This fellah has far too much time on his hands. This whole article is baseless blueskying, starting with the daft neutrality definition he got from Google. His article goes on to further muddy the water by inventing "what if" scenarios with no basis in reality.
The only real definition of network neutrality that matters (and there are lots of BS definitions out there) is that all packets are to be treated equally, no filtering, no preferences applied - packet handling as originally defined in the TCP/IP specification.
Excellent post - pretty much summed up exactly what I was thinking.
"The thing is, I think most people do want an internet like it exists today" - Fricken exactly!
"special, low-government-set price for the bandwidth they use" - That stumped me too.
"phone company sells bandwidth to ISP's" - That isn't how I understood how the internet worked. Maybe things have changed since the big telcos started having their way with it. I thought peering agreements were made between the various parties for the various peering points for exchanging bandwidth. I suppose in the end it could work down to charge per bandwidth, but I don't know.
"No one that I have heard of, other than Cleland, is suggesting that we can't let the free market dictate how fast an internet connection you can buy" - Ditto!
"Finally, net neutrality legislation would be a lousy trade off for consumers. The consumer benefits would be small, but the cost to consumers would be huge. Price regulation would destroy any economic incentive to innovate and invest in the private networks that make up the Internet. Over time, we would end up with a slower Internet and higher broadband prices and taxes for consumers, less broadband choice and slower broadband deployment to all Americans."
So if the price is regulated, it will go up more than it will if it's not regulated? Does that make sense to anyone? Anyone?
Personally, I don't have any broadband choice now. I can't see how it could get worse, except maybe if Comcast decides to gouge me even further. But if they aren't investing that means that I'm paying more for the same or less which makes no sense whatsoever. Oh wait - no sense from my POV, great sense from their POV. Captive audience means gouge city for incumbents. What, that means that they want to criple deployment, and give less choice because that makes sense from a business POV, which means that this campaign of theirs is a BIG FAT LIE! Who would have thunk?
"And it would also mean less privacy for all Americans, as net neutrality would require more government monitoring and surveillance of Internet traffic."
Wha wha what??? Where does that notion come from??? Talk about pulling it from his asshole.
Didn't read Craigs remarks. Prior experience informs me that there would be nothing there, and it seems that others agree.
We won't win this war unless we take what they say and respond to it. Playing Don Quixote against a different windmill will gain us nothing!
They can appoint all they bloody want, but the facts are:
ARIN/RIPE/LACNIC/APNIC/AfriNic control IP numbers and allocation, with NRO formed to coordinate between them. No national efforts at controlling IP allocations would be successful without the cooperation of these bodies. If you want to talk about control of the internet, these guys are at the root of what comprises the internet - the IP numbers that EVERYONE uses, whether or not they are aware of them.
The root-servers organization are ultimately in control over who they look to for data. If they were sufficiently outraged by some behavior of the ICANN, Verisign or whomever, there is nothing whatsoever to prevent them from just going off and making their own registry. And again, there is simply no way that any particular nation could force them all to play by it's rules.
The takeaway is this: These two organizations are in control so relax. If ICANN disappeared into a black hole the internet would go on. Remember that Jon Postell ably ran all the IP allocations and name assigning up until his death, and would in all likelihood still be running them if he were still alive.
What we need is another benevolent dictator like Jon to take back control of these low level functions.:) Oh, and put a stake through the heart of Verisign while he's at it and bring back Internic.
I had my AP open for a while, but I got nervous when I saw my neighbor using it to maintain his bank and stock accounts. If he'd just been using it to browse innocuous sites I'd have left it open, but I didn't want to be responsible for his sensitive data so I MAC locked it.
Maybe I'll open it again in the future, but I'll certainly continue to watch what is happening over it.
I've had mine turned off ever since this nonsence started - you never know anymore what your computer might catch from an audio CD, far safer to just start your player app manually, just like using a condom. Same for DVDs that helpfully install their own player software. I'll use my own fairly stolen DVD player, thank you.
Of course if I had the balls to toss Winders in the bin and switch to Linux permanently I'd have no worries. Problem is the apps that simply won't run under Linux no matter how clever you are.
New Hampshire is most certainly not "pretty much out of the way from just about anything". It's only about an hour to Boston from the most populated part of the state. I live in NH and commute to Mass every day.
Do you ever think there will be another MMORPG with PvP with out any rules? Most of them nowadays fall into the "faction vs faction only PvP" but I'm dying for a game where you can just gank anyone.
