If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   The most tech-friendly candidates, plus Hillary Clinton   (news.com) divider line 189
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

3926 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Feb 2008 at 11:41 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-02-05 02:35:18 PM
sarcastrophe:
Ending it? Who is ending it? When did it start? How did we keep it in check all this time? Other than all the net-neutrality proponents, I haven't seen anything to be alarmed about.

Oh yeah, and why do you people hate on anti-trust law so much? There are laws that restrict the actions of companies who abuse monopolistic powers. Why do we need FCC regulation to enforce the existing laws?

If you REALLY want a valid cause regarding the Internet, you should be fighting to make the cable companies open up their monopoly on the cable lines running to your house.


The net has remained neutral for the most part because A) until recently, there wasn't much profit potential in prioritizing packets and B) ambiguity in FCC response to the matter.

The alarm arose because the telecoms started directing their lobbyists to push for legislation to remove the ambiguity, but in a direction that would explicitly allow the telecoms to begin prioritizing traffic. The efforts of these lobbyists led to the famous 'series of tubes' dialogue (which sorta illustrated that your average congressman will believe anything a lobbyist tells them, if its in an area they're not already familiar with).
 
2008-02-05 02:36:36 PM
Hank Rearden
Take a look around the web. Does it not concern you at all that you are entirely alone in not liking net neutrality?
Or are you just a shill for the few companies that will profit from its demise?
 
2008-02-05 02:36:46 PM
ultimatedrivingmachine: Not for nothing, but anyone else detect a bias on this site toward a certain Democrat from Illinois? Gee, I wonder who Drew is voting for.

Pretty much everyone with a job or a college education is leaning in that direction. Since the overwhelming majority of message-board people of age to vote have at least one of those, it's not really a surprise.

I mean, I hope Hillary's attempt to go after the stupid and/or uneducated vote doesn't work, but I suppose it could. After all, she's basically copying Bush's strategy-book word for word, and it worked once before.
 
2008-02-05 02:38:10 PM
I think it's great that so many people come on Fark biatching about how Obama never talks about the issues and has no policy plans, and yet he and Paul were the only two that refused to duck any of these questions.

/Do Romney and Huckabee even know how to use a computer?
 
2008-02-05 02:38:17 PM
Ryan2065: keithgabryelski: Ryan2065: Why does the wireless aspect suddenly change things?

Because there are laws specific to radio wave transmissions.

So that changes who owns packets compared to who owns packets over wired internet?


It depends on what you mean by ownership.

Basically, I can transmit all I want on the WIFI radio frequencies no matter how much I interrupt YOUR transmission. I can also receive those transmissions with out restrictions.

I can't transmit over cellphone radio frequencies (with out the proper license or permission from the license holder) and I am not able to receive those transmissions with out permission.
 
2008-02-05 02:38:19 PM
Gregory F. Stuart
Randroids and "libertarians."

You know I hate 'em.


Because hatred is better than individual liberty.
 
2008-02-05 02:39:27 PM
Ryan2065: The FCC has always had the ability to create net neutrality laws and regulations and has come out in support of net neutrality. They have even fined some companies for blocking traffic to competing companies. Taking away their ability to do these fines will end net neutrality and allow companies to start blocking traffic.

So what you're saying is that the existing competetive structure and current regulation (or lack-thereof) is working?

Awesome news. When it stops working, let's have this conversation again, and I may agree with you.
 
2008-02-05 02:39:55 PM
sarcastrophe: mofomisfit: Net neutrality would ensure that everyone's packets are treated the same - the way it is now. If the corporations have their way, packets will not be treated equally. Come back when you know what you're talking about.

Net neutrality sounds awfully nice, doesn't it? How would you feel if they just called it "Government Regulation of the Internet Act 2008?"


Do you trust the government regulating the roadways and interstates? How about the environment? what about power lines? Would you prefer Corporations regulate those things?

Honestly the government is here to represent the all citizens not just share holders. All citizens have an vested interest and ownership in the internet (it runs across public land and is forced across private land as well through eminent domain).

Neither governments or corporations are perfect. One is intended to serve the people the other shareholders. The internet doesn't belong to shareholders it belongs to the people.
 
