Net neutrality legislation

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Long on fearmongering, short on facts.

Possibly, but by whom?

I admit that I don't have enough understanding of current internet regulation or technical specifics, let alone the contents of the proposed legislation, to form a complete opinion but my instinct is to call it into question.

Forgive me my doubts, but I think there is just cause for them. How many pieces of legislation that were supposed to provide equality have been proven only to be avenues for legislative and corporate favoritism, abuse, and waste?

Many consumers have benefited from de-regulation of industry, rather than regulation of it. I present the telecom industry as a somewhat comparable example. It has its' share of subsidies and penalties nowadays, to be sure, but it remains one of the most competitive and innovative industries in the US. The abolition of the (US) state-sponsored telecom monopoly resulted in a telecom explosion that has lasted nearly 3 decades, and shows no signs of slowing. Stocks and profit margins have risen and fallen during those years, but the end result is that we have better service at lower prices(inflation adjusted) than we did before. Of course, modern telecommunications is a relatively new industry, but it has already shown signs of wear and tear under state intervention. Business moves to where the climate is most favorable, and the US state has inadvertently been working hard to create an unfavorable climate, and the result has been the amalgamation of business on an almost unprecedented scale.

To me, the path that the US telecom industry is following is a fast-forward model of what used to be our core industries. Heavy industry has long since gone the way of the dinosaur (or at least, as much as supply and demand will allow). Mass internet is an even more recent industry, and it is moving at an even faster pace towards slowed, and eventually negative, growth in the US. Some of you may remember the FBI's proposed "Carnivore" program from about a decade ago, which was abandoned due to cost-inefficiency and public controversy. It took less than a decade for such radical legislation to be proposed in the internet industry, whereas the first major US telecom regulation was proposed in 1996, slightly less than three decades after "Ma Bell" began its' deconstruction (late 1956) due to consumer cries for deregulation. The exponential growth of the state in the meantime seems to correlate this theory of " the more the state grows, the faster business fails.

Of course, it is not a direct correlation, there are far too many variables involved. Population growth, currency supply as opposed to market growth, multiple changes in administration at all levels, new technologies, etc, make it difficult to discern a predictable pattern in any state-economic relationship other than at the extremes, but the general rule is that less state intervention is better than more in terms of wealth per capita, short of anarcho-capitalism or anarchy.

The very nature of the Federal government, in most capacities, is to create inequality and stifle competition. It can't do much else, because it is largely a fiat monopoly. Waste, inefficiency,and favoritism are its' hallmarks. Am I supposed to believe that it has suddenly found a way of creating a "level playing field", despite the repeated and costly failures of its attempts to do just that?

Perhaps you agree to some extent, and perhaps you do not, but I invite you to consider this that you know to be true; Regulation is not so much "limiting" to business as it is "enabling" the powerful businesses, with the best legal representation, to manipulate whatever system is in place. In general, I feel that regulations like this "net neutrality" are only going to accelerate the desires of service providers to amalgamate or move elsewhere, and consumers will follow as long as their decisions lower prices.

To those that will, I invite you to accuse me of donning a tinfoil hat, but I consider my views to be colored with a healthy amount of skepticism and nothing more. You'll have to forgive me for considering the idea that a piece of legislation, drafted by a body that is largely comprised of lawyers, who are generally regarded as being self-serving scum given legal authority, and who are also politicians, which are equally reviled, is going to be a mechanism for enabling monopoly and the stifling of competition rather than a legal liberator.

Again, I profess my ignorance on the subject at hand, but given past trends I am leaning towards the opinion that less state interference is better than more. I may be wrong, but I have yet to encounter an example where more legislation generated more competition, and better results for the consumer, save where the state has legislated the breakup of state monopoly.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Possibly, but by whom?

The senator in question seems to be speaking as a mouthpiece for the telecom companies. She provides no detail in her statements of what part of any proposed net neutrality bill would cause the things she's saying will happen. For all the evidence she's given, she might as well say that tigers will come and eat us all if net neutrality is passed.

