'Net Neutrality' BS

[MR2-Sooner86]

I'm rather surprised I didn't see anything on here. I mean the FCC just made a power grab while flipping everybody the bird because they were already told by the courts they couldn't do this.

FCC approves controversial 'net neutrality' rules (http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/12/21/fcc.net.neutrality/index.html?hpt=T1)


In announcing the proposed rules this month, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said they would require high-speed internet providers to treat all types of Web content equally.

The rules are designed to, in effect, keep the companies that own the internet's real-world infrastructure from slowing down some types of websites or apps -- say, those belonging to a competitor -- or speeding up others for high-paying clients.

For average internet users, the vote affects whether government will guarantee they'll continue to have access to all Web content, regardless of their internet provider's wishes, and whether they'll get that content as quickly as businesses or individuals able to pay more for it.

Yup, because we all know the FCC has been for 'equality' in the past :rolleyes:

Well, the internet was nice, and free, while we had it.

[Midtowner]

This is a good thing so long as it's enforced even handedly. The only tragedy is that the policy doesn't apply to wireless devices as well.

Some ISPs have already blocked competitors and companies they don't like. The internet should be a place where information is free. Would you rather we were like Iran or China in terms of the availability of information?

[usaosooner]

should read up on whats going on in Europe...


Guy Fawkes day might need a repeat soon

[MR2-Sooner86]

This is a good thing so long as it's enforced even handedly. The only tragedy is that the policy doesn't apply to wireless devices as well.

Some ISPs have already blocked competitors and companies they don't like. The internet should be a place where information is free. Would you rather we were like Iran or China in terms of the availability of information?

Good thing as long as it's even? We're talking the government here.

Barack Obama's nominee for "regulatory czar" has advocated a "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet that would require opposing opinions be linked (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=96301)

Also, show me where people have been blocked. Where have people had Fox News, CNN, or other sites cut off form them?

As for your Iran and China remark, guess who limits their information? The government.

Nice try. You're welcome to play again.
1ytCEuuW2_A

[Ike]

Net Neutrality is nothing at all like the fairness doctrine. A non-neutral internet means that the companies with deep pockets will see their apps and pages load fast while everyone else will be abysmally slow to load. It won't be pretty. New ideas that aren't supported by deep pockets will have almost no way of gaining any traction at all.

The fairness doctrine however is and always will be a bad idea. But how some people came to equate net neutrality with the fairness doctrine is beyond me.

As for where blocking has happened, comcast has already been found to be throttling back P2P services, as well as having a policy throttling back bandwidth for people using the net heavily over brief periods (say, people that want to stream HD video episodes of their favorite shows). It's not hard to imagine that as more TV stations want to put HD content on the web, that comcast might say to them "you want your shows to get preference in our throttling scheme? Well, if you pay us $X million dollars, then people streaming your shows won't get throttled". This would give the major TV stations with deep pockets the ability to do what, say, an independent film producer could not do, and stream their HD content effectively. Tilting the field further away from the independent producers of content and towards the major studios/stations.

[Midtowner]

Good thing as long as it's even? We're talking the government here.

Barack Obama's nominee for "regulatory czar" has advocated a "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet that would require opposing opinions be linked (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=96301)

Also, show me where people have been blocked. Where have people had Fox News, CNN, or other sites cut off form them?

As for your Iran and China remark, guess who limits their information? The government.

Nice try. You're welcome to play again.
1ytCEuuW2_A

Who cares what someone has "advocated"? We're talking about what has actually been done.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/131161-fcc-looking-into-alleged-comcast-net-neutrality-violation

You may check the above link. That shows that Comcast, who considered Netflix as a competitor, charged the carrier of Netflix extra to allow its internet subscribers to view it. Left unchecked, that'd have been the tip of the iceberg.

We have the First Amendment here, so we don't have to worry about the government censoring speech. But if we allow private actors the power to do so, you can bet it'll be just as bad as what they have in Iran or China.

[Ike]

Also, isn't comcast either in the process of buying NBC, or somthing like that? Wonder how well comcast subscribers would see ABC, CBS or FOX news, especially as compared to NBC in a non-neutral internet?

[MR2-Sooner86]

Net Neutrality is nothing at all like the fairness doctrine. A non-neutral internet means that the companies with deep pockets will see their apps and pages load fast while everyone else will be abysmally slow to load. It won't be pretty. New ideas that aren't supported by deep pockets will have almost no way of gaining any traction at all.

Yeah, I mean Google will never be able to make web browser because Microsoft will run them out of town. Groupon, silly idea, really got killed off by big business. Facebook? Youtube? Never heard of those? Of course not, big business killed them off.


The fairness doctrine however is and always will be a bad idea. But how some people came to equate net neutrality with the fairness doctrine is beyond me.

The FCC was created to monitor, not censor, what Americans view and listen to. We see how that went. Not to mention, as stated above, there are those up there that was fairness doctrine brought back.


As for where blocking has happened, comcast has already been found to be throttling back P2P services, as well as having a policy throttling back bandwidth for people using the net heavily over brief periods (say, people that want to stream HD video episodes of their favorite shows). It's not hard to imagine that as more TV stations want to put HD content on the web, that comcast might say to them "you want your shows to get preference in our throttling scheme? Well, if you pay us $X million dollars, then people streaming your shows won't get throttled". This would give the major TV stations with deep pockets the ability to do what, say, an independent film producer could not do, and stream their HD content effectively. Tilting the field further away from the independent producers of content and towards the major studios/stations.


Who cares what someone has "advocated"? We're talking about what has actually been done.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-va...lity-violation

You may check the above link. That shows that Comcast, who considered Netflix as a competitor, charged the carrier of Netflix extra to allow its internet subscribers to view it. Left unchecked, that'd have been the tip of the iceberg.


If your ISP is ****ing you over, get another one. Last time I checked there were several ISPs out there. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to go to Comcast.


We have the First Amendment here, so we don't have to worry about the government censoring speech. But if we allow private actors the power to do so, you can bet it'll be just as bad as what they have in Iran or China.

If you don't like a businesses practices, go to another one. With government, you can't go to another one, you're stuck with it.

We've had the internet for 20 years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have yet to see evidence of big business trying to control the internet like in China.

[soonerinkaty]

Holy **** we've had the Internet for 20 years!?!?!?

[SCOUT]

We have the First Amendment here, so we don't have to worry about the government censoring speech. But if we allow private actors the power to do so, you can bet it'll be just as bad as what they have in Iran or China.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Please help me understand where the first amendment prohibits private companies from limiting speech or access?

As has already been mentioned, with private entities, you have the choice to go somewhere else. Governments don't provide such flexibility.