2008-02-05 02:40:47 PM
Hank Rearden: To each his own, I guess.

Cheers.


Uh, yeah. I guess.
 
2008-02-05 02:45:10 PM
sluck604: Do you trust the government regulating the roadways and interstates? How about the environment? what about power lines? Would you prefer Corporations regulate those things?

I thought I explained this to you before. It may have been someone else. Regulating the physical cable that comes to your house is the equivalent of the roadways, interstates, power lines, etc. Your argument is a non-sequitur.

I agree that we should regulate the physical infrastructure. It has to be regulated for the same reasons roads have to be regulated.
 
2008-02-05 02:46:21 PM
sarcastrophe:
So what you're saying is that the existing competetive structure and current regulation (or lack-thereof) is working?

Awesome news. When it stops working, let's have this conversation again, and I may agree with you.


when it stops working (see my above post), there's a chance you WON'T be having this conversation.

We're sorry, AT&T Internet Plus customer, fark.com is a Class C resistricted access site. To access this and other Class C sites, please upgrade your account to Internet Ultra.
 
2008-02-05 02:47:02 PM
sarcastrophe: BKITU: Ending net neutrality allows providers to extra profits while harming a public interest. It's all one-sided.

Ending it? Who is ending it?


Providers pushing to change how data packets get handled so that they can control content.


When did it start?

When the internet started.


How did we keep it in check all this time?

By having an infrastructure that handles all data packets equally.


Other than all the net-neutrality proponents, I haven't seen anything to be alarmed about.

Because you only know how things work now. There are entities working to change how the underlying infrastructure functions, and solely for their own benefit.


Oh yeah, and why do you people hate on anti-trust law so much? There are laws that restrict the actions of companies who abuse monopolistic powers. Why do we need FCC regulation to enforce the existing laws?

Non sequitur. This is about making sure that the internet infrastructure remains unchanged. Otherwise, please indicate how anti-trust law applies to information traffic between internet service providers. Maybe you can get a lawyer to back up your point. Failing that, I doubt you're qualified to make an argument on such an issue yourself. Other than the explicit constitutional permission granted to the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, there isn't much here a non-lawyer would be qualified to discuss with any degree of certainty, myself included. And the finer points--unless you, yourself, are a lawyer versed in such cases--are outside both our realms of knowledge.


If you REALLY want a valid cause regarding the Internet, you should be fighting to make the cable companies open up their monopoly on the cable lines running to your house.

I've been arguing in favor of this point for at least 15 years.
 
2008-02-05 02:47:50 PM
Pardon for minute here, folks:


Hey keithgabryelski, did you ever get my contribution record that I sent to you over the weekend (from this­_fa­r­k_­handle[nospam-﹫-backwards]liamtoh*c­o­m). Wasn't much, just wanted to make sure it was counted.



Alright, kids, resume regularly scheduled flamewar.
 
2008-02-05 02:51:48 PM
sarcastrophe: So what you're saying is that the existing competetive structure and current regulation (or lack-thereof) is working?

If you call fining companies for throttling competing companies traffic "lack of current regulation" then sure. Cable companies aren't big on throttling traffic when they will be fined and the FCC doesn't have very well definied regulations for what they will or will not fine.


sarcastrophe: Awesome news. When it stops working, let's have this conversation again, and I may agree with you.

So we currently have a system where the FCC has fined companies for throttling certain traffic and you agree it works. You want to take away the FCC's ability to do this and think the cable companies won't start throttling traffic? The FCC stops them now, what will stop them if we change the laws?
 
2008-02-05 02:51:53 PM
for good or for awesome: Hank Rearden
Take a look around the web. Does it not concern you at all that you are entirely alone in not liking net neutrality?
Or are you just a shill for the few companies that will profit from its demise?


Nailed it. I'm a shill. Crap, now my secret is out.
 
2008-02-05 02:55:03 PM
The Bestest: when it stops working (see my above post), there's a chance you WON'T be having this conversation.

Your doomsday prediction is just as silly as my doomsday predicition.
 
