[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Net neutrality is back (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 12/2/2010 2:28:23 AM EDT
|
The FCC is going for it again, possibly December 21st. According to WLS radio in Chicago. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted: Quoted: In before some MORON confuses Net Neutrality with censorship or 'the fairness doctrine'... In before someone, who is a rabid free market supporter, but is against the free market in this case. There is no free market for broadband... It's controlled by a regional government subsidized monopoly. Or in some cases, 2 government subsidized monopolies. Without free competition (artificial, govt forced competition (CLECs) doesn't count), you can't have a free market... Unless technology changes, there won't be competition any time soon... So we're left with regulation. Just like land-line phone service (which now has competition due to technological change, vis-a-vis VOIP and cellular - broadband isn't there yet).... |
|
Quoted: Boy the FCC really wants that power don't they. All for the good of mankind though. For the good.  Because the FCC has really used the exact same power, that they have over voice telecom, to censor what we can say on the phone, right? Oh wait, they haven't... Broadband is a public utility, just like voice telcom... It should be treated the exact same way by the FCC. |
|
Quoted:
In before some MORON confuses Net Neutrality with censorship or 'the fairness doctrine'... Yeah, because people like Mark Lloyd haven't said that they want to control the content on the radio or anything. You decide: Article from Fox News on Mark Lloyd And don't forget the "awesome" Cass Sunstein, you just wants to "nudge" you to do what is best for you. And if that doesn't work, he will shove you. And before you say it, thanks for calling me a moron. Coming from you, I take it as a compliment. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what is net neutrality? Something that scares nerds who spend their lives on the internet. Not really. Net Neutrality is basically not discriminating service based on what content is being accessed. BASICALLY it's the principle that your ISP shouldn't stop you from accessing legal content on the internet, charging you more for specific content (such as charging extra you for every hour you stream movies from NetFlix) or throttling bandwidth for specific content (such as Time Warner fucking with your connection to Vonage, because TWC has their own VOIP service) Net Neutrality is GOOD. The government running/enforcing/regulating/deciding what it means.... IS BAD. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: In before some MORON confuses Net Neutrality with censorship or 'the fairness doctrine'... Yeah, because people like Mark Lloyd haven't said that they want to control the content on the radio or anything. You decide: Article from Fox News on Mark Lloyd And don't forget the "awesome" Cass Sunstein, you just wants to "nudge" you to do what is best for you. And if that doesn't work, he will shove you. And before you say it, thanks for calling me a moron. Coming from you, I take it as a compliment. None of that blather has anything to do with net neutrality. |
|
Quoted: So what is net neutrality? In the simplest terms, it's making a legal requirement that 'a packet is a packet', and requiring ISPs to transmit all packets without preference or censorship... Implementations vary from the FCC's limp-wristed 'do this so we can say we did something' suggestion, to 'make it so service transmitters cannot be service providers'... All depends on who's version you support. |
|
Quoted: So what is net neutrality? In the simplest terms, it's making a legal requirement that 'a packet is a packet', and requiring ISPs to transmit all packets without preference or censorship... Implementations vary from the FCC's limp-wristed 'do this so we can say we did something' suggestion, to 'make it so service transmitters cannot be service providers'... All depends on who's version you support. NONE of the versions have anything to do with giving anyone the power to censor non-copyright-infringing content. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In before some MORON confuses Net Neutrality with censorship or 'the fairness doctrine'... Yeah, because people like Mark Lloyd haven't said that they want to control the content on the radio or anything. You decide: Article from Fox News on Mark Lloyd And don't forget the "awesome" Cass Sunstein, you just wants to "nudge" you to do what is best for you. And if that doesn't work, he will shove you. And before you say it, thanks for calling me a moron. Coming from you, I take it as a compliment.
