Murkanen: Eowunyth: The best way to stop growth, make monoplies and control one of the last bastions of individual freedoms is to get a un-elected busy body with to much power and to little brains trying to "protect" the little man.

Europe and Japan would like to have a word with you, but your crappy internet connection timed out.

Ask the people in Sweden what their government is doing to their Internet ;)

Only China and Iran are worst.

WhyteRaven74: DamnYankees: I love it when conservatives argue against net neutrality

I love when anyone argues against it. Especially when they argue as it if would be something new.

i love when they argue against it on the internet on a site that wouldn't make the cut

sarcastrophe: How can we restrict people in order to make them free. That is the dumbest idea I've ever heard of. Net neutrality people need to eat a bag of dicks.

Isn't it essentially saying that the internet should be viewed like the highway system, such that all are guaranteed access? Do you consider public roads a 'lack of freedom'?

SilentStrider: and yet, its just crazy enough to work. the only "freedom" to be restricted by net neutrality is the "freedom" of the powerful to be dicks.

There is no "powerful" on the internet. It's a shame you don't have the capacity to realize this.

Murkanen: Eowunyth: Anyone who is net neutral would understand the best way to attach that is through no government interference AT ALL.

You do realize that leaving the vast majority of the internet to be tended to by multi-billion dollar corporations has lead to the US having an internet service on par with a well equipped third world country, yes?

Only do to the restriction those very corporation can pull off thanks to laws enacted to do things they never were intended too do. The reality is that large areas of future internet use are opening up on to cry of those big corporation. But sadly its Government thats slow rolling a lot of these areas to save those Big Corporations a little time.

Eowunyth: Ask the people in Sweden what their government is doing to their Internet

The last case involving the Swedish internet that I read about was a raid on Piratebay that resulted in all machines being returned within 2 days and an official apology being issued for allowing American lawyers to bully them into performing it.

No matter cause the ISPs will just cap your service

Shaggy_C: Isn't it essentially saying that the internet should be viewed like the highway system, such that all are guaranteed access? Do you consider public roads a 'lack of freedom'?

Yes and no. I've gone in-depth on this topic in my profile. Your analogy is close, but doesn't hit the mark. Net neutrality proponents are incredibly hypocritical. But if you want to compare it to roads, then just think of where that will go:

Are HOV lanes neutral?
Are speed limits acceptable?
Do we need a government approved "vehicle?"

Do you think that makes the net neutral? In my opinion, those things are anything BUT neutral.

Shaggy_C: sarcastrophe: How can we restrict people in order to make them free. That is the dumbest idea I've ever heard of. Net neutrality people need to eat a bag of dicks.

Isn't it essentially saying that the internet should be viewed like the highway system, such that all are guaranteed access? Do you consider public roads a 'lack of freedom'?

Depends you have to pay a toll to drive on it, car insurance (mandatory in most states), license plates, driver licenses, car inspections, smog inspections to name a few of those tolls. Freedom means free from force. Driving on the roads is a privilege the states grant you not a right you have.

sarcastrophe: SilentStrider: and yet, its just crazy enough to work. the only "freedom" to be restricted by net neutrality is the "freedom" of the powerful to be dicks.

There is no "powerful" on the internet. It's a shame you don't have the capacity to realize this.

Um, yes, there is. The people who run the ISP's definately have more power than I do when it comes to the internet. Unless I suddenly develop internet-based super-powers.

drjekel_mrhyde: No matter cause the ISPs will just cap your service

Nope Verizon and other corporations said the would not cap downloads while Comcast, AT&T and TimeWarner said they cap at a agreed upon 250gb a month.

Felgraf: Um, yes, there is. The people who run the ISP's definately have more power than I do when it comes to the internet. Unless I suddenly develop internet-based super-powers.

An ISP is just a connection to the network that resells said connection. Again... it is sad you do not have the capacity to realize this. You should probably just stop commenting since you're obviously ignorant on this topic.

Don't feel too bad... most Net Neutrality supporters are ignorant. I'd bet that 95% (anatomical extraction) don't even understand what they're arguing about.

quickdraw: Anarchy does not provide freedom for all. Anarchy insures that the strong will prey upon the weak.

