is today. ISPs will be able to extort money from sites, and the independent wackiness of the internet will disappear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And besides, what ISP would throttle access to certain sites? People would just abandon them.

---

You are making the assumption that people have choices in their ISPs. Many areas are stuck with either random dialup services, or their cable company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Keep the @()$&($@&%)( government out of the internet.

---

This strikes me as exactly the same level of irony as people who yell "Keep government out of Medicare!"

Thoughts:

• The government invented the internet.
• Most high-speed ISPs function as local monopolies or duopolies.
• Most cable ISP providers, if presented with the threat of competition, buy off the local legislators and make competition illegal

So on the federal, state and local level, government is all over the internet, either preserving or creating local monopolies. I don't think "net neutrality" will address the entire issue, but it's a start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

The principle of net neutrality from Wiki:

This would prevent ISPs from filtering or slowing content from some sources, which is censorship either in content or bandwidth form.

---

It's certainly not censorship. :rolleyes:
The imagine scenario, of an ISP slowing access to youtube or something, is because youtube uses a huge amount of bandwidth and pays for none of it.

Quote:

---

In the US, if I'm not mistaken ISPs are generally considered common carriers, which means they are not responsible for the content transmitted on their lines because they are supposed to be ignorant of it. Filtering or access tiers breaks this.

If net neutrality is ditched, essentially the major content providers and ISPs will collude and turn the internet into what TV is today. ISPs will be able to extort money from sites, and the independent wackiness of the internet will disappear.

---

If that's so, why hasn't it happened already? Net neutrality can't be ditched because we've never had it. The non-net-neutrality environment is what has led to today's internet.

I think getting the government involved in telling companies how to run the internet would be much, much worse.

Quote:

---

You are making the assumption that people have choices in their ISPs. Many areas are stuck with either random dialup services, or their cable company.

---

Any figures on just how many people don't have any choice?

Quote:

---

So on the federal, state and local level, government is all over the internet, either preserving or creating local monopolies.

---

Well, gee, if we got the government out of that then there would be less monopolies, huh? I don't see how you proving government intervention in the market is bad makes the case for more government intervention. I mean, what you linked to is a clear reason to keep the government out of the internet.

Because the government screws thing up.

Especially, especially, for an imagined problem like net neutrality.

And your second link is eleven years old. :inquisitive:

Oh, and this isn't a bill, it's being imposed without any legislation by the FCC.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

This strikes me as exactly the same level of irony as people who yell "Keep government out of Medicare!"


Thoughts:

• The government invented the internet.
• Most high-speed ISPs function as local monopolies or duopolies.
• Most cable ISP providers, if presented with the threat of competition, buy off the local legislators and make competition illegal

So on the federal, state and local level, government is all over the internet, either preserving or creating local monopolies. I don't think "net neutrality" will address the entire issue, but it's a start.

---

I agree. "Regulations" of things are neccessary - excessive regulations are the enemy. We need to determine who is the bigger threat here, government oversight or the ISP's. They are both a threat. If the government gains a foothold over the web the way it has with the FCC over television and radio, we are screwed. Similairly if the ISPS begin to bottle neck information and handicapp lower income users we are screwed.

We need the web, we need it to be private and we need it to be all encompassing. Government regulation of content is the enemy, governemnt regulation of those who would monopolize service is necessary.

I'm also a strong believer in the legitimacy of internet piracy of anything digital, so that may be clouding my judgement.

Quote:

---

governemnt regulation of those who would monopolize service is necessary.

---

Often, they are only monopolists because of the government.

Also, I found a more articulate argument against net neutrality:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Unfortunately, there are at least three big problems with making net neutrality a federal mandate.

First is that bandwidth is not, in fact, unlimited, especially in the wireless world. One reason ISPs are averse to neutrality regulation, they say, is that they need the flexibility to ban or mitigate high-bandwidth uses of their network, like BitTorrent and Hulu.com, which would otherwise run amok. Take away their ability to prioritize traffic, the ISPs say, and overall service will suffer.

“As long as there have been networks, people have had to engineer them to ensure that congestion doesn’t occur,” Carnegie Mellon professor and telecom expert David Farber said Monday (he’s the co-author of a cautious anti-net neutrality opinion piece published in 2007). Farber is especially concerned about the impact of the FCC’s position on wireless networks, where bandwidth is already very limited. “When you’re operating that close to capacity, you have to do a very tricky job of managing your spectrum. If you have unconstrained loads being dumped on you, something’s going to have to give.”

Case in point: AT&T has repeatedly stumbled in its ability to provide 3G wireless capacity, thanks to the unexpected popularity of the iPhone. Those difficulties lend credence to AT&T’s (and Apple’s) reluctance to allow apps like Skype and Slingplayer unfettered access to the 3G network: If the network can barely keep up with ordinary demand, just imagine what would happen if we were all live-streaming the Emmy Awards over our iPhones at the same time.

Take away ISPs’ ability to shape or restrict traffic, and you’ll see many carriers running into AT&T-like capacity problems. Their response will almost certainly be to make consumers pay for what they’re actually using. Want to BitTorrent all 6.7GB of the uncompressed Beatles catalog via 3G? Fine, but you’ll have to pay for the bandwidth you’re taking away from your neighbor.

Second, enforcement of neutrality regulations is going to be difficult. Comcast may not be able to block Skype traffic altogether, but what’s to prevent the company from slowing it down relative to other traffic it carries? Such preferential “packet shaping” is easy to turn off and on, as network demands ebb and flow. By contrast, proving such infractions of neutrality will be complex, slow and difficult. It sets up a classic “nimble, resourceful criminal versus slow-footed, underequipped cop” scenario.

Third, the new regulations create an additional layer of government bureaucracy where the free market has already proven its effectiveness. The reason you’re not using AOL to read this right now isn’t because the government mandated AOL’s closed network out of existence: It’s because free and open networks triumphed, and that’s because they were good business.

Now the FCC is proposing taking a free market that works, and adding another layer of innovation-stifling regulations on top of that? This may please the net neutrality advocates who helped elect the current administration, but it doesn’t add up.

Net neutrality regulations make sense in closed, monopolistic situations. But outside of small, rural markets, most of the U.S. offers a high level of competitive choice. Don’t like Comcast cable internet? Switch to SpeakEasy, Astound or SBC, or look into satellite internet. Don’t care for AT&T’s spotty 3G wireless network? Try T-Mobile or Verizon. Need help finding an alternative? Check Broadband Reports’ interactive ISP finder.

That’s why the FCC should take a very cautious, careful approach to implementing its brave, new principles. Free, unfettered innovation has been the secret to the internet’s explosive growth over the past two decades. Let’s not let a well-meaning attempt to preserve that innovation wind up doing exactly the opposite.

As Farber says, “Whatever you do, you don’t want to stifle innovation.”

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

It's certainly not censorship. :rolleyes:
The imagine scenario, of an ISP slowing access to youtube or something, is because youtube uses a huge amount of bandwidth and pays for none of it.

---

Youtube does pay for bandwidth. The more hits it gets, the more it has to pay. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

If that's so, why hasn't it happened already? Net neutrality can't be ditched because we've never had it. The non-net-neutrality environment is what has led to today's internet.

---

Comcast has already tried packet filtering on P2P traffic and is getting slapped for it. At the moment, the broadband ISPs are whining because they have falsely advertised "SuperBandwidth X" to their customers, and are now hitting their actual limits because peak usage is up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I think getting the government involved in telling companies how to run the internet would be much, much worse.

---

True to a point. But a cartel is worse.