None of that blather has anything to do with net neutrality. So giving control over the internet and it's content to the FCC has nothing to do with regulating it's content? And allowing people like Cass Sunstein and Mark Lloyd decide how those new regulations get enacted has nothing to do with shutting out conservative speech? RIGHT. 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: In before some MORON confuses Net Neutrality with censorship or 'the fairness doctrine'... Yeah, because people like Mark Lloyd haven't said that they want to control the content on the radio or anything. You decide: Article from Fox News on Mark Lloyd And don't forget the "awesome" Cass Sunstein, you just wants to "nudge" you to do what is best for you. And if that doesn't work, he will shove you. And before you say it, thanks for calling me a moron. Coming from you, I take it as a compliment. None of that blather has anything to do with net neutrality. So giving control over the internet and it's content to the FCC has nothing to do with regulating it's content? And allowing people like Cass Sunstein and Mark Lloyd decide how those new regulations get enacted has nothing to do with shutting out conservative speech? RIGHT. Nothing at all. Because no one is giving the FCC control over content. It's just like the phone system - the FCC regulates transmission, content stays unregulated. Any implementation of NN that does not create a new agency, will require the FCC to administer it... Net Neutrality has never had anything to do with shutting out any speech, nor do any of the proposed implementations give anyone the power to do so. The entire notion that it did, is rediculous paranoia based on 'OMG, the Obama Administration is doing this, there MUST be something sinister involved' - nevermind that NN got started under the Bush administration... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In before some MORON confuses Net Neutrality with censorship or 'the fairness doctrine'... Yeah, because people like Mark Lloyd haven't said that they want to control the content on the radio or anything. You decide: Article from Fox News on Mark Lloyd And don't forget the "awesome" Cass Sunstein, you just wants to "nudge" you to do what is best for you. And if that doesn't work, he will shove you. And before you say it, thanks for calling me a moron. Coming from you, I take it as a compliment.
None of that blather has anything to do with net neutrality. So giving control over the internet and it's content to the FCC has nothing to do with regulating it's content? And allowing people like Cass Sunstein and Mark Lloyd decide how those new regulations get enacted has nothing to do with shutting out conservative speech? RIGHT.
Nothing at all. Because no one is giving the FCC control over content. It's just like the phone system - the FCC regulates transmission, content stays unregulated. Any implementation of NN that does not create a new agency, will require the FCC to administer it... Don't worry, Dave. I am sure that folks like Cass and Mark will NEVER try to "nudge" you to do what they want you to do. For instance, they would NEVER put conservative talk all into the same "packet" since it isn't really news, anyway, and mandate it be an a tier you have to pay more for, thereby limiting its accessibility. Nor would they dictate that you have to include the counter argument be included in the "package" to make it "fair". Or just tell the service provider that if they don't include the counter argument that they just lost their license. Naw, our benevolent fedgov would NEVER try to control something like that, now would they? Oh, that's right. They are painting Fax News and MSNBC as extreme, while CNN and the MSM are the REAL "fair and balanced" news sources. I wonder who they are actually trying to target? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: In before some MORON confuses Net Neutrality with censorship or 'the fairness doctrine'... Yeah, because people like Mark Lloyd haven't said that they want to control the content on the radio or anything. You decide: Article from Fox News on Mark Lloyd And don't forget the "awesome" Cass Sunstein, you just wants to "nudge" you to do what is best for you. And if that doesn't work, he will shove you. And before you say it, thanks for calling me a moron. Coming from you, I take it as a compliment. None of that blather has anything to do with net neutrality. So giving control over the internet and it's content to the FCC has nothing to do with regulating it's content? And allowing people like Cass Sunstein and Mark Lloyd decide how those new regulations get enacted has nothing to do with shutting out conservative speech? RIGHT. Nothing at all. Because no one is giving the FCC control over content. It's just like the phone system - the FCC regulates transmission, content stays unregulated. Any implementation of NN that does not create a new agency, will require the FCC to administer it... Don't worry, Dave. I am sure that folks like Cass and Mark will NEVER try to "nudge" you to do what they want you to