Net neutrality...very important issue

[ShadowShot]

The best way to keep the net unrestricted, keep government out of it.  
 Your income is restricted because the government TAXES it.  
 Health care services  in government run health care countries are  restricted because why, governments got in it.
 
 Keep the government out of our lives. Government should only be there  for the minimal needs of the country,
 not to supply every whim of its people like a Jeanie in a bottle. Rub  the bottle and get free health care, this that or the other.
 
 Every time some slacker is to lazy to get a good education or job, I  don't want them rubbing my wallet.
 That is where the bottle is at, in all of our wallets. If they want  something, work for it. Its an old rule, you don't work,
 you don't eat. You don't work, you don't play.

If otheres like the way their  country is run, stay there and let us run ours.

[geiger]

ShadowShot - 3/31/2010  8:10 PM



The best way to keep the net unrestricted, keep government out of it.  
 Your income is restricted because the government TAXES it.  
 Health care services  in government run health care countries are  restricted because why, governments got in it.
 
 Keep the government out of our lives. Government should only be there  for the minimal needs of the country,
 not to supply every whim of its people like a Jeanie in a bottle. Rub  the bottle and get free health care, this that or the other.
 
 Every time some slacker is to lazy to get a good education or job, I  don't want them rubbing my wallet.
 That is where the bottle is at, in all of our wallets. If they want  something, work for it. Its an old rule, you don't work,
 you don't eat. You don't work, you don't play.

If otheres like the way their  country is run, stay there and let us run ours.

Government has it's place in society. It's true that is shouldn't try to act as a company and run it's own business with our money. But what government gives is the possibility that if you're rights are tramped upon by another member of the society then you can pursue justice in a civil manner.
Sure it's far, far from perfect...but you have to admit at least something.

That aside, free market CANNOT work on infrastructure that is limited to only a few participants. Not every ISP can lay cables to each home, or do wireless for that matter. It would be way to uneconomical. Leaving the whole network to a few providers that would surely form a cartel down the road, is a terrible choice for consumer.

Really, why can't you see that everything has it's limits. Free market is an awesome idea...but show me a proper free market in the world, no the US is not one...but a variant of it.
On the issue of net neutrality government can actually do some good.

I'm not trying to troll the forum, but this is really an important issue because if we loose the internet we loose everything, you and me...we're both in it.

Oh and btw, happy april fools' day. :)

[daveshoot]

Happy April Fool's day, indeed.

Say, if you have the stomach for a really truly thoughtful presentation on this issue, check out this presentation: http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html

It is a little long. It is not an easy issue. Almost halfway into it comes the very interesting comparison of the internet to the electrical grid. Have fun!

[geiger]

daveshoot - 4/1/2010  2:17 PM



Happy April Fool's day, indeed.

Say, if you have the stomach for a really truly thoughtful presentation on this issue, check out this presentation: http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html

It is a little long. It is not an easy issue. Almost halfway into it comes the very interesting comparison of the internet to the electrical grid. Have fun!

Oh yes, banning net neutrality would be heaven for the large ISP, because they could dictate where to allocate bandwidth. Allocating it to the most profitable service of course. Just like TV

The presentation also talks about network management, which i agree could work to a small degree. But The problem is mostly because ISP offer speeds they cannot maintain. Thus they want to use QoS for that which is most profitable.

Yes, without net neutrality innovation would die off. Want proof? Just look at any internet company when they started. They all could become successful because they didn't have to answer to anybody if they can start or not. They paid for their cable and put content online, then people from everywhere used their service. Without net neutrality any future Google wannabe must first get the green light from the ISP to market themselves, if the ISP would conclude that they are not profitable they just throw them in the slow lane. Just like TV.
Need more proof? Look at the video game industry, once where making games was cheap and easy to get out there there ware alot of innovation, nowadays where few publishers control the whole market and distribution, innovative games are nonexistent.
I could go on and on.

Oh and i think you don't yet understand what net neutrality really is. If the electric company analogy caught your attention then you're really weren't paying attention.
Net neutrality is basically a regulation that demands the internet to be unregulated...sound an oxymoron but it works.

I'm not completely denying that tiered networks wouldn't be running smoother, but that only goes for the services deemed profitable. Everything else would be dumped in the bin.
No thanks, i'd rather have a quirky but free internet than a smoothly running restricted internet. I don't have a TV at home by the way, precisely because TV is bollocks, undemocratic, restricted and very biased. Why's that...well because the major TV providers all have some sort of agenda or ties with that or this side. On the internet i can watch third parties making fun of Glenn as well as Olberman, where on TV can i do that?

Really, if you're against net neutrality, you probably don't know much about it...or are too blinded by propaganda from both sides.