If an ISP can't handle the traffic, they need to either upgrade their network, charge per byte, or cap overall bandwidth per user. And be upfront about it.

When in doubt, having nothing is better than just something....

Look at who is behind the measure. Google and Microsoft are out to gain something...is it in your best interest?

What do you think?


:laugh4:

I dislike how giving people universal healthcare in the opening statement is portrayed as a bad idea. I am unable to contribute to the topic because of that statement. So I am bowing out. :bow:

The internet is not a truck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

The internet is not a truck.

---

It's a series of tubes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Any figures on just how many people don't have any choice

---

Everybody in the US.

Utilities are regulated monopolies. The odds are you will have at most two to three cable providers for an area, usually it's just one. Your alternative is DishTV or Dishnet. Phone is similar but different. You will have one ILEC that owns and is responsible for all of the service to the area. You CAN opt to have other CLECs, but they still 'rent' from the main ILEC and it will invariably cost more, even though the fees and costs are regulated to ensure competition.

You are limited by sheer fact of how these things work. This isn't like buying a car, where you have dozens upon dozens of brands, and multiple dealerships in an average city that will compete for your business. You must pick one of the above, or do without. If all of them limit, then you are forced to pick one and go with that choice. Simply "abandoning" one provider isn't going to do anything.

We need enforced net neutrality IMO.

We need to *allow* it to happen. One reason for the cable/ISP monopoly is technology. Let those fools at the cable company charge an arm and a leg. Let technology develop that gives consumers a choice. Step on the neck of the cable company if they attempt to stifle this development.

Easier said than done, I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It's a series of tubes!

---

I've known about that meme for ages, but that's a great video :laugh4:

I don't really know much about net neutrality, so I don't have an opinion on it. :shrug: I think this is one of those issues where everyone says they're out for the common man's interest, when they're all actually out for Numero Uno.

We need net neutrality to be enforced immediately. In the past 5 years companies have finally adapted to the times and are now recognizing the power of the internet in furthering their goals, example: television channels finally putting their shows online in 2008 through Hulu.

The "free market" that the internet has been so called, has not been a free market but an ignored market and now that the companies have an interest in it, like in all markets there will be a need for government to put limits and restrictions on the companies that are now attempting to manipulate the market.

In many regions there are lots of people who have access to only one internet service provider, which makes it a monopoly, allowing the company to easily control the speed and degree of access to the internet its consumers have.

The best example of such manipulation of the market occurring is with the MPAA and RIAA attempting to force ISP's to cut and/or investigate the bandwidth being used by someone they feel is pirating music. These attempts by the music and movie industries to act as your judge, jury and executioner is completely unacceptable and serve as only a warning of coming times if we do not get government to simply set guidelines and consumer protection laws.

That is what net neutrality comes down to, consumer protection, not punishing companies, or stiffing innovation but making sure that a company does not have the ability to demand your ISP to hand over your internet information without your or the courts consent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Youtube does pay for bandwidth. The more hits it gets, the more it has to pay. :yes:

---

Yes, they pay for some more servers. They don't pay for any of the cable connections or bandwidth or infrastructure beyond that.

Quote:

---

Comcast has already tried packet filtering on P2P traffic and is getting slapped for it. At the moment, the broadband ISPs are whining because they have falsely advertised "SuperBandwidth X" to their customers, and are now hitting their actual limits because peak usage is up.

---

Yes, and they were slapped down without any net neutrality rule. And the new FCC rule? It allows ISPs to throttle access to 'combat piracy' - AKA it would seem to allow the one and only example of a company doing something the neutrality supporters said needed to be prevented.

Quote:

---

True to a point. But a cartel is worse.

If an ISP can't handle the traffic, they need to either upgrade their network, charge per byte, or cap overall bandwidth per user. And be upfront about it.

---

Oftentimes these cartels are set up by the government. The smart thing to do is force the government to allow more competitors, not enforce more regulation.

Quote:

---

Everybody in the US.

Utilities are regulated monopolies.

---

See the above.

Oh, and the cable companies will start charging more. Streaming video and services like Hulu are going to take up more and more bandwidth. With neutrality, ISPs will be unable to prevent overuse of those services from affecting and slowing their entire network. And why would they be encouraged to build more bandwidth if the high bandwidth sites are going to immediately use it all?

Quote:

---

We need net neutrality to be enforced immediately. In the past 5 years companies have finally adapted to the times and are now recognizing the power of the internet in furthering their goals, example: television channels finally putting their shows online in 2008 through Hulu.

The "free market" that the internet has been so called, has not been a free market but an ignored market and now that the companies have an interest in it, like in all markets there will be a need for government to put limits and restrictions on the companies that are now attempting to manipulate the market.

---

Why, WHY? There's no real reason for it. There is no problem like what neutrality people say will happen, but even they concede has not happened yet. How is a government regulator from an age before color television supposed to adequately write a rule about something that hasn't even occurred yet? Tell me, one of you neutrality supporters, what company is currently managing bandwidth to certain sites?:wall:

The internet as we know it, that wonderful thing of communication and commerce, came about without any government regulation, and thank God for that. Government interference would have undoubtedly resulted in a less useful internet. Regulations and diktats would have skewed the economic incentives behind the internet to favor some special group or crack down on what some congressman didn't like.

And thank goodness the internet has been an ignored market, which is often the same thing as a free market. It has been the free market that has allowed for such spectacular innovation in the internet. And now you want to regulate it? You want government restrictions to start on what the internet can and cannot do? My goodness, that's like crying out for the internet to be chained to an iron ball!

If this rule passes it will only be the start of regulation. Every two-bit congressman will see it as a chance to pass some law or regulation to help or hurt some special cause of his, like not selling booze online on Sundays, or prohibiting out of state companies from selling certain items in order to protect some in state company.

The ISPs aren't attempting to manipulate anything - they are attempting to ensure that their limited bandwidth is able to serve all their customers. That's a normal business practice.

Net neutrality would take away from ISPs being able to run their businesses efficiently, because of an imagined problem. Good grief, people, government regulation of this type will stifle innovation because it will limit how ISPs can run their business.

Keep your accursed 'consumer protection' away from me - I would not want to have an internet where the government limits what a business can do! It is because of the freedom of the internet that it is so useful today. If you limit the ability of companies to do what's best for their networks, you will limit the entire future of the internet!

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

I've known about that meme for ages, but that's a great video :laugh4:

---

I've always liked this one best. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Everybody in the US.

Utilities are regulated monopolies. The odds are you will have at most two to three cable providers for an area, usually it's just one. Your alternative is DishTV or Dishnet. Phone is similar but different. You will have one ILEC that owns and is responsible for all of the service to the area. You CAN opt to have other CLECs, but they still 'rent' from the main ILEC and it will invariably cost more, even though the fees and costs are regulated to ensure competition.

---

You say most everyone has only once choice for Internet access and then go on to list at least 3 that most people have available. Cable, DSL, and satellite. In larger metro areas, you're likely to have even more options- like wireless ect.

I've often described net neutrality as a solution looking for a problem- there's no need for it.

edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Keep your accursed 'consumer protection' away from me

---

Amen. :2thumbsup:

Well, Glenn Beck says net neutrality is a Marxist plot, so you know it's probably a good idea.

Beck has been warning his viewers about net neutrality, the idea that broadband providers should not favor their own content over competing programming.

"So we have Marxists that are designing and working on net neutrality -- are believers in net neutrality" to "control content," the outspoken Beck said Tuesday night.

Art Brodsky, the communications director at pro-net neutrality group Public Knowledge, said Beck is actually arguing against his own interests.

