Republicans pushing against Net Neutrality - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Halx · 09-22-2009, 10:30 AM

Republicans to Push Against Net Neutrality; FCC Says Start of Process - Post I.T. - A Technology Blog From The Washington Post - (washingtonpost.com)

Quote:

"The case has simply not been made for what amounts to a significant regulatory intervention into a vibrant marketplace. These new regulatory mandates and restrictions could stifle investment incentives,"

What we have here, folks, is a group of corrupt politicians acting not for the greater public's interest, but for either the corporations that they represent or for their own party's reputation. New neutrality is TOTALLY NECESSARY to maintain the freedom that we currently possess. There is no practical (in terms of public interest) reason to oppose it.

Let me give you an example of how Net Neutrality affects YOU and why YOU should be a proponent. Here is what would happen if there was no Net Neutrality and data providers can assert authority over their networks.

Let's say you came to the TFP to post a criticism about.. something. Say you got screwed over by some company's customer service and you needed a place to put it. Well, it turns out that the company you are criticizing is owned by the conglomerate that also owns an internet data provider. What they could do is re-route all traffic bound for TFP to.. nowhere. All of a sudden, the TFP doesn't exist simply because this provider doesn't like us.

That's what happens when you privatize the internet.

Everyone here should be PRO NET NEUTRALITY or you'll be biting the hand that feeds you.

guy44 · 09-22-2009, 10:43 AM

To be fair, at the grassroots level both liberals and conservatives are pro Net Neutrality. Really, the only people who are against it are the internet service providers and the politicians they've bought off. And it looks like Net Neutrality is going to win out. So I'm actually not all that worried.

And to respond to your quote from the article, Net Neutrality has been long-standing practice. So new regulations ensuring simply that things don't change aren't really new regulations so much as an official recognition of the situation as it stands.

samcol · 09-22-2009, 10:59 AM

What you are saying sounds find and dandy I suppose, but I've learned over the years that the title of bills and the short blurbs about them in articles don't always mean exactly what we think they do (think "Patriot Act" and other such legislation).

I'd like to see the actual text of this legislation before I form anymore of an opinion. IMO the government really has a way of screwing things up, and I don't want them to screw up the internet. As much as garbage is on it, I feel it's still the only place to get real information as radio/tv news is compromised.

guy44 · 09-22-2009, 11:03 AM

There is no bill being considered. The FCC is proposing regulation to mandate Net Neutrality.

samcol · 09-22-2009, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

There is no bill being considered. The FCC is proposing regulation to mandate Net Neutrality.

Well the word for word text of the regulations in that case.

ratbastid · 09-22-2009, 01:25 PM

I can help with that.

It's not really exactly new REGULATION per se, but two new guiding principles the FCC will use in its regulation actions. It's the first step in a very long process for FCC policy adoptions.

The existing four principles which have been around since 2005 are:

* To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
* To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
* To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
* To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

The two new principles they're proposing are, to quote FCC chair Genachowski:

“The first would prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management,”

...and...

“The second principle would ensure that Internet access providers are transparent about the network management practices they implement. The Chairman also proposed clarifying that all six principles apply to all platforms that access the Internet.”

The_Dunedan · 09-22-2009, 01:39 PM

Quote:

“The first would prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management,”

So it's yet another law/statute/ruling to prevent someone from doing as they see fit with their private property which they paid for and which they maintain. IOW, it would be illegal, were Halx an ISP, for him to disallow the posting of pictures of children, which was standing TFP policy for some time. Note; "prevent...from discriminating against particular internet content". I also note that Gov't bureaucrats and actual human beings almost always have wildly differing interpretations of "reasonable." Free Speech Zones were "reasonable" under the Bush Regime, remember?

Quote:

Everyone here should be PRO NET NEUTRALITY or you'll be biting the hand that feeds you.

I'm PRO GOVERNMENT NEUTRALITY because the hand that feeds me table-scraps is connected to the hand that beats me bloody and steals half my income, time, and productivity.

filtherton · 09-22-2009, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

So it's yet another law/statute/ruling to prevent someone from doing as they see fit with their private property which they paid for and which they maintain. IOW, it would be illegal, were Halx an ISP, for him to disallow the posting of pictures of children, which was standing TFP policy for some time. Note; "prevent...from discriminating against particular internet content". I also note that Gov't bureaucrats and actual human beings almost always have wildly differing interpretations of "reasonable." Free Speech Zones were "reasonable" under the Bush Regime, remember?

Translation: I would rather be controlled by a corporate bureaucrat than a government one.

kutulu · 09-22-2009, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

I'm PRO GOVERNMENT NEUTRALITY because the hand that feeds me table-scraps is connected to the hand that beats me bloody and steals half my income, time, and productivity.

Is it really necessary to inject that standard wharrgarbl into every debate?

The_Dunedan · 09-22-2009, 02:11 PM

I'd rather not be controlled by any of them. Corporate bureaucrats can be influenced through boycotts, lawsuits, or simply taking my business elsewhere. Gov't bureaucrats are immune from lawsuits in all but the most egregious cases, and try boycotting or "voting with your feet" sometime. See what the IRS and FBI have to say about it; they won't be happy.

Bottom line is that no Corpie can come to my house at 3am with a machine-gun, kidnap me in the middle of the night, detain me against my will, beat the crap out of me (or kill me if I object) and then expect the tax-slaves to thank him for this selfless act of forced collectivisation. Gov't-type 'crats aren't just -able- to do so, they're appallingly -eager- to do so, given the slightest excuse.

One of these two evils I can safely ignore or act against. The other I cannot. I know which I'd rather have.

Quote:

Is it really necessary to inject that standard wharrgarbl into every debate?

When the debate deals with Gov't force, yes it is. Because the "gun on the table" is central to the debate; ie "is it legitimate to beat, rob, and murder people simply because a large enough majority says so and deligates their bloody-work to faceless, unaccountable thugs?" I believe that it is not.

