McCain still completely out of touch...

[BradH]

Great name for the bill, considering it has nothing to do with freedom of the internet.
Also interesting a bill like this coming from a guy who admittedly doesn't know how to use a computer.


http://rawstory.com/2009/10/mccain-net-neutrality/

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced a bill in the Senate on Thursday that would effectively allow Internet service providers to slow down or block Internet content or applications of their choosing.

McCain's bill, the Internet Freedom Act, would block the Federal Communications Commission from making Net neutrality the law of the land. The rule preventing ISPs from slowing down certain types of content would create "onerous federal regulation," McCain argued in a written statement.

[BradH]

And the Glenn Beck dog [literally, watch the vid] and pony show is on board...

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiw...om-letting-cor

And surprise, he seems to have no idea what net neutrality actually is.

[vinnie97]

Finally agree with you on something, they're out to lunch on this topic.

[BradH]

Originally Posted by vinnie97

Finally agree with you on something, they're out to lunch on this topic.

this makes me happy

[PETA]

Originally Posted by BradH

Great name for the bill, considering it has nothing to do with freedom of the internet.
Also interesting a bill like this coming from a guy who admittedly doesn't know how to use a computer.


http://rawstory.com/2009/10/mccain-net-neutrality/

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced a bill in the Senate on Thursday that would effectively allow Internet service providers to slow down or block Internet content or applications of their choosing.

McCain's bill, the Internet Freedom Act, would block the Federal Communications Commission from making Net neutrality the law of the land. The rule preventing ISPs from slowing down certain types of content would create "onerous federal regulation," McCain argued in a written statement.

As I understand it private companies that you and I seek out in order to contract with them for their services in oder to access the internets have put restrictions on some users who clog the series of tubes? They do this to make the service run more efficiently for all users. What you would prefer is for the government to tell these private businesses that they must permit the cloggiest of cloggers to use the tubes and slow down my access? Well thank you very much ornery anteater. You want a totally net neutral provider go contract with one. I want a faster one. See how the market works well without the need for the gov't?

How about these providers, in exchange for a neutrality get to charge those clogiest cloggers a LOT more?

I'm a bit surprised you're banging the gong for the government to regulate the internet.

[name change request]

xian doesn't get it either obviously

no other user can slow down your access but you

[vinnie97]

PETA, being that these telcos have received tax funding to build out their networks (and both cablecos and telcos have been granted very generous franchise love the country over), it's only fair to attach some fairness clauses so that one isn't penalized for using a competitive service on their networks. This is what capping bandwidth amounts to...if they need to implement throttling in some traffic-prone areas, fine, but the kind of overages the telcos/cablecos have presented ($1 or more per GB once one reaches their cap) are highway robbery and borderline criminal, representing an estimated markup of 1000% of the actual cost of providing that bandwidth.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by PETA

As I understand it private companies that you and I seek out in order to contract with them for their services in oder to access the internets have put restrictions on some users who clog the series of tubes? They do this to make the service run more efficiently for all users. What you would prefer is for the government to tell these private businesses that they must permit the cloggiest of cloggers to use the tubes and slow down my access? Well thank you very much ornery anteater. You want a totally net neutral provider go contract with one. I want a faster one. See how the market works well without the need for the gov't?

How about these providers, in exchange for a neutrality get to charge those clogiest cloggers a LOT more?

I'm a bit surprised you're banging the gong for the government to regulate the internet.

research net neutrality and get back to us

[FarangBa]

http://img.breitbart.com/images/ap.gif
FCC votes to begin crafting `net neutrality' rules
Oct 22 03:38 PM US/Eastern



Google chief favors net neutrality but is wary of regulation


Blackburn: Net neutrality is 'Fairness Doctrine for the Internet'

[vinnie97]

Surprising stance from Google, considering they stand to suffer the most if ISPs start data tiers under a capped system [meaning data only outside the services on, for example, AT&T's network (Netflix, Skype or Google Voice, for instance) counts against your bandwidth cap. Netflix, Skype and Google Voice already pay for their hosting and bandwidth. In this scenario, their customers are now being fleeced to use their services in the form of restrictive bandwidth caps. This ends up giving an undue advantage to AT&T's own VOiP and U-Verse products]. Basically, this will go a long way in stifling competition in its own right. Blackburn mentions concern about establishing minimal broadband qualifications (again, I don't see the harm) but says nothing of the real anti-competitive prospect of ISPs colluding together to cap connections (AT&T and TWC are ready to roll out caps at well under 100GB and with no price benefit over the services they currently provide).