You are supposed to be an attorney. Please don't confuse government restrictions with those applied to private enterprise.

[stoopified]

Freakin Communist Conspiracy :D

[Midtowner]

Please help me understand where the first amendment prohibits private companies from limiting speech or access?

It doesn't. The FCC, however, regulates what Congress says it regulates, the internet being one of those things, and Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Therefore, Congress has the power to enact enabling legislation allowing the FCC to regulate the internet so long as the First Amendment and the rest of the Constitution is undisturbed.

Wow... were you wrong... and boy you were an ***hole about it.

Comcast might challenge the rulemaking the way rulemakings are usually challenged--invoking the Chevron doctrine (and progeny).

At any rate, Comcast has already admitted in legal filings that they believe the FCC has the ability to regulate ISPs. That happened in '08 when Comcast had a protocol of throttling access to the internet for their users who were downloading things using P2P and the FCC invoked a rule forbidding that.

Earlier this year, the DC Circuit handed Comcast the W in that suit because the FCC had overstepped its authority, passing the bill with no prior enabling statute.

Congress responded by passing legislation which allows the FCC to regulate ISPs in the way they had attempted to regulate Comcast. Clearly, they have the power to do this as this is merely the regulation of interstate commerce. Liberals and Conservatives alike didn't like the compromise which happened here. Conservatives don't like that there are any regulations at all. Kind of a qu'ils mangent le brioche attitude if you asked me. Not very smart if you want a free internet for the end user rather than for the companies which own it (which is the more legitimate aim of the government). Liberals are ticked because only traditional ISPs are affected here. Wireless providers, for example, are not affected in this new legislation.


As has already been mentioned, with private entities, you have the choice to go somewhere else. Governments don't provide such flexibility.

You don't always have the choice to go elsewhere, especially for a comparable amount of money. There are many markets which only have one or two providers, in many rural markets, they have just one provider.

And this whole concern about the "Fairness Doctrine" is a little misplaced. The Court's rationale for holding the Fairness Doctrine Constitutional really doesn't apply anymore. In those days, there were only three major networks. If they conspired to present the people only one viewpoint, the concern of both political parties was that those networks would be the de facto rulers of the country as they'd control virtually all of the information. Recall that in those days, not only were the TV networks controlled by NBC/ABC/CBS, so were the radio waves.

The landscape has changed somewhat since those days. Now we have cable, hundreds of channels there and the internet, a more diverse ownership of everything too. I don't think such regulation would survive a Constitutional challenge as it did way back when.

[MR2-Sooner86]

It doesn't. The FCC, however, regulates what Congress says it regulates, the internet being one of those things, and Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Therefore, Congress has the power to enact enabling legislation allowing the FCC to regulate the internet so long as the First Amendment and the rest of the Constitution is undisturbed.

How come members of congress are upset about this? How come members of congress want to overturn this? How come the FCC went over congress? How come the FCC passed this without congressional support? Why is the FCC so special they get this power?

The FCC is NOT congress. We did not vote these people into power and we have no say. They were NOT given constitutional authority to make laws.


Comcast might challenge the rulemaking the way rulemakings are usually challenged--invoking the Chevron doctrine (and progeny).

At any rate, Comcast has already admitted in legal filings that they believe the FCC has the ability to regulate ISPs. That happened in '08 when Comcast had a protocol of throttling access to the internet for their users who were downloading things using P2P and the FCC invoked a rule forbidding that.

Earlier this year, the DC Circuit handed Comcast the W in that suit because the FCC had overstepped its authority, passing the bill with no prior enabling statute.

As a business don't they have the right to stop people from using P2P? They may not like what a majority of people use P2P for.

Should the government also force Apple into allowing Flash to work on the iPhone?


Congress responded by passing legislation which allows the FCC to regulate ISPs in the way they had attempted to regulate Comcast. Clearly, they have the power to do this as this is merely the regulation of interstate commerce. Liberals and Conservatives alike didn't like the compromise which happened here. Conservatives don't like that there are any regulations at all. Kind of a qu'ils mangent le brioche attitude if you asked me. Not very smart if you want a free internet for the end user rather than for the companies which own it (which is the more legitimate aim of the government). Liberals are ticked because only traditional ISPs are affected here. Wireless providers, for example, are not affected in this new legislation.

We need government regulation for a free market? Am I understanding you correctly?


You don't always have the choice to go elsewhere, especially for a comparable amount of money. There are many markets which only have one or two providers, in many rural markets, they have just one provider.

I live in a rural market and there are several providers. Not to mention satellite internet is become more effective so everybody has a chance to have a piece of the pie.

Remember AOL back when the internet really hit the market? They were the heavyweight in town and then they got caught doing some crap like you say Comcast is doing. What happened to AOL? Exactly.


And this whole concern about the "Fairness Doctrine" is a little misplaced. The Court's rationale for holding the Fairness Doctrine Constitutional really doesn't apply anymore. In those days, there were only three major networks. If they conspired to present the people only one viewpoint, the concern of both political parties was that those networks would be the de facto rulers of the country as they'd control virtually all of the information. Recall that in those days, not only were the TV networks controlled by NBC/ABC/CBS, so were the radio waves.

Yet people still said there was a left lean to the media :confused:


The landscape has changed somewhat since those days. Now we have cable, hundreds of channels there and the internet, a more diverse ownership of everything too. I don't think such regulation would survive a Constitutional challenge as it did way back when.

Landscape may change but that doesn't change the fact they still want to go after it.

[King Crimson]

the Fairness Doctrine was created to account for spectrum scarcity....and the FCC was created to divvy up that spectrum space in the 1934 Communications Act....to prevent interference.

Scarcity is not the issue as it once was, as noted by others in this thread. the idea of a refurb Fairness Doctrine is a hysterical scare tactic of the right/AM radio types persecution complex. the legal justification simply doesn't exist with broad-band, web-based media.

Net neutrality is much closer in theory to common carrier legislation.

[SpankyNek]

So the FCC comes out and tells SERVICE PROVIDERS that they have no right to censor the internet, and people are up in arms over the Government over reaching?

The Government is here to protect everyone, not corporate interest.

Imagine your phone company charging you a nickel for calls that were made to Chase Bank while calls to Bank of America were free...see a problem with that?

[badger]

This reminds me of anti-Fox News arguments - Dems want FCC to crack down on that network because it's so Republican. :rolleyes:

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

There should be no gatekeepers of information on the internet, weather it be the government or a private institution. Without net neutrality, the internet would turn into cable tv, with a few large companies controlling almost all data and programming. Individual network owners and internet entrepreneurs would loose all ability to compete against the interests of larger corporations.