Anarchy is what made the internet.

Eowunyth: Only do to the restriction those very corporation can pull off thanks to laws enacted to do things they never were intended too do

Actually its because they made money hand over fist by foregoing the needed maintenance and upgrades that they promised they'd perform under the agreement that resulted in them receiving both the funds and acreage required to lay out all of the fiber that they felt was necessary. Again, it was the corporations, more specifically the ignorant CEOs who run those companies while banking on the idea that the consumer base will remain happy with the status quo, who farked up America's internet, not the government.

Eowunyth: FCC never even had a chance to touch the Comcast case since it was technically legal

Did you even read the link I posted? You are wrong. FCC touched, heard, and ruled on the case. Ruled it was not legal. Issued a 'cease and desist'.

And no my post make sense its the fact that I choice to actually read about the stuff and analyze it verse going with "conventional wisdom" which most people do.

WTF, is that even English? Put the bong down, dude.

quickdraw: sarcastrophe: How can we restrict people in order to make them free.

Well its like this. I'm free to walk around and drive my car because others are restricted from carting me off and selling me into slavery. Anarchy does not provide freedom for all. Anarchy insures that the strong will prey upon the weak.

Thats a logical fail of epic proportions.

Force is the answer, the power and logical use of the right amount of force. You would never be "carted" off if you take the right steps to ensure that you protect yourself. I could go on but your argument is full of fail.

sarcastrophe: Anarchy is what made the internet.

The army is anarchy? Universities too? LOL WUT?

whidbey: Uh, no...

The Pentagon is what made the Internet.

No. The Pentagon developed IP. Do you think that IP = Internet? Is that the point you wish to argue?

sarcastrophe: Don't feel too bad... most Net Neutrality supporters are ignorant. I'd bet that 95% (anatomical extraction) don't even understand what they're arguing about.

Preventing useful idiots from trying to turn American internet service into the Somalia of cyberspace?

Then please, enlighten me. Who owns the data lines? *I* sure as hell don't. Does not whoever owns the lines have more power than anyone else?

Now, your response might be "Ah, but in a free market, anyone could lay whatever lines they wanted!". Okay, but how? Certainly, the person who owns where the current lines are wouldn't want any competitors to lay lines on their property. So what, we'll end up with this bizzare system of wires running everywhere?

The free market does not triumph over everything. After all, I imagine it's probably not profitable to run a hospital and keep it stocked with life-saving equipment in, say, highly rural areas (Low population density, after all), but it's to the benefit of society as a whole that such hospitals stay open (thus ensuring that farmers, etc. don't get utterly screwed in, say, a machinery accident).

And-1: The army is anarchy? Universities too? LOL WUT?

You all can't possibly be this dumb. Why is the internet where it is? The answer is anarcho-capitalism. Now, you can talk about where the technology originated and all, and you have a point, but as a matter of consumer technology, the Internet was built by small business.

When the industry had no regulation, it grew the fastest. As more regulation came about, we stalled in Internet growth.

Oh, wait, are you people seriously arguing that anarchy ensures freedom?

Really?

Jesus. If you really want to live in a country without a functional government, I imagine there are areas of Iraq that you would probably consider paradise. Somalia, too.

Anarchy lasts up until one group of people gets the ability to overpower another group. Then it quickly devolves into 'rule of the strong'. Perhaps one day we'll reach a point where it's possible, but like "True Communism" and "True Capitalism", 'Anarchy' would require a fundamental shift in human nature to function properly without quickly devolving into one group opressing another.

quickdraw: Oh come on now. A couple grad students in Chicago inventing the modem because they don't want to have to drive through a blizzard to exchange floppy discs is not anarchy.

Sneakers is not a documentary.

Eowunyth:
Depends you have to pay a toll to drive on it, car insurance (mandatory in most states), license plates, driver licenses, car inspections, smog inspections to name a few of those tolls. Freedom means free from force. Driving on the roads is a privilege the states grant you not a right you have.

I think about 1% of people actually understand the issue here, and even less are qualified to discuss it rationally. This thread is full of so much fail. This is about the oonly post that isnt.