2008-02-05 02:55:10 PM
sarcastrophe: If you REALLY want a valid cause regarding the Internet, you should be fighting to make the cable companies open up their monopoly on the cable lines running to your house.

lol

There's no economic incentive to lay the last mile again. I mean, not without the government offering tax breaks and subsidies and forcing private citizens to let telecoms to rip through their own land again. Really? That's better than a law restricting prioritized packets?
 
2008-02-05 02:57:17 PM
fosborb: sarcastrophe: If you REALLY want a valid cause regarding the Internet, you should be fighting to make the cable companies open up their monopoly on the cable lines running to your house.

lol

There's no economic incentive to lay the last mile again. I mean, not without the government offering tax breaks and subsidies and forcing private citizens to let telecoms to rip through their own land again. Really? That's better than a law restricting prioritized packets?


No, not ripping up.

I think what he means is that, the infrastructure has to be open. Any provider should be able to run their data over anyone else's lines.

I don't agree with this, but I might be misunderstanding his point.
 
2008-02-05 03:00:00 PM
HitInTheJunk: Pardon for minute here, folks:


Hey keithgabryelski, did you ever get my contribution record that I sent to you over the weekend (from this_fark_handlehotmailcom). Wasn't much, just wanted to make sure it was counted.



Alright, kids, resume regularly scheduled flamewar.


You have been matched. Sorry I didn't get mail to. Looks like
I dropped anyone that sent me email directly (and not through barackobama.com). Here are the current stats:

my.barackobama.com
 
2008-02-05 03:00:05 PM
SacriliciousBeerSwiller: It's because classical Republicans are a lot more like moderate Democrats than neoconservatives, who are basically all the worst attributes of both batshiat fringe ends of the political spectrum rolled into a tidy package of fecalphiliac insanity.

I'm in a weird place suddenly as I'm forced to agree with you. Be that as it may, I still believe the 360 is better than the PS3.

/classical Republican voting for Obama today
 
2008-02-05 03:00:13 PM
Ryan2065: So we currently have a system where the FCC has fined companies for throttling certain traffic and you agree it works. You want to take away the FCC's ability to do this and think the cable companies won't start throttling traffic? The FCC stops them now, what will stop them if we change the laws?

I don't want to take away anything. I just don't want to pass new laws in regards to the matter when existing law is currently working. The only thing this does is make it harder to get into the competetive market. Try starting a phone company. There is so much regulation involved, you cannot possible start a small phone company. On the other hand, I could easily start a small Internet provider service.

BKITU: Otherwise, please indicate how anti-trust law applies to information traffic between internet service providers. Maybe you can get a lawyer to back up your point.

The example given above is that Comcast would block traffic to Qwest so customers couldn't find out about service. That is an OBVIOUS violation of anti-trust law. You don't have to be a lawyer to figure that one out.
 
2008-02-05 03:00:28 PM
Hank Rearden: I think what he means is that, the infrastructure has to be open. Any provider should be able to run their data over anyone else's lines.

I don't agree with this, but I might be misunderstanding his point.


So he's effectively arguing in favor of net neutrality?

Perhaps you can see why I'm confused when he's spent much of the rest of the thread talking about how he's not favor of net neutrality.
 
2008-02-05 03:02:53 PM
Hank Rearden:

Nailed it. I'm a shill. Crap, now my secret is out.


I'm not trying to be a dick. I just don't understand why an internet user would argue for giving a handful of companies the right to fark with internet users.
sarcastrophe just appears to be confused. You seem to really want the providers to own us.
 
2008-02-05 03:04:28 PM
keithgabryelski: Here are the current stats: *pic*

That's incredible. I'll bet almost all of those 213 people were incited to donate by your campaign. I know I was. Congrats.
 
2008-02-05 03:07:42 PM
sarcastrophe: I don't want to take away anything. I just don't want to pass new laws in regards to the matter when existing law is currently working. The only thing this does is make it harder to get into the competetive market. Try starting a phone company. There is so much regulation involved, you cannot possible start a small phone company. On the other hand, I could easily start a small Internet provider service.