Well then, your prayers have been answered - Tibia operates several servers where there are not only no rules against killing other players, but in fact you can get experience by doing so.
You are overlooking, seemingly quite deliberately, the fact that they enumerated all modes of expression known at the time. The extension to new modes of expression as they are created are implied.
I really despise people that read the bill of rights as being the sole definition of our rights, instead of what it was intended to be - a non-exclusive statement of rights that they felt important at the time to make sure were clearly delineated, so as to prevent extravagant re-interpretations (such as has happened many times since) of the enumerated government powers into some all-inclusive powers. Just look at some of the powers the feds have assumed in the name of interstate commerce.
Do you interpret the interstate control rights in the limited manner intended, or do you support the expansive interpretation?
Why do we allow expansions beyond reason for clearly enumerated powers (which were intended to be sharply limited), yet try to apply the most restrictive interpretations to the bill of rights (which were intended to be a non-exclusive set of examples of civil rights)?
2 real world examples of nitwits, who may or may not have had underlying problems and a mutant. For these three people (ok, 2 people and the class of a specific type of mutant) we have to pass laws that affect everyone (at some point or another).
I notice the extreme left stuff was only slightly exagerated, except a couple of whoppers.
Your list, OTOH, is all whoppers from where this Libertarian stands.
Maybe I'm right leaning, IDK, but when I have to chose, I usually chose Repub because the dems just seem like such whackjobs. I'll pick seemingly sensible over seemingly whackjob anyday.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, is it just me or did that sound like Scientology speak?
Someone has a little problem with reality, I think.
First, Randi is unfailingly honest, which is more that I know about you.
Second, no one has taken the prize because they are all full of shit, much like you, I suspect.
LOL!
+1 funny ^_^
This fellah has far too much time on his hands. This whole article is baseless blueskying, starting with the daft neutrality definition he got from Google. His article goes on to further muddy the water by inventing "what if" scenarios with no basis in reality.
The only real definition of network neutrality that matters (and there are lots of BS definitions out there) is that all packets are to be treated equally, no filtering, no preferences applied - packet handling as originally defined in the TCP/IP specification.
I'd like to see them apply a "wiretapping" charge to someone with a hand held camera - even if I do record voice!
Dude, that is NOT a ghetto. I drive practically right by there every day to work.
It's just a typical working class neighborhood.
I'll get pictures if it'll make you happy.
Excellent post - pretty much summed up exactly what I was thinking.
"The thing is, I think most people do want an internet like it exists today" - Fricken exactly!
"special, low-government-set price for the bandwidth they use" - That stumped me too.
"phone company sells bandwidth to ISP's" - That isn't how I understood how the internet worked. Maybe things have changed since the big telcos started having their way with it. I thought peering agreements were made between the various parties for the various peering points for exchanging bandwidth. I suppose in the end it could work down to charge per bandwidth, but I don't know.
"No one that I have heard of, other than Cleland, is suggesting that we can't let the free market dictate how fast an internet connection you can buy" - Ditto!
"Finally, net neutrality legislation would be a lousy trade off for consumers. The consumer benefits would be small, but the cost to consumers would be huge. Price regulation would destroy any economic incentive to innovate and invest in the private networks that make up the Internet. Over time, we would end up with a slower Internet and higher broadband prices and taxes for consumers, less broadband choice and slower broadband deployment to all Americans."
So if the price is regulated, it will go up more than it will if it's not regulated? Does that make sense to anyone? Anyone?
Personally, I don't have any broadband choice now. I can't see how it could get worse, except maybe if Comcast decides to gouge me even further. But if they aren't investing that means that I'm paying more for the same or less which makes no sense whatsoever. Oh wait - no sense from my POV, great sense from their POV. Captive audience means gouge city for incumbents. What, that means that they want to criple deployment, and give less choice because that makes sense from a business POV, which means that this campaign of theirs is a BIG FAT LIE! Who would have thunk?
"And it would also mean less privacy for all Americans, as net neutrality would require more government monitoring and surveillance of Internet traffic."
Wha wha what??? Where does that notion come from??? Talk about pulling it from his asshole.
Didn't read Craigs remarks. Prior experience informs me that there would be nothing there, and it seems that others agree.
We won't win this war unless we take what they say and respond to it. Playing Don Quixote against a different windmill will gain us nothing!
All it takes is some anti-glare film (linear polarizer with a quarter wave retarder) and Bob's your uncle!
2 0Polarization%20Techniques%20and%20Devices.pdf
http://www.meadowlark.com/applicationNotes/Basic%
I suppose some stupid law will try to make this illegal now.