Derwood · 09-22-2009, 02:21 PM

what on earth?

filtherton · 09-22-2009, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

I'd rather not be controlled by any of them. Corporate bureaucrats can be influenced through boycotts, lawsuits, or simply taking my business elsewhere. Gov't bureaucrats are immune from lawsuits in all but the most egregious cases, and try boycotting or "voting with your feet" sometime. See what the IRS and FBI have to say about it; they won't be happy.

This isn't always true. Boycotting/taking your business elsewhere is useless when problems exist within every corporation in an industry and that industry provides an irreplaceable necessity. Lawsuits only work if they provide a sufficient deterrent, which usually come in the form of large punitive cash awards. Perhaps you're the exception to the rule here, but I've not known many small government folk in favor of large punitive settlements against private industry.

Quote:

Bottom line is that no Corpie can come to my house at 3am with a machine-gun, kidnap me in the middle of the night, detain me against my will, beat the crap out of me (or kill me if I object) and then expect the tax-slaves to thank him for this selfless act of forced collectivisation. Gov't-type 'crats aren't just -able- to do so, they're appallingly -eager- to do so, given the slightest excuse.

You realize that the only thing stopping the "Corpies" from doing this to you is the fact that the government would punish them via a process where government that tells these Corpies what they can and can't to with their own property?

Quote:

One of these two evils I can safely ignore or act against. The other I cannot. I know which I'd rather have.

I am fairly certain that you aren't as powerful as you think with respect to either of these evils. But I've been mistaken before.

Tully Mars · 09-22-2009, 02:25 PM

Never heard of Blackwater, eh?

dippin · 09-22-2009, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

So it's yet another law/statute/ruling to prevent someone from doing as they see fit with their private property which they paid for and which they maintain. IOW, it would be illegal, were Halx an ISP, for him to disallow the posting of pictures of children, which was standing TFP policy for some time. Note; "prevent...from discriminating against particular internet content". I also note that Gov't bureaucrats and actual human beings almost always have wildly differing interpretations of "reasonable." Free Speech Zones were "reasonable" under the Bush Regime, remember?

I'm PRO GOVERNMENT NEUTRALITY because the hand that feeds me table-scraps is connected to the hand that beats me bloody and steals half my income, time, and productivity.

Your analogy fails in that you are trying to equate forum moderation decisions with violations of net neutrality.

Net neutrality does not mean that providers can't decide what type of content they will host. It means that providers will not be able to decide what sites and servers people can access.

And the "private property" is complete bullshit. First of all, as a public utility, it is subject to public regulation. But, most importantly, while ISPs might own the cables and servers, they don't own the airwaves and public land where those cables are, and as such the public can stipulate conditions for access to that land and airwaves.

Telephone companies cannot prevent you from calling out of network. Toll roads cannot prevent cars from a certain maker to access its roads.

Similarly, net neutrality, which was one of the founding principles of the internet, should be mandated, lest we go back to the age of the BBS.

If a telephone company cannot block you from calling out of network, why should they be able to prevent you from using skype on their network? Why should they be able to prevent you from sending email to certain addresses? Or from accessing certain websites?

The_Dunedan · 09-22-2009, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Boycotting/taking your business elsewhere is useless when problems exist within every corporation in an industry and that industry provides an irreplaceable necessity. Lawsuits only work if they provide a sufficient deterrent, which usually come in the form of large punitive cash awards. Perhaps you're the exception to the rule here, but I've not known many small government folk in favor of large punitive settlements against private industry.

The difficulty you refer to in regard to boycotts is true. However, this is a function of Corporate Personhood ( which is a Market Distortion, btw, inimical to Free Enterprise, and which should be got rid of ASAP), not of private property or of the Market iteself. Since you ask, yes; I am in favour of large punitive cash awards. If a company is polluting somebody's land, for instance, they deserve to be FRIED. However, I am also in favour of Common Law (ie no professional, Guild-certified and -protected Attourneys) and Loser Pays (ie 'if you intitiate a frivolous lawsuit and lose, you pay for EVERYTHING'.) Such steps would, IMO, cut down on the number of frivolous lawsuits in this country wile simultaneously ensuring that if someone -did- bring a worthy Suit at Law, the "Bad Guys" (think PG&E for a minute here) would be both unable to bring their uber-expensive corporate lawyers to bear, and would be liable for IMMENSE damages. This would ensure that competition was kept both hoest and vigorous, driving (either or both) prices down and quality/service up. Why do you think people who have a choice fly Swisair, Luftansa, British Airways, etc? Because they provide better service than the catastrophe we all the US Airlines industry, that's why.

Quote:

You realize that the only thing stopping the "Corpies" from doing this to you is the fact that the government would punish them via a process where government that tells these Corpies what they can and can't to with their own property?

Not unless they own my house, everything in it, and my own self. That's the Gov't mantra: "We own you. We will do with you as we will. Resistance to the will of the Collective is futile." Don't believe me? Try not paying your yearly Rent (ie Proprty Taxes) and see what happens.
Edited For Clarity: I should further add that my basis for saying this is that at least in the Corporate world the concept of personal, individual ownership (of anything, ie of property Rights) still has some meaning (though its' full meaning and import is hardly acknowledged here either). Ownership still means something. Governments, especially nowadays, simply do not appear to accept the notion that anyone can own (ie have formal and absolute control, with acceptance and liability of profits, hazards, costs and consequences thereof and thereto) much of anything anymore.

Quote:

I am fairly certain that you aren't as powerful as you think with respect to either of these evils. But I've been mistaken before.

You are mistaken. Nobody thought an old black lady named Rosa Parks was very powerful either, but ask the Montgomery Transportation Authority how well -that- assumption worked out for 'em.

Quote:

Never heard of Blackwater, eh?