Forgive me my doubts, but I think there is just cause for them. How many pieces of legislation that were supposed to provide equality have been proven only to be avenues for legislative and corporate favoritism, abuse, and waste?

Plenty, but I'm really not seeing the downside to making sure ISPs maintain the same level of service we have today.

Many consumers have benefited from de-regulation of industry, rather than regulation of it.

And many have been absolutely screwed by deregulation. I speak of myself: http://www.businesspundit.com/texas-...-deregulation/
When the Texas electric companies were deregulated, it led to us going from paying some of the lowest rates in the country to paying the most in the country. A fact I'm painfully aware of during our hot summers.

[Letum]

Bad for Subsim users if it isn't passed.
If the ISPs are taking money from big websites to give their traffic
priority over the likes of subsum; that means a slower connection for the
subsim users.

[CaptainHaplo]

OK I have done some research on this.

Its good and bad. Both sides have valid concerns and points.

As it is currently proposed, I cannot support it. Provide a way for companies to pay for larger pipes, while assuring a minimum level of service to all customers - would allow for the freedom we see today to continue.

Like it or not, every person or company does NOT have the same internet needs. You can't limit a major company to a limited pipe just because them having a bigger one isn't "fair". Especially if they are willing to purchase it. A small, 100-200 person business may need a fragmented T1, where grandma will be fine with a standard ADSL line.

Huge companies may need an OC-3 of better. Data warehouses are great, but what if you can't GET too them?

As for it being good for subsim - no it wouldnt be. The firm that hosts the servers for Subsim would be entitled to the "standard" connection - thats all they get. So all us subsimmers would be fighting with every other person who wants to connect to some other site that is hosted alongside Subsim. That would be HORRIBLE.

Change the legislation to where traffic shaping can and must be used to provide on deman minimum levels of service to any paying customer, as well as allowing that same bandwidth to be used by others when its not required to meet service levels, and then allow higher level service packages to be sold if the pipe can meet its base service levels and have room. Then we will talk.

Edit - the reason I am against this - is because its designed to fix a "future problem" that hasn't happened yet, and might not, when the "fix" WILL cause problems. Thats not smart government.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

You can't limit a major company to a limited pipe just because them having a bigger one isn't "fair".

Where are you getting this from? This isn't what net neutrality is about at all.

Let's cut through the BS, spin and fearmongering from the telecoms and see what the FCC net neutrality changes really are:

1. Here are the current four rules announced by the FCC in 2005:

• Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
• Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
• Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
• Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

2. Here are the two new "principals" they announced yesterday:

• Nondiscrimination This sort of overlaps with the existing rules, in that it forbids providers from "favoring or disfavoring lawful content, applications, or services accessed by their subscribers, subject to reasonable network management."
• Transparency
  Providers must disclose to customers their network management policies before the customer signs up for service. Providers must also disclose their network management policies to content, application, and service providers, as well as to the FCC.

The FCC adds, "All of the principles would be subject to reasonable network management and the needs of law enforcement, public safety, and homeland and national security."

http://consumerist.com/5388469/heres...ity-rules-mean

[Letum]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

OK I have done some research on this.[...]
A small, 100-200 person business may need a fragmented T1, where grandma will be fine with a standard ADSL line.

What are you going on about?
This has nothing to do with connection speeds!
It's about traffic prioritisation.

[CaptainHaplo]

Mookie - see this link:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/faq

From your own freepress folks.

"Net Neutrality simply means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination."

Perhaps me using the term "bigger" wasn't the best wording.

Let me warn you, I have worked off and on with and on data networks in some form or fashion for nearly 20 years now, from multiplexed networks on aircraft to standard Lan/Wan civilian stuff. Everything from design, implimentation and administration. So I know a little bit about the subject.

Now - your not going to allow a higher QoS for some traffic? So VoIP packets are going to get the same urgency with, let say a Sprint T3 that FTP stuff is getting? This KILLS VoIP! Its realtime traffic. If you don't allow that traffic to have priority, your negating the entire technology!