I repeat...net neutrality isn't about everybody paying the same for your connection (it that wasn't obvious already) it's about having access to any information and data your connection can allow it.
In simple words...if you buy a 1Mbit connection, you can use use the whole 1Mbit to look at whatever you want and not pay the ISP for viewing certain content. If you want to download pr0n 24/7 with your 1Mbit connection you should be allowed to do so and not expect to pay the ISP to unlock pr0n content on top what you've already paid for your connection.

Net neutrality is no leftist agenda, but civilized common sense.

[TCups]

(yawn) (flatulence).  

Gee, thanks for your your enlightened viewpoints of what "net neutrality" really means, and how to keep the internet "fair".  If only we are lucky enough for the intellectual elites of the nanny state to "ban" unfair practices or regulate "fairness" doctrine, then maybe everything will be all better, right?  Holy cow, how can we make sure the government has the power to do this immediately?

Here is the only regulation I want:  free market enterprise and greed-driven, profit-based, free-wheeling capitalism.

[geiger]

TCups - 4/1/2010  5:47 PM

(yawn) (flatulence).  

Gee, thanks for your your enlightened viewpoints of what "net neutrality" really means, and how to keep the internet "fair".  If only we are lucky enough for the intellectual elites of the nanny state to "ban" unfair practices or regulate "fairness" doctrine, then maybe everything will be all better, right?  Holy cow, how can we make sure the government has the power to do this immediately?

Here is the only regulation I want:  free market enterprise and greed-driven, profit-based, free-wheeling capitalism.

If you see the world so bipolar and don't respond to reason then no point in arguing with you.
But i hope you at least realize that your economic model has it's deadly pitfalls, just like any extreme model.


Oh and, please don't equate the fairness doctrine with net neutrality, i've already established...it's worlds apart from each other.

[daveshoot]

You are really into polemics, aren't you? I don't think I made much of a stand either way, but pointed you to a thoughtful and rational discussion of the issues.

You have spent a page railing against "my" position.

Perhaps a class in persuasive writing should be one of your next electives. I have yet to see anyone won over by the "you're stupid, why can't you see I'm right" approach.

Virtually any proposal like this requires an analysis of precedent. There have been many such anti-trust vs. free market type of debates. "Regulation that demands the internet to be unregulated" is still regulation. ISPs who limit access must compete with those who don't. You seem to think that all ISPs have been successful, but the superhighway is littered with the wreckage of those who didn't make it. AOL is still determined to self-destruct and good riddance.

You insist that it "works" yet there is absolutely no reason to believe that. It is, however, the camel's nose under the tent- government regulations in one of the last free places on earth. And, which government? To whom does the internet belong? Should the US Congress decide how ISPs in the EU behave?

Love the video game analogy... I guess Call of Duty 5 is of the same complexity as the original Pong and Mario Brothers... do you think with today's expectations that a couple of geeks are going to produce world-class video games in the garage? Nowadays it is big business. The stakes are higher, the games are far more intense, and it requires a cast of hundreds to put one together.

Anyway, it is more your style than your substance that causes others to shun serious debate with you. If you get this worked up over a gray area like net neutrality, you must be lots of fun on the more emotionally-charged issues of the day.

[TCups]

Glen Beck is a "manipulative troll" and "biased commentator" -- no way you will let his comments pass?  Look in the mirror, geoger!  You don't like his style, but  you start your "important" post with a personal attack that will immediately offend many of us?  Well, I don't like your style much either, sir.  That style is, by definition the style of a "troll" and your OP is. by definition, a great example of a troll's post.

There has been a wealth of good information on Glens blackboard other than pictures of Mao/Hitler/Stalin (another accusation by inference that Beck is engaging in hate speech and must be dismissed as a fringe kook) -- you just choose to ignore it because you don't want to hear it (in fact, you didn't even watch it, did you -- you said "revealed to you", probably second-hand by some like minded, left-biased friend or web site, I suspect, but that is only supposition), but on the other hand, you feel perfectly free to accuse and demean others for not "doing their own research".  

Everyone will ultimately have to come to believe what they believe, whether they hear it on the news or opinion programs or on the web sites that they frequent, or the books they read.  Your assumption that opposition to "web fairness" policy is based on ignorance is arrogant and biased on your part, sir.  But you are at least correct about the fact you are wasting your time.  Ours, too.  So knock it off please.  Thanks.

and, (yawn), just in case  you want to do the research, here some additional stuff you can read:

http://techliberation.com/2008/08/23/fccs-comcastnet-neutrality-order-released-cmmr-mcdowell-at-his-best/

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/09/net-neutrality-throws-internet-into-legal-limbo/

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/15/the-net-neutrality-rorschach/

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/10/21/consumer-education-not-heavy-net-neutrality-regulation-is-the-answer/

[geiger]

daveshoot - 4/2/2010  6:55 AM



You are really into polemics, aren't you? I don't think I made much of a stand either way, but pointed you to a thoughtful and rational discussion of the issues.