A bunch of murderous, treasonous scumbag killers-for-hire acting under FedGov authority, using Fed money, on the Fed's orders and with the Fed's imprimatur. Absent the ability to make money by doing the Fed's legitimised bloody work, BlackWater would be nothing but a rent-a-cop firm at the local mall. And frankly, I'd have a hard time trusting them not to fuck -that- up.

Quote:

Net neutrality does not mean that providers can't decide what type of content they will host.

Umm, actually...

Quote:

prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications

See that part about "prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications"?

That's exactly what it says, right there in green and gray.

Quote:

First of all, as a public utility

Really? This despite the fact that the owner paid for, maintains, and operates the thing? Private property isn't really private, but instead subject to Gov't dictats backed by the threat of lethal violence?! In AMERICA?! Whoda thunk it?!

Quote:

while ISPs might own the cables and servers, they don't own the airwaves and public land where those cables are

You mean that, although the ISP owns all the hardware, performs all the maintainence, paid for all this shit to begin with...because the cables are sometimes on public land the Gov't should be allowed to tell the owners/shareholders what they can/should do with it? Sounds rather like my neighbors trying to tell me what to do with my tractor or hay-baler because I sometimes have to take them on a road we all share.

Quote:

Telephone companies cannot prevent you from calling out of network.

They certainly can, they simply chose not to because it would be bad for their business. Ask folks who bought the I-Phone when it first came out.

Quote:

Toll roads cannot prevent cars from a certain maker to access its roads.

They can but, again, they don't. If it was a privately-held Toll Road, they would be 100% legal to do so. However, since these roads are operated by the Gov't with everyone's stolen money, they currently deign to allow everyone onto them, in order to continue making money and avoid the appearance of impropriety and favoritism.

Quote:

why should they be able to prevent you from using skype on their network?

They are able, and should remain so. "Their roof, their rules" as it were. However, I wouldn't recommend such a course of action; bad for business.

Quote:

Why should they be able to prevent you from sending email to certain addresses? Or from accessing certain websites?

Because it's THEIRS. They paid for it, they keep it running, and they provide the service. They should be able to allow or disallow whatever content they like. However, I and other consumers should be (and largely are, except when dealing with the Gov't) able to "vote with my wallet" by taking my business elsewhere.

Martian · 09-22-2009, 05:28 PM

Your problem, The_Dunedan, is that you're confusing or conflating servers with networks, when they are two very distinct things.

Content providers and service providers are not necessarily the same people. They can be, but in the vast majority of cases are not.

Halx is a content provider. It's all well and good to say what he could or could not (or should or should not) do if he were an ISP, except TFP isn't an ISP. It never was, and never will be. Halx is a content provider, and has every right to decide what sort of content he wants to provide. The company that Halx (or more probably his hosting company) buys their bandwidth from is a service provider, and without regulations in place to uphold net neutrality they could do things like cause TFP to cease to exist, or impose a subscription model for traffic going there, thus forcing you to pay to access it. These are Bad things, they do not promote liberty, and it's within everyone's best interest to ensure they don't happen.

The network is, as has been suggested, analogous to roads. Net neutrality is about service providers allowing people to use those roads without restricting where they're able to go.

And before you gripe on about free access or anything like that, it's important to note that free in this case refers to free as in speech (libre) and not free as in beer (gratuit). Through the system of transit and peering, ISP's are already compensated for allowing traffic across their network, either in the form of actual payment or in an exchange of services. These deals do occasionally break down and can cause large segments of the internet to simply break.

Many of the advances that we take for granted over the last 15 years or so have taken advantage of or even relied entirely upon the free and open exchange of information. It behooves us to make sure that this trend continues, and that's precisely what net neutrality is all about.

EDIT - I don't know where you get this notion from that users can 'vote with their wallet,' but it's simply not true. The problem here is that in a lot of cases traffic only passes through a handful of providers. If all of those providers are restricting their transit in various ways, you end up with an oligopoly and a segmented internet. I should hope you could see why this is a Bad Thing.

Yes, the transit providers bought their own routers and switches, and in many cases paid to run their own cables. Those cables are frequently run through or over public property, and those companies are given right of way. They were and are able to exist and function on the sufferance of the people, often making direct and extensive use of land owned collectively by them. In exchange for this, the government can and should request that they continue to act in good faith and not adopt policies that go against the best interest of those people.

Halx · 09-22-2009, 05:46 PM

As a veteran of the internet for more than half of my life, a hobbyist and a professional in the field, I hereby certify Martian's post as 100% good and worthy of your attention.

Aladdin Sane · 09-22-2009, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

The difficulty you refer to in regard to boycotts is true. However, this is a function of Corporate Personhood ( which is a Market Distortion, btw, inimical to Free Enterprise, and which should be got rid of ASAP), not of private property or of the Market iteself. Since you ask, yes; I am in favour of large punitive cash awards. If a company is polluting somebody's land, for instance, they deserve to be FRIED. However, I am also in favour of Common Law (ie no professional, Guild-certified and -protected Attourneys) and Loser Pays (ie 'if you intitiate a frivolous lawsuit and lose, you pay for EVERYTHING'.) Such steps would, IMO, cut down on the number of frivolous lawsuits in this country wile simultaneously ensuring that if someone -did- bring a worthy Suit at Law, the "Bad Guys" (think PG&E for a minute here) would be both unable to bring their uber-expensive corporate lawyers to bear, and would be liable for IMMENSE damages. This would ensure that competition was kept both hoest and vigorous, driving (either or both) prices down and quality/service up. Why do you think people who have a choice fly Swisair, Luftansa, British Airways, etc? Because they provide better service than the catastrophe we all the US Airlines industry, that's why.