"Mr. Beck fails to understand the fundamentals of how the Internet works. He should be in favor of Net Neutrality, because it guarantees streaming of his program will not be able to be placed behind, say, Keith Olbermann's Countdown. That could happen if NBC's owner decided to pay protection money for prioritized data transmission."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

"Mr. Beck fails to understand the fundamentals of how the Internet works. He should be in favor of Net Neutrality, because it guarantees streaming of his program will not be able to be placed behind, say, Keith Olbermann's Countdown. That could happen if NBC's owner decided to pay protection money for prioritized data transmission."

---

Yeah, and Rush Limbaugh should be in favor of the Fairness Doctrine because liberal talk radio might crowd him off the air without it. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Yeah, and Rush Limbaugh should be in favor of the Fairness Doctrine [...]

---

Net neutrality is the opposite of the fairness doctrine. Not to confuse the issue with logic or anything.

So what's your position on net neutrality Lemur?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Net neutrality is the opposite of the fairness doctrine. Not to confuse the issue with logic or anything.

---

You see, the point was that saying Beck was going against his own interests made about as much sense as saying Limbaugh would be going against his by not supporting the fairness doctrine.

I suppose I should have just called your post an attempt at guilt by association and left it that that. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Well, Glenn Beck says net neutrality is a Marxist plot, so you know it's probably a good idea.

---

You know who supported net neutrality? Hitler- so you know it must be bad. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

You know who supported net neutrality? Hitler

---

No, you've got it wrong. Hitler supported nyet neutrality, at least until France was occupied and Great Britian isolated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

No, you've got it wrong. Hitler supported nyet neutrality, at least until France was occupied and Great Britian isolated.

---

I thought that was the Russians.

Ooooh, I get it. :facepalm: (Lemur, a little help please)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

No, you've got it wrong. Hitler supported nyet neutrality, at least until France was occupied and Great Britian isolated.

---

I thought that was the Russians.

Ooooh, I get it. :facepalm: (Lemur, a little help please)

---

Too late, quoted. :beam:

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

You know who supported net neutrality? Hitler- so you know it must be bad. :yes:

---

Waitaminnit, you mean to tell me that the Enigma Machine was opensauce? TORVALDS! DARN YOU ALL TO HECK!

That does it. I've changed my mind. If I pay for my connection to the net, and YouTube pays for its bandwidth, it only makes sense that any company that controls the pipes between me and YouTube should have the right to slow down or block the signal. That's only fair.

-edit-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

You see, the point was that saying Beck was going against his own interests made about as much sense as saying Limbaugh would be going against his by not supporting the fairness doctrine.

---

Reading comprehension fail. Let's try a hypothetical and see if it makes more sense:

1. Johnny gets his high-speed internet tubes from Time Warner Cable
2. Time Warner Cable has a cross-marketing deal with NBC
3. Johnny wants to watch Glenn Beck
4. TWC has every right to slow or block Fox News while promoting its partners
5. Therefore, by arguing against net neutrality, a popular host like GB may be working against his own interests

De facto net neutrality made the internets what they are today. If you want to go back to the walled garden model of AOL and CompuServe, be my guest, but don't tell me that the rest of us have to go there with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

...

Any figures on just how many people don't have any choice?


...

CR

---

(content not relevant to my post edited by me)

Myself, for one, although, to be fair, in most areas it isn't "no choice", but, rather, a highly limited choice between two monopolies with approximately equal technological capability at the "industry standard" level, and various "technologically challenged" (non-) competitors. My example; I have the choice between my cable company (monopoly), and the phone company's DSL service (another monopoly). Of the "lower tier" options, I could use dial-up (horribly outdated) or satellite internet (which has horrible upload speeds and is ridiculously overpriced in this area.). It's like this in most US telecom markets that aren't tied to the Government, the financial sector, or the entertainment industry, but there are some exceptions for a few very large cities without the aforementioned ties. As was mentioned earlier about the choices most US residents have (in the quoted article), it's not so much that you have no choices, it's that, of the choices you do have, the only viable ones are with monopolies in their respective primary fields (telephone and cable). It's more an illusion of choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Why, WHY? There's no real reason for it. Yes there is. There is no problem like what neutrality people say will happen, Yes there is, I mentioned the scheming of the music and movie industries. but even they concede has not happened yet. Not me, and I doubt the majority has. How is a government regulator from an age before color television supposed to adequately write a rule about something that hasn't even occurred yet? Well, I tend to try to improve my government instead of letting rot and using that as a justification for my ideology. Tell me, one of you neutrality supporters, what company is currently managing bandwidth to certain sites?:wall: For the most part, ISP's are not bold enough to block a specific site (with the exception of maybe 4chan), they simply manage bandwidth over us all with a "unlimited" bandwidth usage package that includes a bandwidth cap.

The internet as we know it, that wonderful thing of communication and commerce, came about without any government regulation Correlation does not mean causation., and thank God for that. Government interference would have undoubtedly resulted in a less useful internet. Opinion. Regulations and diktats would have skewed the economic incentives behind the internet to favor some special group or crack down on what some congressman didn't like. Opinion.

And thank goodness the internet has been an ignored market, which is often the same thing as a free market. No, I specifically recognized a distinction. A free market has companies competing for your money with certain limits and restriction to prevent an abuse of customers in the transaction process. An ignored market is a market that has not been tapped by companies yet for marketing, advertisement and direct selling of their products. It has been the free market that has allowed for such spectacular innovation in the internet. Markets had nothing to do with it, most innovation on the internet has been from tech enthusiasts that attempt to create a better and more enjoyable internet experience for free, hardly a free market, more close to a communist society if anything. And now you want to regulate it? yes, that is my position. You want government restrictions to start on what the internet can and cannot do? No, this is a scarecrow and/or you are purposely misrepresenting me. I want the government to regulate what power companies have over the supply and freeness of the internet we are receiving so our greatest tool for a truly educated and knowledgeable populace is not in the hands of the RIAA, MPAA, IBM, Microsoft, etc... My goodness, that's like crying out for the internet to be chained to an iron ball! Not really, your hyperbole is dampened by the fact that you have taken "giant corporations and interest groups" and instead have replaced it with a generic "internet" which is completely silly.

If this rule passes it will only be the start of regulation. Biased speculation. Every two-bit congressman will see it as a chance to pass some law or regulation to help or hurt some special cause of his, like not selling booze online on Sundays, or prohibiting out of state companies from selling certain items in order to protect some in state company. Biased speculation.

The ISPs aren't attempting to manipulate anything - they are attempting to ensure that their limited bandwidth is able to serve all their customers. That's a normal business practice. here is where we probably have completely different ideologies regarding the internet. I see the internet as a utility that every man, woman and child should have, to be put in the same category as water and power. It is absurd for us to be content with having our water limited by half or only allowed to power our house for a half a day so some other person have it for the other half. We demand that everyone in this country have the basics to survive in our modern world, water and electricity we recognize but I and many others recognize the internet as another one.

Net neutrality would take away from ISPs being able to run their businesses efficiently, because of an imagined problem. Not imaginary. Good grief, people, government regulation of this type will stifle innovation because it will limit how ISPs can run their business. What innovation? ISP's bring internet to us, thats it. Edison brings electricity to its consumers, thats it. What innovations has government regulation stifled within the electric companies? If it wasn't for that evil government, would we be all running things on wireless electricity by now? :laugh4:

Keep your accursed 'consumer protection' away from me Ok, you can go back to 1900 and relive "The Jungle" if you want, others like our seat belts and lack of human fingers in our meat. - I would not want to have an internet where the government limits what a business can do! It's not going to do that. It is because of the freedom of the internet that it is so useful today. Which is now threatened by corporations. If you limit the ability of companies to do what's best for their networks, you will limit the entire future of the internet! Companies do not decide what is best for their networks, they decide what is best at getting and keeping more money in their pockets. If an electric company decides its best for their network to dismantle that expensive 30 mile stretch of infrastructure that runs from the main city to that small town of 5,000 are we to be ok with that?