"You there with the polarizing film - drop it and reach for the sky you dirty pirate"
Milk of Manganese?
They can appoint all they bloody want, but the facts are:
:) Oh, and put a stake through the heart of Verisign while he's at it and bring back Internic.
ARIN/RIPE/LACNIC/APNIC/AfriNic control IP numbers and allocation, with NRO formed to coordinate between them. No national efforts at controlling IP allocations would be successful without the cooperation of these bodies. If you want to talk about control of the internet, these guys are at the root of what comprises the internet - the IP numbers that EVERYONE uses, whether or not they are aware of them.
The root-servers organization are ultimately in control over who they look to for data. If they were sufficiently outraged by some behavior of the ICANN, Verisign or whomever, there is nothing whatsoever to prevent them from just going off and making their own registry. And again, there is simply no way that any particular nation could force them all to play by it's rules.
The takeaway is this: These two organizations are in control so relax. If ICANN disappeared into a black hole the internet would go on. Remember that Jon Postell ably ran all the IP allocations and name assigning up until his death, and would in all likelihood still be running them if he were still alive.
What we need is another benevolent dictator like Jon to take back control of these low level functions.
Yay for my home state!!! (NH)
I had my AP open for a while, but I got nervous when I saw my neighbor using it to maintain his bank and stock accounts. If he'd just been using it to browse innocuous sites I'd have left it open, but I didn't want to be responsible for his sensitive data so I MAC locked it.
Maybe I'll open it again in the future, but I'll certainly continue to watch what is happening over it.
I hope "acting furtively" isn't cause for arrest!
Here! Here!
I've had mine turned off ever since this nonsence started - you never know anymore what your computer might catch from an audio CD, far safer to just start your player app manually, just like using a condom. Same for DVDs that helpfully install their own player software. I'll use my own fairly stolen DVD player, thank you.
Of course if I had the balls to toss Winders in the bin and switch to Linux permanently I'd have no worries. Problem is the apps that simply won't run under Linux no matter how clever you are.
And I wrote the last version of the DOS driver and the DOS/Windows interface code for the SpaceOrb 360.
:(
We finished the code then they let most of the group go.
Insensitive clods.
New Hampshire is most certainly not "pretty much out of the way from just about anything". It's only about an hour to Boston from the most populated part of the state. I live in NH and commute to Mass every day.
I read that as "I hate fucking Bill Gates" LOL
Well then, you shouldn't have married him Melissa.
Well then, your prayers have been answered - Tibia operates several servers where there are not only no rules against killing other players, but in fact you can get experience by doing so.
You are overlooking, seemingly quite deliberately, the fact that they enumerated all modes of expression known at the time. The extension to new modes of expression as they are created are implied.
I really despise people that read the bill of rights as being the sole definition of our rights, instead of what it was intended to be - a non-exclusive statement of rights that they felt important at the time to make sure were clearly delineated, so as to prevent extravagant re-interpretations (such as has happened many times since) of the enumerated government powers into some all-inclusive powers. Just look at some of the powers the feds have assumed in the name of interstate commerce.
Do you interpret the interstate control rights in the limited manner intended, or do you support the expansive interpretation?
Why do we allow expansions beyond reason for clearly enumerated powers (which were intended to be sharply limited), yet try to apply the most restrictive interpretations to the bill of rights (which were intended to be a non-exclusive set of examples of civil rights)?
Oh, God, I love this kind of argument.
2 real world examples of nitwits, who may or may not have had underlying problems and a mutant. For these three people (ok, 2 people and the class of a specific type of mutant) we have to pass laws that affect everyone (at some point or another).
Brilliant!
looks like your sig is getting snipped.
the last bit should read:
1101110 1100101
not:
110111
No, you distributed it, falling under that provision of the law. OFF WITH HIS HEAD!
"We can show ill effects from ... kids watching pornography."
We can? I've never seen the proof. It's just stated as a fact and not challenged.
And can we show ill effects from letting them watch violence? If so (and I assume we can) then why aren't kids prevented from watching that?
I notice the extreme left stuff was only slightly exagerated, except a couple of whoppers.
Your list, OTOH, is all whoppers from where this Libertarian stands.
Maybe I'm right leaning, IDK, but when I have to chose, I usually chose Repub because the dems just seem like such whackjobs. I'll pick seemingly sensible over seemingly whackjob anyday.
You'll have to back that up with a more specific link that actually supports your position. Merely asserting "They Do!!!!" is NOT enough.