If I were you I might give up trying, people have no concept of freedom anymore; much less an understanding of what happens when you click a link on a website and what is required for that to work properly 99.9999% of the time. If the internet was like most interstates, no one would bother with it.

Felgraf: Somalia

Your hyperbole invalidates your entire point. Try again.

Eowunyth:

Governments aren't the only thing that create monopolies. High barriers to entry in the market (such as cost) also tend to create natural monopolies.

Now ordinarily I'm all for free market and such, but in the case of monopolies there needs to be some restriction and oversight. Else the companies like to rape customers, and get away with it.

Letting the market decide would be great, if in the case of Internet there was a free market to begin with.

Eowunyth: the FCC (extreme restrictions on radio wave usage).

While I find some of the FCC's policies to be annoying, the regulation of bandwidth is the reason why radio is even viable as a commerical medium.

And-1: Eowunyth: FCC never even had a chance to touch the Comcast case since it was technically legal

Did you even read the link I posted? You are wrong. FCC touched, heard, and ruled on the case. Ruled it was not legal. Issued a 'cease and desist'.

And no my post make sense its the fact that I choice to actually read about the stuff and analyze it verse going with "conventional wisdom" which most people do.

WTF, is that even English? Put the bong down, dude.

Comcast has already reacted and resolved the issue in March 2008, 5 months BEFORE the FCC said a thing. It helps to actually know the case. It was thanks to an individual who uncovered it in a year before FCC said a thing (Aug 2007). What Comcast did at the time was legal it was only ruled "illegal" but in reality is technically legal in Aug 2008. Sorry but yes I've read the article and the FCC ruling was only after the fact and only after the market and the customers has corrected it. The ruling changed nothing.

sarcastrophe: Felgraf: Somalia

Your hyperbole invalidates your entire point. Try again.

Fine, ignore the hyperbole and actually attack the argument. Why the hell would it NOT quickly devolve into rule of the strong? Even if everyone is somehow equally armed, not every person is equal. Some people are naturally better shots than others, some people are tougher than others, some people are faster than others. Human nature being what it is (and the fact that sociopaths aren't going to suddenly stop existing), what prevents one such gifted person from enforcing his will upon others?

Eowunyth: Anyone who is net neutral would understand the best way to attach that is through no government interference AT ALL.


All i have to do is point to Comcast and show you idiots that YOU can change their behavior with no help from the Government, AT ALL.

The internet is extremely self-regulating and only getting better, the worst thing that could happen is a un-elected government busy body come by and try to make things better but in reality then will just make things worst as this will give corporations red meat to use to clobber the customer with. All I have to do is point to the ICC (no more passenger rail traffic) and the FCC (extreme restrictions on radio wave usage).

Net Neutral=No Government

Only government creates monopolies not the market.

Opposite of this. In capitalism, the corporations are the government. The government is more like a union.

whidbey: You doubt that the Internet wasn't originally military-related?

IP was developed as a routing method that could re-route itself if various nodes were "taken out." It most certainly had a military origin.

whidbey: Actually, what I want to discuss is that if you get your way and Net Neutrality is quashed, what is to keep large corporations like AT&T from controlling the Web?

I take issue with "controlling the web." What is the web? Is it tangible? Can I touch it? How will a company control it? Who has this power? AT&T doesn't have this power. No company has the power to make that happen. You are fear mongering and it is just as reprehensible as the 9/11 fear mongering.

whidbey: I say we've already lost a good deal of public control, and the corporations would divide and conquer if Net Neutrality is not put in place.

Non-sense. You can get a complete unfiltered internet connection from any number of companies within a month. To say otherwise is just.... well... it's stupid... sorry.

Shadowknight: Felgraf: Oh, wait, are you people seriously arguing that anarchy ensures freedom?

Really?

Jesus. If you really want to live in a country without a functional government, I imagine there are areas of Iraq that you would probably consider paradise. Somalia, too.

Anarchy lasts up until one group of people gets the ability to overpower another group. Then it quickly devolves into 'rule of the strong'. Perhaps one day we'll reach a point where it's possible, but like "True Communism" and "True Capitalism", 'Anarchy' would require a fundamental shift in human nature to function properly without quickly devolving into one group opressing another.