Talk about limiting the future of the internet, why is it that the greatest things on the internet are the ones being criticized and threatened by large companies with complete control over all other aspects of our lives. The news aggregate websites that are now providing hundreds of millions of people with free and uncensored information are being threatened by Big News, the greatest tools for sharing data across the world is being threatened by Big Music and Big Movie, there are so many other examples. You get my point, unless that is, you forget to take the Glenn Beck glasses off and misunderstand my position again.

CR

---

My words in bold.

TADA! prime example!
Hundreds of organizations had their internet service turned off last night after the US Chamber of Commerce strong-armed an upstream provider, Hurricane Electric, to pull the plug on The Yes Men and May First / People Link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Reading comprehension fail. Let's try a hypothetical and see if it makes more sense:

1. Johnny gets his high-speed internet tubes from Time Warner Cable
2. Time Warner Cable has a cross-marketing deal with NBC
3. Johnny wants to watch Glenn Beck
4. TWC has every right to slow or block Fox News while promoting its partners
5. Therefore, by arguing against net neutrality, a popular host like GB may be working against his own interests

De facto net neutrality made the internets what they are today. If you want to go back to the walled garden model of AOL and CompuServe, be my guest, but don't tell me that the rest of us have to go there with you.

---

Your argument is that since the industry has done just fine on it's own 'de facto', we clearly need to enforce neutrality via ham-fisted regulation that's full of unintended consequences.Brilliant. :dizzy2:

Your scenario has zero chance of every happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Your argument is that since the industry has done just fine on it's own 'de facto', we clearly need to enforce neutrality via ham-fisted regulation that's full of unintended consequences.Brilliant. :dizzy2:

Your scenario has zero chance of every happening.

---

It has done fine on it's own, up until now. Now it is threatened by corporations who seek to control what they have been ignoring for over a decade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

1. Johnny gets his high-speed internet tubes from Time Warner Cable
2. Time Warner Cable has a cross-marketing deal with NBC
3. Johnny wants to watch Glenn Beck
4. TWC has every right to slow or block Fox News while promoting its partners
5. Therefore, by arguing against net neutrality, a popular host like GB may be working against his own interests

De facto net neutrality made the internets what they are today. If you want to go back to the walled garden model of AOL and CompuServe, be my guest, but don't tell me that the rest of us have to go there with you.

---

I was under the impression that the interwebs were like a truck? I agree. This isn't a partisan issue, this is an issue of commerce. I wish drudge would stop treating it like the Democrats are running the regulation racket. Republicans need to jump on board this proposal to make it the best it can be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

It has done fine on it's own, up until now. Now it is threatened by corporations who seek to control what they have been ignoring for over a decade.

---

And what's changed? Were all ISPs mom and pop stores until this year?

Also, what you knock as opinion and speculation is simply what has happened in other industries. It's not bias or anything; it's what will happen if regulations begins.

And markets had everything to do with the internet as we know it. People came up with all sorts of wonderful innovations because doing so made them money. Every great site is in it for the money, even if there are some who provide a few utilities for free. This rule prevents companies from running their businesses as they see fit, which hampers their ability to make money, which means they aren't inclined to create as much as they would have otherwise.

Quote:

---

An ignored market is a market that has not been tapped by companies yet for marketing, advertisement and direct selling of their products.

---

I'm sorry, you surely cannot be saying the internet has been an ignored market according to your definition. Are you saying companies haven't used the net for marketing over a decade?

And the internet is not a utility like water and heat; you don't need it to live. It's a luxury. It there's one thing I'm sick of, it's some new innovation taking off, and then people claiming that said innovation is now a luxury and demanding control of how a company provides it.

And I take it you don't understand how firms work, if you're saying companies that merely provide a service like ISPs can't innovate. Have you heard of 3G networks? Streaming video to cellphones?

You talk about how evil corporations are going to destroy the internet. Here's the thing; corporations like profit. Profit comes from consumers, and consumers only consume if they're happy with the product. Why is the belief that corporations are so mindlessly stupid and will destroy their business for a few short term profits so entrenched in some people? Why would they 'seek to control' it by making people not want to buy access from them? There's no reason for companies to be doing any of these nightmare tactics net neutrality people shout about.

You want to solve make sure this continues not to be an issue? Get the (@&$(@$ government out of regulating who is able to supply broadband to people so that there's more competition. Then if any company starts shortchanging people they can just switch providers.

Oh, and one last thing; do me a HUGE favor and reply to quotes outside of the quote box. It's really a PITA to read the way you posted it. Thanks.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

It has done fine on it's own, up until now. Now it is threatened by corporations who seek to control what they have been ignoring for over a decade.

---

Examples please. Tell us all when businesses that control the Internet backbone have banned specific content from a provider because they refused to pay their e-protection money?

People have been crying about net neutrality for years now- pointing to unrealized threats that need to be regulated. Here we are in 2009, have any of their fears been realized? Nope. Yet people still scream for regulation. :shrug:

Net neutrality, still completely unnecessary.

Quote:

---

And what's changed? Were all ISPs mom and pop stores until this year?

---

No, companies have only realized recently the power that the internet provides consumers and they are afraid of it and are now attempting to stop it.

Quote:

---

Also, what you knock as opinion and speculation is simply what has happened in other industries. It's not bias or anything; it's what will happen if regulations begins.

---

Examples please.

Quote:

---

And markets had everything to do with the internet as we know it. People came up with all sorts of wonderful innovations because doing so made them money. Every great site is in it for the money, even if there are some who provide a few utilities for free. This rule prevents companies from running their businesses as they see fit, which hampers their ability to make money, which means they aren't inclined to create as much as they would have otherwise.

---

I disagree completely. I don't know what else to say to this since this is just my opinion against your opinion because neither of us have any proof.

Quote:

---

I'm sorry, you surely cannot be saying the internet has been an ignored market according to your definition. Are you saying companies haven't used the net for marketing over a decade?

---

Well let us see:
Hulu only came about in April of 2008, after years of T.V. companies attempting to remove all traces of their programming from the internet instead of capitalizing on the ability of good shows to be passed around fast.
How many years has the music companies been suing teenagers instead of adapting? Oh yeah, at least 5 years and continuing.
How long ago was it that iTunes finally made their music internet friendly AKA with no DRM? Oh yeah, 2007.
How long has the internet been around? Mid 1990s!?!

Quote:

---

And the internet is not a utility like water and heat; you don't need it to live. It's a luxury. It there's one thing I'm sick of, it's some new innovation taking off, and then people claiming that said innovation is now a luxury and demanding control of how a company provides it.

---

You don't need electricity. Read up on survival manuals and live like every did until the beginning of the 1900s. I guess electricity is a luxury as well and we should be happy with whatever we have.

Quote:

---

And I take it you don't understand how firms work, if you're saying companies that merely provide a service like ISPs can't innovate. Have you heard of 3G networks? Streaming video to cellphones?

---

Ummm? Expanding and upgrading the strength and speed of their network is an innovation? I guess the bar is set low when it comes to innovation.