Your going to make sure that the leech sucking down the latest game with BT has the same speed for his theft that a business employing hundreds has to make its phone calls and keep people employed.... And you think this is a good idea?????? WHY?????

Grandma want's to look up how to make a new pie for her grandson. A saleperson needs to make a call to a major client and lock in the sale, and their commision that will make the house payment next month. Not to mention helping to keep the company open.

Whose traffic is more critical? So Grandma's page loads in 2.83 seconds vs 2.37 seconds just because the VoIP packets got priority. How bloody horrible! Man, if she is so worried about that half second of her life, then she should be worried about other things than baking a pie to start with!

Right now, time critical packets get priority - and guess what. The net works! This is legislation that STOPS providers the ability to offer services that leverage technology. Yet savetheinternet.com claims this is going to help promote innovation and keep the internet working.

BULL!

First off - this kills a major technology used today by the majority of businesses. Thats BAD.

Second - this is not your network. Its not MY network. The data might be "public", but the way you get it - isn't. You don't own the wires the data travels on. So you have no right telling the people that own it, how to do things with it. Its like me putting a pool in my yard, telling people they can use it, and then government coming in and telling me how many towels I have to provide to each person. Its going to make me tell people they can't use my pool.

Warning - Opinion piece now

Which is the purpose. To force ISP's to no longer be able to provide revenue making services that keep them in business, thus seriously ERODING the access to free information exchange. After all, if your a liberal that can't stand fox news for example, then what better way to end their threat by ostracizing them from sources of news (like the white house - where I expect fox news will have their press credentials revoked soon enough), and then removing ways people access them, like the internet? I look at the big picture, and this is more of a way to limit information than it is ensuring its freely available. Hey, if people can't have the internet, and See BS happens to have white house access while fox doesnt, who are people going to watch to see what is going on in the white house? Same for congress, etc.

Now - you hurt business by taking away a money saving technology, you cost them, and thus the consumers more money. You limit citizen's access to independant information. Your doing nothing more than stressing an already hurting economy. Then add in "cap and trade", "environmental reparations", health care "reform", etc, - all additional burdens on the economy. When it falls all apart, no one has a job or can pay the bills, the wonderful government with all its plans of feeding you from it nipple steps in and grabs even more control because it has forced you to rely on it for your own survival.

Sure, you have no job, no hope of being able to work your way out of the dumps, but thats ok, just look to the government to provide you with everything you have to have to survive, from cradle to grave. Course, survive will be all you do, and not prosper. And your grave may come soon after your cradle, but at least you get to be taken care off....

One thing by itself doesn't make it happen, but there are more than enough attempts at bringing our system down right now going on to tell me that I have to look at everything in the context of the big picture. The big picture is that someone - a group actually - is actively seeking to destroy the entire free market system and reduce this citizenry to being forced to be reliant on its government. I don't lay that on the feet of "liberals", as most of the don't see how a select few have gained control and are moving in this direction.

Opinion Rant ended.

Lastly, by removing the ability to offer QoS levels, you impede the ability to fund research that will continue to grow the pipes. This is in bandwidth capability, as well as where they reach.

Want advanced fiber networks? Guess who front's the cash to research the technology, and then build thems? Its not you the consumer. The companies doing it need to be able to make money to develop these things. They don't just magically appear. Stifle revenue is equal to stifling innovation.

This is literally a "solution" in search of a problem. Where is the need to do this? The proponents say "well this could happen" - and in a couple of ISOLATED cases it has. But isolated cases don't make an arguement for a GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY to start CONTROLLING private business.

There is a word for that...... care to tell the class what it is when government takes control of things?

"A huge mess", while technically correct, is not the answer we are looking for.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Now - your not going to allow a higher QoS for some traffic? So VoIP packets are going to get the same urgency with, let say a Sprint T3 that FTP stuff is getting? This KILLS VoIP! Its realtime traffic. If you don't allow that traffic to have priority, your negating the entire technology!