So wait, are you for or against net neutrality? As it stands, the FCC does have the ability to fine companies that block other competing companies services. There are a few companies wanting to take this ability away from the FCC and end net neutrality.

On the other side there are a few companies trying to get well definied net neutrality laws in place that would require the FCC to enforce their net neutrality policy.

Am I wrong?
 
2008-02-05 03:12:26 PM
sarcastrophe: sluck604: Do you trust the government regulating the roadways and interstates? How about the environment? what about power lines? Would you prefer Corporations regulate those things?

I thought I explained this to you before. It may have been someone else. Regulating the physical cable that comes to your house is the equivalent of the roadways, interstates, power lines, etc. Your argument is a non-sequitur.

I agree that we should regulate the physical infrastructure. It has to be regulated for the same reasons roads have to be regulated.



No its not non-sequitur... and its very relevant. I thought I explained this to you Regulating the physical power lines is like regulating the grade/length/material of the roads. Regulating the traffic on the roads (much like its done now) would be comparable. All the switching/routers that the Telecoms own are pointless with out the miles and miles of copper/fiber/cable.

If the telecoms can make use of their routing/switching equipment with out the public copper/fiber then they do whatever they want with it inside their own "intranet" but once you start talking about regulating the internet. Which is what they want to do... no. It's not theirs, it's ours.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?
 
2008-02-05 03:15:08 PM
HitInTheJunk: keithgabryelski: Here are the current stats: *pic*

That's incredible. I'll bet almost all of those 213 people were incited to donate by your campaign. I know I was. Congrats.


I am really happy with the results.
Thank yous to all that donated.
 
2008-02-05 03:16:53 PM
for good or for awesome: Hank Rearden:

Nailed it. I'm a shill. Crap, now my secret is out.

I'm not trying to be a dick. I just don't understand why an internet user would argue for giving a handful of companies the right to fark with internet users.
sarcastrophe just appears to be confused. You seem to really want the providers to own us.


No, that's not it, I just have a different outlook.

For starters, I don't like the government, plain and simple. I think they're lying and thieving, and somehow certain people get the idea that if the government is the one doing the deep dickin' it's okay, as long as it's not a company - when they forget the fact that you actually have to DEAL with companies to get the dickin'.

I'm a big fan of property, and not a big fan of entitlements.

Graaah, okay, I'm not addressing your points (sorry, distracted at work).

The providers don't 'own' anything except for their services that they sell to us. We don't have to buy them if we don't want to, and we can go elsewhere. Or not buy them at all.

But, personally speaking, yes, I like corporations better than government. Craziness.
 
2008-02-05 03:19:34 PM
fosborb: So he's effectively arguing in favor of net neutrality?

Perhaps you can see why I'm confused when he's spent much of the rest of the thread talking about how he's not favor of net neutrality.


Probably because I understand the difference between Layer1 regulation and Layer3 regulation. I'll try to explain it again, since you're confused about how the network works.

Layer 1 = the physical network layer (the actual wire)
Layer 2 = the transport layer (protocols such as ethernet or ATM)
Layer 3 = the IP layer (the routing layer)
Layer 4 = the TCP layer (more or less content)

Regulation of layer 1 (and maybe 2) is like regulating roads. It's stupid to have roads deregulated because I can't have private roads running all over the place. I don't want 9000 Interstates running from LA to NY. It's infrastructure, and furthermore it's made possible by eminent domain.

Regulation of layer 3 and 4 is like regulating a trucking company that moves products across that road. It's regulation of the service industry rather than the infrastructure industry.

The problem people have, is that layer 1 is owned by private companies such as Comcast. If you have Comcast owned cable coming to your house, and you want cable Internet service, your only option is Comcast. That, I disagree with. These private companies were given the ability to run their cable with the government's eminent domain authority. We don't want 9000 cables coming into our house for each different possible provider.

The phone companies, as another example, give you an option. You can get DSL from a company other than Qwest, because the phone companies have to share their infrastructure with competitors. I think the same should be true for cable companies.

If you deregulate this physical infrastructure, you further allow competition in the marketplace, making it more realistic that you won't have to regulate the Internet equivalent of the trucking company, because there's enough competition to make it work.