do. For instance, they would NEVER put conservative talk all into the same "packet" since it isn't really news, anyway, and mandate it be an a tier you have to pay more for, thereby limiting its accessibility. Nor would they dictate that you have to include the counter argument be included in the "package" to make it "fair". Or just tell the service provider that if they don't include the counter argument that they just lost their license. Naw, our benevolent fedgov would NEVER try to control something like that, now would they? Oh, that's right. They are painting Fax News and MSNBC as extreme, while CNN and the MSM are the REAL "fair and balanced" news sources. I wonder who they are actually trying to target? Net neutrality doesn't allow for any of the things you mentioned... 'packets' are individual portions of a data stream (yes, simplified, but the point stands) - not groupings of content. The idea behind NN, is to prevent anyone from handling some packets differently than others based on content... The notion that it would somehow ALLOW the government to do exactly what it prohibits s absurd... They aren't targeting anyone - and your constant references to radio/TV heighten the absurdity of your argument |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In before some MORON confuses Net Neutrality with censorship or 'the fairness doctrine'... Yeah, because people like Mark Lloyd haven't said that they want to control the content on the radio or anything. You decide: Article from Fox News on Mark Lloyd And don't forget the "awesome" Cass Sunstein, you just wants to "nudge" you to do what is best for you. And if that doesn't work, he will shove you. And before you say it, thanks for calling me a moron. Coming from you, I take it as a compliment.
None of that blather has anything to do with net neutrality. So giving control over the Internet and it's content to the FCC has nothing to do with regulating it's content? And allowing people like Cass Sunstein and Mark Lloyd decide how those new regulations get enacted has nothing to do with shutting out conservative speech? RIGHT.
Nothing at all. Because no one is giving the FCC control over content. It's just like the phone system - the FCC regulates transmission, content stays unregulated. Any implementation of NN that does not create a new agency, will require the FCC to administer it... Don't worry, Dave. I am sure that folks like Cass and Mark will NEVER try to "nudge" you to do what they want you to do. For instance, they would NEVER put conservative talk all into the same "packet" since it isn't really news, anyway, and mandate it be an a tier you have to pay more for, thereby limiting its accessibility. Nor would they dictate that you have to include the counter argument be included in the "package" to make it "fair". Or just tell the service provider that if they don't include the counter argument that they just lost their license. Naw, our benevolent fedgov would NEVER try to control something like that, now would they? Oh, that's right. They are painting Fax News and MSNBC as extreme, while CNN and the MSM are the REAL "fair and balanced" news sources. I wonder who they are actually trying to target? Net neutrality doesn't allow for any of the things you mentioned... 'packets' are individual portions of a data stream (yes, simplified, but the point stands) - not groupings of content. The idea behind NN, is to prevent anyone from handling some packets differently than others based on content... The notion that it would somehow ALLOW the government to do exactly what it prohibits s absurd... They aren't targeting anyone - and your constant references to radio/TV heighten the absurdity of your argument Yeah, because we all know that the fedgov stays within the bounds of the legislation that gets passed. Just like the PATRIOT Act hasn't lead to virtual strip searches to get on a plane. Oh, wait... Or that most legislation passed by the fedgov in the last 2 years has been full of regulations, but lacking on how to implement them. Which lands them squarely on Cass Sunstein's desk to determine how to implement the new regulations. So what you end up with is a "gentleman" who believes in using fedgov regulations to nudge - or if that doesn't work shove - you into doing what he believes is in your best interests. You also are witnessing so much power being taken from Congress and give to the bureaucrats like Sunstein and Lloyd that new regulations won't have to go through Congress before they get enacted. See CO2 and the EPA if you don't believe me. |
|
Quoted:
IBT "It's the internet companies cable lines they laid. They can do what ever they want with their 'propery'". Except in actuality all of that stuff was paid for by tax payers. That's fine, I still don't trust the feds to run it though. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In before some MORON confuses Net Neutrality with censorship or 'the fairness doctrine'... In before someone, who is a rabid free market supporter, but is against the free market in this case. There is no free market for broadband... It's controlled by a regional government subsidized monopoly. Or in some cases, 2 government subsidized monopolies. Without free competition (artificial, govt forced competition (CLECs) doesn't count), you can't have a free market... Unless technology changes, there won't be competition any time soon... So we're left with regulation. Just like land-line phone service (which now has competition due to technological change, vis-a-vis VOIP and cellular - broadband isn't there yet).... So the correct answer would be to split the companies so that operation of last mile infrastructure is separate from the rest of the business. No need to involve other internet providers. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what is net neutrality? Something that scares nerds who spend their lives on the internet. Not really. Net Neutrality is basically not discriminating service based on what content is being accessed. BASICALLY it's the principle that your ISP shouldn't stop you from accessing legal content on the internet, charging you more for specific content (such as charging extra you for every hour you stream movies from NetFlix) or throttling bandwidth for specific content (such as Time Warner fucking with your connection to Vonage, because TWC has their own VOIP service) Net Neutrality is GOOD. The government running/enforcing/regulating/deciding what it means.... IS BAD. I hope you don't plan on using phone or video chat services over the internet because those, and other applications, require exactly that sort of QoS treatment in order to function. Further, things like MPLS and ATM, which use virtual circuits, require exactly that sort of QoS treatment in order to function in an economic manner. Handling traffic in a different manner in order to maximize limited bandwidth resources is GOOD. I don't think you really understand how asymmetric traffic can really impact all the users of a DSLAM or CMTS. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So what is net neutrality? Something that scares nerds who spend their lives on the internet. Not really. Net Neutrality is basically not discriminating service based on what content is being accessed. BASICALLY it's the principle that your ISP shouldn't stop you from accessing legal content on the internet, charging you more for specific content (such as charging extra you for every hour you stream movies from NetFlix) or throttling bandwidth for specific content (such as Time Warner fucking with your connection to Vonage, because TWC has their own VOIP service) Net Neutrality is GOOD. The government running/enforcing/regulating/deciding what it means.... IS BAD. I hope you don't plan on using phone or video chat services over the internet because those, and other applications, require exactly that sort of QoS treatment in order to function. Further, things like MPLS and ATM, which use virtual circuits, require exactly that sort of QoS treatment in order to function in an economic manner. Handling traffic in a different manner in order to maximize limited bandwidth resources is GOOD. I don't think you really understand how asymmetric traffic can really impact all the users of a DSLAM or CMTS. What he said. I'm astonished at the willingness of people to hand over control of that which they do not understand, to a government that understands it even less. What could possibly go wrong? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what is net neutrality? Something that scares nerds who spend their lives on the internet. Not really. Net Neutrality is basically not discriminating service based on what content is being accessed. BASICALLY it's the principle that your ISP shouldn't stop you from accessing legal content on the internet, charging you more for specific content (such as charging extra you for every hour you stream movies from NetFlix) or throttling bandwidth for specific content (such as Time Warner fucking with your connection to Vonage, because TWC has their own VOIP service) Net Neutrality is GOOD. The government running/enforcing/regulating/deciding what it means.... IS BAD. I hope you don't plan on using phone or video chat services over the internet because those, and other applications, require exactly that sort of QoS treatment in order to function. Further, things like MPLS and ATM, which use virtual circuits, require exactly that sort of QoS treatment in order to function in an economic manner. Handling traffic in a different manner in order to maximize limited bandwidth resources is GOOD. I don't think you really understand how asymmetric traffic can really impact all the users of a DSLAM or CMTS. What he said. I'm astonished at the willingness of people to hand over control of that which they do not understand, to a government that understands it even less. What could possibly go wrong? Its just a series of tubes...if an 83 year old man got it, it can't be that complex. Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got...an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday [Tuesday]. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.