VoIP is a different class:

"Managed" or "specialized" services, such as VOIP or subscription video services, may fall into a special category since they "may differ from broadband Internet access services in ways that recommend a different policy approach, and it may be inappropriate to apply the rules proposed here." The FCC is looking for input on how to approach this special class of services.

Your going to make sure that the leech sucking down the latest game with BT has the same speed for his theft that a business employing hundreds has to make its phone calls and keep people employed.... And you think this is a good idea?????? WHY?????

How do they know what this "leech" is downloading? Maybe he's downloading a LINUX distro, or a library of academic papers. Because some bad people do some bad things is no reason to cap everyone. If they can prove that they're limiting illegal downloads, they are free to do so under these rules. Nothing is stopping them.

First off - this kills a major technology used today by the majority of businesses. Thats BAD.

No it's not. The technology in question is limiting people with legitimate usage.

After all, if your a liberal that can't stand fox news for example, then what better way to end their threat by ostracizing them from sources of news (like the white house - where I expect fox news will have their press credentials revoked soon enough), and then removing ways people access them, like the internet?

This is EXACTLY what net neutrality is trying to PREVENT.

Now - you hurt business by taking away a money saving technology, you cost them, and thus the consumers more money.

The telecoms are not magically going to drop prices if they can discriminate which traffic they allow through their network. Prices will go up regardless.

You limit citizen's access to independant information.

Sooo, by ensuring that ISPs allow equal access to all websites and legal devices, you're limiting access to independant information? WTF?

Then add in "cap and trade", "environmental reparations", health care "reform", etc, - all additional burdens on the economy.

Red Herring fallacy

[Letum]

Now - your not going to allow a higher QoS for some traffic? So VoIP packets are going to get the same urgency with, let say a Sprint T3 that FTP stuff is getting? This KILLS VoIP! Its realtime traffic. If you don't allow that traffic to have priority, your negating the entire technology!

Ironic that you mention net neutrality killing VOIP.
The reverse is true to a far greater extent.

Because many ISP's also offer telephone services, VOIP is a increasing
source of competition. Poor NetN. laws in some parts of the world have
meant that many ISP's throttle or totally block VOIP traffic so that it
does not compete with the telephonic part of their business.

[August]

Your going to make sure that the leech sucking down the latest game with BT has the same speed for his theft that a business employing hundreds has to make its phone calls and keep people employed.... And you think this is a good idea?????? WHY?????

Well for one reason is both are paying the same amount for the same service. Your money is no more valuable than mine.

And what about the practice of deliberately slowing down (maybe close to a dead stop?) traffic speeds to sites that don't pay extra? Who could afford to pay what is likely to be exorbitant fees? The independent blogger or the main stream media news network? It all just sounds like a recipe to cut out the little guy so there's no contradiction to the corporate approved message.

[CaptainHaplo]

Folks,

Let me deal with this one at a time.

First Mookie - I specified part of what I typed is opinion - and if you quote only PART of an opinion, instead it in context, your twisting it. When you take my arguement that this is designed to make ISP's fail, then yes - it would limit access to free information. Kindly quote me in context since I made it clear it was my opinion.

Now - regarding VoIP.

""Managed" or "specialized" services, such as VOIP or subscription video services, may fall into a special category since they "may differ from broadband Internet access services in ways that recommend a different policy approach, and it may be inappropriate to apply the rules proposed here." The FCC is looking for input on how to approach this special class of services. "

Key word here is MAY!!!! There is NOT a problem with the Net as it is. Yet you want me to support somethning that will "fix" a problem that only "MAY" occur but hasn't yet and might not at all, with a "fix" that "MAY" (or by definition - MAY NOT) exclude vital economic technologies. On one hand, your saying "FEAR AND WORRY WHAT MAY HAPPEN - LET US DO THIS" - and on the other, your saying "Well our fix MIGHT not screw up some important things, we really haven't decided, but you shouldn't fear or worry about what MAY happen, trust us, we are the government."