Quote:

---

You talk about how evil corporations are going to destroy the internet. Here's the thing; corporations like profit. Profit comes from consumers, and consumers only consume if they're happy with the product. Why is the belief that corporations are so mindlessly stupid and will destroy their business for a few short term profits so entrenched in some people? Why would they 'seek to control' it by making people not want to buy access from them? There's no reason for companies to be doing any of these nightmare tactics net neutrality people shout about.

---

The underlined part is completely wrong. The belief isn't that corporations are stupid, otherwise why are we acting as if they are dangerous? I believe (and history has shown) that corporations will do what ever makes them money, both short term and long term and they will force the consumer to like it by not giving them any other option or other manipulations of the market (such as through corrupt and rigged government bills).

Ok in regards to the second to last sentence in that paragraph, pay attention here so i can go over this:
People have to buy the internet from one ISP because of monopolies in their region.
The corporations wants to control the internet by forcing ISP's to do their bidding such as cutting off the internet of people suspected of piracy for instance.
People won't like this, but continue anyway because there is a monopoly. Otherwise, this whole thing wouldn't be possible.

Quote:

---

You want to solve make sure this continues not to be an issue? Get the (@&$(@$ government out of regulating who is able to supply broadband to people so that there's more competition. Then if any company starts shortchanging people they can just switch providers.

---

And here I agree with you! I would love at least 4 different companies to choose from all across the country and there certainly are government laws rigged in favor of such regional monopolies for us to remove. However history teaches us that the free market naturally comes back to a monopoly or a collusion filled oligarchy of companies and that the correct path is a two pronged attack of breaking up companies too big as well as creating safeguards for the protection of American citizens when the government fails or delays in breaking up the next generation of Big Business.

Quote:

---

Oh, and one last thing; do me a HUGE favor and reply to quotes outside of the quote box. It's really a PITA to read the way you posted it. Thanks.

---

Will do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Examples please. Tell us all when businesses that control the Internet backbone have banned specific content from a provider because they refused to pay their e-protection money?

People have been crying about net neutrality for years now- pointing to unrealized threats that need to be regulated. Here we are in 2009, have any of their fears been realized? Nope. Yet people still scream for regulation. :shrug:

Net neutrality, still completely unnecessary.

---

Umm, see the link I posted in one of my earlier posts. The US Chamber of Commerce (not at all a part of the US government) forced an ISP to shut down the internet for supporters of the "Yes Men" an anti globalization group that humorously held a fake Chamber of Commerce news conference declaring that their policies against climate change have been dead wrong and will now help in stopping climate change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Umm, see the link I posted in one of my earlier posts. The US Chamber of Commerce (not at all a part of the US government) forced an ISP to shut down the internet for supporters of the "Yes Men" an anti globalization group that humorously held a fake Chamber of Commerce news conference declaring that their policies against climate change have been dead wrong and will now help in stopping climate change.

---

Yeah, about that... 2 points:

1. It had nothing to do with net neutrality and everything to do with the DMCA.

2. Even still, the issue was resolved in their favor without additional regulation...

Quote:

---

This isn't the first time a Yes Men site has found itself targeted by a DMCA complaint brought by a large corporation. The Yes Men have in the past received DMCA notices from Exxon, Dow Chemical, DeBeers, and the New York Times. In each case, the the Yes Men (represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation) refused to comply, and prevailed.

---

So do you have any actual examples?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

So do you have any actual examples?

---

Google "traffic shaping" and you'll find plenty. At the moment, it's all about throttling Bittorrent, which sucks if you download such illegal things as Europa Barbarorum, Linux distros, Asus drivers, or WoW updates.

Comcast has been known to mess with packets on their network. Last year, they stood in the middle of a firestorm thanks to traffic shaping. Comcast was caught red handed using TCP resets to block traffic based on protocol, the top issue was BitTorrent traffic.

The issue got worse when, after denying it at first, Comcast came clean and mostly admitted to the traffic shaping, but essentially said they couldn’t tell people about it because they would circumvent the process. They defended the traffic shaping by comparing it to a traffic jam, where a car is slowed from entering the freeway for a moment, not blocked from entering it entirely. They also added that the press and blogosphere would keep them honest, as one of the reasons for the FCC to take no action.

P.S.: "Traffic shaping" is legal in Canada. Do you want to be Canada? Why do you love maple syrup and hate freedom?

-edit-

A little more background on Comcast and their shapely traffic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Yeah, about that... 2 points:

1. It had nothing to do with net neutrality and everything to do with the DMCA.

2. Even still, the issue was resolved in their favor without additional regulation...So do you have any actual examples?

---

Umm, part of the point of net neutrality is to prevent the interest group/corporation from being able to force ISPs to cut off the internet in the first place so....

And what happened to Comcast, Lemur? Do they still block torrent traffic?

Their attempt was pretty much total failure anyhow, as people quickly discovered how to circumvent their filtering. But, I think the topic of how ISPs- or even if they can- deal with bandwidth hogs is more interesting that the topic of net neutrality in general (your ISP is gonna block youtube!).

Hopefully, everyone realizes that bandwidth is not limitless. Your average user doesn't use that much of it, but a small percentage of users can and do take up massive amounts of bandwidth. Should an ISP be able to close ports used by bandwidth intensive applications like torrents? Most users don't use torrents, and those that do can slow things down for other users and adversely affect their surfing, ect. An alternative would be flat download limiting- which in my experience draws just as many howls of protest as port blocking. What to do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

And what happened to Comcast, Lemur? Do they still block torrent traffic?

---

In Canada, where it's the law of the land, they sure do. Why do you love hockey and lumberjacks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I think the topic of how ISPs- or even if they can- deal with bandwidth hogs is more interesting that the topic of net neutrality in general

---

Actually, I'd pair this up with the enforced local monopolies/duopolies, a subject which I don't think I've seen you address.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

In Canada, where it's the law of the land, they sure do.

---

Who cares about Canada? I thought we were talking about a proposed regulation in the US..... In the US, Comcast's policy was overruled by the FCC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Umm, part of the point of net neutrality is to prevent the interest group/corporation from being able to force ISPs to cut off the internet in the first place so....

---

No, sorry. Net neutrality would do nothing to stop people from sending out DMCA take down notices nor would it stop ISPs that knuckle under and comply without contesting the issue. To put it another way, if a company is notified they're hosting a site that has illegal content, net neutrality won't stop them from taking it down. You're dealing with completely different issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Who cares about Canada? I thought we were talking about a proposed regulation in the US..... In the US, Comcast's policy was overruled by the FCC.

---

*Facepalm*

Yes, it was overruled ... by the FCC ... based on the idea: " 'Subscribers should be able to go where they want, when they want, and generally use the Internet in any legal means,' outlined FCC chairman Kevin Martin in a related statement."

... which sounds an awful lot like ... I dunno, what's a good term for the idea that people who pay for bandwidth ought to be able to use it as they see fit without traffic shaping or filtering? Somebody help me out here. There must be a phrase that describes this point of view. Something that rhymes with "bet duality." Hmm. I'll think of it at some point.

So you're opposed to the FCC enacting a policy ... that you praise the FCC for acting upon ... oh, I give up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

oh, I give up.

---

Maybe that'd be best. :yes:

You're agitating for regulations to be implemented. The example you dredge up was overruled by the FCC in 2008. What are you whining about again?

We need net neutrality now!
Why?
Look what Comcast did!
The FCC already overruled that.
Exactly, that's why we need net neutrality regulations! :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

No, sorry. Net neutrality would do nothing to stop people from sending out DMCA take down notices nor would it stop ISPs that knuckle under and comply without contesting the issue. To put it another way, if a company is notified they're hosting a site that has illegal content, net neutrality won't stop them from taking it down. You're dealing with completely different issues.

