The real fuck is coming...
Jim Thompson
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
And an almost...
mpm
My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/2cbt2vg
>
> ...Jim Thompson
> --
> | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
> | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
> | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
> | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
> | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
>
> I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
I'm curious, what do you see wrong with Net Neutrality?
To my mind, the big carriers should be charging for the pipe, not
what's in it.
We've learned our lessons before from such monopolies, and Oh, wait,
it was the exact same cast of characters!
As for net neutrality when it comes to wireless, I do understand it's
much more difficult to make new spectrum, or to efficiently reuse
existing spectrum in a cost-effect way (past a point).
It's not like wireline services were you can just lay new fiber, or
copper.
So, wireless will need some judicious regulatory carve outs, simply
from a bandwidth - fairness - access perspective.
But for companies that literally have Billions in veneues each month,
when they or someone else spouts that investment will be curtailed, I
have to laugh out loud.
I've not seen any compelling arguments that investment will suffer.
If anything, it will increase as regulatory certainty comes into
play.
As for FCC's jurisdiction to regulate Internet traffic, the days of
analog are long since past.
Your cell phone traffic is Internet based. The lines are blurred
already.
If Title-II can not be applied to today's modern cellular networks,
then in effect, there is no regulation whatsoever.
By the way, I strongly predict the FCC will win it's net neutrality
battles, AND that they will withstand scutiny of the Courts.
Unless I'm missing something here.?
Care to elaborate?
mpm
Oops - I obviously meant "revenues" and "each year", not each month.
That'll teach me to press "Send" while I'm on the phone....! :)
Rich Webb
[snippety snip]
>Unless I'm missing something here.?
You're over-analyzing. The syllogism goes:
Major premise: The Obama administration is the worstest-fascist-
socialist-godless-muslim-anticolonial-leftest-authoritarian in the
history of the universe!!!111!!
Minor premise: The Obama administration proposes X.
Conclusion: Therefore, X is bad.
It matters not which side of the net neutrality (or any other issue,
really) the current administration supports, the wingers will get their
hair on fire opposing it.
--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
John Larkin
wrote:
>On Dec 21, 11:15 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-
>My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/2cbt2vg
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>> --
>> | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
>> | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
>> | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
>> | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
>> | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
>> | E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com| 1962 |
>>
>> I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
>
>I'm curious, what do you see wrong with Net Neutrality?
>To my mind, the big carriers should be charging for the pipe, not
>what's in it.
>We've learned our lessons before from such monopolies, and Oh, wait,
>it was the exact same cast of characters!
Nearly all internet access is from regulated public utilities. The
cable companies, the phone companies, the RF and satellite links, all
use public right-of-way or spectrum, and there's often little or no
competition. So why let Comcast discriminate against Netflix, so they
can charge more for their own PPV movies?
I agree: I pay for bandwidth and internet access, and they should
supply it, and not snoop/censor/charge for whatever is in the packets.
John
Marc Guardiani
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:10:58 -0800 (PST), mpm <mpmill...@aol.com>
What I've heard is that there's more to it than just not
discriminating against certain traffic. It sounds like the "un-
fairness doctrine" applied to the internet. That is, if you put up
"controversial" content, then you must also provide opposing content.
This would be like forcing Ford to also provide information on
Government Motor cars to visitors of their website.
-- Marc
Les Cargill
That is bizarre. If it's not too much trouble, could you possibly
put up a link?
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
The best way I can explain what I understand about it is that there
is a hierarchy of ... interest.
At the top are the owners of the intellectual property itself - think
Sony or ILM.
Below that are theater chains, cable companies, Blockbuster & now
Netflix.
When a movie is made, they don't recover the cost until it's in
cable markets - HBO, etc. That's been brought out as part of why
HBO got into content generation to start with.
So if Netflix effectively "wipes out" DVD rental, PPV and
premium cable, then it greatly destroys the cash flow story
for those content owners. These are powerful people, who have
had to have serious legal and political muscle going back
to US v. Paramount ( which, according to Scorcese's documentary
about the evolution of the movie business - sorry I lost
the title, dernit - saw it on AMC once* ) was one of three
things that happened that weakened the dominance of movies
in American entertainment.
Might be "Personal Journey" but I am not sure:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112120/
SFAIK, Voip is a solved problem, so it's less on the table than
entertainment product.
> I agree: I pay for bandwidth and internet access, and they should
> supply it, and not snoop/censor/charge for whatever is in the packets.
>
but there is a longstanding tradition of guaranteed service vs. "take
what you get" in data comms. Should that lap over to the emerging
technologies? Good question.
> John
>
--
Les Cargill
Rich Grise
>
> I'm curious, what do you see wrong with Net Neutrality?
It's an unconstitutional imposition of government control to restrict
Freedom of Expression, and to dictate what people may or may not charge
for bandwidth usage.
Ever heard of the "Ministry of Truth?" (see "1984", by George Orwell.)