If you don't understand the above concepts, your argument for, or against, net neutrality is simply uninformed and ignornant.
 
2008-02-05 03:19:53 PM
Hank Rearden: The providers don't 'own' anything except for their services that they sell to us. We don't have to buy them if we don't want to, and we can go elsewhere. Or not buy them at all.

I'm not the most well versed in this, but I thought the point is that you can't go somewhere else for the services, because the telecoms effectively own your intertube plumbing?
 
2008-02-05 03:23:24 PM
Hank Rearden:
The providers don't 'own' anything except for their services that they sell to us. We don't have to buy them if we don't want to, and we can go elsewhere. Or not buy them at all.

But, personally speaking, yes, I like corporations better than government. Craziness.


Thats not really the case, here. There are monopolies you can either not buy at all (something with which you've already paid in part for) or you can buy from a monopoly.

Would you honestly prefer a corporation running the police than the government? would you prefer a corporation running the armed services? Would you prefer corporations writing our laws?

If you answered yes to those, why aren't you happy with the government?
 
2008-02-05 03:24:29 PM
Rethorn: Hank Rearden: The providers don't 'own' anything except for their services that they sell to us. We don't have to buy them if we don't want to, and we can go elsewhere. Or not buy them at all.

I'm not the most well versed in this, but I thought the point is that you can't go somewhere else for the services, because the telecoms effectively own your intertube plumbing?


Sure.
I bet Marshall McLuhan had something worth mentioning here. Medium is the message? As far as the content/packet debate goes, at least.
 
2008-02-05 03:27:19 PM
keithgabryelski: HitInTheJunk: keithgabryelski: Here are the current stats: *pic*

That's incredible. I'll bet almost all of those 213 people were incited to donate by your campaign. I know I was. Congrats.

I am really happy with the results.
Thank yous to all that donated.


Sadly, if I'm reading the site correctly, Obama doesn't take money from people who are partially or entirely salaried as federal contractors. Rules out an awful lot of potential 2/12/08 donors.
 
2008-02-05 03:27:29 PM
sarcastrophe: If you deregulate open up this physical infrastructure

FTFM
 
2008-02-05 03:33:32 PM
sarcastrophe:

But ending net neutrality before you allow competition between companies is just stupid.
 
2008-02-05 03:34:43 PM
sarcastrophe: Yeah, either that or we see that the slippery slope leads to Internet taxation to fund the FCC so they have the resources to "regulate."

Look at your phone bill.


I know I'm late coming back to this thread, but you have a point.

Do you have a better suggestion for neutrality?

About my "republican" comment. I said that because guys like Ted Stevens seem to be the ones in charge - and I don't think they're in anyone's pocket necessarily - just woefully ignorant. But if there are some smart republicans with some good ideas for net neutrality that don't involve more taxes and regulation, I'm listening.
 
2008-02-05 03:34:44 PM
sarcastrophe:
Probably because I understand the difference between Layer1 regulation and Layer3 regulation. I'll try to explain it again, since you're confused about how the network works.

Layer 1 = the physical network layer (the actual wire)
Layer 2 = the transport layer (protocols such as ethernet or ATM)
Layer 3 = the IP layer (the routing layer)
Layer 4 = the TCP layer (more or less content)

You're forgetting layers 5-7. Seven being the one most people are familiar with being end product.

Regulation of layer 1 (and maybe 2) is like regulating roads. It's stupid to have roads deregulated because I can't have private roads running all over the place. I don't want 9000 Interstates running from LA to NY. It's infrastructure, and furthermore it's made possible by eminent domain.

With you so far


Regulation of layer 3 and 4 is like regulating a trucking company that moves products across that road. It's regulation of the service industry rather than the infrastructure industry.

Here's where you're going wrong... its more akin to putting up stop signs, traffic lights, and speed limit signs. Also things like posting detour and street signs. Things the government has been doing for quite some time.

What the different ISP's want to do is use their own regulation so that if you want to drive elsewhere they can give you longer red lights and give more green lights to those who pay their tax.
They want to throttle traffic they want to selectively apply speed limits to people.
 
