amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| reply to fiberguy
Re: Gimmie A Break
Wow. Ok fiberguy, settle down. I'm not a turbo pro net neutrality advocate, I'm just a regular joe who's claiming to be no expert here...... just voicing some thoughts...
"When government tries to ensure fairness by decree or order, then you have socialism."
Ok, point taken. Perhaps I'm taking a more "academic" or less strict viewpoint of the whole thing. I'm no socialist either, but your remarks in a comment further down that "most people here" are, is just dumb. Go watch some foxnews' or something, maybe read some fairy tales, come back when you're happier...
"The internet" is not simply "private" networks. Granted, it has become largely just that, and granted, lots of traffic does go through 'ma-bell'... but the whole of the internet is not simply private, commercial interests. Access to it, and services rendered of course are of a commercial (capitalist) nature. I'm not against that at all. Sure, most communications upon the internet are facilitated by commercial contracts. When, why, and how exactly does that describe, or allude to describing limitations on one's freedom to utilize their contracted, agreed upon connection?
Let me say it one more time and HOPE that this fact soaks in a little bit -
There is still more non-commercial material out there (on the internet) than commercial.......
"Some are going to have more and advantages over the other. To have a government dole out their version of fair, in itself, is not fair to those that are working with in the capitalistic system that this country is based. "
oohkay... point taken. Perhaps it would not be detrimental to me, and it would be for others. Why should it have to be argued in that direction though?
Perhaps it could be more detrimental to the freedom to thrive in such a capitalistic society where there would be no chance of a smaller business being able to compete on any playing field (unless they could already afford to buy into it).
Still doesn't mean that if you have more speed, more connections, more servers, that I shouldn't be able to utilize the same exact resources available to me, in whatever fashion I so choose. I'm not clear on where this line in the sand is, so to speak. I don't care if someone else has an entire server farm and a billion lines of fiber all crossing over to everyone else's connections. If I have a server, a dedicated connection, and that connection is then partnered with other peering agreements, then my data should travel to its destination in as timely (best effort) a manner as yours - minus the volume of the contents (payload) and the number of concurrent destinations. Sure, if a million people hit a shared server, it'll choke. I understand that.
"I certainly don't want the government to tell me I have to be on the same level as you. (nothing personal)"
No offense taken. I don't want a handout just to be on your level either.
"Would you continue to work hard if you knew the government would eventually tell you that all your hard work will not place you "fair" to the little guy who may not want to build and grow?"
That doesn't seem like the issue to me here. I think it's exactly the reverse as I tried explaining in the bolded text above. Perhaps you are correct, and it's the other way around, either way, it's a matter of perspective here; and, I don't think anyone deserves to be hampered by gov't meddling in the affairs of one's business, be that yours, mine, or some guy across the world with something to say.
"What people who believe this don't understand is that you aren't in threat of being censored. Your sites will still operate and serve as they are now. "
It's this part that I'm concerned about. How do we know that with certainty? How do we know that by the time "premium" whatever comes along, that these "millionaires" haven't AOL'd the entire internet to the point where nobody even has a clue anymore? Sure, there might still be a little guy out there, but how is he heard? If a tree falls on the side of a lonely dirt road, does anybody hear it? Nope, too busy checking their bread and circuses.
"Being a small guy myself in that same pond, I'd be one to want equal access to the net as the big boys.. but, so as not to set a new false set of standards in which we move forward, I side on the rights of private business. For the record, I don't agree with smoking bans either. It's private property."
I tend to side on the rights of private businesses as well
...but they usually don't pay for gobs of connectivity until two requirements are met: 1) they can afford it. 2) they need to afford it to stay in business...
...Also, yes, I concur with your analogy about smoking and the conclusion, overall:
"is it right in most cases.. the fact is - no - not in most cases. Our government over reaches it's powers all the time and it goes uncontested."
And, finally, the last thing that I'll quote from your post:
"To allow for advantage given to some over others is not something the government can do."
Exactly why communication agreements should remain neutral.. You sum it up perfectly  |
