FCC to Embrace "Internet Neutrality"

[Mirlyn]

More regulations. Governmetn contol. Same thing.

What if some major cities decide tomorrow to completely outlaw semi's on their streets (not just to truck routes)? Or limit to one truck can enter per hour. You're too noisy, too big, and cause too much traffic congestion. Your customers can no longer use you to deliver to every market. Their customers (the residents of these cities) don't have a choice but to not use your customers' services which have been deemed unnecessary by the city.

The consumer who is paying for the ability to have streets via taxes cannot fully utilize all available goods and services, but they did not opt-in to have this problem. It also costs too much to maintain long streets to the big box retailers, so they'll discourage that by only offering a gravel road to them. Google would be like the WalMarts or Home Depots, relying on a good street to make the most profit (both for customer traffic and distribution traffic).

Guess you could just keep moving to another city (ISP).

 

[Mirlyn]

For the record, I'm not yet convinced it will do what its intended and stop there. I completely agree with the theory, but a possible chilling effect cannot be ignored. The things I do professionally (VoIP, hosting, etc) could be on the chopping block for internet providers next.

I'm just glad I don't have to put up with Comcast.

 

[MrBishop]

Semis and highways as euphemisms for large packets and bandwidth congestion - bravo, Mir!

 

[Mirlyn]

Semis and highways as euphemisms for large packets and bandwidth congestion - bravo, Mir!

No, highways would be Tier 1 providers ("backbones," but they aren't really Tier 1 providers anymore anyway, and thats another link and story). Residential and municipal roadways, those that directly and primarily connect consumers with commercial services, would be the proper ISP euphemism here.

As for vehicles vs packet size, its actually a poor example as cars are getting smaller but packets are getting larger. That's irrelevant though, and if you'd like to just illustrate VoIP, VPN, and video, it'd be more along the lines of increased volume and more time-critical or latency-intolerable travel. I guess you could fine-tune the example and go for shipping fruit, fresh bread, organs or other extremely perishable item....


P2P could be taxi cabs....

 

[Gonz]

Damn do just a little research on it before the kneejerk.

"Without it, my local ISP (Cox) could filter, throttle, or even block my Vonage account since I'm not using their digital telephone service."

Is that what you want?

The drama queen thing isn't a logical argument.

I want few (the fewer the better) government regulatiosn. Period. I then chose how to handle my particular situation.

 

[Gonz]

What if some major cities decide tomorrow to completely outlaw semi's on their streets (not just to truck routes)?

Can't. Interstate commerce clause.

However, to play along with your premise....go ahead. You need us. Run out of TP or bacon & I'll bet you beg for those big noisy monsters to return.

The consumer who is paying for the ability to have streets via taxes cannot fully utilize all available goods and services, but they did not opt-in to have this problem. It also costs too much to maintain long streets to the big box retailers, so they'll discourage that by only offering a gravel road to them. Google would be like the WalMarts or Home Depots, relying on a good street to make the most profit (both for customer traffic and distribution traffic).

Big trucks pay about 70% of the road use tax in the USA (state by state) We pay ton tax....each big rig is somewhere in teh vicintiy of 6K a year in road use taxes. We already use dirt roads. I see about a dozen farm roads a week.

One things about all of that....STATE RULES, not federal.

 

[spike]

Looks like you completely missed Mirlyb's point. It's an analogy.

I want few (the fewer the better) government regulatiosn. Period. I then chose how to handle my particular situation.

So instead actually evaluating what's being discussed you kneejerk "government!".

 

[randomJACKASS]

Looks like you completely missed Mirlyb's point. It's an analogy.




So instead actually evaluating what's being discussed you kneejerk "government!".

I'm am sure he evaluated it instantly and found it unconstitutional and purely communistic and evil. Come now spike we have the work of Satan to do!

 

[Mirlyn]

Can't. Interstate commerce clause.

However, to play along with your premise....go ahead. You need us. Run out of TP or bacon & I'll bet you beg for those big noisy monsters to return.



Big trucks pay about 70% of the road use tax in the USA (state by state) We pay ton tax....each big rig is somewhere in teh vicintiy of 6K a year in road use taxes. We already use dirt roads. I see about a dozen farm roads a week.

One things about all of that....STATE RULES, not federal.

The great part about streets is that there is a physical presence that can be defined within (or across, in some cases) state boundaries. You can protect a public street with state laws and use the interstate commerce card. You cannot protect internet routes.