2008-02-05 03:37:08 PM
Hank Rearden: Sure.
I bet Marshall McLuhan had something worth mentioning here. Medium is the message? As far as the content/packet debate goes, at least.


What the fark does that have to do with what I asked?
 
2008-02-05 03:37:11 PM
chimp_ninja: Sadly, if I'm reading the site correctly, Obama doesn't take money from people who are partially or entirely salaried as federal contractors. Rules out an awful lot of potential 2/12/08 donors.

From Obama's website:
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/yeswecan
1. I am a United States citizen or a lawfully-admitted permanent resident.
2. I am at least 16 years old.
3. This contribution is not made from the general treasury funds of a corporation, labor organization or national bank.
4. This contribution is not made from the funds of a political action committee.
5. This contribution is not made from the treasury of an entity or person who is a federal contractor.
6. This contribution is not made from the funds of an individual registered as a federal lobbyist or a foreign agent, or an entity that is a federally registered lobbying firm or foreign agent.
7. The funds I am donating are not being provided to me by another person or entity for the purpose of making this contribution.

I suspect this means the entity that actually holds the federal contract, not a person who is a contractor for someone who holds the actual contract.
 
2008-02-05 03:38:17 PM
Ryan2065: But ending net neutrality before you allow competition between companies is just stupid.

Then stop fighting for net neutrality and start fighting for the cable companies to open up their infrastructure (see: Telecommunications Act of 1996) which finally allowed competition in local the phone service markets.
 
2008-02-05 03:48:12 PM
sluck604: Would you honestly prefer a corporation running the police than the government? would you prefer a corporation running the armed services? Would you prefer corporations writing our laws?

If you answered yes to those, why aren't you happy with the government?


Don't get specific with him. He ducked me when I tried. Just let him stew in his vague absolutes. Reality will be here waiting when he wants to come back.
 
2008-02-05 03:48:58 PM
sluck604: Here's where you're going wrong... its more akin to putting up stop signs, traffic lights, and speed limit signs. Also things like posting detour and street signs. Things the government has been doing for quite some time.

That's only a valid argument if you only have one provider to deal with. If we opened layer 1/2, you could have as many layer 3/4+ options as you wanted. Comcast can't limit traffic, based on content or destination if they're just delivering layer 2 to a competing provider. Layer 3/4 is a virtual circuit (or a virtual road), and comcast has the right to limit whatever they want on their own little virtual road.

If you don't like it, you could choose a different virtual road if competition had access to the physical road.
 
2008-02-05 03:49:33 PM
sarcastrophe: Ryan2065: But ending net neutrality before you allow competition between companies is just stupid.

Then stop fighting for net neutrality and start fighting for the cable companies to open up their infrastructure (see: Telecommunications Act of 1996) which finally allowed competition in local the phone service markets.


I'm still for net neutrality. I was just pointing out net neutrality is needed in your example while there are still monopolies.
 
2008-02-05 03:51:20 PM
sarcastrophe: That's only a valid argument if you only have one provider to deal with. If we opened layer 1/2, you could have as many layer 3/4+ options as you wanted. Comcast can't limit traffic, based on content or destination if they're just delivering layer 2 to a competing provider. Layer 3/4 is a virtual circuit (or a virtual road), and comcast has the right to limit whatever they want on their own little virtual road.

If you don't like it, you could choose a different virtual road if competition had access to the physical road.


So the government would control the headends and if we called for someone to come out to repair our cable it would be a government worker coming out?
 
2008-02-05 03:53:06 PM
sarcastrophe:
Probably because I understand the difference between Layer1 regulation and Layer3 regulation. I'll try to explain it again, since you're confused about how the network works.

Layer 1 = the physical network layer (the actual wire)
Layer 2 = the transport layer (protocols such as ethernet or ATM)
Layer 3 = the IP layer (the routing layer)
Layer 4 = the TCP layer (more or less content)

Regulation of layer 1 (and maybe 2) is like regulating roads. It's stupid to have roads deregulated because I can't have private roads running all over the place. I don't want 9000 Interstates running from LA to NY. It's infrastructure, and furthermore it's made possible by eminent domain.