---

No, sorry. Net neutrality regulation would stop the ISP from shutting down someones internet based on a companies complaint without any judicial oversight or approval. It's not completely different issues, if the RIAA tells your electric company to shut down your electricity because you are using it for illegal copying you can bet they will get their ass sued as well as the electric company if they comply, yet it is ok to shut down that person's internet? If an ISP is notified from the actual government not a corporation looking for teenagers to punish then yes that would be allowed no matter what.

Waving DMCA or whatever justification they fabricate in everyones face does not allow a company to do whatever the hell they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

You're agitating for regulations to be implemented. The example you dredge up was overruled by the FCC in 2008. What are you whining about again?

We need net neutrality now!
Why?
Look what Comcast did!
The FCC already overruled that.
Exactly, that's why we need net neutrality regulations! :dizzy2:

---

We need to improve national security!
Why?
Look what those terrorists did!
But we managed to catch them right before they detonated the nuke in NY.
Exactly, which is why we need to improve our national security to make sure it doesn't get to this point.

I swear, its like you don't care how messed up the legislation is as long as the judicial makes sure the right thing is done in the end. "Look how messed up the law is that allowed Comcast do even attempt that!" "But the judge made the right decision, so it's all good, why are you complaining?" Talk about :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Look what Comcast did!
The FCC already overruled that.

---

Based on what philosophy and what principles? Why are you in favor of the practice of net neutrality, but dead set against the policy? Like ACIN said, it's as though you like being defended from foreign enemies, but don't want anybody making the armed forces a fact of policy. 'Cause that would be, you know, big government. Which is bad.

You also appear to be pivoting from point to point, moving on as quickly as possible as each position is disproved. "Show me an example of harm!" Examples given. "Those don't matter, 'cause net neutrality won in the end!" What about Canada? "That's Canada, which passed a law against net neutrality, so it can't posibly be relevant!" Say wha? "You don't get it!" Seriously, your position appears to be fixed, with the reasoning for the position scattered about like decorations.

Also, note that you love the series of tubes videos, while blithely walking past what Ted Stevens was arguing. His reasons for opposing net neutrality were about as coherent as your own.

Let's not forget that the playing field is not static, and that telcos will be working their little lobbyists to the bone in an attempt to recreate the Canadian system here. That should be blindingly obvious to anyone whose position is not an idée fixe.

In recent years, however, major telcos have pressured lawmakers to take a different viewpoint. As the Internet has assumed an ever-greater role in business and our daily lives, ISPs claim they have the right to adopt an active role in shaping the traffic that flows over their networks. They claim such interference will benefit network security, improve customer experience, and stimulate the free market. But if we want to see what the Internet would look like if the telcos get their way, we need look no further than the current situation on mobile networks -- and it's not a pretty picture. [...]

Mobile network providers have long maintained a higher level of control over their services than traditional ISPs do -- because they can. Only certain devices work on certain carriers' networks, and carriers routinely disable features on those devices if they don't like their implications. And it's all perfectly legal.

By comparison, Congress has taken an active hand in the regulation of terrestrial networks since the breakup of Ma Bell in the 1970s, when lawmakers sought to curtail monopolistic practices in the telecom sector. But existing regulations were designed mainly for voice calls. Unless Congress takes specific measures to limit the powers of ISPs soon, expect the telcos to move steadily toward a service model like the one the mobile carriers enjoy now.

ISPs have already demonstrated a willingness to limit network access for specific applications. Typically they claim they do it because the applications consume an inordinate amount of bandwidth, in violation of network usage policies. But last year, the FCC found that Comcast had engaged in widespread blocking of the BitTorrent protocol, even in cases where no network congestion was present. In the absence of specific guidance from Congress, such cases will only proliferate, and the FCC's authority to regulate them will continually be called into question.

Yup, it's the Comcast decision again, the one in favor of net neutrality, which, in a leap of dizzying illogic, you claim proves that net neutrality is unnecessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Yup, it's the Comcast decision again, the one in favor of net neutrality, which, in a leap of dizzying illogic, you claim proves that net neutrality is unnecessary.

---

No, you're the one who wants to see regulations passed without being able to point to a single case where the current system in place hasn't sorted out any problems. I ask for examples to support your claims of a pressing need, and you show me ones that have already been resolved. That does not help your case.

I wasn't even going to reply to ACIN's example, because it was nonsensical. What you are proposing would be akin to agitating for the PATRIOT ACT, if our intelligence community had broken up the 9/11 plot without it.

Quote:

---

Seriously, your position appears to be fixed, with the reasoning for the position scattered about like decorations.

---

All I've asked for is some examples of problems that net neutrality regulations would fix if passed. You've shown none. We haven't even started arguing the merits of the issue- there's no need. You've failed to show any justification for it. Trying to drag examples from a different country just seems desperate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

No, sorry. Net neutrality regulation would stop the ISP from shutting down someones internet based on a companies complaint without any judicial oversight or approval.

---

No, I'm sorry- it would not. Whether or not web content is legal under the DMCA is a completely separate issue from traffic shaping and net neutrality. If you can cite anywhere in proposed net neutrality legislation where your position is supported- I'd love to see it.

Quote:

---

Umm, part of the point of net neutrality is to prevent the interest group/corporation from being able to force ISPs to cut off the internet in the first place so....

---

No, it's not. ISPs trying to shut out competitor's services has already been found to be a violation of antitrust regulation. And in your example, much like Lemur's, the issue was resolved without passing new regulation.

People have been talking about how we need net neutrality legislation immediately for at least the past 7 years. It hasn't passed, and not only has the Internet not collapsed into itself, but we still can't seem to find an outstanding issue that it would solve despite the allegedly dire need for immediate reform. If you two think that it's a good idea for the congress to pass regulation without a demonstrable need for it.... well, you're entitled to your opinions, but I'm tired of dancing in circles over it. Find some current examples that haven't already been addressed by the existing system and then you can tell me all about how proposed regulation would be a panacea for it. Til then..... :shrug:

To anyone else who's still reading this thread, here's a recent WaPo editorial on the dangers of net neutrality and over regulation of the Internet.

Quote:

---

And in your example, much like Lemur's, the issue was resolved without passing new regulation.

---

Here again is your nonsensical logic: "Courts said no! Problem solved, NO MORE BAD GOVERNMENT!"

Quote:

---

People have been talking about how we need net neutrality legislation immediately for at least the past 7 years. It hasn't passed, and not only has the Internet not collapsed into itself, but we still can't seem to find an outstanding issue that it would solve despite the allegedly dire need for immediate reform. If you two think that it's a good idea for the congress to pass regulation without a demonstrable need for it.... well, you're entitled to your opinions, but I'm tired of dancing in circles over it. Find some current examples that haven't already been addressed by the existing system and then you can tell me all about how proposed regulation would be a panacea for it. Til then..... :shrug:

---

You have been given examples, you just can't move beyond your bias against government to realize, huh why are our courts having to decide on something like this in the first place? No, all you do is say is that in the end the good guy won and ignore the fact that he almost lost because in your mind if the good guy wins, it doesn't matter how close the bad guy came to winning its a justification that everything is 100% fine and now we don't need more evil government to help us against the kind corporations that look out for us so we will choose to give them our money.

Quote:

---

I wasn't even going to reply to ACIN's example, because it was nonsensical. What you are proposing would be akin to agitating for the PATRIOT ACT, if our intelligence community had broken up the 9/11 plot without it.

