Coincidental, I'm sure, but this makes me happy: Fuck you FCC. http://biggovernment.com/capitolcon...vernment (Big Government)&utm_content=Twitter
Net neutrality is great and it's pretty obvious that some people around here have no idea what it is because if they did they wouldn't be opposing it. Oh, BTW Net Neutrality has been the standing law since the internet because open to the public. Why the hell any moron would want an ISP controlling what they can see or read is beyond me but I guess Nova does.
If I had any doubt about disliking it (I didn't) then your response confirms i'm on the correct side of the issue.
Short answer? It gives the FCC the power to regulate the internet. Given how well it's done sans that regulation, compared to other things which the FCC does regulate, it's difficult to see why said regulation is necessary. Longer answer - it's so obviously a bad idea that politically active groups from all over the political spectrum are against it. Here's one page from a left-wing group (interviewing someone from another left wing group) discussing what's wrong with it: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/...ks_authority?gclid=CIGu5prFjaUCFbBl7AodAWrHOQ Longer answer - Borrowed from another source because it's silly for me to reword it: [yt=Why Obama is wrong]i72LuRtAaLo&feature=player_embedded[/yt]
No you idiot, it gives the FCC the ability to enforce your ability to receive data without discrimination. Like, for example, how FOX denied access to their content on Hulu to Comcast internet subscribers when they were fighting with Comcast over subscription rates on their cable television service. Or how Comcast could slow down or even deny your access to things like Youtube, Hulu, or Netflix to encourage you to use their television service. The only people against net neutrality are fools and pundits paid off by large conglomerates that want limit what you can and can't use on the internet.
No, the FCC has never gone on to regulate or discriminate content, once given the power. They'd never do that. I'll take arguing with an individual ISP over arguing with the government any day and twice on sundays. Or: I have choice in ISP. I do not have a choice in government.
Net neutrality opens the door to all sorts of insidious and unforeseen government meddling with the Internet. While I don't want my ISPs filtering or throttling my content, I am free to go to another if I am unhappy. I have NO option if I'm unhappy with federal regulations. Let competition work, people.
Which they lost viewers and thus ad dollars over, but which has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Whether or not you think it's legitimate for a content provider to discriminate in access on the basis of IP or ISP of origin - and the BBC, Apple, and many other intermediaries where cross-border rights are an issue all do it, for that matter, so do forum owners who use IP and ISP bans - it's completely unrelated to network neutrality. If you're going to spout off, at least know what exactly is in the domain you're talking about first. Which they would lose customers over. They DID lose customers when they tried to block BitTorrent (and got sued by an upstream provider as well, IIRC). The only reason they didn't lose more was because of the municipal-level monopolies utility operators have. The solution there is to remove the local monopolies, not to regulate the internet. It's quite possible to be for network neutrality as a principle, but not for regulation to that end. Contract law already handles most of it: if the BellSouth/AT&T exec who shot his mouth off and started the entire debate actually had a clue, he would have known that they have peering agreement contracts (some settlement-free, some that cost money) require them to route any traffic that arrives at their border gateways. Sure, they could meter how much comes from Google, and try to bill them for it, but Google could just laugh, and refuse to pay, and BS/AT&T would have no standing to sue, because they simply don't deal with Google. If they tried to block Google traffic, they'd get sued by their contract peer, not to mention lose all their customers. Bear in mind, the Tier-1 ISPs whom everyone ultimately depends on have no incentive to go along with anything but net neutrality, because the more bandwidth flows through their pipes and routers, the more money they make. Contrariwise, if routers become application-specialized, major capital costs are incurred - every router that traffic flows over has to support TOS/QoS or RSVP or other app-specific protocols which haven't been invented yet in order to make things work between arbitrary hosts (this is the biggest reason IPv6 is taking so long to be deployed). Further, consider Google and Verizon's so-called net neutrality proposal. It was anything but that, but it stood a good chance of becoming law, before the election intervened, in large part because no politician or regulator would know what net neutrality actually was if it jumped up and bit him.
You can vote for the makeup of the FCC? Hell, the only one you can even remotely affect electorally is the chairman.
No, I think it's still a net neutrality issue, but it is stretching the definition a bit. Actually, I do agree that the regulators and legislators would probably cause more harm either through negligence or malice, but I'm not prepared to bury my head in the sand and hope it all works out for the best. This is a perilous tightrope to walk, to be sure.
Funny thing is - i figure Fox, or any other network, has a perfect right to control the distribution of content that they fucking OWN I'm funny like that.
It's really not. It's a content access issue. It's about net neutrality as much as banning Packard would be. And as for the rest of it, what I pointed out could only be considered sticking your head in the sand if the only two options were government regulation and sticking your head in the sand. Or are existing market incentives - which have worked with hiccups on the order of days long - meaningless when you've got a regulation you're trying to pass?
Reread that again, very, very slowly. The government will "probably cause more harm", but I want them to do something anyways.
Let's see... how many times have ISP's fucked things up for the long-term over the past 40 years, versus how many times has the government? Given everything I said in post 10, what is the danger of doing nothing. Be specific.
You've already quantified the danger as "more harm" being the probable outcome of intervention. Only person unclear on what that means is you....
You're right on this, however, until it comes to pass that these local monopolies are removed there needs to be some legislation that shuts down packet and network shaping for consumers except in purposes of legality.
If I'm unhappy with my ISP, I can switch RIGHT NOW. If I'm unhappy with federal regulation, I can wait a couple years to vote for a Congressional rep, or maybe four for President. Then, if I'm lucky, my side of the issue will gain a majority, and--who knows?--maybe a mere eight to twelve years later, I might actually get movement. Get real, Chris.
Excellent and when at&t or Comcast throttle sites at their backbone servers that all your ISPs in your area use because they made a deal with other Big Corp X, what are you going to do then?
Indeed, much like the Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Rule, the Equilization of Opportunity Bill, or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Comcast is a tier-3 ISP, a last-mile solution, albeit one that's nearly everywhere. They don't have backbone *routers* (and there's no such thing as a backbone server). Once again, if they try to block traffic, their upstream providers and customers will bitchslap them like they did last time - and customers can do so without switching service. Make enough support calls to make the service unprofitable, for instance - it only takes about 2 a week. If AT&T tries it (and, to keep things in perspective, AT&T probably has dozens to a hundred Autonomous Systems, each of which would have to implement this separately) then each tier-2 AS that participated would be cut off from its peers and disconnected from the internet for violation of the peering agreement, which would cause all the tier-3's, their customers, and AT&T's direct customers to become very, very, angry. Remember the Level3-Cogent spat from a few years back? It was the customers, not the government, who made sure that got solved. The tier-1 AS's could do it, but then they'd be violating their own peering agreements. It's simply not as simple a procedure as you make it out to be.
