CALLING ALL OPPONENTS OF NET NEUTRALITY LEGISLATION
I have read a synopsis of the net neutrality package and my first reaction is "What is there not to like?"
But now I see there are those who think it would actually restrict innovation on the Web and set up price barriers to small operators. I'm open to be persuaded there is something bad about the NN movement. Could any opponent come in here and 'splain it to me?
Thank you. I'm looking for guidance and not a fight.
Here's about a 7th grade level primer
posted by UMRBlog @ 08:24
24 comments
24 Comments:
Send it to my email
I have no knowledge of this at all .
Also I will introduce you to MP Allbad someday . You and he will get along like pigs in sh** .
Both Dems . Both piggy fans .
Also if you buy the Warren St john ESPN guide to college junky --- let me borrow it
Tookster,
Click on the link, just added.
TYFCB
Can I get a little help here folks? I'm asking to be educated. I semi-open-minded. Hit me with your best shot!
Cool topic! SaveTheInternet.Com
http://savetheinternet.com/=faq
check out the Save the Internet Video.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cWt0XUocViE
Wow ,
That is a load of info to take in . It may take me a bit more time to just dijest the whole thing.
But it has my interest
Think of it this way. earthlink offering VoIP and their VoIP packets are being prioritized over Vonage VoIP packets. For all you know, they could already be doing this type of "traffic shaping". It could be passed of as network "congestion" if someone were to suspect a higher service level were to be given to the incumbent isp's VoIP service.
That's a good illustration but it still leads to the question: Would I rather have the bandwidth mega-owners make that routing decision or do I want Uncle Sugar regulating (restricting) the mega-owners' freedom to make those routing decisions?
And, of course, there's the musical question: What about blocking/censoring altogether?
If the congress can bar censorship, then it presumably has the power to restore it give or take the next Gonzo.
This is not simple.
No this is 100% NOT simple . But wow , this is a topic of topics. I was doing some research last night until 9 bells and my near death tired ass went to bed to wake up in sweat after a 3am-5 am sleep circle the Hood' ..........
I woke in my boxers bare foot by 18th street .
So I am once again tired.
I will really look into this & voice some opinions and also ask my friends in Silicon Vally what they think .
>Would I rather have the bandwidth mega-owners make that routing decision or do I want Uncle Sugar >regulating (restricting) the mega-owners' freedom to make those routing decisions?
Narrowing it down in two questions cuts the subject a little short. But I think we can play with it to some degree.
I believe that people shouldn't be told how to do business. Providing that they have the ability and desire to refrain from creating detrimental (which is a subjective term these days) situations to others as a result of their business strategies and efforts.
The Internet is a common good effort and should be treated as such. Yet in my view, it hasn't been treated as if it were in recent years. To many capitalizations have taken place since the inception of ICANN and the allowance of WIPO's global governance in regards to domain names and Intellectual property rights “disputes” over those names. Now they are considering preferential treatment to those with the most money; potentially running over those that don't even know what a war chest is until they find out somewhere down the line. That is when they actually need one to play catch up with the big dogs if they want their site to resolve (if at all) just as fast as the leading company that they want to compete with.
On point, the network in many ways is for sale to the highest or most influential bidder and will be even more so of net neutrality is killed.
>And, of course, there's the musical question: What about blocking/censoring altogether?
The FCC sets that example. Even though the FCC has very little governance over the Internet itself. It still plays role model to other government actors / regulators. Blocking content, user access or limiting their availability is solely at the discretion of the network or content provider. Networks have full discretion as to what they deem is offensive and that's usually the reason they give when there's and issue with on line censorship or abuse of their corner of the network. If certain aspects of a users on line (or in some cases, off line) activities are deemed dangerous or offensive, networks will deal with it using their privately owned systems. Sometimes by blocking domains or ip address blocks until a cleanup fee is paid and a safe distance contract is in place. Which is what I do since I'm a content, access and authentication provider.
>If the congress can bar censorship, then it presumably has the power to restore it give or take the next >Gonzo.
>This is not simple.
Nothing worthwhile ever is my brother.
2KEY
Exactly! The more you peel back the layers, harder it is to tell one evil from another.
I get a hint when I find Ted Stevens opposes NN. Usually, being for anything Teddy's against works out for me but, in this case, I'm not sure.
I think Boxers are OK. If you get caught out in Nomex and Camo face paint, looking in some young thing's bedroom window, that could be trouble. "But, Officer, I'm an som-nam-buel-ate-or" might not set you free.
TYFCB
Heegs 0741,
I oversimplified it to promote discussion. I think this is a killer topic and oughta matter a lot to more than three guys in the basin.
TYFCB and for your good thoughts.
umr
Maybe you could simplify a little more for all us retards.
0938,
I'm not sure how to take your comment. If I insulted anyone, I'm sorry. This is not a mainstream topic, yet it effects us all. I really want some well versed or even just opinionated folks in here on all sides.
OTOH, if you're sincerely expressing a wish, I don't know if I can distill it down any farther. This is kind of a "who watches the watchers?" topic.
I hope one of these paragraphs addresses your concerns.
TYFCB
Net Neutrality = GOOD
No Net Neutrality = Bad
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#what
Still in research mode ------ but I have read about 130 different pages ........
I really have no idea where I should toss my hat , almost a catch 22 , where we the users of the net will be F***ed either way
I'm formulating a plan to blacklist domain names and ip address blocks that ride on non-neutral providers.
I'll keep you posted.
See that's the kind of discussion this issue needs.
Isn't the very act of doing that, in and of itself, non-neutral?
TYFCB
It is very non-neutral my friend. Yet I'm letting them be the ones to take the first swing. I'll be using their own weight against them when they start to realize that a system such as the one I'm planning is in full swing.
(technical)
Using the UniqueRoot (uniqueroot.com) I'll be able to set a point for those to grab a control list that will local loop all domains and IP addresses at the host file. No DNS will be required to block these systems. Just your pc and a file that you pull voluntarily if you choose to participate in my counter action.
Check this out.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/09/26/verizon-blocks-pro-choice-text-messaging/
Additionally...
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191092,00.asp
Now comcast is starting to dig it's claws into our front and back.
http://action.freepress.net/campaign/comcastviolates
Sign the petition!
some say that proponents of abolishing neutrality may try to lean on this.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html
Scary though!
See you all at city hall on December 10th at 6:30 pm.
I'm gonna have me some fun!
Post a Comment
<< Home