said by pnh102 :

You would think SBC, Verizon, BS and any other ISP who is considering the idea of charging content providers for access to their customers would have learned from Microsoft's experience with DOJ during the 1990s. You really don't want to do stupid things that get the government under your skin.

said by RayW :

Clinton sued M$ because Bill did not pay his share of the graft (and gave Bill many chances to get it right). Bill paid graft to the dems and repubs, Bush dropped the suit.

Moral: if you want to screw the people, pay the big political parties off and you can do what ever you want.

said by FightingBlue :

Pretty simple, really. Republican policies are more favorable to the wealthier management types, so that's where their money goes. Democratic policies are more beneficial to the middle-class and "clean industry" like the tech sector, so that's where the rank-and-file donations go. The donations are a lot smaller than the managers', but there's a lot more average employees.

said by nixen :

And what lesson is that? That you can get away with it?

said by King P :

The Senator from Oregon is right, if the ISP's have a tiered system of delivery, it can seriously stifle innovation.

"If access tiering takes hold, the Internet providers, rather than consumers, could become the driving force in how the Internet evolves. Those corporations’ profit-driven choices, rather than users’ choices, would determine which sites and methodologies succeed and fail.

said by LiamJunket :

So why should internet access be exempt from the rules of capitalism, just like the auto industry and the cereal industry or the coffee industry.

said by pnh102 :

Both ideas sound absurd, and to call this type of access "Internet access" is even more absurd.

said by guitarzan :

However to me this sounds as if it's a case of controlled censorship and uncontrolled greed.All bundled up in one package, friggen azzholes.

said by pnh102 :

Tell that to people who keep paying these high cable rates for no good reason.

said by LiamJunket :

You mean like just about every other marketing driven industry in America. So why should internet access be exempt from the rules of capitalism, just like the auto industry and the cereal industry or the coffee industry.

Guess what, the internet is not a utility, it is a business just like any other.

said by moonpuppy :

Just tell me how the phone company was so good at innovation before the breakup of ATT?

said by King P :

Funny, BellSouth was still charging me for Touch Tone service when I had them...hahahahahaha, and that was just 7 months ago.

said by Cod :

BellSouth quit charging for Touchtone in Tennessee back in '96. Either a billing error or not true...

said by bogey780 :

In the last 20 years Bell has been broken up. So anything that would happen would be because of it.

Though the gov't screwed up. Had they waited they would have had universal broadband access by now. ...

said by LiamJunket :

The innovation didn't happen until the government got their big nose out of it.

said by pnh102 :

Even after that, innovations like answering machines, cheap long distance, cell phones and the like came as the result of the work of other companies, not AT&T.

said by moonpuppy :

Just as a side note, I have seen an answering machine that dates back to the mid 40's.

Intresting piece of equipment.

said by bogey780 :

Cell phone technology was invented by Bell.

said by FTCXtreme :

I wasn't alive during the 80s,so I dont even know the difference between touch tone service, and not having it. My best guess, is that you had to call the operater to before you had to call people.

said by FTCXtreme :

Now, cable, you have to rent the digital cable boxes, pay extra for digital service. So im sure in the future you will probably be able to go out and buy your own cable boxes. But cabe is still young compared to phones. Cable has been around for what? 30 years. Phone, for a long time(dont remember the date on hand). infact Alex Bell, only beat his competitor, I think his name was William Grey, beat him to the patent office by an hour. Now imagine if that didn't happen, and Grey got their first. Would we have the Grey System instead of the bell system.

said by FTCXtreme :

Im probably the youngest person on these forums, but dont use that against me. But, Network nuetrality, is something thats important. As "old_repub" says the internet is a business, but Its more then that. The internet is the global information super highway, a place for business, conecting with loved ones, educations, pr0n, and alot more. The idea that you can just limit the content because a provider wants to, is just bull crap. In the age internet is a utility, a new one but one thats going to stay for a LONG time. its as important, as phone, and electricity. By the time I have kids, the internet, will be as standard in American homes as a phone, or a TV. Whether it be, sattelite, DSL, Cable, Fibre Optics, or Dial-up, We are all internet users and deserve the same rights, and access to information. Thats why network Nuetrality is important.

said by bogey780 :

Network neutrality has nothing to do with blocking or limiting access. It's simple routing issues. Something a lot of people simply don't want even though there are clear benefits to the technology.

said by bogey780 :

Network neutrality has nothing to do with blocking or limiting access. It's simple routing issues. Something a lot of people simply don't want even though there are clear benefits to the technology.

said by LiamJunket :

You mean like just about every other marketing driven industry in America. So why should internet access be exempt from the rules of capitalism, just like the auto industry and the cereal industry or the coffee industry.

Guess what, the internet is not a utility, it is a business just like any other.

said by LiamJunket :

You mean like just about every other marketing driven industry in America. So why should internet access be exempt from the rules of capitalism

said by guitarzan :

You mean like the RIAA's Utopian version of capitalism.? Rootkit Anyone.?Stalking and video taping minors. There is a set pattern one needs to understand.

said by moonpuppy :

I would love to see the Taylor troll respond to the bolded part.

said by LiamJunket :

the internet is not a utility, it is a business just like any other.

said by bogey780 :

Network neutrality as it's being discussed here is akin to mandating there be no control.

said by bogey780 :

Interesting analogies. Does the gov't allow anyone to use an airport as they see fit? ...

said by viperpa33s :

In the end, the customers will be paying more for the same or less. Customers will be subjected to restrictions. Customers will be choosing between a free slower than hell website or pay through the roof faster website.

said by RossHSTL :

When people play the capitalism card they often forget that for capitalism to work you have to have competing companies offer the same services. In many places people only have one choice so if that company goes forward with tiered internet they have no other option but to use that company.

said by JimF :

The reason you don't have competing companies is usually that there is not enough profit in it. If you regulate the price to uneconomically low levels, you never will get a second or third company. That may keep the present customers happy with the present services, but not those who can't get the new services they want. What people are asking for in this discussion is to keep their present services and prices as they are. You will never get more advanced services, like video conferencing, that way. That is why the free market works better than regulation in most cases.