Regulation of layer 3 and 4 is like regulating a trucking company that moves products across that road. It's regulation of the service industry rather than the infrastructure industry.


This is a good example to help illustrate why net neutrality would be a good thing.

Currently private companies control layer 1, and these same companies have layer 3 control as well.

Right now the way things work is that any 'trucking company' can run on any road - optimally the road that provides the quickest route to deliver whatever it is that it is carrying.

The way that companies want things to work, is that despite the fact that they charge these trucking companies a basic fee for access to the roads, and a fee to the customer - they want to charge additional fees to the trucking companies for priority access to certain roads. So if the quickest way was the interstate, the 'trucking company' would have to pay a toll to use it. The companies not capable of paying this fee would have to take alternate routes to reach their destinations (and if they can't find a route that will get them there, not be able to deliver to the customer at all). And since the owners of the roads also run their own trucking companies, this means that they have absolutely no incentive to provide breaks to other trucking companies.

I think at this point the analogy is getting watered down, so I'll stop.

Anyway, to those arguing that net neutrality means a government regulated internet... guess what, it already is to an extent. The people arguing for net neutrality want just enough regulation to enforce a free market - along the lines of what the ideal for telecom is.

And another specific case of showing how not having enforced net neutrality is a bad thing - Shaw Cable (in Canada) charges VoIP users an additional service fee(a QoS 'feature') to guarantee that their service will be adequate. Unless of course you use the Shaw VoIP service.
 
2008-02-05 03:53:48 PM
Ryan2065:

I'm still for net neutrality. I was just pointing out net neutrality is needed in your example while there are still monopolies.


THIS is what I was trying to say. Its a lot easier to empower the FCC to maintain the status quo UNTIL conditions permit (that is MANY ISP options) the market to govern itself.

Which is why you pass an act with a relatively short lifespan that can be reviewed upon renewal to deem if its still necessary.
 
2008-02-05 03:56:20 PM
Ryan2065: I'm still for net neutrality. I was just pointing out net neutrality is needed in your example while there are still monopolies.

If you wanted to codify it that way, I would be more apt to compromise. If there is only one internet provider in a given area and there is no access for competition, then allow government regulation. If there is access available to competition, but no competition exists, then it is not a true monopoly. It's just that no one has bothered to enter the market yet. That last part is shaky.

You could possibly convince me that even with equal access, if there is zero other choice, it could be government regulated, but until I see net neutrality adopt these stipulations, I'm dead set against it.
 
2008-02-05 03:56:55 PM
As far as last mile goes:
My ideal situation would be that the Layer 1 providers could not provide Layer 3 services.

This exists somewhat with Telecom in Canada... Bell Nexxia (the company who own the DSL lines) is technically a separate company from Bell Sympatico (the company that provides the internet service), however in practice they are both Bell. Bell Nexxia workers provide better service to Bell Sympatico clients than they do to some other local DSL provider (quicker response times, etc).
 
2008-02-05 04:05:34 PM
The Bestest: THIS is what I was trying to say. Its a lot easier to empower the FCC to maintain the status quo UNTIL conditions permit (that is MANY ISP options) the market to govern itself.

Which is why you pass an act with a relatively short lifespan that can be reviewed upon renewal to deem if its still necessary.


So Qwest and other phone companies, under your plan, would be exempt, right?
 
2008-02-05 04:09:13 PM
sarcastrophe:
That's only a valid argument if you only have one provider to deal with. If we opened layer 1/2, you could have as many layer 3/4+ options as you wanted. Comcast can't limit traffic, based on content or destination if they're just delivering layer 2 to a competing provider. Layer 3/4 is a virtual circuit (or a virtual road), and comcast has the right to limit whatever they want on their own little virtual road.

If you don't like it, you could choose a different virtual road if competition had access to the physical road.


You're joking right? You do realize that those "virtual roads" run on real copper and fiber... that runs right into their operation centers? Should we implement that in parallel to anyone who wants to start their own business? How would you propose to manage that? Should ever company have their own hub in parallel all over the country?
 
Displayed 50 of 189 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report