Not unless they own my house, everything in it, and my own self. That's the Gov't mantra: "We own you. We will do with you as we will. Resistance to the will of the Collective is futile." Don't believe me? Try not paying your yearly Rent (ie Proprty Taxes) and see what happens.
Edited For Clarity: I should further add that my basis for saying this is that at least in the Corporate world the concept of personal, individual ownership (of anything, ie of property Rights) still has some meaning (though its' full meaning and import is hardly acknowledged here either). Ownership still means something. Governments, especially nowadays, simply do not appear to accept the notion that anyone can own (ie have formal and absolute control, with acceptance and liability of profits, hazards, costs and consequences thereof and thereto) much of anything anymore.

You are mistaken. Nobody thought an old black lady named Rosa Parks was very powerful either, but ask the Montgomery Transportation Authority how well -that- assumption worked out for 'em.

A bunch of murderous, treasonous scumbag killers-for-hire acting under FedGov authority, using Fed money, on the Fed's orders and with the Fed's imprimatur. Absent the ability to make money by doing the Fed's legitimised bloody work, BlackWater would be nothing but a rent-a-cop firm at the local mall. And frankly, I'd have a hard time trusting them not to fuck -that- up.

Umm, actually...

[/b]

See that part about "prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications"?

That's exactly what it says, right there in green and gray.

Really? This despite the fact that the owner paid for, maintains, and operates the thing? Private property isn't really private, but instead subject to Gov't dictats backed by the threat of lethal violence?! In AMERICA?! Whoda thunk it?!

You mean that, although the ISP owns all the hardware, performs all the maintainence, paid for all this shit to begin with...because the cables are sometimes on public land the Gov't should be allowed to tell the owners/shareholders what they can/should do with it? Sounds rather like my neighbors trying to tell me what to do with my tractor or hay-baler because I sometimes have to take them on a road we all share.

They certainly can, they simply chose not to because it would be bad for their business. Ask folks who bought the I-Phone when it first came out.

They can but, again, they don't. If it was a privately-held Toll Road, they would be 100% legal to do so. However, since these roads are operated by the Gov't with everyone's stolen money, they currently deign to allow everyone onto them, in order to continue making money and avoid the appearance of impropriety and favoritism.

They are able, and should remain so. "Their roof, their rules" as it were. However, I wouldn't recommend such a course of action; bad for business.

Because it's THEIRS. They paid for it, they keep it running, and they provide the service. They should be able to allow or disallow whatever content they like. However, I and other consumers should be (and largely are, except when dealing with the Gov't) able to "vote with my wallet" by taking my business elsewhere.

The fact that you must provide this elementary lesson on the concept of private property rights goes to show just how warped our idea of individual liberty has become.

I hope you'll keep hammering away in these forums. Your voice is sorely needed.

dippin · 09-22-2009, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Umm, actually...

[/b]

See that part about "prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications"?

That's exactly what it says, right there in green and gray.

The key word there is access. Most ISPs also provide hosts, but a host is not necessarily an ISP and is regulated differently. Net neutrality does not mandate any server to host anything. EDIT: see martian's post.

Quote:

Really? This despite the fact that the owner paid for, maintains, and operates the thing? Private property isn't really private, but instead subject to Gov't dictats backed by the threat of lethal violence?! In AMERICA?! Whoda thunk it?!

You mean that, although the ISP owns all the hardware, performs all the maintainence, paid for all this shit to begin with...because the cables are sometimes on public land the Gov't should be allowed to tell the owners/shareholders what they can/should do with it? Sounds rather like my neighbors trying to tell me what to do with my tractor or hay-baler because I sometimes have to take them on a road we all share.

the cables aren't "sometimes" in public land, they are mostly on public land. And the government is not telling what they can do with it. They are telling what they canNOT do with it.

Quote:

They certainly can, they simply chose not to because it would be bad for their business. Ask folks who bought the I-Phone when it first came out.

no, they can't. Telephone companies are common carriers, as defined by the communications act, and as such cannot deny access to numbers in another network. Im not aware that the iphone prevented anyone from calling out of network, so you will have to expand on that.

Quote:

They can but, again, they don't. If it was a privately-held Toll Road, they would be 100% legal to do so. However, since these roads are operated by the Gov't with everyone's stolen money, they currently deign to allow everyone onto them, in order to continue making money and avoid the appearance of impropriety and favoritism.

No, they can't.

Quote:

They are able, and should remain so. "Their roof, their rules" as it were. However, I wouldn't recommend such a course of action; bad for business.

actually for most of history they couldnt, and soon wont be able to again.

Quote:

Because it's THEIRS. They paid for it, they keep it running, and they provide the service. They should be able to allow or disallow whatever content they like. However, I and other consumers should be (and largely are, except when dealing with the Gov't) able to "vote with my wallet" by taking my business elsewhere.

The fact that you don't know what a common carrier is and that you continually ignore that they use public property is telling of how little you know of this issue (as is the fact that you don't know the different between internet access and hosting services). A communications system that is entirely internal to a private property, be them roads, telephone, computer network, doesn't have to follow any of these regulations. I think its only fair that they abide by them when they want public access, and if they dont like it, guess what, they can go ahead and buy all the land and property required to run all the cables.

It is hypocritical, to say the least, to use public lands and airwaves and then try to use the "but its my property" argument.

---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

The fact that you must provide this elementary lesson on the concept of private property rights goes to show just how warped our idea of individual liberty has become.

I hope you'll keep hammering away in these forums. Your voice is sorely needed.

The fact that you cannot grasp the simple concept of public property shows how warped your view of the world is. These business only become regulated once they use public land, and if they don't want to use public land they dont have to. Again, it is hypocritical, to say the least, to spout off about private property while demanding access to public land and airwaves.

Willravel · 09-22-2009, 06:24 PM

[this post has been censored by AT&T Broadband due to terms of service violations. TOS Section 16, paragraph 5]

Halx · 09-22-2009, 07:00 PM

Trying to shoehorn old values into a modern concept like the internet is like... oh... taking the old testament literally.