This response by Michael Knatt in the comment section says it best:

The remarks of Congresswoman Blackburn are so astonishingly devoid of truth and light, they could only have been prepared by a telecom/ISP lobbyist with an axe to grind.The actual truth is that genuine Net Neutrality would be one of the best friends any artist could ever have. By prohibiting those that control the provision of broadband services from arbitrarily constricting those services for their own selfish and narrow interests, Net Neutrality guarantees a MUCH more level playing field - on which artists of all types can find a mass international audience - without paying tribute as serfs to their corporate "masters" who wish to control CONTENT as well as ACCESS.

Nothing wrong with some ground rules, especially for corps who benefit from tax and stimulus monies.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by name change request

xian doesn't get it either obviously

no other user can slow down your access but you

I have zero problem accepting the assertion that I don't understand the technical issues at play and would be happy for a thumbnail sketch.

My basic issue is my basic issue with most things... I don't want the government sticking it's nose into private business without a damn good reason.

So, what's the damn good reason?

Originally Posted by vinnie97

PETA, being that these telcos have received tax funding to build out their networks (and both cablecos and telcos have been granted very generous franchise love the country over), it's only fair to attach some fairness clauses so that one isn't penalized for using a competitive service on their networks. This is what capping bandwidth amounts to...if they need to implement throttling in some traffic-prone areas, fine, but the kind of overages the telcos/cablecos have presented ($1 or more per GB once one reaches their cap) are highway robbery and borderline criminal, representing an estimated markup of 1000% of the actual cost of providing that bandwidth.

If the providers are unique gate keepers to markets and are using that position to unfairly upset market conditions I don't see why anti-trust regulations wouldn't apply nor would I think such regs unreasonable, especially if these gate keepers gained that position through tax dollars (whether in the form of direct funding or tax forebearance).

Originally Posted by tricky

research net neutrality and get back to us

The simplest explanation I found was telling internet providers that they could not behave in a manner that would make their subscriber's access to X Y or Z either easier or more difficult. That anywhere close?

My question is why not? They are a private business. Isn't that akin to telling WalMart they have to let Target sell their stuff through WalMart's networks? Or maybe better said, they have to tolerate Target making their networks run less efficiently. That sounds a lot like the railraod monopoly issues of 130 years ago only the gov't would demand that the squeeze be permitted?

[BradH]

Originally Posted by FarangBa

http://img.breitbart.com/images/ap.gif
FCC votes to begin crafting `net neutrality' rules
Oct 22 03:38 PM US/Eastern



Google chief favors net neutrality but is wary of regulation


Blackburn: Net neutrality is 'Fairness Doctrine for the Internet'

so you agree with me?

[BradH]

[Preface: I'm drunk now, but wanted to type something before bed]

In summary, maintaining 'Net Neutrality' would mean preserving the internet as it is in today's world, and as it has been. e.g.: Everyone is free to access whatever information they desire, at their maximum speed. *NOT* preserving 'Net Neutrality' would mean that, for example, AT&T could decide they don't really have a great agreement with Hulu.com, therefore all it's subscribers might be limited to 50/kb data-stream. Again, this is just an example.

Net neutrality doesn't mean the government jumping in and regulating anything -- it simply means preserving the internet in its current form... open and 'free'. Imposing regulations, e.g.: passing legislation forbidding 'Net Neutrality' would, in essence, allow ISPs to regulate the data-stream to certain services, networks, websites, etc, that they deem inappropriate or not worthy of the full capacity of your internet service.

[Left]

who's really lobbying for these regulations? i thought the riaa and film industry were the big players, and i understand why. i'm 100% against piracy.

however, i'm borderline on whether isps should be responsible for closing pirating users' connections, i think they should have a flag system in place for automatically reporting piracy to the riaa and have them sort it out legally without the isp directly interfering.

obviously that won't be as direct or quick a way to fight piracy, but at least its better than screwing up access for those that don't download illegally.

[HomoSexualPredator]

It's not just about folks who have large downloads for piracy. I download/upload a ton of stuff for work (sorry, vmware makes it way too easy for me to mount a dvd on my laptop and install on a system in the datacenter in xyz....) instead of having to drive to the office.

I can see my monthly vpn usage eating up any "allotted" bandwidth. This doesn't account for my bf who's a sysadm or sites like hulu or *tube.