The Man Who Invented the Web on Net Neutrality

[Aenlic]

Find me one smear-proof organization supporting net neutrality eh? Funny you'd mention red-herrings, who was it that made the (false) ad-hominem about me being in the telcom industry? Here's an idea- discuss your position on the merits. You've had zero examples besides the Cogent dispute, which was solved in a matter of days without government action and I might add had nothing to do with "net neutrality" since it was about who would pay access to networks not tiering of service or anything else related.

The Redleg defense? Accuse me of an ad hominem attack that doesn't exist? I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked. Are you familiar with the common English concept of a question? Not quite the same as an accusation, is it?

This:

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and ask if you are an impartial observer, Xiahou.

Is not an ad hominem attack. It was the only solution I could think of for why you would be arguing in such a way. I thought perhaps you might be a Level3 employee, considering your claims about what happened last year. I asked a sincere question. Like Redleg, I recommend that you research the meaning of the ad hominem fallacy.

Where's your proof that the Cogent dispute wasn't solved by the government stepping in and forcing the issue? You made the claim that it was solved without government intervention first; before I even mentioned the government or Los Alamos.

As you put it:

[

The problem was quickly resolved without government meddling.

I suppose you could go back to your post and edit that out now. Burden of proof rests on you, sport.

[

Whats this? Another red-herring? Show me where I said I supported Steven's bill? While you're at it, show me where the big-time corporate shill Cato favored Stevens bill- or anytime they've subsidized corporate welfare. It shouldnt be hard since they're a big-corporation mouth-peice.... good luck.

You've painted this discussion several times as being about stopping "net neutrality", when in fact it has been about amendments added to a 135-page bill which consists of bad regulation without a leavening of good regulation to balance it out. It's too late now to claim that you didn't say what you said. I recommend reading back through your posts.

So then, why do we need new beauocratic regulation for a problem that doesnt exist?

Anyhow, more on topic.....
Net Neutrality is dead (at least for now) after being defeated in both the House and Senate. Good riddance.

There wasn't a bill to have net neutrality. Did you not even read your own link? What was defeated was an amendment to the Stevens bill which would have added some guarantees. Are you now claiming the above isn't a support for the Stevens bill? Either you're just not understanding what was going on in committee or you aren't paying attention to the posts in this thread.

I've only spoke out against additional regulation under the guise of "net-neutrality"- you know... the topic of the thread?

Are you just not familiar with how this whole net neutrality debate started in Congress? It started because of the pro-corporate bills being pushed by Ted Stevens and others. That started a reaction which began calling for regulation to make sure that these new laws and regulations being pushed through Congress by the telecommunications industry protected certain things about the internet. AT&T and Bell South have made no secret of what they intend. They've flat out stated that they want to finance improvements to a higher level internet broadband backbone by providing preferential service to those who pay higher fees. It's no secret.

The "additional" regulation, as you put it, was in the form of amendments to a 135-page communications bill which adds over two dozen new rules for the FCC and 80+ some odd new regulations altogether.

Yes, but I bet you didn't know what side CAGW was on before now. I thought they were best know for highlighting pork-barrel spending and their yearly Congressional "pig-book", but apparently they're an ultra-right wing shill for big-business who's "biggest claim to fame is a Microsoft-funded campaign against open source software."

The CAGW first started as a reasonably non-partisan anti-waste group back in the 1980's. They publish the Pig Book, which I hope you're familiar with, at least. If only they'd stuck to their non-partisan beginnings. But in the mid-90's they took a great deal of money from Microsoft to fight legislation dealing with open source software. At that point they lost massive amounts of credibility and now they're known to decry waste on one hand while accepting massive funding from corporations which promote that very waste. It's the height of hypocrisy. Google "open source" and "CAGW" and report back to us, OK?