[...] They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material Now if you'll all excuse me I need to get the plunger and see where my email is stuck at. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what is net neutrality? Something that scares nerds who spend their lives on the internet. Not really. Net Neutrality is basically not discriminating service based on what content is being accessed. BASICALLY it's the principle that your ISP shouldn't stop you from accessing legal content on the internet, charging you more for specific content (such as charging extra you for every hour you stream movies from NetFlix) or throttling bandwidth for specific content (such as Time Warner fucking with your connection to Vonage, because TWC has their own VOIP service) Net Neutrality is GOOD. The government running/enforcing/regulating/deciding what it means.... IS BAD. I hope you don't plan on using phone or video chat services over the internet because those, and other applications, require exactly that sort of QoS treatment in order to function. Further, things like MPLS and ATM, which use virtual circuits, require exactly that sort of QoS treatment in order to function in an economic manner. Handling traffic in a different manner in order to maximize limited bandwidth resources is GOOD. I don't think you really understand how asymmetric traffic can really impact all the users of a DSLAM or CMTS. What he said. I'm astonished at the willingness of people to hand over control of that which they do not understand, to a government that understands it even less. What could possibly go wrong? this |
|
Quoted:
I'm astonished at the willingness of people to hand over control of that which they do not understand, to a government that understands it even less. What could possibly go wrong? The rapid pace of innovation the Internet has fostered has been precisely because it's market driven and unregulated. Why anyone would want to kill that golden goose is beyond me. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm astonished at the willingness of people to hand over control of that which they do not understand, to a government that understands it even less. What could possibly go wrong? The rapid pace of innovation the Internet has fostered has been precisely because it's market driven and unregulated. Why anyone would want to kill that golden goose is beyond me. Control? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm astonished at the willingness of people to hand over control of that which they do not understand, to a government that understands it even less. What could possibly go wrong? The rapid pace of innovation the Internet has fostered has been precisely because it's market driven and unregulated. Why anyone would want to kill that golden goose is beyond me. Control? DING DING DING! We have a winner! |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So what is net neutrality? Something that scares nerds who spend their lives on the internet. Not really. Net Neutrality is basically not discriminating service based on what content is being accessed. BASICALLY it's the principle that your ISP shouldn't stop you from accessing legal content on the internet, charging you more for specific content (such as charging extra you for every hour you stream movies from NetFlix) or throttling bandwidth for specific content (such as Time Warner fucking with your connection to Vonage, because TWC has their own VOIP service) Net Neutrality is GOOD. The government running/enforcing/regulating/deciding what it means.... IS BAD. I hope you don't plan on using phone or video chat services over the internet because those, and other applications, require exactly that sort of QoS treatment in order to function. Further, things like MPLS and ATM, which use virtual circuits, require exactly that sort of QoS treatment in order to function in an economic manner. Handling traffic in a different manner in order to maximize limited bandwidth resources is GOOD. I don't think you really understand how asymmetric traffic can really impact all the users of a DSLAM or CMTS. What he said. I'm astonished at the willingness of people to hand over control of that which they do not understand, to a government that understands it even less. What could possibly go wrong? Nothing, brother. It's all for the good. They may even increase our chocolate rations next week. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what is net neutrality? Something that scares nerds who spend their lives on the internet. Not really. Net Neutrality is basically not discriminating service based on what content is being accessed. BASICALLY it's the principle that your ISP shouldn't stop you from accessing legal content on the internet, charging you more for specific content (such as charging extra you for every hour you stream movies from NetFlix) or throttling bandwidth for specific content (such as Time Warner fucking with your connection to Vonage, because TWC has their own VOIP service) Net Neutrality is GOOD. The government running/enforcing/regulating/deciding what it means.... IS BAD. There are already laws against doing things like that. In any technology. |
|
i just don't get the people who have no qualms about letting this .gov get involved w/ internet regulation. it's called getting the nose under the tent. sure it might not be "censureship" now, but all things the .gov gets its nose into winds up turning out way different than "intended". good "intentions" aside, don't forget who "censured" talk radio at one time w/ the "fairness doctrine". now, we have the internet - why let them get their nose under this tent?