[badger]

Reading that first post again about having opposing views on the net required, I was strangely reminded of one of OU's prized collection pieces - Galileo's corrected writings.

If you never got the opportunity to view it (I did during Camp Crimson, while most people took the "Find your classes" tour, heh), they don't erase words, they don't scribble things out, they just write above the original wording to conform to the accepted scientific thoughts of the day. So, you can clearly see what Galileo originally wrote, then the conformed opinions next to them.

[Midtowner]

How come members of congress are upset about this? How come members of congress want to overturn this? How come the FCC went over congress? How come the FCC passed this without congressional support? Why is the FCC so special they get this power?

Well in '08, they had a rulemaking and assumed the power. They lost that battle. But recently, Congress gave them that power explicitly with enabling legislation.

Why are some in Congress up in arms? Two reasons:

1) Some are bought and paid for corporate shills. One famous member of that camp, Sen. Hatch, has referred to the internet as "a series of tubes." No lie.

2) Some didn't think the enabling legislation went far enough because wireless providers were excluded.


As a business don't they have the right to stop people from using P2P?

Well, they did, but now they don't. P2P is used for plenty of legitimate stuff. For example, my Steam client, which is a legal way to purchase computer games online, uses a P2P torrent to distribute games once folks buy 'em. It's cheaper for Steam because individuals are doing the hosting for the files and the hosting is distributed. This is especially effective when a new game is launched and everyone wants it. Keeps the servers from being overcrowded when torrents are used. Aside from that, there are a ton of legitimate uses for P2P, some of which originally requested the FCC rulemaking in '08 or before.


Should the government also force Apple into allowing Flash to work on the iPhone?

That's a whole 'nother ballgame. False analogy. Phones are not like the internet. Your choices are much greater. Having an iPhone isn't as fundamental a necessity for full participation in society and the economy as the internet itself. Some European countries have gone so far as to say that access to the internet is a fundamental human right. I don't see that same rationale for access to an iPhone, do you?


We need government regulation for a free market? Am I understanding you correctly?

We don't have a free market. We have a system where various special interest groups lobby for marketplace advantages--often at the expense of the consumer. If we were a free market, there'd be no such thing as "too big to fail."


I live in a rural market and there are several providers. Not to mention satellite internet is become more effective so everybody has a chance to have a piece of the pie.

Well, maybe you have more choice than most people. Here in OKC, as far as I know, you have two choices -- AT&T or Cox. Wouldn't take much for those two to decide to offer tiered services like this:

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-12-15-net_neutrality_loses_whatif.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-12-15-openet.JPG

Without net neutrality, that's entirely possible.


Remember AOL back when the internet really hit the market? They were the heavyweight in town and then they got caught doing some crap like you say Comcast is doing. What happened to AOL? Exactly.

And the ubiquitousness of internet access has changed a lot since the days of AOL. There are many reasons your comparison misses the mark.

[StoopTroup]

Please help me understand where the first amendment prohibits private companies from limiting speech or access?

As has already been mentioned, with private entities, you have the choice to go somewhere else. Governments don't provide such flexibility.

You are supposed to be an attorney. Please don't confuse government restrictions with those applied to private enterprise.
Good point. My Company spends huge amounts of dough to restrict damn near all access for most of their employees and then they hand out a bit less restrictions to a few people they trust and as soon as they go somewhere the Company thinks they shouldn't or if they think they spend to much time on it....they either get rid of them, demote them or promote them to a place where they can put them in charge of restricting their co-workers who helped them figure out how to bypass it all and help them fire them. It's a terrific way to try and control what they can't control....but they'll pour tons of money into it until they go broke or other Companies they compete with put them out of business. Then they'll lay everyone off....reorganize and rinse and repeat. All in the name of progress.

[soonercoop1]

I'm rather surprised I didn't see anything on here. I mean the FCC just made a power grab while flipping everybody the bird because they were already told by the courts they couldn't do this.

FCC approves controversial 'net neutrality' rules (http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/12/21/fcc.net.neutrality/index.html?hpt=T1)

Yup, because we all know the FCC has been for 'equality' in the past :rolleyes:

Well, the internet was nice, and free, while we had it.

Seems many things have been implemented during the holidays when very few are watching...what this country needs is the removal of the federal government from our lives not allowing them more of it...

[Midtowner]

Good point.

No. It's not a good point at all. In fact, it totally misses the point of what this is.

The regulations do not cover your employer and what they can allow on their own networks to their own employees. First off, your employer is a private actor and can restrict whatever speech they want, and can, in fact, fire you for your free speech in the work place or out of it, so Coop's attempt at comparing ISPs to employer's falls flatly on its face and you are both quoting an inapplicable Constitutional principle.

An ISP is different because as a private company, it provides a public service which is regulated by the FCC. Congress has assigned regulation of the internet to the FCC via legislation. Congress gets the power to do this through the commerce clause as the internet is pretty clearly interstate commerce which Congress has nearly infinite power to regulate. This isn't a powers or rights issue at all. It's completely constitutional.

The only thing left worth discussing is whether it's good or bad/right or wrong. Illegal vs. legal left the building.

As for right vs. wrong, view my above posts... would you want tiered internet access? Would you want your cable company to be able to force you to pay extra to get access to Hulu and Netflix? If you're in a market with only one or two providers, how would you like all of those providers to agree to similar rate structures like cell phone companies have, negating any real consumer choice? This "free market will reign supreme" argument is BS because we're not dealing with a free market. You basically have a couple of options--DSL, which is transported on phone lines, which are laid by AT&T or your local telco, or Cable, which is transported on cable lines owned by your local cable provider. We also have access via our cell phones, but get ready to see big changes there as these net neutrality laws won't touch cell phones. In ten years, someone bump this thread so we can compare levels of access tot he internet.

In markets where there is a limited supply controlled by just a small few, typically those providers are going to attempt to make similar profit margins to one another and not rock the boat. Free markets don't work when from the word 'go,' we're essentially operating with a duopoly.

[pphilfran]

No. It's not a good point at all. In fact, it totally misses the point of what this is.

The regulations do not cover your employer and what they can allow on their own networks to their own employees. First off, your employer is a private actor and can restrict whatever speech they want, and can, in fact, fire you for your free speech in the work place or out of it, so Coop's attempt at comparing ISPs to employer's falls flatly on its face and you are both quoting an inapplicable Constitutional principle.

An ISP is different because as a private company, it provides a public service which is regulated by the FCC. Congress has assigned regulation of the internet to the FCC via legislation. Congress gets the power to do this through the commerce clause as the internet is pretty clearly interstate commerce which Congress has nearly infinite power to regulate. This isn't a powers or rights issue at all. It's completely constitutional.

