morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 1 edit |
morbo
Member
2007-May-29 6:20 pm
who "funds" this group??ya gotta love the twisted logic of these freaks. | |
|
| swhx7 Premium Member join:2006-07-23 Elbonia |
swhx7
Premium Member
2007-May-29 6:33 pm
Re: who "funds" this group??said by morbo:ya gotta love the twisted logic of these freaks. I agree, but let's analyze it. (a) "Abuses haven't happened yet" (b) "Therefore, prohibiting them is a bad policy" Hello? Whenever you hear of an industry opposing legislation that would protect individuals or smaller players, on the ground that it's "unnecessary" (or that the industry will self-regulate), you're seeing illogical, bad-faith propaganda masquerading as argument. If a company isn't going to engage in the bad behavior, why would they object to it being prohibited? Obviously, it's because they intend to exploit it for all it's worth. | |
|
| | RJ44 join:2001-10-19 Nashville, TN
1 recommendation |
RJ44
Member
2007-May-29 7:40 pm
Re: who "funds" this group??said by swhx7:ya gotta love the twisted logic of these freaks. I agree, but let's analyze it. (a) "Abuses haven't happened yet" (b) "Therefore, prohibiting them is a bad policy" Hello? If that logic is twisted, what do you consider logical? The converse of that statement works out awfully close to "If it might ever happen, let's go ahead and make a law against it just in case." To me, that is twisted logic. And I doubt there are many areas of your life that you'd appreciate the government using that tactic. I know I wouldn't. | |
|
| | |
2 recommendations |
Re: who "funds" this group??Right. Just like the people who wrote the Constitution said "let's not plan ahead but just wing it for the next 275 years." | |
|
| | | | |
Re: who "funds" this group??or should 1t be like the Soviet Union w2here everything was planed but the system fell apart in 70 years. | |
|
| | | | | bmn? ? ?
join:2001-03-15 hiatus |
Re: who "funds" this group??said by richardpor:or should 1t be like the Soviet Union w2here everything was planed but the system fell apart in 70 years. Too bad your example fails to be of relevance here... Economic planning in the USSR does not compare on the same level as the net neutrality issue. | |
|
| | |
1 recommendation |
to RJ44
Unforntunately there is no "personal responsibility" when it comes to mega corporations. Again I say outlaw discriminating behavior now as its probably already happening but we just dont know about it yet. Sorta like Bush wiretaps | |
|
| | | n0ym join:2004-12-21 Montgomery Village, MD
1 recommendation |
to RJ44
quote: If that logic is twisted, what do you consider logical? The converse of that statement works out awfully close to "If it might ever happen, let's go ahead and make a law against it just in case."
Not exactly. The converse is, "it may happen, therefore, let's make a law to prevent it". Your statement, by contrast, is an example of a false dichotomy. Much of our legal system is designed around prevention. And that's a good thing, too: only punishing behavior after the fact is a bad way to keep bad things from happening. | |
|
| | | |
to RJ44
Twisted logic is saying a converse is always true as to the original statement...example:
If its dark...then you cant see (assuming no night vision tech stuff) that doesn't translate to: If you cant see then its dark
You should figure out what logic is before you make any judgements on someone Else's...dont you think??? | |
|
| swhx7 Premium Member join:2006-07-23 Elbonia |
to morbo
Actually, they have two good points:
1. Network neutrality is hard to define properly
Not that these guys are helping at all. In the legislative sausage-making bargaining it will probably get twisted into something harmful.
2. The solution is more bandwidth
Yes, but there's no incentive to upgrade if the providers can squeeze more money out without upgrading, by bottle-necking service providers that won't pay extra charges. | |
|
| dynodb Premium Member join:2004-04-21 Minneapolis, MN |
to morbo
Um... how is the suggestion that regulating a non-existant problem isn't a good idea "twisted logic"?
Do you really have so much faith in government to believe that they wouldn't screw it up in some way, especially given that they'd be addressing future practices instead of current ones? | |
|
| | n0ym join:2004-12-21 Montgomery Village, MD
1 recommendation |
n0ym
Member
2007-May-30 8:38 am
Re: who "funds" this group??Do you have so little faith in government that you don't take advantage of all the times government protects you and makes your way of life possible?