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: In before some MORON confuses Net Neutrality with censorship or 'the fairness doctrine'... Yeah, because people like Mark Lloyd haven't said that they want to control the content on the radio or anything. You decide: Article from Fox News on Mark Lloyd And don't forget the "awesome" Cass Sunstein, you just wants to "nudge" you to do what is best for you. And if that doesn't work, he will shove you. And before you say it, thanks for calling me a moron. Coming from you, I take it as a compliment. None of that blather has anything to do with net neutrality. So giving control over the Internet and it's content to the FCC has nothing to do with regulating it's content? And allowing people like Cass Sunstein and Mark Lloyd decide how those new regulations get enacted has nothing to do with shutting out conservative speech? RIGHT. Nothing at all. Because no one is giving the FCC control over content. It's just like the phone system - the FCC regulates transmission, content stays unregulated. Any implementation of NN that does not create a new agency, will require the FCC to administer it... Don't worry, Dave. I am sure that folks like Cass and Mark will NEVER try to "nudge" you to do what they want you to do. For instance, they would NEVER put conservative talk all into the same "packet" since it isn't really news, anyway, and mandate it be an a tier you have to pay more for, thereby limiting its accessibility. Nor would they dictate that you have to include the counter argument be included in the "package" to make it "fair". Or just tell the service provider that if they don't include the counter argument that they just lost their license. Naw, our benevolent fedgov would NEVER try to control something like that, now would they? Oh, that's right. They are painting Fax News and MSNBC as extreme, while CNN and the MSM are the REAL "fair and balanced" news sources. I wonder who they are actually trying to target? Net neutrality doesn't allow for any of the things you mentioned... 'packets' are individual portions of a data stream (yes, simplified, but the point stands) - not groupings of content. The idea behind NN, is to prevent anyone from handling some packets differently than others based on content... The notion that it would somehow ALLOW the government to do exactly what it prohibits s absurd... They aren't targeting anyone - and your constant references to radio/TV heighten the absurdity of your argument Yeah, because we all know that the fedgov stays within the bounds of the legislation that gets passed. Just like the PATRIOT Act hasn't lead to virtual strip searches to get on a plane. Oh, wait... The PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with the present airport security regime, which does not conduct virtual strip searches (no matter what the jag-off who photoshopped that porno pic wants you to believe). 2 strikes in one sentence... Or that most legislation passed by the fedgov in the last 2 years has been full of regulations, but lacking on how to implement them. You mean, the last hundred-plus years. Which lands them squarely on Cass Sunstein's desk to determine how to implement the new regulations. Uh, no. You can't take an anti-censorship law and 'implement regulations' creating censorship, nor is there any history of the FCC trying to do so. There is absolutely NOTHING to do with allowing censorship involved in Net Neutrality So what you end up with is a "gentleman" who believes in using fedgov regulations to nudge - or if that doesn't work shove - you into doing what he believes is in your best interests. Except that he can't do it. Period. There is no way at all that net-neutrality can be used to censor content... You also are witnessing so much power being taken from Congress and give to the bureaucrats like Sunstein and Lloyd that new regulations won't have to go through Congress before they get enacted. Again, nothing new at all... See CO2 and the EPA if you don't believe me. The Supreme Court 'owns' that one - they ordered the EPA to do that You really have no fucking clue... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: IBT "It's the internet companies cable lines they laid. They can do what ever they want with their 'propery'". Except in actuality all of that stuff was paid for by tax payers. That's fine, I still don't trust the feds to run it though. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile It's interstate commerce. The Feds are the only ones who CAN run it. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: In before some MORON confuses Net Neutrality with censorship or 'the fairness doctrine'... In before someone, who is a rabid free market supporter, but is against the free market in this case. There is no free market for broadband... It's controlled by a regional government subsidized monopoly. Or in some cases, 2 government subsidized monopolies. Without free competition (artificial, govt forced competition (CLECs) doesn't count), you can't have a free market... Unless technology changes, there won't be competition any time soon... So we're left with regulation. Just like land-line phone service (which now has competition due to technological change, vis-a-vis VOIP and cellular - broadband isn't there yet).... So the correct answer would be to split the companies so that operation of last mile infrastructure is separate from the rest of the business. No need to involve other internet providers. Unless you absolutely ban providers from providing any service other than an internet connection, that won't work. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So what is net neutrality? Something that scares nerds who spend their lives on the internet. Not really. Net Neutrality is basically not discriminating service based on what content is being accessed. BASICALLY it's the principle that your ISP shouldn't stop you from accessing legal content on the internet, charging you more for specific content (such as charging extra you for every hour you stream movies from NetFlix) or throttling bandwidth for specific content (such as Time Warner fucking with your connection to Vonage, because TWC has their own VOIP service) Net Neutrality is GOOD. The government running/enforcing/regulating/deciding what it means.... IS BAD. I hope you don't plan on using phone or video chat services over the internet because those, and other applications, require exactly that sort of QoS treatment in order to function. Further, things like MPLS and ATM, which use virtual circuits, require exactly that sort of QoS treatment in order to function in an economic manner. Handling traffic in a different manner in order to maximize limited bandwidth resources is GOOD. I don't think you really understand how asymmetric traffic can really impact all the users of a DSLAM or CMTS. QoS is one thing - ergo, 'reasonable network management'... Content-based throttling, due to (a) the content being a competing firm's product, or (b) the ISP not being paid a royalty by the content creator/host is another thing all together, and it is this that Net Neutrality is aimed at... Prohibiting both of those practices. |
|
Quoted: i just don't get the people who have no qualms about letting this .gov get involved w/ internet regulation. it's called getting the nose under the tent. sure it might not be "censureship" now, but all things the .gov gets its nose into winds up turning out way different than "intended". good "intentions" aside, don't forget who "censured" talk radio at one time w/ the "fairness doctrine". now, we have the internet - why let them get their nose under this tent? Except that this has NOT happened in the decades that the govt has had the 'neutrality-mandating' level of control over THE TELEPHONE SYSTEM. Which the 'net is the next evolution of. If this was a real danger, we would have seen it happen with the phone network - but it didn't. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what is net neutrality? Something that scares nerds who spend their lives on the internet. Not really. Net Neutrality is basically not discriminating service based on what content is being accessed. BASICALLY it's the principle that your ISP shouldn't stop you from accessing legal content on the internet, charging you more for specific content (such as charging extra you for every hour you stream movies from NetFlix) or throttling bandwidth for specific content (such as Time Warner fucking with your connection to Vonage, because TWC has their own VOIP service) Net Neutrality is GOOD. The government running/enforcing/regulating/deciding what it means.... IS BAD. I hope you don't plan on using phone or video chat services over the internet because those, and other applications, require exactly that sort of QoS treatment in order to function. Further, things like MPLS and ATM, which use virtual circuits, require exactly that sort of QoS treatment in order to function in an economic manner. Handling traffic in a different manner in order to maximize limited bandwidth resources is GOOD. I don't think you really understand how asymmetric traffic can really impact all the users of a DSLAM or CMTS. What he said. I'm astonished at the willingness of people to hand over control of that which they do not understand, to a government that understands it even less. What could possibly go wrong? Nothing, brother. It's all for the good. They may even increase our chocolate rations next week. Yeah to Big Brother... Giving us over to Big Business... Guess it is time to put the old way of thinking about the "Internet" down the 'ol "memory hole" before we all end up in Room 101 (B.T.W. to the Ministry of Love staff - I'm absolutely terrified that I'd be ever be called upon to make love to Anne Hathaway, Katie Perry & Jennifer Anniston all at the same time. - Please please please don't do it to me... ) 
|