The only thing left worth discussing is whether it's good or bad/right or wrong. Illegal vs. legal left the building.

As for right vs. wrong, view my above posts... would you want tiered internet access? Would you want your cable company to be able to force you to pay extra to get access to Hulu and Netflix? If you're in a market with only one or two providers, how would you like all of those providers to agree to similar rate structures like cell phone companies have, negating any real consumer choice? This "free market will reign supreme" argument is BS because we're not dealing with a free market. You basically have a couple of options--DSL, which is transported on phone lines, which are laid by AT&T or your local telco, or Cable, which is transported on cable lines owned by your local cable provider. We also have access via our cell phones, but get ready to see big changes there as these net neutrality laws won't touch cell phones. In ten years, someone bump this thread so we can compare levels of access tot he internet.

In markets where there is a limited supply controlled by just a small few, typically those providers are going to attempt to make similar profit margins to one another and not rock the boat. Free markets don't work when from the word 'go,' we're essentially operating with a duopoly.

But....but.....but.....

[yermom]

you can right now switch to AT&T but they are saying that fewer and fewer people are using DSL and that cable is going to eventually kill them, so whoever has the local monopoly on your cable service is could be about the only choice in a couple years.

not covering wireless service bothers me, and could make all this a moot point since i could easily see a day when residential internet service will be a thing of the past. most people are buying and using laptops on wireless networks as it is. if wireless data connections get much cheaper and tablets continue to take market share, we could all just be using 5G or something eventually. AT&T capping their unlimited data scared me a bit.

about a week ago, i happened to catch some conservative dude sitting in for Rush talking about some power grab by the FCC. i had heard a fair amount about net neutrality in the past from slashdot, etc... but i had no idea that was what he was talking about the way he was railing about China and government control, etc... i thought he was talking about some reaction to wikileaks or something at first.

on the other hand, the government forcing cable companies to allow traffic that makes their other services less attractive does seem a little weird. they are lucky that they are in the internet business if you ask me, at least they have a hedge. if they weren't doing broadband internet, and someone else was, they'd just be losing business as opposed to customers dialing down one service and increasing usage on another

[Turd_Ferguson]

you can right now switch to AT&T but they are saying that fewer and fewer people are using DSL and that cable is going to eventually kill them, so whoever has the local monopoly on your cable service is could be about the only choice in a couple years. Uhm...I spend the majority of my work day switching customers from cocks innerwebs to ma bell innerwebs. Plus, a new service is now being implemented for a large population of OKC that is running at speeds that will shock the hell out of ya.

[yermom]

this is what i was referring to: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/01/so-long-broadband-duopoly-cables-high-speed-triumph.ars

and i said "could" not "will"

still, i have two choices right now, from what i can tell, and i'm not that thrilled with either :D

[jkjsooner]

Yeah, I mean Google will never be able to make web browser because Microsoft will run them out of town. Groupon, silly idea, really got killed off by big business. Facebook? Youtube? Never heard of those? Of course not, big business killed them off.

Throughout the history of the Internet we've had almost complete net neutrality. If the trend away from net neutrality continued you wouldn't see new Facebooks or Youtubes come along unless they had strong corporate backing.



We've had the internet for 20 years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have yet to see evidence of big business trying to control the internet like in China.

See above.



Remember AOL back when the internet really hit the market? They were the heavyweight in town and then they got caught doing some crap like you say Comcast is doing. What happened to AOL? Exactly.

I can't believe how far off the mark this comment is. AOL died because it basically offered nothing of value to its subscribers. At one time AOL provided services you couldn't find on the Internet. With the introduction of the WWW, you didn't need to go to AOL for new/sports/whatever. That became even more true with the introduction and availability of high speed (non dial-up) services.

After the WWW, AOL did grow exponentially for a few years basically because of the Internet bubble and its aggressive marketing but once people realized that AOL provided nothing they couldn't get from free sources they started losing customers.

I remember in '95 some coworkers were leaving to work for AOL. I thought they were stupid as I couldn't see see their business model working. For a few years they surprised me and couple of them exited as millionaires while the rest lost everything.

[Mississippi Sooner]

I was really hoping this would end the ever growing practice of download limits that many providers now have. At HughesNet, for instance, you are only allowed 250MB per 24 hours. If you go over that, they cut you back to dial-up speed for the next 24 hours. Or, you can upgrade to a higher limit for considerably more money. Since the basic package starts at about $60/month, I don't even want to know what the "enhanced" package might cost.

My daughter in law bought into this worthless crap last year, and I told her at the time that she was crazy to do so. I told her that 250 megs is nothing, really. Now she knows, but she's locked into a contract. Silly girl.

[Aldebaran]

Porn bandwidth is the kinky elephant in the room.

[pphilfran]

I was really hoping this would end the ever growing practice of download limits that many providers now have. At HughesNet, for instance, you are only allowed 250MB per 24 hours. If you go over that, they cut you back to dial-up speed for the next 24 hours. Or, you can upgrade to a higher limit for considerably more money. Since the basic package starts at about $60/month, I don't even want to know what the "enhanced" package might cost.

My daughter in law bought into this worthless crap last year, and I told her at the time that she was crazy to do so. I told her that 250 megs is nothing, really. Now she knows, but she's locked into a contract. Silly girl.

You can charge whatever you want when you are a monopoly (outside of dialup) to your target customer...rural dwellers that have no other choice...

[jkjsooner]

I was really hoping this would end the ever growing practice of download limits that many providers now have. At HughesNet, for instance, you are only allowed 250MB per 24 hours. If you go over that, they cut you back to dial-up speed for the next 24 hours. Or, you can upgrade to a higher limit for considerably more money. Since the basic package starts at about $60/month, I don't even want to know what the "enhanced" package might cost.

My daughter in law bought into this worthless crap last year, and I told her at the time that she was crazy to do so. I told her that 250 megs is nothing, really. Now she knows, but she's locked into a contract. Silly girl.

I don't see bandwidth limitations as being a part of net neutrality. The fact is that bandwidth is limited and it makes sense to keep those who are using much more than their fair share from negatively impacting everyone else.

[Midtowner]

Right--I believe it's more of a content based exclusion, though I admit, I haven't read the actual rules.

I seem to recall a (D) Senator saying that if had his druthers, they'd have blocked ISPs from all billing based upon amounts of data downloaded. That'd possibly make sense for traditional ISPs, but my understanding of companies such as Hughes and their technology tells me that there really is limited bandwidth.

[SpankyNek]

I don't see bandwidth limitations as being a part of net neutrality. The fact is that bandwidth is limited and it makes sense to keep those who are using much more than their fair share from negatively impacting everyone else.

So what is a person's "fair share" of information?