Baraka_Guru · 09-22-2009, 07:27 PM

Is this in any way related to consumer laws that prohibit companies from discriminating against certain groups?

Also, when you consider consumer rights, consumers have the right to choose what they consume. In many areas, it's illegal to block competition and to otherwise attempt practices that work against a free and open market.

Does net neutrality fit in there somewhere?

dippin · 09-22-2009, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Is this in any way related to consumer laws that prohibit companies from discriminating against certain groups?

Also, when you consider consumer rights, consumers have the right to choose what they consume. In many areas, it's illegal to block competition and to otherwise attempt practices that work against a free and open market.

Does net neutrality fit in there somewhere?

No. The laws against consumer discrimination are generally related to equal rights and civil rights legislation.

With regards to blocking competition, Im sure that antitrust laws could come into play in a few cases of the most egregious violations of net neutrality.

But the main way that nations have enforced net neutrality is through the common carrier label. Transportation companies, telecommunications, etc. who make use of public infrastructure and want to offer regular services to the public are considered common carriers, and one of the stipulations of a common carrier is that it cannot discriminate.

Which is why it is so ironic that some people are trying to use the "but it's their private property" argument against net neutrality. The regulations of common carriers basically exist because the public says "its our property, you can use it if you follow our rules."

powerclown · 09-22-2009, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

The network is, as has been suggested, analogous to roads. Net neutrality is about service providers allowing people to use those roads without restricting where they're able to go.

Question: How could the ISPs and hardware companies legally prohibit access to a site such as this one, and is that even whats at stake here because I was under the impression it was more a matter of controlling the amount of bandwidth available to end-users. If it is the latter, and the stated explanation for it is to finance the physical expansion of the infrastructure of the internet for future innovation and new technologies, then whats the problem with that?

dippin · 09-23-2009, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Question: How could the ISPs and hardware companies legally prohibit access to a site such as this one, and is that even whats at stake here because I was under the impression it was more a matter of controlling the amount of bandwidth available to end-users. If it is the latter, and the stated explanation for it is to finance the physical expansion of the infrastructure of the internet for future innovation and new technologies, then whats the problem with that?

Net neutrality is not about the amount of total bandwidth the end user has access to.

It is about treating all packets of information sent and received by users the same way. That is, packets from all applications and all websites have to be treated similarly.

So it is not about the total bandwidth available, but the bandwidth available for different sites and applications. Without net neutrality, an ISP could make a deal with yahoo that it's pages would load much faster than google pages for example. Or it could completely block the transmission of VoIP packets, essentially killing voice communication over the internet. It could make certain sites or email addresses unreachable, if it so chose. In short, without net neutrality, ISPs can speed up or completely block programs and websites as they see fit. Think of what China does to its ISPs.

While it all may sound like some conspiracy theory, in many nations where net neutrality is not enforced ISPs have simply shut down VoIP to prevent competition, for example.

So on one hand you have the majority of content and software providers for net neutrality (google, microsoft, yahoo, ebay) and the majority of ISPs against it (At&t and verizon).

The issue you are talking about, of bandwidth, is another issue that some people want to tackle, but as the FCC chief said,

Quote:

Throughout, Genachowski stressed his own background in business and his concern for innovation. He decried "detailed rules" that would be immediately outdated and made clear that ISPs could still throttle heavy users at peak times and take reasonable measures to manage their networks.

I.e., limiting the amount of bandwidth little Johnny has as he tries to download 10 porn movies at the same time would still be ok, but not blocking VoIP, access to certain sites, etc.

ratbastid · 09-23-2009, 04:01 AM

One of the most subtle but most destructive things ISPs could do without strong network neutrality regulation would be "tiered" internet services.

You know how your cable company sells blocks of channels in "tiers"? Well ISPs could do exactly the same thing. You could get "basic internet" with low price and access only to say Yahoo and certain other websites. Then you could get the "Google bundle"--pay a little more and you can suddenly see Google and its constellation of services. The "Social bundle" gets you Facebook and Twitter, etc. The "Video bundle" would get you access to youtube and vimeo, etc. The "Adult bundle" would be expensive indeed. No bundle would get you 4chan, of course; they'd just go dark, from your perspective on the internet.

This was actually a PROPOSAL from an internal sales team at Time Warner Cable. They've been considering this. Locking consumers into a limited and expensive selection of choices has been vastly profitable for their cable TV division, so it's a natural for their ISP business as well. And naturally the sites they allowed into the lower tiers were ones they had business relationships with--all the sites they own, and sites belonging to cable channels and other media properties they own, etc.

Net Neutrality ensures that the bandwidth provider is agnostic about what's going through their network. They'll still have legal obligations to report any fraud, identity theft, kiddie porn, or other illegal activity they notice on their network, so set THAT strawman down. Just that they can't manipulate access, availability, or throughput on their network based on the source or type of traffic. I don't mean type of content, I mean type of TRAFFIC--video, text, image, audio, etc.

This is a good thing for consumers. Unmitigatedly good. So those of you bitching about the no good money-grubbing pothole-filling gummint interfering with private enterprise... You WANT this kind of interference, you really do. Whatever political nonsense you've got going on about the role of government, either let yourself stay blinded by that, or set it aside and look at what the thing is you're being saved from.

Halx · 09-23-2009, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

Trying to shoehorn old values into a modern concept like the internet is like... oh... taking the old testament literally.

I'm gonna quote myself real quick and expand on what I said earlier.

I repeat that you are biting the hand that feeds you if you are in any way against Net Neutrality. You have to understand what the internet WAS, what it IS and what it CAN BE. If you think for a moment that the companies whose lines support the traffic of the internet should be able to RULE OVER the flow of data within their domain, then you probably have no concept of what promotes progress. Sorry. These companies are already compensated for the USE of their lines and this compensation should negate any favoritism they might want to enforce on the traffic. Simply put; it would be having their cake and eating it too. And where would that leave you, lone consumer? Fucked. Where would that leave me as a content provider? Fucked.