You have spent a page railing against "my" position.

Perhaps a class in persuasive writing should be one of your next electives. I have yet to see anyone won over by the "you're stupid, why can't you see I'm right" approach.

Virtually any proposal like this requires an analysis of precedent. There have been many such anti-trust vs. free market type of debates. "Regulation that demands the internet to be unregulated" is still regulation. ISPs who limit access must compete with those who don't. You seem to think that all ISPs have been successful, but the superhighway is littered with the wreckage of those who didn't make it. AOL is still determined to self-destruct and good riddance.

You insist that it "works" yet there is absolutely no reason to believe that. It is, however, the camel's nose under the tent- government regulations in one of the last free places on earth. And, which government? To whom does the internet belong? Should the US Congress decide how ISPs in the EU behave?

Love the video game analogy... I guess Call of Duty 5 is of the same complexity as the original Pong and Mario Brothers... do you think with today's expectations that a couple of geeks are going to produce world-class video games in the garage? Nowadays it is big business. The stakes are higher, the games are far more intense, and it requires a cast of hundreds to put one together.

Anyway, it is more your style than your substance that causes others to shun serious debate with you. If you get this worked up over a gray area like net neutrality, you must be lots of fun on the more emotionally-charged issues of the day.

Sure i might not be the most persuasive person ever. However you deem my arguments invalid because of that?

The video you posted doesn't really provide any good evidence.

Sure there could have been some ISP that didn't succeed, but that isn't proof of anything. Net neutrality doesn't inhibit new ISP.

Who owns the internet? Well initially it was from the governments research institutions and military, so technically they have the intellectual rights.


As for video games, yes they become an industry ran by only a few providers. The quality of games is *_*_*_*_*_*. The point i was trying to make is that once you let companies become monopolies, dictating and crushing competition then the service they once provided is lost. Government is here to prevent forming trusts and to punish if those companies are using illegal practices to prevent competition.

Now picture this...a small studio want's to market it's game, but the internet is content divided. That studio would have to pay for being allowed to market in a certain internet zone specifically designed for this, you can bet your behind that large studios have a huge investment in that area too, possibly making a deal with the ISP to prioritize their traffic. The small studio would either have to make a deal with the big one to get some leverage or just quit business.  
Companies are not really malevolent, they just share a common interest...money. And despite if something is a good idea, if it's not profitable then it might as well not exist.
Capitalism in reality doesn't necessarily promote good ideas...but profitable ones. Huge difference there.  

@TCups

Well in the event i might be a troll at least i'm not manipulative and not really biased. Since i base my opinion on actual cases and common sense and not on those who pay me the most. Personally i've seen video evidence of beck caught lying and misinforming...even if i would be a "conservative" i wouldn't trust that guy just because he's on "my side". I truly believe if the other side paid Beck more he'd switch in an instant.

[ShadowShot]

Tcups, when are you going to write another poem?

[geiger]

Affordability is the hard part — because there is no competition pushing  down prices. The plan acknowledges that only 15 percent of homes will  have a choice in providers, and then only between Verizon’s FiOS  fiber-optic network and the local cable company. (AT&T’s “fiber”  offering is merely souped-up DSL transmitted partly over its old copper  wires, which can’t compete at these higher speeds.) The remaining 85  percent will have no choice at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21Benkler.html

[TCups]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/_Net-Neutrality_-Is-Socialism_-Not-Freedom-8410175.html

"Most bold and radical of the neutralists is Robert W. McChesney, founder of Free Press -- the leading advocacy group in Washington pushing for net neutrality. In an August interview with a Canadian Marxist online publication called the Bullet, McChesney rejoices that net neutrality can finally bring about the Marxist "revolution."  "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies," McChesney said. "We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."
He's right: Net neutrality divests control over the Internet from the private sector to the government. And in typical Marxist fashion, innocuous words -- the language of neutralism and liberty -- cloak an agenda that would crush freedom.
That's the agenda President Obama's FCC is pushing.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/_Net-Neutrality_-Is-Socialism_-Not-Freedom-8410175.html#ixzz0kGR80zT7

[TCups]

here's your poem:

What a tangled "web" we weave
when net neutrality, we perceive,
to be the FCC's domain
to regulate for the public's gain.

[Jerrycup]

Most of what Obama (and other leftist "progressives") have wrought is in the name of "fairness". They decide what is fair, and use the power of the government to institute this "fairness".

I favor any inhibition of the progression towards the fairness of Karl Marx. That's where Obama would like to take us. I like insurance companies, internet providers, and other free enterprise institutions over the Medicare, FCC, and the other cancerous authorities that the bloated government has created. Stop them anywhere we can. The answer is NO.

We hope you Canadians enjoy your Socialism. Come on down when you need some real service and are ready to buy it.