---

No, it's more akin to agitating for better protection if the terrorists had already hijacked the planes and were 30 seconds away from hitting the towers but a fighter plane manages to shoot them down 10 seconds before they hit.

Quote:

---

Unless Congress takes specific measures to limit the powers of ISPs soon, expect the telcos to move steadily toward a service model like the one the mobile carriers enjoy now.

---

Why? They've been able to forever, and net neutrality people have been harping about the supposed 'dangers' for years, but it hasn't happened. So why should we expect it to?

Anyway, here's a blog with a lot of information on it. You know, Lemur, more of the stuff I'm posting that you seem to be completely ignoring :inquisitive: :
http://freestatefoundation.blogspot....t%20Neutrality

Some important points:

Quote:

---

In his summary and conclusion, Professor Epstein explains that we ought to be able to distinguish between regulations that strengthen markets and those that undermine them, but that there is a long-standing pattern of government's failure to do so. The regulators' proclivities to overreach are often driven by a denigration of property rights and systems of voluntary exchange. So here is how he concludes his chapter:

"A similar pattern is at work in the modern debates over net neutrality. The defense of that position starts out as a plea to end discrimination. Yet there is little evidence that the new dose of regulation will produce any gains in the short run. In the long run, we can expect a repetition of the sorry performance of the FCC (or, for that matter, Congress) with respect to broadcast rights to work its way through the law of net neutrality. The sad truth is that the parties who seek to develop sophisticated and sensible schemes for state control quickly lose control over the administrative process to persons whose ambitions for state control are not bound by any fine-grained rationale. The dangers for this predictable drift usually suffice to err on the side of caution. Stated otherwise, the expected rate of depreciation of sound public norms that rely on administrative discretion is high. There are too many pressure points to keep the rascals at bay. So the recommendation here is to follow classical liberal principles that treat all state intervention as a mistake until it is shown to be a good. More practically, and much to the point of the current public policy debate: Keep private control over broadband pipes by abandoning the siren call for net neutrality."

---

And as to the idea that companies aren't expanding networks or just hording cash because they are as stupid as the people who invented the net neutrality problem:

Quote:

---

Unlike other segments of the economy, even in difficult economic times, just in the last two years the broadband providers have invested over $200 billion of private capital in building out and enhancing their broadband networks, without seeking government guarantees of bailouts.

---

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Anyway, here's a blog with a lot of information on it. You know, Lemur, more of the stuff I'm posting that you seem to be completely ignoring :inquisitive: :
http://freestatefoundation.blogspot....t%20Neutrality

---

I would like to pull a Tribesman and say:
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

A blog!?! One that specifically states it's a shill for free market ideology! And you want that to be taken seriously!

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

:inquisitive:

Have you even read the blog? Perhaps you should before your foot goes farther into your mouth.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

:inquisitive:

Have you even read the blog? Perhaps you should before your foot goes farther into your mouth.

CR

---

I have read the blog, and it is obvious the guy is an intelligent person, but it's a blog, period. If this guy has posted an argument in a published place with any sort of fact checking instead of him just going off on his blog, then I will take it seriously. Anyone can make an "intelligent" argument with lots of links to "facts" and try to label it as worthy as an opinion piece in Newsweek.

I'd take most blogs of any political persuasion over a Newsweek opinion piece.

It seems like you're not even giving the arguments any thought. If you don't think he checks his facts, then find what's incorrect. If his arguments are false, then refute them.

But don't entirely dismiss them because you don't agree with them. The validity of an argument is not determined by whether or not it's written in Newsweek.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I'd take most blogs of any political persuasion over a Newsweek opinion piece.

It seems like you're not even giving the arguments any thought. If you don't think he checks his facts, then find what's incorrect. If his arguments are false, then refute them.

But don't entirely dismiss them because you don't agree with them. The validity of an argument is not determined by whether or not it's written in Newsweek.

CR

---

No, but you have to admit that the ratio between intelligent:idiotic arguments on blogs is the exact opposite then in Newsweek.

Any way, at this point in the argument is where I see that no progress is going to be made here. You and Xiahou have been saying the same thing and so have we. Any "proof" we show is just going to be nit picked by each of us. You two can keep thinking that government is out to get you, and let companies walk all over you for the sake of keeping the free market alive and I'll keep thinking my own out of touch ideologies.

It's saturday night and it feels like an Arby's then lolcatz night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Any way, at this point in the argument is where I see that no progress is going to be made here.

---

Let's be fair here, progress could be made if you did what CR said and tried to refute the arguments in that blog, but because you're stubborn and close-minded, you're also right and progress cannot be made. ~;)

CR - I want the Web to be public as well unfettered by regulation. Ideally, I want to see it replace the subsidized mid 20th century educational system as well. I would prefer that, If our dollars are going to go somewhere, that children recieve remedial education in community and recieve the rest online. Stop subsidizing education the way it works least and figure out a system where we can get rid of most teachers and replace them with more effective online programs. Kids could congregate for mandatory testing, but other than that they could congregate on their own time with people that they have things in common with.

Insane, I know - but I want to see the web unfettered by private actors and untouched by the governemnt. It is the new highway system, the new storefront, the new movie theater, the new library and the new school. Tax dollars should eventually go towards basic maintenence and the bottom should fall out of the current entitlement system leading to lower taxes in general.

I see the internet as the conservative dream come true. Keep our tax dollars for our own purposes, a market that is minimally regulated across state lines and job loss for millions of liberals in government work.

The bread & butter of the Internet is built around the idea that on the level of routers and switches ISPs do not impose arbitrary restrictions on traffic; an example would be how a Pakistan ISP once blocked the entire Youtube site for the entire world by routing all traffic to Youtube IPs over its network directly to the ‘shredder’.

Furthermore any site pays for its bandwidth already: you buy a certain data capacity from whatever company plays host to your service (website, torrent tracker or what have you), or you have your own servers and you buy bandwidth from your ISP (and you make sure that you can actually make use of your bandwidth).

In fact, this practice of buying bandwidth and then using it as you see fit is the business model of tier-3 ISPs: they simply buy bandwidth in bulk with service guarantees from a tier-2 or tier-1 ISP and re-sell chunks of it as ISP services to customers. These ISPs do not even have direct access to the hardware through which their traffic is routed.

About that blog; just reading on we get to some seriously funny stuff:

Quote:

---

A variety of conceivable factors can come into play when a competing marketplace producer makes decisions of this sort. For instance, satisfying iPhone user demand for access to VoIP applications using 3G network capabilities could increase AT&T’s good will, cementing its relationship with existing users and attracting increased numbers of new users. On the other hand, giving iPhone user access to VoIP applications using 3G network capabilities could have the overall effect of subsidizing its VoIP competitors, ultimately resulting in loss of significant business to those competitors. There is the possibility that business lost to VoIP competitors will result in a loss of revenue necessary to cover AT&T's high, up-front sunk costs for both building and maintaining its 3G network, which like all networks, has finite capacity. And loss of revenue makes it less likely that AT&T can subsidize iPhones so that consumers can purchase them for less than $200. Multi-factored business decisions of this kind should not be made by regulatory fiat.

---

Just read that again:

Quote:

---

There is the possibility that business lost to VoIP competitors will result in a loss of revenue necessary to cover AT&T's high, up-front sunk costs for both building and maintaining its 3G network

---

So if to pay for VoIP is to pay for your use of 3G, what it the usual monthly bill to pay for? To pay for your use of 3G, yet again? :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

You two can keep thinking that government is out to get you, and let companies walk all over you for the sake of keeping the free market alive and I'll keep thinking my own out of touch ideologies.