The internet, in order to reach its full potential, needs freedom to grow. The internet is more important than any concept that you might think of to justify the actions of anti-net neutrality. The internet is the future backbone of our society and I'll be damned if we hand it over to greedy companies before it has a chance to mature.

dc_dux · 09-23-2009, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

I'm gonna quote myself real quick and expand on what I said earlier.

I repeat that you are biting the hand that feeds you if you are in any way against Net Neutrality. You have to understand what the internet WAS, what it IS and what it CAN BE. If you think for a moment that the companies whose lines support the traffic of the internet should be able to RULE OVER the flow of data within their domain, then you probably have no concept of what promotes progress. Sorry. These companies are already compensated for the USE of their lines and this compensation should negate any favoritism they might want to enforce on the traffic. Simply put; it would be having their cake and eating it too. And where would that leave you, lone consumer? Fucked. Where would that leave me as a content provider? Fucked.

The internet, in order to reach its full potential, needs freedom to grow. The internet is more important than any concept that you might think of to justify the actions of anti-net neutrality. The internet is the future backbone of our society and I'll be damned if we hand it over to greedy companies before it has a chance to mature.

I love when techie guys become policy wonks!

Martian · 09-23-2009, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Question: How could the ISPs and hardware companies legally prohibit access to a site such as this one, and is that even whats at stake here because I was under the impression it was more a matter of controlling the amount of bandwidth available to end-users. If it is the latter, and the stated explanation for it is to finance the physical expansion of the infrastructure of the internet for future innovation and new technologies, then whats the problem with that?

This question has already been addressed, but I'd like to expand a bit and go more in-depth.

Net neutrality demands that all transit networks be both content agnostic and protocol agnostic.

Content agnostic means that the providers will not tamper with traffic in any way, regardless of where it's coming from or what information it contains.

The example of making a site disappear, while technically possible, is a bit extreme. Imagine, though, that Roadrunner signed a deal with Yahoo. I don't know about in the US but there's a strong precedent for those kinds of deals in Canada. And imagine that as part of the deal, Roadrunner delayed all traffic going to Google and Bing.

It restricts consumer choice, it's easily possible from a technical standpoint and as far as I'm aware under the current framework it would be perfectly legal for them to do so.

Protocol agnostic is another can of worms, and might be why you're getting confused. Protocol agnostic means that the consumer has the choice of how to use their connection, and the ISP doesn't get to pick and choose what programs the consumer can and cannot use.

Sound out there? It's happening here in Canada right now. The major ISPs have all installed deep packet inspection equipment in their network, and are applying heavy throttling to any and all traffic sent and received via bittorrent or other filesharing media. The downside is that this filter will actually throttle all encrypted connections that aren't using specific whitelisted ports, so it can and has interfered with VoIP services, VPN's and all manner of other connections.

Between 4 pm and 2 am my 5mbps connection is slowed down to 512kbps for the purposes of any of these programs. Furthermore, due to the nature of TCP/IP (and specifically the redundancy built into this protocol) this throttling could actually cause me to send up to four times the number of packets I would otherwise. Since monthly usage quotas are also common practice in Canada, this can potentially have very real financial consequences for me.

Consumers in Canada are attempting to fight against this now, but it's an uphill battle.

Net neutrality is good, and acting to preserve before these corporations start tampering with your data is a very good idea.

There is no reason for the average individual to oppose net neutrality.

Halx · 09-23-2009, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I love when techie guys become policy wonks!

Thanks for your sarcasm.

dc_dux · 09-23-2009, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

Thanks for your sarcasm.

No sarcasm. It was a compliment!

powerclown · 09-23-2009, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

It restricts consumer choice, it's easily possible from a technical standpoint and as far as I'm aware under the current framework it would be perfectly legal for them to do so.

Right, its their call. It may restrict consumer choice but as a private company in business to make a profit, aren't they free to choose what is best for their Bottom Line? If it's *their* hardware aren't they free to do with it as they choose?

So 2 things to consider: 1) the financial interests of the Carriers who own the actual, physical network hardware and allow content to be run on their hardware (it is after all *their* hardware, which they invested decades and billions of their own private capital in R&D and infrastructure creation) and, 2) the rights of the applications that run on that hardware, such as Amazon, Yahoo, Google, TFP, FaceBook, Boeing, AAA, etc. Should Amazon and the like dictate the rules, or should Comcast and the like? Are the Detroit Lions more important than Ford Field? It seems like there is the potential for a nasty conflict of interest here. I agree with those here that the Content is the thing, but from a purely legal and financial viewpoint its going to be hard to tell Comcast how to run its own networks.

Charlatan · 09-23-2009, 09:41 PM

For me, it comes down to the question of what is the Internet to us? Is it an essential service like water and electricity or is it more like Cable television?

Answer this question and the answer is clear.

In addition to this, I do not hold that a free market is rational. It does require regulation. Nothing so far has lead me to believe otherwise.

Martian · 09-23-2009, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Right, its their call. It may restrict consumer choice but as a private company in business to make a profit, aren't they free to choose what is best for their Bottom Line? If it's *their* hardware aren't they free to do with it as they choose?

So 2 things to consider: 1) the financial interests of the Carriers who own the actual, physical network hardware and allow content to be run on their hardware (it is after all *their* hardware, which they invested decades and billions of their own private capital in R&D and infrastructure creation) and, 2) the rights of the applications that run on that hardware, such as Amazon, Yahoo, Google, TFP, FaceBook, Boeing, AAA, etc. Should Amazon and the like dictate the rules, or should Comcast and the like? Are the Detroit Lions more important than Ford Field? It seems like there is the potential for a nasty conflict of interest here. I agree with those here that the Content is the thing, but from a purely legal and financial viewpoint its going to be hard to tell Comcast how to run its own networks.