But back in the obtuse land of the analogy......Yes, large trucks pay a lot of taxes, but that means nothing. Remember, the streets in this analogy are the lines and routes owned by the ISP, not public domain. Your taxes don't own the streets here. You cannot travel on these streets, unless, say, you WANTED to give the city, oh, lets start at 50k per month to travel the streets. Extortion? Nah. If you want your business to succeed that bad, you'll pay. Otherwise, the customers/citizens will just switch to the TP that is brought in on the one street that the city allows one particular trucking company to use.

Let me simplify this a bit. You are a trucking company who is trying to deliver across the street to the consumer. The street, in this case the ISP, does not favor your traffic, and instead makes your company drive three blocks down and three blocks back just to cross the street. You are not free to do as you choose, and are not protected by any federal or state law to have unbridled transportation. You are at the mercy of the street's directions.

 

[Gonz]

Please, no analogies. I'm a little too literal.

 

[Mirlyn]

Just trying to illustrate what it actually means, not prove a point. Maybe someone reading this will form their own opinion based on factual information rather than the overgeneralized political rhetoric found in the original link, and my goal will have been achieved.

 

[Winky]

So this thing will be the United States government manipulating
the internet inside our own borders, ya know like how China does?
j/k yeah I think the government needs to tell ISP’s how to run their businesses
just like everything else, sign me up.


Internet fairness doctrine here we come.

 

[spike]

So this thing will be the United States government manipulating
the internet inside our own borders, ya know like how China does?

No, not at all. How about you read what it actually is.

http://www.google.com/search?q=net+...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

[Gonz]

OK spike, I read 3 articles.

I want few (the fewer the better) government regulations. Period. I then chose how to handle my particular situation.

If it ain't broke, let the government get it's fingers on it.

Allow free market capitalism to work. If your ISP is blocking content, change ISP's. Unlike federally regualted phone monopolies, there are (or can be) more than one ISP in a neighborhood.

Less government is best. Always.

 

[catocom]

Less government is best. Always.

man I like the sound of that.
It just has a ring to it.

 

[Mirlyn]

On Thursday morning, the commission voted unanimously to begin a formal discussion of Mr. Genachowski’s proposed rules for what is called network neutrality, a concept that would require telecommunications companies not to favor certain services or devices over others.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/fcc-begins-crafting-rules-on-network-neutrality/


FCC press release from yesterday: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294159A1.doc

McCain on Thursday introduced the Internet Freedom Act, which would keep the FCC from enacting rules prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Internet content and applications. Net neutrality rules would create "onerous federal regulation," McCain said in a written statement.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/1741...ck_fccs_net_neutrality_rules.html?tk=rss_news
Isn't introducing legislation to ban legislation onerous itself?

Allow free market capitalism to work. If your ISP is blocking content, change ISP's. Unlike federally regualted phone monopolies, there are (or can be) more than one ISP in a neighborhood.

Theoretically, yes, switching ISPs could be the solution, but the internet is tiered. My ISP buys most of its bandwidth from and a majority of my routes come through Level3, who also peers with AT&T. Not too long ago, Level 3 dropped traffic to another large peer (Cogent) resulting in invalid or incomplete routes (customers couldn't reach portions of the internet). Should Level 3 decide to shape or filter traffic, it could affect me no matter which local broadband ISP I switch to.

They wouldn't do that though....it'd be a deathwish.

 

[Winky]

They wouldn't do that though....it'd be a deathwish.

That is the reality of the situation.

Hence no need for the government to intervene in the free market.

Mark my werds, once they start messin' with the internet
there will be no end to their meddling.

Oh what a wonderful neat new thing to tax it will be!

 

[spike]

Allow free market capitalism to work. If your ISP is blocking content, change ISP's. Unlike federally regualted phone monopolies, there are (or can be) more than one ISP in a neighborhood.

Less government is best. Always.

Nope, I have one cable company I can get internet from. I'll take Net Neutrality for the win. Besides without it all ISPS could run the scam.

 

[Gato_Solo]

That is the reality of the situation.

Hence no need for the government to intervene in the free market.

Mark my werds, once they start messin' with the internet
there will be no end to their meddling.

Oh what a wonderful neat new thing to tax it will be!

Psst...ARPAnet...

Next thing you know, people will be demanding access to the GPS satellites...

 

[catocom]

I see this topic the same as when the previous admin wanted wire taps and such,
which they got in the name of security.

It got abused then, and I trust the current admin even less to keep it in check.

Criminals are being turned loose because of having no space for them.
How are all these New laws going to be enforce if Many decide not to abide.
More selective enforcement?
How will the selection be done?