There is a bit of contradiction there. No one has YET to give me one reason this is necessary. Its all "what if" and "if this happens". Its fearmongering. If the net was being controlled like this, then there would be a need to discuss some form of it. But your talking sweeping changes of what is CURRENTLY WORKING because traffic prioritization is going on today and no one is getting cut out! Your talking about accepting changes to a HUGE, interconnected system when those changes haven't even been clearly defined yet. Your saying "support rule changes" when all you have is some feel good, nebulous description of what the "intent" of the rules are supposed to be, because the FCC hasn't figured out what the rules will be yet.

Define the rules clearly - not with "may be" but "IS". Don't overreach, define a minimum QoS that must be met regardless of the customer, and then allow the free market to define the rest!

You want to make sure no one is "cut out"? Ok - a minimum QoS level does that. Why remove the rights of companies to offer above minimum at a premium? As long as the minimum is sufficient for reasonable access, whats the problem?

Or are you saying that Google shouldn't be allowed huge server farms because that gives them an advantage over say, ask.com? Their farms give them a response ability ask.com can't match. A minimum QoS level insures that someone that wants to get to ask can, regardless of how much GOOGLE pays for "premium" service and server farms.

I don't disagree with the ideals of real net neutrality. But this isn't it. The net is a major source of innovation. Having the government with its hand in it even more isn't going to make it more innovative.

Progress is present when government pursues its proper role, ensures a basic level field, and then gets out of the way while market forces level and relevel the field through innovation. A minimal Qos would do exactly that. This current proposal is a whole lot more than that!

************************************************** *****

Letum,

There is a direct relationship to the "size of the pipe" and your connection speed. You can only push so much data, water or whatever else through a pipe a certain size. Connection speed is determined by the smallest part of the pipe. If you have a water line that can push 3k gallons a minute, but a center section that can only push 2k, 2k is the fastest your going to get water out of the line. Same with network "pipes".

With networks though, lets say your data is water, and mine is oil. If my data is already "in the pipe" and taking up half the room, you are not going to get 2k gallons of water every minute. You will get half of it, and I will get half. The problem is, think of that same pipe, but with 5000 people using it for their own, distinct liquids. Now your only getting a little of what you could. The problem here is, as you add people, the amount of substance you can send in that pipe decreases.

The lines are not infinite in what they can carry people. There is a limit and its called bandwidth. The problem with this is that, according to the current rules, a company can PAY to get 2 or 3 (or 200/300) shares of that pipe. With these proposals, they would remain limited to one, regardless of their business need, because service providers will not be ALLOWED to offer higher levels of service.

In a capitalist, free market economy, if you are need something and can afford it, you purchase it. That won't be allowed with this. If your ok with getting rid of capitalism, thats your choice. I am not.

Want that pipe to grow "fatter" with new technologies that can push more data faster? Then the last thing you want to do is yank the revenue out from under service providers.

Now, if you set a MINIMAL QoS for EVERY customer, business or private, then you can rest assured no one will get cut out, but you can allow a service provider to decide how much of HIS pipe he wants to dedicate to each segment.

Take that same pipe, 100k GPM capacity. The ISP says ok, I have 40 major businesses, and 2000 private customers. I have a minimum service I must offer to everyone. To meet that, 20% of the pipe must be set aside for the private customers. Ok great. I have 80% pipe left. I can offer to double the minimum level to my private customers for a few bucks extra a month as an option, and if they all take it, I still have 60% of the pipe. I will offer various packages of service to the businesses, they can choose how much of the remaining pipe they want to get. The overhead I have left when that is done, I can sell to other providers, or use when my customer base grows, or maybe additional packages to private subscribers. Now lets say the businesses pay for 50% of the capacity. With the "net neutrality" proposal, that means that 1 customer (in this case equaling .001% of the total pipe) doing a download should have his packets going through the pipe at the same LEVEL of priority as someone paying for 50% of the pipe. How exactly does that make sense? How is it "equitable" or "fair"? Someone else is paying far more for their amount of the pipe - and he has a right to HIS share, but his share is not an EQUAL share.