---

:rolleyes:
The point I've been trying to make this whole thread is that companies aren't walking over anybody. All the dangers about not having net neutrality ARE JUST SPECULATION.

Quote:

---

I see the internet as the conservative dream come true.

---

Well then don't believe the net neutrality people who harp on non-existent problems.

If there really will be a problem because we don't have net neutrality, then let's go on without regulation until we see the problem. And then, we can think about regulation designed for the actual problems.

That's simple logic. :wall::wall::wall:

And ACIN, if we're blocked, it's because you ignored my post with the blog link and tried (and failed) to pull a tribesy. You've been going on about how you think the corporations are idiots and won't invest in their networks, and then I show you how they've invested hundreds of billions of dollars in the past couple of years. And that goes for a lot of other examples you've given, like that the internet was an ignored market in the last decade. Sometimes, ACIN, I think you aren't getting your views on corporations from the right source. Take this for example:

Quote:

---

No, companies have only realized recently the power that the internet provides consumers and they are afraid of it and are now attempting to stop it.

---

That makes no sense, it's like it came from the latest issue of socialist monthly. How in the world could companies only recently realize the power of the internet? Were they on drugs the last 15 years?

And why would the ISPs be afraid of the internet giving the consumers more power to choose? If the internet is more important to consumers, then they will use more of it, which is good for the ISPs. See, this is the bit that really doesn't make sense; the idea that the ISPs would not like consumers having power seems to be based on the idea that corporations are evil or out to gain power or control over people, or that their interests always go against the consumer.

There's no reason to think any of that, because corporations are in it for profit. And profit comes from satisfied consumers (unless they get the government to prevent people from choosing or to give them an edge somehow).

The whole idea that ISPs want to stop consumers from using the power the internet has given them is stupid as well. First of all, they've known how the internet has affected people for a decade and haven't tried to stop it. Secondly, there is absolutely no reason for them to try and stop people from using the internet to their advantage. There's no reason behind it. :wall:

Quote:

---

So if to pay for VoIP is to pay for your use of 3G, what it the usual monthly bill to pay for? To pay for your use of 3G, yet again?

---

If all iPhone users used VoIP, the network physically couldn't handle it. So how else would you prevent the network from deteriorating for everybody using it because to much traffic is traveling on it?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I see the internet as the conservative dream come true. Keep our tax dollars for our own purposes, a market that is minimally regulated across state lines and job loss for millions of liberals in government work.

---

Except the conservatives want mass-regulation and ban everything that doesn't agree with their view of the bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Except the conservatives want mass-regulation and ban everything that doesn't agree with their view of the bible.

---

Where do you live? What is "their view of the bible?. I'm pretty sure that discussion happened a long time ago and ended up with numerous denominations who think differently, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

I was referencing fundamentalist republican Christians, fox news viewers, etc.

Quote:

---

That makes no sense, it's like it came from the latest issue of socialist monthly. How in the world could companies only recently realize the power of the internet? Were they on drugs the last 15 years?

---

Well, the music industry was. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Let's be fair here, progress could be made if you did what CR said and tried to refute the arguments in that blog, but because you're lazy, progress cannot be made. ~;)

---

Fixed that for you.

EDIT; I have already shown to be receptive to making progress as I have already agreed with CR on some points, but he has yet to agree with anything I have said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

If all iPhone users used VoIP, the network physically couldn't handle it. So how else would you prevent the network from deteriorating for everybody using it because to much traffic is traveling on it?

CR

---

That sounds rather naive or copied from the ISPs website.
A phone connection needs bandwidth as well, during huge events like 9/11 cellphone networks often break down/are inaccessible due to overload so that's not unique to anything I'd say. T-Mobile also blocks Skype on my iPhone but I'm sure it's not because of network overload but because they can make a lot more money charging you per minute than they could if you'd always make phone calls via the data flat.
They do also offer the chance to watch TV on my iPhone via the 3G network so obviously their network is perfectly capable of handling a lot of data as video uses a lot more bandwidth than just audio.

Quote:

---

The point I've been trying to make this whole thread is that companies aren't walking over anybody. All the dangers about not having net neutrality ARE JUST SPECULATION.

---

I understand that, and me and Lemur would disagree.

Quote:

---

Well then don't believe the net neutrality people who harp on non-existent problems.

If there really will be a problem because we don't have net neutrality, then let's go on without regulation until we see the problem. And then, we can think about regulation designed for the actual problems.

That's simple logic. :wall::wall::wall:

---

Since when has "wait until the problem is on our doorstep before we do anything" been logical?

Quote:

---

And ACIN, if we're blocked, it's because you ignored my post with the blog link and tried (and failed) to pull a tribesy. You've been going on about how you think the corporations are idiots and won't invest in their networks, and then I show you how they've invested hundreds of billions of dollars in the past couple of years. And that goes for a lot of other examples you've given, like that the internet was an ignored market in the last decade. Sometimes, ACIN, I think you aren't getting your views on corporations from the right source.

---

Ok, let me clear up something. I guess I have been using bad terminology here. I am differentiating between ISPs and the corporations that I want net neutrality regulation against. I don't think corporations are idiots, I am not denying that they are expanding their network I was saying that expanding their network doesn't not count as an innovation if I remember the last two pages correctly. I will explain the ignored market in the next quotation. I get my info on how corporations operate from history and base my opinion on that. Now, I do the same with government and for the most part I don't trust that either, but in this case I feel it is needed.

Quote:

---

That makes no sense, it's like it came from the latest issue of socialist monthly. How in the world could companies only recently realize the power of the internet? Were they on drugs the last 15 years?

---

Well as you said earlier:
How is a government regulator from an age before color television supposed to adequately write a rule about something that hasn't even occurred yet?
The same can apply to the leadership of a company. The heads of these companies were from a different time who probably didn't even understand how the internet worked let alone its potential, and now as younger people move up the ranks who are more knowledgeable about the internet and its power they can and will do something to preserve profits.

Quote:

---

And why would the ISPs be afraid of the internet giving the consumers more power to choose? If the internet is more important to consumers, then they will use more of it, which is good for the ISPs. See, this is the bit that really doesn't make sense; the idea that the ISPs would not like consumers having power seems to be based on the idea that corporations are evil or out to gain power or control over people, or that their interests always go against the consumer.

---

I am not saying the ISPs are afraid, I am saying companies/special interest groups such as the RIAA, MPAA are afraid. Again, I must have been using bad terminology, when I say corporations or companies I mean the big evil conglomerates that people like to demonize, when I mean ISPs I will say ISPs, nothing else. Companies and interest groups are not evil, they are for the most part amoral, their only goal is their own self interest monetary wise which means they do things which are wrong.

Quote:

---

There's no reason to think any of that, because corporations are in it for profit. And profit comes from satisfied consumers (unless they get the government to prevent people from choosing or to give them an edge somehow).

---

Companies have pretty much relied on what you have put in parentheses since Standard Oil's time.

Quote:

---

The whole idea that ISPs want to stop consumers from using the power the internet has given them is stupid as well. First of all, they've known how the internet has affected people for a decade and haven't tried to stop it. Secondly, there is absolutely no reason for them to try and stop people from using the internet to their advantage. There's no reason behind it. :wall:

---

Again, not ISPs, interest groups/giant conglomerates (Microsoft, etc...). ISPs I am pretty sure probably don't care about the power the internet gives people as long as they buy it from them, which of course leads to them using the government to make regional monopolies. But we have already gone over that and we have agreed that shouldn't be allowed, so it is pointless to talk about that again.