[Mississippi Sooner]

I completely understand the need to limit bandwidth to a point. If you have a few jerks downloading movies 24 hours a day, it's going to have an effect on everyone else. I don't know what limits other providers put on their customers, but HugheNet's is absurdly low, in my opinion. Seriously, it doesn't take too many YouTube videos before you have hit your limit. Forget downloading any full length movie.

[Aldebaran]

So what is a person's "fair share" of information?

Unlimited access to 2 girls at the same time. Next question.

[Sooner_Bob]

I thought net neutrality was about volume of use/bandwidth used and not limiting access to specific content?

[yermom]

no, it's about China and Big Brother ;)

[jkjsooner]

So what is a person's "fair share" of information?

I have no problem with the service providers determining this on their own. I do have a problem with them blocking or slowing a connection to a site they deem as a competitor.

Obviously, there is some overlap. A Comcast or Time Warner download limitation could deter someone from receiving their television through the Internet instead of using the cable company's own service. As long as bandwidth is legitimate concern I wouldn't have a problem with this even if their true motivation was about squashing competition.

[SpankyNek]

I have no problem with the service providers determining this on their own. I do have a problem with them blocking or slowing a connection to a site they deem as a competitor.

Obviously, there is some overlap. A Comcast or Time Warner download limitation could deter someone from receiving their television through the Internet instead of using the cable company's own service. As long as bandwidth is legitimate concern I wouldn't have a problem with this even if their true motivation was about squashing competition.

As long as these limitations are transparent upon signing a service agreement, then I am fine with it. However, many of us agreed to contracts and originated service when these limitations were either not needed or not forseen as necessary. There should not be limits placed on services we already have.

As long as this happens, then competitors can come in and offer more bandwidth for less money and create competition.

[Whet]

Congress has never given the FCC authority to regulate the Internet let alone network management practices.

George Soros is the 2nd largest funder of the "Net Neutrality" scheme!

[MR2-Sooner86]

this is what i was referring to: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/01/so-long-broadband-duopoly-cables-high-speed-triumph.ars

and i said "could" not "will"

still, i have two choices right now, from what i can tell, and i'm not that thrilled with either :D

I don't think cable will be the be all end all on how we get our internet (see South Korea). There are faster things out there that many don't have access to. I know vDSL is just as fast as cable but the market for that is very, very tiny.


As for right vs. wrong, view my above posts... would you want tiered internet access? Would you want your cable company to be able to force you to pay extra to get access to Hulu and Netflix? If you're in a market with only one or two providers, how would you like all of those providers to agree to similar rate structures like cell phone companies have, negating any real consumer choice? This "free market will reign supreme" argument is BS because we're not dealing with a free market. You basically have a couple of options--DSL, which is transported on phone lines, which are laid by AT&T or your local telco, or Cable, which is transported on cable lines owned by your local cable provider. We also have access via our cell phones, but get ready to see big changes there as these net neutrality laws won't touch cell phones. In ten years, someone bump this thread so we can compare levels of access tot he internet.

In markets where there is a limited supply controlled by just a small few, typically those providers are going to attempt to make similar profit margins to one another and not rock the boat. Free markets don't work when from the word 'go,' we're essentially operating with a duopoly.

You act like the sky is falling. I'll ask you this question so we can get down to it.

If the internet is left alone, it's a dog eat dog, open free market, do you think one giant company will gain control of all of it and decide who does what and we'll be worse off than we are now?

I can think of something that is similar, Microsoft. They own around 90% of the OS market so if they decide they don't like something, you won't get it. Do you feel OS systems as a whole are better or worse than they were 10-15 years ago with Microsoft running the show?


Throughout the history of the Internet we've had almost complete net neutrality. If the trend away from net neutrality continued you wouldn't see new Facebooks or Youtubes come along unless they had strong corporate backing.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts....


I can't believe how far off the mark this comment is. AOL died because it basically offered nothing of value to its subscribers. At one time AOL provided services you couldn't find on the Internet.

AOL did do stuff we're talking about now. I'm not saying it caused their downfall but they were doing shady things when they had weight to throw around.


I have no problem with the service providers determining this on their own. I do have a problem with them blocking or slowing a connection to a site they deem as a competitor.

Two edged sword. You give power for one it's hard to say no for power of the other.

Anyway, have ISPs done things that **** on their customers? Yes.
Are they as bad as some people say? No.
Is government the answer? No.

Example, South Korea's government wants anybody and everybody to have super fast internet. They're 'it' when it comes to internet. However, their government also arrest people who exercise free speech on the internet.

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2883992

"That'll never happen!"

Well, I don't think a company ruling everything saying what you can and can't do will ever happen.

[SpankyNek]

Congress has never given the FCC authority to regulate the Internet let alone network management practices.

George Soros is the 2nd largest funder of the "Net Neutrality" scheme!

Whether it was specifically authorized before is irrelevant.

The Federal Government has regulated commerce on the internet for years.

The Federal Government has prosecuted those that perpetrate in various forms of theft.

The Federal Government has allowed the DOJ to patrol the internet for child pornography.

Not sure you are going to find anyone sympathetic to full unrestricted access and behavior on the internet.

But you sure as hell aren't going to convince me that allowing Cox to limit access and bandwidth for consumers that wish to view content from a competitor is a good thing.

I mean, how would you feel if the "Liberal Media" conglomerates that own 100% of the access suddenly switched off your precious FOX News dot com?

[soonerscuba]

I mean, how would you feel if the "Liberal Media" conglomerates that own 100% of the access suddenly switched off your precious FOX News dot com?How one can rationally love Rupert Murdoch and hate George Soros at the same time is a testement to exactly how far confirmation bias goes.

[Midtowner]

If the internet is left alone, it's a dog eat dog, open free market, do you think one giant company will gain control of all of it and decide who does what and we'll be worse off than we are now?

What appears to be happening is that existing duopolies aren't going anywhere. A lot will probably merge over time. From a structural standpoint, I see two main mediums of delivering internet access--cable and phone. They have existing easements, have their wires run, etc. The cost to enter the market to compete with those companies is not only a regulatory minefield, it's also cost prohibitive.

But at the end of the day, things probably won't look much different than they do today insofar as who controls access, and what we've seen is that the speed and quality and price of the services are basically the same. It pretty much comes down to what color of bill you like better.


I can think of something that is similar, Microsoft. They own around 90% of the OS market so if they decide they don't like something, you won't get it. Do you feel OS systems as a whole are better or worse than they were 10-15 years ago with Microsoft running the show?