Hope This Helps!
Rich
Jim Thompson
It's simply the first step toward Internet censorship.
We started out by borrowing money from the Chinese, now we're
borrowing people-control techniques.
Make the world a better place... shun a socialist in your
neighborhood.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I'll have you know that I have never once referred to anyone here
as being a member of the ignorant, hateful, ugly, mooching class.
I have always been kind, referring to them by their own chosen
name... Democrats O:-)
John Larkin
I thought that NN *prevented* ISPs from editing content.
And it has nothing to do with how much a provider charges for
bandwidth. It says that they shouldn't discriminate based on content.
Do you want Comcast to charge you more for bandwidth because Netflix
is sending you a movie? I don't think it's any of their business what
the contents of a packet is.
Charge me for bandwidth, period. What we really need is some
anti-fraud enforcement, because the ISPs sell "up to xxx mbps" and
never deliver that much.
John
lang...@fonz.dk
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:49:57 -0800, Rich Grise
>
> <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
> >mpm wrote:
>
> >> I'm curious, what do you see wrong with Net Neutrality?
>
> >It's an unconstitutional imposition of government control to restrict
> >Freedom of Expression, and to dictate what people may or may not charge
> >for bandwidth usage.
>
> >Ever heard of the "Ministry of Truth?" (see "1984", by George Orwell.)
>
> >Hope This Helps!
> >Rich
>
> I thought that NN *prevented* ISPs from editing content.
>
> And it has nothing to do with how much a provider charges for
> bandwidth. It says that they shouldn't discriminate based on content.
>
> Do you want Comcast to charge you more for bandwidth because Netflix
> is sending you a movie? I don't think it's any of their business what
> the contents of a packet is.
yeah, I'm sure the ISPs have wet dreams of "blackmailing" say google
by saying if you don't want us to slow down access to youtube pay up
>
> Charge me for bandwidth, period. What we really need is some
> anti-fraud enforcement, because the ISPs sell "up to xxx mbps" and
> never deliver that much.
>
the problem is how you measure it, I'm sure no ISP has enough
bandwidth
into their network to support all their customers maxing out their
connection
at the same time, the question is what ratio is reasonable
same for wireless internet, can you claim 8mbit if thats what the
standard
supports? there will be places with bad reception
-Lasse
lang...@fonz.dk
how can regulation that say ISPs cannot mess with what the bandwidth
they sell
is used for be spun into something about censorship?
-Lasse
mpm
So are you for, or against, Net Neutrality?
I'm confused.
Either way, it appears to have passed today's Commission meeting.
Along party lines.
mpm
I agree. Let's separate the pipe from the content.
If I choose to do a Google search, Comcast (who I loathe, by the way!)
ought not to be permitted to intercept my search request and return
their own results, chocked full of their paid advertising.
Or for that matter, if I wanted to watch midget porn jello wrestling,
and I'm not saying that I do, (I prefer 10W-40), that should be my
prerogative, and at the basic cable rate. :)
I think there are (2) major reasons the carriers get nervous for net
neutrality, OK, 3:
1) Their deathgrip hold on customers continues to erode.
2) In wireless, let's face it, there's simply not enough network to
broadband everyone, and
3) For wireline networks, cutting the cord might actually mean
carriers will have to deliver on their advertised bandwidth -
something they probably can't do if they don't selectively restrict
bandwidth-hogging applications.
The solution: Don't advertise fast DSL if you can't deliver.
Of course, that'll never happen.
If #1 above eludes you, consider that the Apple Store alone makes more
money from folks downloading apps for Smartphones than many cellular
carriers even make!
And they spend zero dollars on towers, cell sites and wireless
infrastructure.
I'm sure the big-4 carriers would love to re-capture that revnenue,
but it's long gone.
They are probably just trying to stop the hemorrhaging.
I could go on, but I won't.
I for one am very pleased to see the FCC at least start to apply the
principles of Carterphone to wired, and wireless Internet.
AndyS
> I have always been kind, referring to them by their own chosen
> name... Democrats O:-)
Andy adds.
...... and Jim means that in the nicest possible way !!!! :>))))
Martin Riddle
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote
in message news:6kk1h6pja5vqknrej...@4ax.com...
> http://tinyurl.com/2cbt2vg
>
> ...Jim Thompson
> --
And here is your new Internet Access pricing......
<http://i.imgur.com/5RrWm.png>
at least it's A la carte
Cheers
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
But then they can charge each other, and pass the cost onto you.
Profits up - political donations up - everybody (who matters) is happy
--
Dirk
http://www.neopax.com/technomage/ - My new book
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
UltimatePatriot
>I'm curious, what do you see wrong with Net Neutrality?
Uh... It currently is (already was) neutral, and making laws to keep
it that way is nothing more than "a foot in the door" to further control
at will whenever the fucktards want it.
LESS government, IDIOT, NOT MORE!