I think you are missing the point. The internet isn't the real world. In the real world, anarchy means someone could walk into our house, kill me and rape my wife, and there is no consequences. In the virtual world anarchy means I can go to any website I want, buy whatever I want from whomever I want, insult anyone I feel like, and the worst that's going to happen is some haughty angry words being typed huffily into a well-used keyboard.

Yes, but I got the feeling that part of the thread had just devolved into an arugment about the benefits of anarchy in general.

Perhaps I was misreading something, as it is rather late and I'm a bit tired.

whidbey: sarcastrophe: No. The Pentagon developed IP. Do you think that IP = Internet?

You doubt that the Internet wasn't originally military-related?

Is that the point you wish to argue?

Actually, what I want to discuss is that if you get your way and Net Neutrality is quashed, what is to keep large corporations like AT&T from controlling the Web?

I say we've already lost a good deal of public control, and the corporations would divide and conquer if Net Neutrality is not put in place.

Wrong.
So Wrong.

You have more control over the internet than you do anything else the government regulates. Since you have no clue what causes the internet to work, you have a false assumption its magical unicorns carting your packets around. I can say this because if you did know, I believe you would consider otherwise.

sarcastrophe is the only voice of reason in this thread so far.

sarcastrophe: Net Neutrality via legislation....

How can we restrict people in order to make them free. That is the dumbest idea I've ever heard of. Net neutrality people need to eat a bag of dicks.

Really hard to believe that you are serious.

quickdraw: Bwahahahah. Whats that supposed to mean? Do whatever you want as long as there's a profit? Dude - go read Castells. The phrase you are searching for is "technomeritocracy." Its not capitalism and its not anarchy. It us something else and yes we need to insure with laws that our rights as net citizens are respected.

No. At the most basic level... if someone wants something, they will pay for it. If it is not worht the price, they won't. It's that simple. It's not that difficult of a concept.

Felgraf: Fine, ignore the hyperbole and actually attack the argument. Why the hell would it NOT quickly devolve into rule of the strong? Even if everyone is somehow equally armed, not every person is equal. Some people are naturally better shots than others, some people are tougher than others, some people are faster than others. Human nature being what it is (and the fact that sociopaths aren't going to suddenly stop existing), what prevents one such gifted person from enforcing his will upon others?

You can't possibly be this stupid. You could order a DS3 to your business and offer free internet access if you found a business model to support it. Stop being dumb.

Felgraf: If you really want to live in a country without a functional government, I imagine there are areas of Iraq that you would probably consider paradise. Somalia, too.

Exactly.

sarcastrophe: Net Neutrality via legislation....

How can we restrict people in order to make them free. That is the dumbest idea I've ever heard of. Net neutrality people need to eat a bag of dicks.

It is not dumb at all if you understand it. Net neutrality does not restrict the people at all. Net neutrality gives all net users equal access.

It restricts businesses to prevent them from taking that equal access away from the people.

ComatoseB0nerToes: sarcastrophe is the only voice of reason in this thread so far.

If you wanted us to acknowledge your lack of information in this area you could have just quoted Stevens.

sarcastrophe: whidbey: You doubt that the Internet wasn't originally military-related?

IP was developed as a routing method that could re-route itself if various nodes were "taken out." It most certainly had a military origin.

whidbey: Actually, what I want to discuss is that if you get your way and Net Neutrality is quashed, what is to keep large corporations like AT&T from controlling the Web?

I take issue with "controlling the web." What is the web? Is it tangible? Can I touch it? How will a company control it? Who has this power? AT&T doesn't have this power. No company has the power to make that happen. You are fear mongering and it is just as reprehensible as the 9/11 fear mongering.

whidbey: I say we've already lost a good deal of public control, and the corporations would divide and conquer if Net Neutrality is not put in place.

Non-sense. You can get a complete unfiltered internet connection from any number of companies within a month. To say otherwise is just.... well... it's stupid... sorry.

Sorry you are just stupid. How is that unfiltered cable tv connection coming?