Let me go further. In this case, lets say he is guaranteed 1 Gallon per minute flow. The businesses combined, because of the premium they pay, are entitled to 50,000 GPM flow. This is why a MINIMUM QoS is fine, but not a "level" one. He pays to get his gallon in one minute. That's his right. he doesn't have the right, just because he uses the same pipe, to get his gallon at the flow rate that the companies are paying scads extra for. He can buy a higher flow rate - thats fair. He could even buy a 10k GPM if he wanted. But the "NN" proposal means that he has to get the "same flow rate" as the groups who bought 50% - and that isn't "fair".

But wait - there is more! See, with this plan, there is not going to be anyone getting 50% of the pipe, because the ISP won't be allowed to OFFER an upgraded package. So you get what you get, and you will LIKE it.

Talk about taking choice and free market economics out of it. Its nothing but a governmental agency, the FCC, telling private companies how they MUST do business.

And you wonder why I have an issue with it?

The pipe belongs to the ISP, not you or the government.

************************************************** **

August,

Yes your money is just as good as someone else's. Agreed. But in this case, an individual is paying a lot LESS than a company. Your money is worth X amount of the pipe. More money buys more of the pipe. If your paying the same as a company for your internet service, then I could agree with the premise of your arguement. And while I can't claim to know your internet service charges, I would bet that your not paying what most companies are......

Call your local cable or phone company and inquire about the price of residential internet - and then ask about the cost of "business class" service.

With the arguement your making - your saying your $20 fee should entitle you to the same access as someone paying $100 or $1000. That's not how the system works. This is designed to remove the capitalist system from the industry, among other things.

*************************************************

In closing, its simply not needed - especially done this way.

If your going to put down rules - why do it for something that ISN'T a problem? Why the fearmongering of "we must do this now!"?

If it must be done, do it right and stop overreaching.

Set a minimum QoS and define the rules of what it will and won't cover. Let ISP's do BUSINESS provided they meet those minimal guidelines. Then get out of the way!

Or pass this huge boondoggle and make everyone's internet QoS the "same" and then watch how much this facet of technology impacts the rest of our economy.

I am telling you now - I will say "I told you so".

[Letum]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Letum,

There is a direct relationship to the[...]

You really don't need to explain that to me.

The problem with this is that, according to the current rules, a company can PAY to get 2 or 3 (or 200/300) shares of that pipe. With these proposals, they would remain limited to one, regardless of their business need, because service providers will not be ALLOWED to offer higher levels of service.

No, that is not what the NN legislation is about. You appear to be
under a fundamental misunderstanding.
It does not prevent anyone buying their own bandwidth. It prevents
people buying other peoples bandwidth.


For example:
Lets say that Website "A" has purcached a nice new T1 connection.
Website "B", a competitor, has also purchased a nice new T1
connection.

I still have my old 64/64 ADSL line and I open up Websites 'A' and 'B'
at the same time.

You might expect the two websites to send me their content at the
same speed, limited by my poor connection. Afterall, both companies
have the same connection to me.

However, under a non-neutral network, company 'A' could pay
my ISP to give priority to it's website so that it will always load faster
than website 'B'. Even tho both websites have an identical connection
to me.

It would even be legal for website 'A' to pay my ISP to block website
'B' completely to remove any possibility of competition.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Set a minimum QoS and define the rules of what it will and won't cover. Let ISP's do BUSINESS provided they meet those minimal guidelines. Then get out of the way!

Or pass this huge boondoggle and make everyone's internet QoS the "same" and then watch how much this facet of technology impacts the rest of our economy.

I am telling you now - I will say "I told you so".

The bill is indeed is trying to set up minimal guidelines. Those guidelines being that data of the same type cannot be discriminated or favored depending on its source. It doesn't say you can't set different QoS levels depending on type at all, it's saying that you can't set different QoS levels depending on SOURCE. If you're transmitting, say, Sprint VoIP data packets at a certain QoS level, you have to transmit Verizon VoIP traffic the same as you do Sprint's. Not that you have to treat VoIP data the same as other types.

