Net neutrality

spudcon · 10-24-2009, 04:46 AM

We don't need no stinkin' gubermint runnin' our interweb!

xoxoxoBruce · 10-24-2009, 05:26 AM

You don't get it, do you.

Griff · 10-24-2009, 08:21 AM

[rant on]This is a clear indication that the GOP has become anti-individual, anti-small business, and most vociferous when working against their stated core values. Stifling innovation to protect corporate interests is the game plan. It makes me wish there were a sensible free market alternative to the Democrat's nonsense, but the Republicans have supported Corporate Capitalism to such an extent that they don't even recognize the power of individual action any more.[/rant]

skysidhe · 10-24-2009, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon

We don't need no stinkin' gubermint runnin' our interweb!

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You don't get it, do you.

I get what neutrality implies and what the word open is given to mean but what else are we missing?

I guess I don't get it either.

spudcon · 10-24-2009, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You don't get it, do you.

I get it, I just don't want the progressives invading yet another area of my life.

10-24-2009, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon

I get it, I just don't want the progressives invading yet another area of my life.

I'm curious what you think net neutrality means and why you think it is a progressive idea?

TheMercenary · 10-25-2009, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon

I get it, I just don't want the progressives invading yet another area of my life.

Next thing you know they will be after control of radio waves and who gets to say what on a station broadcasting to those who care to listen.

SamIam · 10-24-2009, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon

We don't need no stinkin' gubermint runnin' our interweb!

No, we don't need big business running the Internet. From Bruce's link:

Quote:

...net neutrality, the idea that broadband providers should not favor their own content over competing programming.

tw · 10-24-2009, 11:21 AM

The examples of big business attempting to subvert the internet are numerous. Included in the previous discuss were Comcast intentionally blocking data packets (ie Bit Torrent), and software designed to identify and subvert Skype packets. How many times must they be caught and exposed subverting the internet before everyone acknowledges who threatens you and your freedom of information?

Numerous examples including the NY Times and IEEE Spectrum posted in The internet is over!

Yes, after denying they were subverting Skype packets, Comcast later admitted to that and other 'traffic management'. It is this simple. They are only selling a bit transfer service. If they cannot provide sufficient bandwidth, well, most of the fiber optics laid in the ground in the 1990 still is not lit. The hardware to transfer data was laid and unused even 10 years ago.

Their job is to increase bandwidth as necessary to always meet the load. Their job is not 'traffic management'. Internet protocols address that. Protocols that work as long as they don't cut costs - stop increasing their cable bandwidth.

We have already seen how 'traffic management' was manipulated for their own financial advantages. The 'data transfer' companies cannot be trusted to 'manage traffic'. They already have a virtual monopoly (a duopoly) on the last mile. Why do they need power to manipulate which data you should and should not get? Why did Comcast have the right to skew Skype telephone conversations? Because they could. Because nobody told them their only job is a data transport company that must increase bandwidth as required.

10-24-2009, 04:46 AM	#1
spudcon Beware of potatoes Join Date: May 2007 Location: Upstate NY, USA Posts: 2,078	We don't need no stinkin' gubermint runnin' our interweb! __________________ "I believe that being despised by the despicable is as good as being admired by the admirable."

10-24-2009, 05:26 AM	#2
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	You don't get it, do you. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

10-24-2009, 08:21 AM	#3
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	[rant on]This is a clear indication that the GOP has become anti-individual, anti-small business, and most vociferous when working against their stated core values. Stifling innovation to protect corporate interests is the game plan. It makes me wish there were a sensible free market alternative to the Democrat's nonsense, but the Republicans have supported Corporate Capitalism to such an extent that they don't even recognize the power of individual action any more.[/rant] __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

10-24-2009, 11:21 AM	#9
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	The examples of big business attempting to subvert the internet are numerous. Included in the previous discuss were Comcast intentionally blocking data packets (ie Bit Torrent), and software designed to identify and subvert Skype packets. How many times must they be caught and exposed subverting the internet before everyone acknowledges who threatens you and your freedom of information? Numerous examples including the NY Times and IEEE Spectrum posted in The internet is over! Yes, after denying they were subverting Skype packets, Comcast later admitted to that and other 'traffic management'. It is this simple. They are only selling a bit transfer service. If they cannot provide sufficient bandwidth, well, most of the fiber optics laid in the ground in the 1990 still is not lit. The hardware to transfer data was laid and unused even 10 years ago. Their job is to increase bandwidth as necessary to always meet the load. Their job is not 'traffic management'. Internet protocols address that. Protocols that work as long as they don't cut costs - stop increasing their cable bandwidth. We have already seen how 'traffic management' was manipulated for their own financial advantages. The 'data transfer' companies cannot be trusted to 'manage traffic'. They already have a virtual monopoly (a duopoly) on the last mile. Why do they need power to manipulate which data you should and should not get? Why did Comcast have the right to skew Skype telephone conversations? Because they could. Because nobody told them their only job is a data transport company that must increase bandwidth as required.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)