Not necessarily. Companies have had a lot of success in suing Microsoft. Even the inclusion of IE as a default browser and Bing as a default search engine has been heavily litigated. MS hasn't always come out on top there. I also recall certain ISPs were marketed through Microsoft and that practice has stopped as well. Maybe that's antitrust or something.. I haven't the foggiest. Complex IP litigation isn't my cup of tea.


Anyway, have ISPs done things that **** on their customers? Yes.
Are they as bad as some people say? No.
Is government the answer? No.

Actually, Comcast is exactly as bad as some people say. They were already charging certain services extra fees to access their customers. And government is the only answer to that because government is the only authority which can tell Comcast how it can and can't deliver services (regulation of interstate commerce).


Example, South Korea's government wants anybody and everybody to have super fast internet. They're 'it' when it comes to internet. However, their government also arrest people who exercise free speech on the internet.

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2883992

"That'll never happen!"

Well, I don't think a company ruling everything saying what you can and can't do will ever happen.

Until you change the First Amendment, that'll never happen here. Your example is a **** poor one because South Korea is not the United States. If South Korea had the U.S. Constitution and had adopted the U.S. Common Law, you might have a leg to stand on. Neither of those things being the case, you might as well be talking about civil rights issues in the Congo.

[Midtowner]

Congress has never given the FCC authority to regulate the Internet let alone network management practices.

Au contraire. The FCC has the authority to regulate all interstate communications by wire or radio.

[MR2-Sooner86]

But at the end of the day, things probably won't look much different than they do today

Then why are we arguing?


Actually, Comcast is exactly as bad as some people say. They were already charging certain services extra fees to access their customers.

Simple solution. Cancel your services with Comcast and get somebody else.


Until you change the First Amendment, that'll never happen here. Your example is a **** poor one because South Korea is not the United States. If South Korea had the U.S. Constitution and had adopted the U.S. Common Law, you might have a leg to stand on. Neither of those things being the case, you might as well be talking about civil rights issues in the Congo.

Yes we have the Constitution and first amendment but the FCC is in direct violation of it.

[SpankyNek]

Simple solution. Cancel your services with Comcast and get somebody else.

Who would that be in Waller, TX (for example)?




Yes we have the Constitution and first amendment but the FCC is in direct violation of it.
Again, more blather.

The FCC was created by Congress, and is therefore as Constitutionally valid as the Congress itself. It has been around for over 70 years and has not been deemed un-Constitutional by the Judiciary (The body with the Constitutional right to say so).

So, if the Constitution says that it is Constitutional, I will tend to side with it as opposed to what a message board poster or the supposed voice of dead founders says or would say.

[Midtowner]

Simple solution. Cancel your services with Comcast and get somebody else.

If AT&T is the only other choice and they're doing the exact same thing, that ain't much of a free market, is it?


Yes we have the Constitution and first amendment but the FCC is in direct violation of it.

Actually, there's zero case law for you to hang your hat on for that assertion, so good luck with that. I'm not saying it's not a winnable argument, but the FCC's policy actually ensures maximum free speech for as many folks as possible. Corporate restrictions and discriminatory billing on individuals' and competitors' speech is pretty hard to define as being speech itself.

As we've discussed, the commerce clause has been held over and over to be applicable to giving the FCC the power to regulate all interstate radio and wire communications.

[jkjsooner]

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts....


The move away from net neutrality is the trend. There's no reason to think the trend will not continue unless stopped by the government.

Anyway, you made a statement about all of the startups we've seen over the last 15 years. I pointed out that most of them grew in what was more or less a net neutral environment so you're statement did little to support your view.



AOL did do stuff we're talking about now. I'm not saying it caused their downfall but they were doing shady things when they had weight to throw around.

You pretty much did imply that it caused their downfall. If you weren't implying that then your statement about AOL was misplaced and meaningless.

[49r]

I don't see bandwidth limitations as being a part of net neutrality. The fact is that bandwidth is limited and it makes sense to keep those who are using much more than their fair share from negatively impacting everyone else.

Bandwidth limitations (or more appropriately, usage caps) are very certainly a central aspect of the recent net neutrality battle, and we are on the verge of some very expensive changes in typical internet usage, due mostly to the unregulated, monopolistic nature of US high-speed internet providers in 90% or more of the country.

The fact is that bandwidth is infinite (or infinitely scalable to be more accurate) and it is not, as the Hon. Ted Stevens fatefully said during net neutrality debates, a "series of tubes" that could get "clogged" as if the information superhighway could end up in a giant traffic jam of 0's and 1's. A notion that is, by the way, spectacularly wrong or at the very least horribly misinformed.

In my opinion, lack of competition in the US internet service provider sector, especially high-speed ISP's has really crippled tech advancement, causing our average internet speed in the US to slip embarrassingly behind other first world countries' average:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Average-US-Broadband-Speed-39-Mbps-106488

Net neutrality legislation, the way I see it, is a way to prevent these ISP's from further delaying improvements to their infrastructure while at the same time protect your average consumer from prohibitively high costs (which are already artificially high, due in part to telecom's quasi-monopoly status and their need to protect outmoded business models). I'd love to see more competition in the high-speed ISP areas, but the sad truth is Cable is the only true mode for delivery of high-speed internet to the vast majority of the country, DSL is lagging well behind and fiber is only available to very select areas:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/01/so-long-broadband-duopoly-cables-high-speed-triumph.ars

So, to summarize, there is no such thing as a "fair share" of the internet, or how much we should or should not be able to access at one time. Metering is not the solution, especially when one or (if you're lucky) two companies in your town own all the meters.

[MR2-Sooner86]

If AT&T is the only other choice and they're doing the exact same thing, that ain't much of a free market, is it?

Who would that be in Waller, TX (for example)?

Get satellite internet. Get a USB 3G connection from a wireless provider. Next.


The FCC was created by Congress, and is therefore as Constitutionally valid as the Congress itself. It has been around for over 70 years and has not been deemed un-Constitutional by the Judiciary (The body with the Constitutional right to say so).

So, if the Constitution says that it is Constitutional, I will tend to side with it as opposed to what a message board poster or the supposed voice of dead founders says or would say.

Actually, there's zero case law for you to hang your hat on for that assertion, so good luck with that. I'm not saying it's not a winnable argument, but the FCC's policy actually ensures maximum free speech for as many folks as possible. Corporate restrictions and discriminatory billing on individuals' and competitors' speech is pretty hard to define as being speech itself.

As we've discussed, the commerce clause has been held over and over to be applicable to giving the FCC the power to regulate all interstate radio and wire communications.

There's a difference between monitoring radio waves and saying people what they can and cannot say or do which is what the FCC was suppose to do when it was created. Also, just because Congress passed it doesn't mean it's perfectly fine. Several laws have been ruled unconstitutional.