You say you want to let ISPs compete....well what happens when you're a small startup VoIP company. How are you going to compete in a world without NN when the big boys traffic gets priority over yours?

Is this what you seriously want?

[CaptainHaplo]

Premium Service availability.... Ever heard of Darrell M. West? He is the Vice President and Director of Governance Studies at Brookings Institute. He is also the man who INTRODUCED FCC Chairman Genachowski when he gave the speech about this topic.

So I am going to figure he has some knowledge.

Allow me to quote something he wrote after the speech.

"Another complicated question facing the FCC involves premium services. Under the new rules, will it be possible for a firm offering downloaded music, video, or games to pay Internet providers more money to deliver their product more speedily? The ultimate answer to that question is not resolved."

Now, I am aware that this statement is about content providers. But they either allow it or not. If they do, then they can't limit it just to CONTENT providers, because that is arbitrary. After all - what happens when they decide that CNN is "content" but foxnews isn't? If they DON'T - and this demonstrates that there is a question about whether it will be allowed or not (contrary to the assertion that its not a question at all), IF they don't, then again - premium services won't be available to anyone, or else the "neutrality rules" will be applied arbitrarily. Either way, arbitrary decisions about what can and cannot be offered to the consumer will exist.

How you like that for "neutrality"? Doesn't sound real neutral to me. Especially when gee - who makes that decision? Thats right, its the FCC. And who is running the FCC? Chairman Genachowski - who just in the interest of full disclosure - was the Chairman of Candidate Obama's Technology, Media and Telecommunications Policy Working Group.

So what you have here is a set of nebulous "rules" that the FCC admits there is no actual DETAIL to, being pushed by one of the people who is in a position to arbitrarily decide what "content" qualifies for "protection", and also an ardent supporter of the current President and Administration. The same administration that wants to blacklist an organization because it has a differing view and asks questions that the administration doesn't like.

But hey, we need these rules.... . why? Well, ok the sky isn't falling, but it might one day. And if it doesn't? Well, we will be there to protect you from other horrible things, like things on the internet that don't rise to the level of "content" protected by net neutrality.

I don't care how you slice it - its a POWER GRAB.

Its a proposal by those who want to continue to increase the reach of government into any and all facets of both information and economic engines.

I have pointed out why and where there are errors in this proposal.

As for the "rules" themselves, there won't be any details for a while, because while the FCC want's openness from the ISP's regarding their network info, and the FCC will hold public hearings, the rules themselves will be crafted behind closed doors, without the benefit of public scrutiny. So you can't sit here and say "it will be this" or "it won't be that." All you can do is go "If this happens" and "maybe this will happen" and "so you better let us do this".

I base my statements off of the record of government and administration when they are hiding things behind closed doors. Your basing yours off what? Feel good statements by a presidential pawn?

I have asked repeatedly, show me WHERE this is needed, instead of just yelling "the sky is falling". To date, not one person has answered that question.

And whats sad is, no one will. Instead, we get photoshopped graphics from folks like Mookie trying to scare us into accepting things without details. Nice Graphic - but once again - fearmongering.

You better run, the sky MIGHT fall.....

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I have asked repeatedly, show me WHERE this is needed, instead of just yelling "the sky is falling". To date, not one person has answered that question.

Comcast has already been caught packet shaping, after initially denying it. That's the case that comes to mind off the top of my head.

After a quick bit of research, here they in their own words saying they are indeed planning it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...002109_pf.html

Well, we will be there to protect you from other horrible things, like things on the internet that don't rise to the level of "content" protected by net neutrality.

Where do you get this stuff from? What does that even have to do with NN?

And you say that NN is going to stifle innovation and impede companies abilities to manage their networks. But then you go on to say that it's not needed. So which one is it? If they don't intend on interfering with traffic across their networks, then net neutrality legislation shouldn't affect them, right? Unless their opposition to it stems from the fact that they DO intend on doing the very things that NN would forbid them from doing.

This has been going on for years. Its not like this argument is anything new.