Net Neutrality

This forum is for discussion of politics, diplomacy, law, and justice
Post Reply
User avatar
scipioafricanus
Posts: 1298
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:08 pm

Net Neutrality

Post by scipioafricanus »

The reaction to people on the internet about it is HILARIOUS!

no other comment...
If there is a Stairway to Heaven, is there an Escalator to Hell?
If God wanted men to play soccer, he wouldn’t have given us arms. - Mike Ditka
User avatar
Rustyv
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 1:02 am

Re: Net Neutrality

Post by Rustyv »

Had to explain this to my wife last night. The problem is the Pro folks have figured out how to market their position in 2-3 words, while people who know wtf is going on need a 3 page pamphlet just to set the terms of the debate.

What I’ve concluded (ymmv) is that the big content providers are looking for a better deal in their connection and bandwidth fees, and if they have to be subsidized by every internet connection bill in the US (ala ESPN and cable bills), well that’s just fine by them.

Strangling development and deployment going forward is for the next schmuck to figure out.
Welcome to the internet: Where men are men, women are men, and children are FBI agents.

Dance like it hurts, Love like you need the money, Work like people are watching - Scott Adams
User avatar
scipioafricanus
Posts: 1298
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:08 pm

Re: Net Neutrality

Post by scipioafricanus »

That's true. You can only respond with more government is not the answer to someone who actually believes that. I usually go with, why shouldn't someone who is downloading 4K movies 24/7 pay more than someone who just checks their email?
If there is a Stairway to Heaven, is there an Escalator to Hell?
If God wanted men to play soccer, he wouldn’t have given us arms. - Mike Ditka
Rich Jordan
Posts: 1840
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:04 am

Re: Net Neutrality

Post by Rich Jordan »

The Twit.TV network, which in general I like for the tech side of things (sadly they all seem to be completely indoctrinated leftists, and that does leak into the shows from time to time) has been very vocal about this for the last month or so. But I knew I remembered one podcast (Security Now) where they had as a guest the manager of a rural ISP talking about Net Neutrality before the Obama admin doing their implementation of it, trying to talk about the issues with using Title 2 specifically. There's a lot of good info there from the ISP point of view. I thought Leo LaPorte had actually opened his mind a little bit about the issue then, but it didn't stick

Nonetheless a very good episode with good info. Transcript is here; you could also find the audio and video version if preferred,

One quote:
" Actually, yeah, Leo, actually I can speak to that, as well, because it's kind of interesting. Title 2, if you read Title 2 of the Telecommunications Act, all you need to do is go online and type in the following thing, the following term into any search engine. Type in "47 USC 201." That will get you to the beginning of Title 2 of the Telecommunications Act, and you'll start to read.

And one of the first things you'll see, the first couple of paragraphs in, you'll start to see that it talks about different kinds of telecommunications, how to classify the traffic according to who is calling whom and prioritizing it and charging different amounts for it, all of the things that the Network Neutrality advocates don't want, and that are built into that law. Once you adopt it, there are some parts of the law that the FCC claims it can ignore. It can't ignore that part. That part's mandatory. Basically what Title 2 does is it regulates, it would try to regulate the Internet as if it was a 19th-century telephone company.

The rules don't fit at all. And while some people say maybe we want something, a little more responsibility on the part of ISPs - and I don't object to that, you know, because we now are filling a more and more important role in society. Title 2 is so wrong for this. As I said, two or three paragraphs in you'll realize this is not the right way to go. If we're going to do something, it should be de novo, and it should be designed for the Internet."
What we got from Obama's people, unsurprisingly, was a naked power grab by an unelected regulatory body.



What we need is competition. Too many places only have one choice for high speed data service. That makes it too easy for a bad company to do the things the leftists claim to be so afraid of; in the past when ISPs tried to pull crap, the customers could complain and then vote with their dollars and move to another provider; that is a lot harder now.
Post Reply