Of course you don't. You simply enjoy those benefits, then rail against them. | |
|
| | | dynodb Premium Member join:2004-04-21 Minneapolis, MN |
dynodb
Premium Member
2007-May-30 12:28 pm
Re: who "funds" this group??Right- questioning whether the government needs to step in to regulate a non-existant problem in a rapidly changing industry is exactly the same as being an anarchist | |
|
| | | | n0ym join:2004-12-21 Montgomery Village, MD |
n0ym
Member
2007-May-30 9:35 pm
Re: who "funds" this group??I just re-read what I wrote, and am unable to find the part wherein I accused you of being an anarchist.
I did find an admonition against blanket beliefs that government will screw up attempts at regulation. Perhaps you'd care to address that.
If not, burn your own strawmen. I have no intention of doing it for you. | |
|
POBRes Firma Mitescere Nescit Premium Member join:2003-02-13 Stepford, CA
1 recommendation |
POB
Premium Member
2007-May-29 6:33 pm
Stop drinking the kool aide[...]the American Conservative Union has filed a statement saying that there are so many problems with net neutrality that one can hardly know where to begin but that a good starting place is the fact that net neutrality is 'completely unnecessary'. He supports this viewpoint with the comment that 'there is not a single instance of online discrimination anywhere in the country today'[...] Riiight. And all the factual events that have taken place to date, including the stated intent of the telcos to discriminate, is all just a figment. Little does the ACU realize that without Net Neutrality, they won't have the ability to publish their drivel online unless they've paid their freight to the self-appointed gatekeepers. | |
|
| sbrook Mod join:2001-12-14 Ottawa
1 recommendation |
sbrook
Mod
2007-May-29 6:46 pm
Re: Stop drinking the kool aideOf course net neutrality isn't needed if government is of the people, for big industry, by big industry. Why is it people are so willing to give their government over to greedy industrialists. | |
|
ColorBASIC8-bit Fun Premium Member join:2006-12-29 Corona, CA
1 recommendation |
This looks like a job for Capt. Obvioussaid by Telecom Asskisser : There is not a single instance of online discrimination anywhere in the country today.
And we would like to KEEP it that way. | |
|
| amungus Premium Member join:2004-11-26 America
1 recommendation |
amungus
Premium Member
2007-May-29 7:09 pm
Re: This looks like a job for Capt. ObviousIndeed. Hopefully there is a very clear and concise response to this.
Not hard to understand that the 'net should remain as open and free as possible.
"But adding a massive laver of bureaucracy and stifling regulation to the Internets fast-changing architecture will just slow down the very deployment that Americans increasingly need."
--Hogwash. It's simple enough to abide by and makes sense for the most part. The only "massive layer of bureaucracy" would be all the other details that come with being an ISP - like the CALEA requirements... hmm... guess that's just easy enough and cheap too (/sarcasm)
"Lauderback also argues that net neutrality will burden companies with unnecessary costs and will have to be "continually updated as changing technologies require newer, even more complex oversight."
Again, what costs exactly??? How can this possibly cost anywhere near as much as FORCING ISP's to have a black box for the man??? | |
|
| SilenceGold Premium Member join:2003-07-31 Canyon Lake, TX |
to ColorBASIC
Unfortunately there is online discrimination.
A major example is against deaf users. Video clips with no closed captions. Even major media like CNN releases videos without closed captions.
FCC only required that all 13 inch TVs made after 1992 (or slightly earlier) must have a built in closed captions decoder along with restrictions for the broadcasting companies to provide closed captions during prime times.
Internet - online discrimination. Do I complain? Nope 'cause this site satisfies me enough not to worry about videos.
DSLreports = best non-discriminating site. | |
|
|
asdfdfdfdf
Anon
2007-May-29 6:53 pm
The dishonesty of these groups is tiresome...They continue arguing that it won't happen when the truth is that they won't consider it a problem when it does happen.
They refuse to be honest about this because they know it increases the chances that proactive measures will be taken.