As for courts ruling FCC activities unconstitutional...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/business/media/14indecent.html?_r=1

[Midtowner]

Get satellite internet. Get a USB 3G connection from a wireless provider. Next.

Satellite is more expensive about double and has ridiculous quotas. 3G is not an option for anyone not in a heavily metropolitan area and is not regulated by the FCC's net neutrality rules. Next.


There's a difference between monitoring radio waves and saying people what they can and cannot say or do which is what the FCC was suppose to do when it was created. Also, just because Congress passed it doesn't mean it's perfectly fine. Several laws have been ruled unconstitutional.

Certainly. So tell me how charging an internet end user $1.00/month extra to access their Netflix account is protected speech under the First Amendment?

[yermom]

of course, with the FCC focusing more on the internet, at some point do they tell the ISPs to block things like wikileaks in the future? i'm a little suspect in the timing. this is hardly a new issue.

[Midtowner]

of course, with the FCC focusing more on the internet, at some point do they tell the ISPs to block things like wikileaks in the future? i'm a little suspect in the timing. this is hardly a new issue.

Well, blocking speech would be a First Amendment issue.

Regulations requiring ISPs not to block speech being defined as protected speech is what's iffy.

[yermom]

but national security is at stake!

we'll be taking those logs too...

[MR2-Sooner86]

Satellite is more expensive about double and has ridiculous quotas. 3G is not an option for anyone not in a heavily metropolitan area and is not regulated by the FCC's net neutrality rules. Next.

Satellite is around the same cost as cable. The installation fee is where it can get you. As for 3G, this isn't several years ago where a heavy metropolitan area was the only place you could get 3G. It's now available in many locations. I live far from a major city and there are a couple of local phone companies offering high speed internet at nice fair prices.
As for net neutrality, nice try trying to slip that in there. Having open access to mobil internet is a bad thing I'm sure.


Certainly. So tell me how charging an internet end user $1.00/month extra to access their Netflix account is protected speech under the First Amendment?

Their business, if they want to, they can. If people don't like their politician, you vote them out. If you don't like a business is doing, you vote with your money.

Look at Apple's iPhone. They've been known to censor and withhold things from customers and now the people are voting with their money and Droid is overtaking them.

Here's also an article from a former FCC worker and first amendment lawyer who says net neutrality isn't all it's cracked up to be.

There is, of course, the threshold question of whether imposing neutrality requirements on network operators violates the First Amendment. But the concern about such a regulatory approach and its impact on the First Amendment and new technology runs much deeper. It should not be forgotten that the federal government’s initial impulse was to censor the Internet and to subject it to a far lower level of First Amendment protection. It pursued this agenda for more than a decade but was blocked by a series of First Amendment rulings. Those of us who opposed those laws argued—and the courts agreed—that the open Internet would be at great risk if the government is allowed to exercise such power.

A commentary by Corynne McSherry of the Electronic Frontier Foundation aptly cautioned that “‘net neutrality’ might very well come to be remembered as the Trojan Horse that allowed the FCC take over the Internet.”
http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2009/pop16.28-FCC-workshop-free-speech-net-neutrality.pdf

THAT'S what I'm worried about. You let the government in, when will they stop? Will they know when to stop?

[Midtowner]

Your whole argument is slippery slope?

Ever take a logic and critical thinking class?

[jkjsooner]

The fact is that bandwidth is infinite (or infinitely scalable to be more accurate) and it is not, as the Hon. Ted Stevens fatefully said during net neutrality debates, a "series of tubes" that could get "clogged" as if the information superhighway could end up in a giant traffic jam of 0's and 1's. A notion that is, by the way, spectacularly wrong or at the very least horribly misinformed.


We're generally talking about the bandwidth provided by the cable and phone companies to the house. In many cases this is a shared pipe. The cost to lay more of these lines is high and is not something that the cable companies want to do just so a few user's can download movies 24x7.

Even for the Internet backbone, if user's altered their behavior significantly enough you could clog the backbone at least until the infrastructure is expanded. That cost somehow gets passed on to the end users. I wouldn't want to pay for this cost for someone who downloads movies 24x7.

[yermom]

that's more of a secondary issue in what we are talking about

[SpankyNek]

Has satellite internet expanded to the point that it no longer necessitates a phone line (or some other medium) for upload?

Satellite will be forever limited as download speeds can be somewhat comparable, but allowing many nationwide users to have the capability to beam things back to the satellite for transmission is problematic.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Has satellite internet expanded to the point that it no longer necessitates a phone line (or some other medium) for upload?

Satellite will be forever limited as download speeds can be somewhat comparable, but allowing many nationwide users to have the capability to beam things back to the satellite for transmission is problematic.They now have the Guardian Interlock 2K Dual LNB Innerweb Beamer Upper.

[Midtowner]

This is great... so some here would have us using a highly restricted internet OR we would have to get a Guardian Interlock 2K Dual LNB Innerweb Beamer Upper for freedom, assuming the Guardian Interlock 2K Dual LNB Innerweb Beamer Upper's parent company actually observed net neutrality as well, which is doubtful because they'd be unrestricted.

The freedom of the individual outweighs freedom of the corporation. Here they're butting heads and I choose the freedom of 300MM people over the freedom of five or six corporations to take those individuals and other internet companies to the cleaners every day of the week.

[MR2-Sooner86]

This is great... so some here would have us using a highly restricted internet OR we would have to get a Guardian Interlock 2K Dual LNB Innerweb Beamer Upper for freedom, assuming the Guardian Interlock 2K Dual LNB Innerweb Beamer Upper's parent company actually observed net neutrality as well, which is doubtful because they'd be unrestricted.

The freedom of the individual outweighs freedom of the corporation. Here they're butting heads and I choose the freedom of 300MM people over the freedom of five or six corporations to take those individuals and other internet companies to the cleaners every day of the week.


Your whole argument is slippery slope?

Ever take a logic and critical thinking class?

:pop:

[Midtowner]

You can't really call it a slippery slope when service providers have already been caught and later restricted from blocking access to sites of competitors or charging them extra for access to their networks.

[Sooner_Bob]

What are you guys arguing about again? Limiting access or throttling access?

[Whet]

Au contraire. The FCC has the authority to regulate all interstate communications by wire or radio.

No, you are wrong, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals!

see Comcast v FCC - the court ruled FCC does NOT have the authority to regulate internet communications!


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in an order Tuesday (April 6, 2010), overturned the FCC's August 2008 ruling forcing Comcast to abandon its network management efforts aimed at users of the BitTorrent peer-to-peer service and other applications. The FCC lacked "any statutorily mandated responsibility" to enforce network neutrality rules, wrote Judge David Tatel.Here's the ruling: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/201004/08-1291-1238302.pdf

I suspect someone will challenge the rouge FCC on this and win.

