Net neutrality

[TheMercenary]

An interesting snip on the issue:

Shoddy reporting aside, the “VoIP News” article does actually highlight an important point: the people who built the Internet are deeply split on the issue of regulating the Internet, with eminent computer scientists including Bob Kahn (co-inventor of the Internet’s TCP/IP protocols with Vint Cerf) and Dave Farber (another networking pioneer) on the anti-regulation side. And based on conversations I’ve had here at Princeton, Kahn and Farber are far from the only computer scientists who are skeptical that the FCC is up to the job of regulating the Internet.

In a vacuous appearance on Rachel Maddow last week, blogger Xeni Jardin cited Vint Cerf’s support of regulation and urged viewers to “side with the geeks who actually built the Internet.” She did not, of course, mention that Kahn and Farber, who fit that description as well as Cerf does, are on the other side. “The geeks” are as split on this issue as everyone else.

Update: Tim Carney has an excellent article making a similar point: Internet companies like Google and Amazon, who have lobbied hard for network neutrality, gave overwhelmingly to Obama over McCain in the 2008 election. This doesn’t prove Obama and Chairman Genachowski are insincere in their support for network neutrality. But it does mean we should take both side’s arguments with a grain of salt.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/...rk-neutrality/

CATO....now that's a "neutral" unbiased source.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So far it is still to vague to support the FCC.

It is not too early to oppose the McCain bill:

The Federal Communications Commission shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=s111-1836

[TheMercenary]

Eh, may not be unbiased as a souce but the article was pretty fair. Esp since it pointed out that the players who support it most gave overwhelmingly to Obama and the Demoncrats. So I guess anyone who didn't want the people to know who is pouring money into the pockets of the party in charge wouldn't like that to be known.

Even the experts cannot agree on the issue.

McCain's bill would never be passed in this Demoncratically controlled Congress.

From the CATO article:

But it does mean we should take both side’s arguments with a grain of salt.

So what is the argument for not beginning a regulatory process.

Or perhaps, that is more of a question for spudcon....and please not the "government control" and "taxes" red herrings.

[TheMercenary]

Well for one thing much of what I have read to date state the problems seem to be more about the vagueness of the FFC oversight, which opens them up to greater control of the internet content, including wireless, which feeds back into the telecoms. And as telecoms and big internet corps become more intertwined through mergers it could create real problems if we don't have something to ensure that comercial business does not control the potential monopolies. The easier thing to do would be for the feds to not allow the mergers which they can already do. Either way the process could be a double edge sword. I still don't trust the Feds to do the right thing if they get all the power.

[Radar]

Another great reason to support Net Neutrality...

Sadly, I don't qualify but spudcon, UG, and Merc might.


http://dontstayvirgin.movielol.org/main3.php


Maybe if they can change their tiny minds, they can have sex....with a partner this time.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

Another great reason to support Net Neutrality...

Sadly, I don't qualify but spudcon, UG, and Merc might.


http://dontstayvirgin.movielol.org/main3.php


Maybe if they can change their tiny minds, they can have sex....with a partner this time.

typical of your narcissistic personality disorder.

[Radar]

A lot of dishonest people are claiming this is about government control of the internet, and they are trying to cloud the issue with discussions of taxes, and other things. It's simple and doesn't have to be vague at all.

As an ISP, all internet traffic on your equipment must be treated equally regardless of the types of packets, services, customer, etc.


Google and others have already been working on creating applications that can detect whether someone is violating this directive.

If Virgin, Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, AOL, etc. get caught blocking any type of legal internet traffic or purposely slowing it down, they get slapped down with fines.

End of story. Email traffic, VOIP, Streaming Audio or Video, websites, or anything else should be nothing more than bits and no ISP should prioritize or provision that traffic other than to make sure their own equipment doesn't shut down.

People are paying for a direct pipe to the internet at the speed they paid for. They aren't paying for whatever the ISP thinks they should have or to have big companies bribe ISPs to keep them from visiting their competitors.

ISPs are making plenty of money. The bogus claim that they can't increase their infrastructure without doing this are ridiculous.


In addition to having this kind of network neutrality protected by government, I'd also like to see all anti-competitive arrangements between ISPs in municipalities be voided by the Federal Government. This would mean we could choose our cable, DSL, or other broadband provider like we choose our long distance company. It would increase competition, lower prices, and improve service for consumers.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

typical of your narcissistic personality disorder.

Typical pathological lying disorder. No matter how many times you repeat that lie, it won't become true and you're the only one who buys it sparky.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

Typical pathological lying disorder. No matter how many times you repeat that lie, it won't become true and you're the only one who buys it sparky.

[tw]

With companies such as Comcast vying to control the interent (ie control information providers) and limit customer bandwidth - a threat to net nuetrality; Google is (and probably must) get into the data transport business. From ABC News of 10 Feb 2010,

Google to Build Ultra-Fast Broadband Networks
Google's announcement Wednesday also came as welcome news to public interest groups that have warned that broadband connections in the U.S. are far slower and more expensive than those available in many countries in Europe and Asia. Ultra-fast networks now available in the U.S., such as the university-backed Internet2 project, aren't available to consumers, as Google's systems would be.

[TheMercenary]

Top management is to blame.

Oye. And Bush.

I almost forgot.

[classicman]

wait - you have to add Reagan to that (as per PierceHawkeye)

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Top management is to blame.

Oye. And Bush.

I almost forgot.

Why do the wacko extremist take cheap shots in every thread? Is the reality that George Jr even subverted every effort to get bin Laden so painful? Apparently.

Bottom line, the extremists are now posting their wacko extremist hate in every discussion - on every board. Posting hate is what Rush Limbaugh tells wackos neocons to do. Apparently even in The Cellar.