Except that you're forgetting the third party in this. Those networks were built out on the sufferance of the people, with authorization granted by the government elected by the people to use public land (ie, land owned by the people).

Those same people have every right to tell the companies involved 'if you use our land, you play by our rules.' There's no difficulty involved here; if the internet providers want to have common carrier status and all the privileges that go along with it, they have to uphold the responsibilities. Up until now they've been given free reign -- but while I wouldn't go so far as to say the internet is a completely essential service now, it's fast going that way. Taking action to protect the access of the common citizen to a free and open internet is not only sensible, I'd say it's pretty much mandatory.

An ounce of prevention, and all of that.

There are a lot of different factors that go into this discussion. Trying to break it down into a simple free market scenario is vastly oversimplifying.

Plan9 · 09-23-2009, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

For me, it comes down to the question of what is the Internet to us? Is it an essential service like water and electricity or is it more like Cable television?

Yeah, it isn't about what it is now... it is what it'll be in 10 years, 25 years, 100 years. Hell, I can't even register for classes in person. It's all online.

Everything is going digital. It's like the argument in U.S. v. Miller (1976): You cannot function as a normal member of society without a bank account.

Today the Gotta Have Internet is in the same boat.

dippin · 09-23-2009, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Right, its their call. It may restrict consumer choice but as a private company in business to make a profit, aren't they free to choose what is best for their Bottom Line? If it's *their* hardware aren't they free to do with it as they choose?

So 2 things to consider: 1) the financial interests of the Carriers who own the actual, physical network hardware and allow content to be run on their hardware (it is after all *their* hardware, which they invested decades and billions of their own private capital in R&D and infrastructure creation) and, 2) the rights of the applications that run on that hardware, such as Amazon, Yahoo, Google, TFP, FaceBook, Boeing, AAA, etc. Should Amazon and the like dictate the rules, or should Comcast and the like? Are the Detroit Lions more important than Ford Field? It seems like there is the potential for a nasty conflict of interest here. I agree with those here that the Content is the thing, but from a purely legal and financial viewpoint its going to be hard to tell Comcast how to run its own networks.

As mentioned by Martian and others, the private property argument only carries any weight if they didn't use any public land. Why should the owners of the hardware be given absolute power over what goes through that hardware, but the owners of the land that hardware is in, which is the public, be given no say in what goes on in that.

Property rights also apply to public property.

Baraka_Guru · 09-24-2009, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I agree with those here that the Content is the thing, but from a purely legal and financial viewpoint its going to be hard to tell Comcast how to run its own networks.

Why? It's not like this is something entirely new. If you want to see areas where companies are restricted in how they run their shows, you only have to look as far as the following industries: utilities, oil and gas, telecommunications, food, and drugs.

Do you know why they have restrictions?

ratbastid · 09-24-2009, 04:45 AM

The bottom line for me on this issue: If you're against Net Neutrality then you must really like getting ass raped. The government is trying to protect your virgin asshole on this one, and because it's the government doing it, you're saying, "How dare you intrude in the right of that company to bend me over and shove its massive throbbing corporate cock into my unlubricated rectum!"

Crude, yes, but it is THE analogy for what's happening in this conversation.

Paq · 09-24-2009, 09:57 PM

Here is how this works for me...the phone company is the only game in town for hte most part. There are options now, thankfully, but for a while, that was IT...now..the family who owned the phone company also owned the cable company and denied even MTV from being seen in this city..M..T..V. until 2004 i think... Net neutrality would allow this company to simply refuse to let any traffic through from any site it deemed inappropriate..I'm surprised they haven't already and i'm not sure if they didn't try and th backlash was so stiff that they just gave up....

so to put neutrality into law..i can't see a downside here, even if you hate the gov't. The net relies on its ability to level the playing field so the little guy has just as much access as th big guy. it's pretty simple.

09-22-2009, 10:43 AM	#2 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	To be fair, at the grassroots level both liberals and conservatives are pro Net Neutrality. Really, the only people who are against it are the internet service providers and the politicians they've bought off. And it looks like Net Neutrality is going to win out. So I'm actually not all that worried. And to respond to your quote from the article, Net Neutrality has been long-standing practice. So new regulations ensuring simply that things don't change aren't really new regulations so much as an official recognition of the situation as it stands. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

09-22-2009, 10:59 AM	#3 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	What you are saying sounds find and dandy I suppose, but I've learned over the years that the title of bills and the short blurbs about them in articles don't always mean exactly what we think they do (think "Patriot Act" and other such legislation). I'd like to see the actual text of this legislation before I form anymore of an opinion. IMO the government really has a way of screwing things up, and I don't want them to screw up the internet. As much as garbage is on it, I feel it's still the only place to get real information as radio/tv news is compromised. __________________ It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

09-22-2009, 11:03 AM	#4 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	There is no bill being considered. The FCC is proposing regulation to mandate Net Neutrality. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

09-22-2009, 02:25 PM	#13 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Never heard of Blackwater, eh? __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