Of course these companies are going to be careful not to do anything stupid while this issue is being hashed out. What we are worried about is what will happen after they have been given the wink and the nod. Arguing that what will happen at that point can be predicted based upon what has happened up to this point is nothing short of imbecility. | |
|
|
ClearwireI guess the ACU, whoever they are, never heard of Clearwire blocking VoIP calls. Or maybe they have selective amnesia. | |
|
| |
Yauch
Member
2007-May-30 8:52 am
Re: ClearwireYes, because it's not like the FCC has the power to prevent Clearwire from doing such things. Nor would they stop such practices it even if they had that power. | |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
1 recommendation |
pnh102
Premium Member
2007-May-29 7:04 pm
Proven Lack of Enforcement of Existing Rules?The one demonstrated incident in which an ISP decided to block VOIP traffic was prosecuted under existing laws. That means net neutrality is already the law and it is being enforced. We do not need any other laws to mandate net neutrality since it is already the law. | |
|
| openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2007-May-29 7:18 pm
Re: Proven Lack of Enforcement of Existing Rules?Bingo. Legislation without provocation will cost everyone money with the only benefit going to lawyers and lobbyists.
For all of the fed-dislikers around here, there sure are a lot of believers that believe that the government can get a consumer-friendly law written correctly. | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2007-May-29 7:23 pm
Re: Proven Lack of Enforcement of Existing Rules?said by openbox9:For all of the fed-dislikers around here, there sure are a lot of believers that believe that the government can get a consumer-friendly law written correctly. Heh... I think the last time that happened we got that infamous bankruptcy reform law | |
|
| | | POBRes Firma Mitescere Nescit Premium Member join:2003-02-13 Stepford, CA
1 recommendation |
POB
Premium Member
2007-May-29 7:52 pm
Re: Proven Lack of Enforcement of Existing Rules?said by pnh102:I think the last time that happened we got that infamous bankruptcy reform law The law in question was not written by consumer advocates, but rather, the credit card company lobbyists. If you doubt that, then try to file personal Ch. 7 BK. Or try reading the law to determine the auspices under which you can file. You will fast determine that the "reforms" were nothing but a wish list expressed by credit card companies brought to reality by their coin-operated politicians. | |
|
| | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2007-May-29 7:55 pm
Re: Proven Lack of Enforcement of Existing Rules?said by POB:The law in question was not written by consumer advocates, but rather, the credit card company lobbyists. That's exactly what I meant. If Congress touches the subject of net neutrality, we will end up with a law that allows for ISPs to be net-un-neutral all they want. Kinda like how the CAN SPAM act legalized spam. | |
|
| | | | | POBRes Firma Mitescere Nescit Premium Member join:2003-02-13 Stepford, CA |
POB
Premium Member
2007-May-29 7:59 pm
Re: Proven Lack of Enforcement of Existing Rules?said by pnh102: If Congress touches the subject of net neutrality, we will end up with a law that allows for ISPs to be net-un-neutral all they want. Kinda like how the CAN SPAM act legalized spam. And this theory is based on what, exactly? Spam and NN are two very different things. | |
|
| | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2007-May-29 8:03 pm
Re: Proven Lack of Enforcement of Existing Rules?said by POB:And this theory is based on what, exactly? Spam and NN are two very different things. Are you not seeing the pattern? We've just discussed 3 different consumer related issues, namely, spam, bankruptcy and net neutrality. In the first 2 situations, the laws that were passed to deal with these problems only served to exacerbate them. What makes you think a new law regarding net neutrality (which is already mandated) is going to be different? | |
|
| | | | | | | Ahrenl join:2004-10-26 North Andover, MA 3 edits |
Ahrenl
Member
2007-May-30 4:14 pm
Re: Proven Lack of Enforcement of Existing Rules?The bankruptcy reform was written to make bankruptcy, especially chapter 7, more difficult. How did it fail? Chapter 13 bankruptcies are running at the exact level they were prior to the reform, and plenty of Chapter 7s still get done. Which can mean the people previous boosting the Chapter 7 #'s made well over the median income for their county (Now required to make under median for Chapter 7) and therefore had run up incredibly large debts and discharged them knowing they didn't need a good credit rating and could rely on their large incomes.