[Midtowner]

I doubt the U.S. Court of Appeals has the final say here. The SCOTUS will eventually weigh in and historically, they have been very deferential to regulatory agencies.

[Whet]

I doubt the U.S. Court of Appeals has the final say here. The SCOTUS will eventually weigh in and historically, they have been very deferential to regulatory agencies.

Whaa? You previously said FCC can do this, I just pointed out they can't! What ever the SCOTUS does in the future is unknown AND until they rule differently, FCC CAN NOT REGULATE THE INTERNET!

[jkjsooner]

No, you are wrong, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals!

see Comcast v FCC - the court ruled FCC does NOT have the authority to regulate internet communications!

Here's the ruling: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/201004/08-1291-1238302.pdf

I suspect someone will challenge the rouge FCC on this and win.

I'm pretty sure MidTowner explained all of this. I'm no attorney or expert in these areas but just going from my understanding of what MidTowner said:

1. The courts ruled that (at the time) the FCC had not been given this authority by congresss.

2. Congress (who has authority via the commerce clause) passed statutes that gave the FCC this authority.

3. The FCC then instituted new rules with the authority provided by congress.

If I understand this correctly FCC is now acting within their authority:


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in an order Tuesday (April 6, 2010), overturned the FCC's August 2008 ruling forcing Comcast to abandon its network management efforts aimed at users of the BitTorrent peer-to-peer service and other applications. The FCC lacked "any statutorily mandated responsibility" to enforce network neutrality rules, wrote Judge David Tatel.

[Sooner_Bob]

What are you guys arguing about again? Limiting access or throttling access?


Nobody knows what anyone is arguing about . . .

[jkjsooner]

What are you guys arguing about again? Limiting access or throttling access?


I think both.

[SC Sooner]

If you think this is a problem, wait until they begin taxing your e-mails, sent and received.

[Whet]

I
2. Congress (who has authority via the commerce clause) passed statutes that gave the FCC this authority.

If I understand this correctly FCC is now acting within their authority:

No, Congress did not pass a statue, or law giving the FCC the authority.

[Sooner_Bob]

If you think this is a problem, wait until they begin taxing your e-mails, sent and received.

Now that would be the succ.

[jkjsooner]

No, Congress did not pass a statue, or law giving the FCC the authority.

I was just going by what Midtowner said:


Congress responded by passing legislation which allows the FCC to regulate ISPs in the way they had attempted to regulate Comcast.

[jkjsooner]

If you think this is a problem, wait until they begin taxing your e-mails, sent and received.

Paranoid much?

C'mon, man. This has nothing to do with taxation. I doubt the FCC has any authority over taxation matters at all. This is about an open Internet. Keep spinning this with your anti-government slippery slope arguments all you want...

[yermom]

Now that would be the succ.

nevermind the fact that it would all but impossible to implement, people would just move to Twitter or Facebook, like they just about already have

[MR2-Sooner86]

This is about an open Internet.

That's it right there. Some want no government, me, others do want it. I'm an anarchist when it comes to the internet.

The two sides will never really agree, just agree to disagree.

[jkjsooner]

That's it right there. Some want no government, me, others do want it. I'm an anarchist when it comes to the internet.

The two sides will never really agree, just agree to disagree.

It seems like a lot of our arguments boil down to the same theme. Most of us want more personal freedom. In most cases that's not debated. How we achieve this is debated.

Some are very distrustful of big corporations and view that their personal freedom is enhanced if government put controls on those corporations. Others are more distrustful of the government and want corporations to be free of the government just as individuals.

If I thought the "vote with your wallet" line really worked in the real world then I might agree with you. I think in many practical real world cases it just doesn't work.

Let's assume that both my cable and phone line owners want to block Skype (has been done in other countries) as they see it as a challenge to their own business models. I think it's conceivable and quite honestly probable that they will do this in the future if allowed to do so. This could hamper innovation in areas such as this.

In some respects, other than this being an argument of government vs corporate rights, there also seems to be a big split as you go up the network architecture layers. The network engineers and IP layer guys want freedom to control their network as they see fit. Guys who make the applications generally prefer the net neutrality concept.

I do think we need to be careful about how we define net neutrality. We don't want to stifle network architecture innovation but we do want to prevent the gross anti-competitive abuses as well.

[Sooner_Havok]

The internets are, and should remain the wild west. If I want internets with any kind of speed, I have to go through cox...communications. So, if the FCC didn't step in and say " ISP's, you charge what ever you want for tiered internet access, but if a guy is paying for 11 mbps downstream and 1.5 mbps upstream, you have to let him do whatever the f*** he wants with it." then I would be boned. Think cox...communications would let my Sling Box (that I f*cking paid good money for fyi) stream and download freely? Hell no. Think they would let my Netflix and Vudu download at the 11mbps I am paying for? Not when they got their ****ty little OnDemand option. The FCC ain't regulating ****! It is saying "NO REGULATION BY ANYONE, ESPECIALLY ISP's"

So if you guys think the FCC telling comcast, verizon, and cox to back the f*** off is regulation, then I think you missed something.

The government can make me walk through a nudey scanner, they can tap my phone, they can prevent me from recording cops in public, they can take my guns, they can force me to buy insurance, but God damn it, if they so much as try to slow down my porn downloads, I will mother f***ing riot! Porn today, porn tomorrow, porn forever!

[49r]

The internets are, and should remain the wild west. If I want internets with any kind of speed, I have to go through cox...communications. So, if the FCC didn't step in and say " ISP's, you charge what ever you want for tiered internet access, but if a guy is paying for 11 mbps downstream and 1.5 mbps upstream, you have to let him do whatever the f*** he wants with it." then I would be boned. Think cox...communications would let my Sling Box (that I f*cking paid good money for fyi) stream and download freely? Hell no. Think they would let my Netflix and Vudu download at the 11mbps I am paying for? Not when they got their ****ty little OnDemand option. The FCC ain't regulating ****! It is saying "NO REGULATION BY ANYONE, ESPECIALLY ISP's"

So if you guys think the FCC telling comcast, verizon, and cox to back the f*** off is regulation, then I think you missed something.

The government can make me walk through a nudey scanner, they can tap my phone, they can prevent me from recording cops in public, they can take my guns, they can force me to buy insurance, but God damn it, if they so much as try to slow down my porn downloads, I will mother f***ing riot! Porn today, porn tomorrow, porn forever!

Amen brothah! AND, I will add, not that rinky-dink low resolution can't-even-see-it bull****. The good stuff! I'm talking High-friggin-Def!!!

[Sooner_Bob]

heh