09-22-2009, 05:28 PM	#16 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	Your problem, The_Dunedan, is that you're confusing or conflating servers with networks, when they are two very distinct things. Content providers and service providers are not necessarily the same people. They can be, but in the vast majority of cases are not. Halx is a content provider. It's all well and good to say what he could or could not (or should or should not) do if he were an ISP, except TFP isn't an ISP. It never was, and never will be. Halx is a content provider, and has every right to decide what sort of content he wants to provide. The company that Halx (or more probably his hosting company) buys their bandwidth from is a service provider, and without regulations in place to uphold net neutrality they could do things like cause TFP to cease to exist, or impose a subscription model for traffic going there, thus forcing you to pay to access it. These are Bad things, they do not promote liberty, and it's within everyone's best interest to ensure they don't happen. The network is, as has been suggested, analogous to roads. Net neutrality is about service providers allowing people to use those roads without restricting where they're able to go. And before you gripe on about free access or anything like that, it's important to note that free in this case refers to free as in speech (libre) and not free as in beer (gratuit). Through the system of transit and peering, ISP's are already compensated for allowing traffic across their network, either in the form of actual payment or in an exchange of services. These deals do occasionally break down and can cause large segments of the internet to simply break. Many of the advances that we take for granted over the last 15 years or so have taken advantage of or even relied entirely upon the free and open exchange of information. It behooves us to make sure that this trend continues, and that's precisely what net neutrality is all about. EDIT - I don't know where you get this notion from that users can 'vote with their wallet,' but it's simply not true. The problem here is that in a lot of cases traffic only passes through a handful of providers. If all of those providers are restricting their transit in various ways, you end up with an oligopoly and a segmented internet. I should hope you could see why this is a Bad Thing. Yes, the transit providers bought their own routers and switches, and in many cases paid to run their own cables. Those cables are frequently run through or over public property, and those companies are given right of way. They were and are able to exist and function on the sufferance of the people, often making direct and extensive use of land owned collectively by them. In exchange for this, the government can and should request that they continue to act in good faith and not adopt policies that go against the best interest of those people. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame Last edited by Martian; 09-22-2009 at 05:36 PM..

09-22-2009, 01:25 PM	#6 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I can help with that. It's not really exactly new REGULATION per se, but two new guiding principles the FCC will use in its regulation actions. It's the first step in a very long process for FCC policy adoptions. The existing four principles which have been around since 2005 are: * To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice. * To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement. * To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network. * To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers. The two new principles they're proposing are, to quote FCC chair Genachowski: “The first would prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management,” ...and... “The second principle would ensure that Internet access providers are transparent about the network management practices they implement. The Chairman also proposed clarifying that all six principles apply to all platforms that access the Internet.”

09-22-2009, 02:21 PM	#11 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	what on earth?

09-22-2009, 05:46 PM	#17 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	As a veteran of the internet for more than half of my life, a hobbyist and a professional in the field, I hereby certify Martian's post as 100% good and worthy of your attention. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

09-22-2009, 06:24 PM	#20 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	[this post has been censored by AT&T Broadband due to terms of service violations. TOS Section 16, paragraph 5]

09-22-2009, 07:00 PM	#21 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Trying to shoehorn old values into a modern concept like the internet is like... oh... taking the old testament literally. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

09-22-2009, 07:27 PM	#22 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Is this in any way related to consumer laws that prohibit companies from discriminating against certain groups? Also, when you consider consumer rights, consumers have the right to choose what they consume. In many areas, it's illegal to block competition and to otherwise attempt practices that work against a free and open market. Does net neutrality fit in there somewhere? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

09-23-2009, 04:01 AM	#26 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	One of the most subtle but most destructive things ISPs could do without strong network neutrality regulation would be "tiered" internet services. You know how your cable company sells blocks of channels in "tiers"? Well ISPs could do exactly the same thing. You could get "basic internet" with low price and access only to say Yahoo and certain other websites. Then you could get the "Google bundle"--pay a little more and you can suddenly see Google and its constellation of services. The "Social bundle" gets you Facebook and Twitter, etc. The "Video bundle" would get you access to youtube and vimeo, etc. The "Adult bundle" would be expensive indeed. No bundle would get you 4chan, of course; they'd just go dark, from your perspective on the internet. This was actually a PROPOSAL from an internal sales team at Time Warner Cable. They've been considering this. Locking consumers into a limited and expensive selection of choices has been vastly profitable for their cable TV division, so it's a natural for their ISP business as well. And naturally the sites they allowed into the lower tiers were ones they had business relationships with--all the sites they own, and sites belonging to cable channels and other media properties they own, etc. Net Neutrality ensures that the bandwidth provider is agnostic about what's going through their network. They'll still have legal obligations to report any fraud, identity theft, kiddie porn, or other illegal activity they notice on their network, so set THAT strawman down. Just that they can't manipulate access, availability, or throughput on their network based on the source or type of traffic. I don't mean type of content, I mean type of TRAFFIC--video, text, image, audio, etc. This is a good thing for consumers. Unmitigatedly good. So those of you bitching about the no good money-grubbing pothole-filling gummint interfering with private enterprise... You WANT this kind of interference, you really do. Whatever political nonsense you've got going on about the role of government, either let yourself stay blinded by that, or set it aside and look at what the thing is you're being saved from. Last edited by ratbastid; 09-23-2009 at 04:04 AM..

09-23-2009, 09:41 PM	#33 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	For me, it comes down to the question of what is the Internet to us? Is it an essential service like water and electricity or is it more like Cable television? Answer this question and the answer is clear. In addition to this, I do not hold that a free market is rational. It does require regulation. Nothing so far has lead me to believe otherwise. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-24-2009, 04:45 AM	#38 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	The bottom line for me on this issue: If you're against Net Neutrality then you must really like getting ass raped. The government is trying to protect your virgin asshole on this one, and because it's the government doing it, you're saying, "How dare you intrude in the right of that company to bend me over and shove its massive throbbing corporate cock into my unlubricated rectum!" Crude, yes, but it is THE analogy for what's happening in this conversation.

09-24-2009, 09:57 PM	#39 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	Here is how this works for me...the phone company is the only game in town for hte most part. There are options now, thankfully, but for a while, that was IT...now..the family who owned the phone company also owned the cable company and denied even MTV from being seen in this city..M..T..V. until 2004 i think... Net neutrality would allow this company to simply refuse to let any traffic through from any site it deemed inappropriate..I'm surprised they haven't already and i'm not sure if they didn't try and th backlash was so stiff that they just gave up.... so to put neutrality into law..i can't see a downside here, even if you hate the gov't. The net relies on its ability to level the playing field so the little guy has just as much access as th big guy. it's pretty simple. __________________ Live. Chris