Net neutrality is important (at least in it's actual form, instead of the garbage that's been heaped on it from dozens of special interests) because the net is one of the last forms of true free speech available. You can get more news out of a reality show than the daily news now-a-days. It's not a difficult fix. Even treatment within data types. That's it. You want to set aside separate bandwidth for Voip? Great! But all voip traffic has to travel down that bandwidth. You don't get to tell some of it that it has to pay an additional fee to reach the customers that have paid for it already. | |
|
| | POBRes Firma Mitescere Nescit Premium Member join:2003-02-13 Stepford, CA
1 recommendation |
to openbox9
said by openbox9:Bingo. Legislation without provocation will cost everyone money with the only benefit going to lawyers and lobbyists. Using your logic, all the laws should be pre-empted unless and until someone actually commits a crime, then the law can be put back on the books. That's brilliant. Did you come up with that all by yourself or did you have a consult with someone else while passing the crack pipe around? | |
|
| | | ••••••••••••
|
| ·Consolidated Com.. ·Republic Wireless ·Hollis Hosting
|
to pnh102
said by pnh102:The one demonstrated incident in which an ISP decided to block VOIP traffic was prosecuted under existing laws. Interesting I had not heard of that. I would think without a notion of Network Neutrality an ISP would be able to block any traffic it wanted to "to protect its network" or because it "diminished value." Do you have a reference and what was the legal theory involved? /Tom | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
1 recommendation |
pnh102
Premium Member
2007-May-29 8:04 pm
Re: Proven Lack of Enforcement of Existing Rules?said by tschmidt:Do you have a reference and what was the legal theory involved? » news.com.com/Telco+agree ··· 633.html | |
|
|
Never heard of themWhat the heck is the "American Conservative Union"? Sounds rather newtgingrichy. | |
|
| ••••••••• |
1 recommendation |
Jussst Me
Anon
2007-May-29 8:41 pm
I am gonna rant for a few.....Since some leaders of this country are fond of using tubes as an example to explain how the internet works, I will do the same. Water flows through tubes to your house, of course only if the city provides water service(also another good analogy relating to availability of broadband). As far as I know we all receive basically the same water. It meets the same standard pretty much everywhere. Now if the water company decided it needed more revenue, it might decide to allow water from different sources. I know water delivery is not manipulated that easy but Ill use it as an example anyway. Lets just say if you are in Florida and feel like drinking water from West Virginia, you can have that option if you want to pay. If you want to drink water from Canada, you can if you want to pay. Is that a good option? I like that option. The only difference between this and the internet is the infrastructure is not there for the water system, it is for the internet. How did that get there? LOL Currently, in reality you have the (theoretically)same water no matter where you get it from, pumped to your house. High quality and it pretty much tastes the same. With the internet, you already have the choice of taste with out any slowdowns or waiting. I am not referring to speed as in 128 download speed versus 3.0 download speed(explained later). I am referring to the choice of content from wherever you choose. Read on and Ill explain. In the internet tubes, you already have a connection that is equal and full of choices because currently under "Net Neutrality" the consumer is protected against such practices. If you like the taste of Google, no problem. If you like the taste of Skype no problem, its there with no sales pitch, no extra cost no matter what without any interference. You have the choice! You may not if "Net Neutrality" goes away. ISPs may be able to decide what traffic is in the best interest to them and charge you for anything else. How can anyone hinder internet traffic? Well, the technology is already available, it is called "Quality Of Service". What QOS does is look at what traffic is coming across your internet connection and decides what should come first. It determines what traffic is favorable to whoever decided it to be favorable and makes unfavorable traffic wait until the favorable stuff has passed. Most likely this will all be done at your ISP. So you and your neighbors internet traffic will have to battle it out at your ISP to see who gets to go first before it hits the Information Super Highway. Do you think this will cause a slowdown? In order for QOS to work something has to wait. Personally, I like the current system of first come first serve we use now. It is equal to all and is only limited by your ISPs ability to be a provider of internet service. If you local loop is busy and your downloads suck at certain times of the day it merely reflects a lack of bandwidth and your provider most likely needs to upgrade his connection to the internet. Yes there is a difference between browsing with 128 low cost and 3.0 high cost connection speeds but does any consumer really want to lose the choice of speedy content delivery? You may lose that choice if "Net Neutrality" goes away. Keep the Internet Free! These people have a lot of good information. » www.savetheinternet.com/ | |
|
| ••••••••••••••••••••••• |
TechieZeroTools Are Using Me Premium Member join:2002-01-25 Lithia, FL |
Net Neutrality = SocialismLet the market decide, STFU and get back to work. | |
|
| ••••
|
|
|