Spurious Response
>As for net neutrality when it comes to wireless, I do understand it's
>much more difficult to make new spectrum, or to efficiently reuse
>existing spectrum in a cost-effect way (past a point).
Yer an idiot. My neighbor streams Gigabytes of movie traffic through
his phone and into his laptop, and then into his TV.
There are millions that now get all of their net access via their phone
hooks.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
First shoe principle. Until now (and still much in doubt) the FCC had no
jurisdiction over Internet content. Today they just decided that they do,
even though they've been told they don't.
mpm
<SpuriousRespo...@cleansignal.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:10:58 -0800 (PST), mpm <mpmill...@aol.com> wrote:
> >As for net neutrality when it comes to wireless, I do understand it's
> >much more difficult to make new spectrum, or to efficiently reuse
> >existing spectrum in a cost-effect way (past a point).
>
> Yer an idiot. My neighbor streams Gigabytes of movie traffic through
> his phone and into his laptop, and then into his TV.
>
> There are millions that now get all of their net access via their phone
> hooks.
So, what you're saying is, essentially, that your neighbor is
representative of the other 300 millions folks out there?
That's a really small sample size to draw that kind of conclusion.
This summer, AT&T Mobility took a beating in the press over their
networks' inability to keep up with just the iPhone demand, let alone
the rest of their traffic.
New York and San Francisco were singled out (multiple times) as the
top two most heavily overloaded networks.
Furthermore, the FCC is so keenly aware of this bandwidth crisis, that
they are considering opening up 530 Megahertz of additional spectrum,
with some of that coming from the (heretofore) sacred terrestrial
broadcast television bands!
If it were so easy to reuse existing spectrum as you seem to believe,
none of this would be necessary.
Basically, your assertions are completely without merit.
mpm
>
> They're *all* 'the real f$ck' and whenever this administration decides
> to 'fix' something you might as well bend over and grab your ankles...
Not picking on you, but your post is a convenient place to mention:
Opponents had the same arguments back in the Carterphone days. Those
arguments weren't valid then, and they've not improved with age.
Republicans will be quick to call this a "government takeover of the
Internet".
When in reality, the new rules essentially prevent ISP's from doing
the takeover. (loose translation: consumer protection)
Let's look at the Comcast / FCC appeals decision back in April.
That case was narrowly decided against the FCC on the grounds that it
did not have clear statutory authority under Title 1 to regulate
Comcast's network management practices.
Of course, the FCC could simply reclassify broadband as Title-2, which
would give them clear statutory authority, but there are loads of
problems with that approach, and the FCC is unlikely to ever consider
it.
The Court did not say that the FCC could not reclassify the service,
although pundits bloviate that it did. So I guess I'm saying, it's
not reasonable to blow this out of proportion.
Long before it ever went to Court, Comcast had already changed its
broadband access policy such that it would comply with the FCC
regulations enacted today anyway. (No doubt, to grease the wheels of
the impending Comcast NBC Universal merger) (For those not paying
attention: The Comcast debacle was over Comcast's blocking of
BitTorrent and other bandwidth hogs. They intentionally slowed down
the internet to BitTorrent users, so that other users on their
networks would not be adversely affected.) In short, they oversold
their pipes, and wanted no part of any regulatory scheme that would
throw a wrench in that practice.
Now, for those here that think "government takeover of the Internet"
is a bad thing, how would you feel if your ISP starting slowing your
email down to a crawl? (Instead of BitTorrent)
I mean, like 3 bytes every hour. It would take forever, and without
safeguards (implemented today by the FCC), there is nothing you can do
but switch to some other ISP.
And maybe they do the same damn thing, only with different web sites,
or different apps, or whatever.
For that matter, maybe they'll block all traffic to gmail accounts (if
they compete with Google, for example).
Would you like to live in a world where you can't even email someone,
because they happen to have a gmail address, and because the net isn't
neutral? I don't think so.
Now yes, I understand email and BitTorrent are completely different
things.
However, opponents of Net Neutrality can't just automatically assume
ISP's will always have network management schemes that they don't find
personally objectionable.
If there are no rules, then all bets are off.
We've already seen major abuses, Comcast included.
At least today's decision will prevent fracturing of the Internet into
various camps.
And, eventually, will lead the way to allowing consumers to attach non-
harmful devices to those networks.
* Like, using an iPhone on T-Mobile's network, for example.
Your thoughts?
Kevin McMurtrie
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com>
wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/2cbt2vg
>
> ...Jim Thompson
I wish you the best that Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast has to offer. It
will probably limit your trolling here.
--
I will not see posts or email from Google because I must filter them as spam
Michael A. Terrell
"lang...@fonz.dk" wrote:
>
> how can regulation that say ISPs cannot mess with what the bandwidth
> they sell is used for be spun into something about censorship?
According to the news on TV, the FCC can forcable shut down any
website without advance notice.
--
For the last time: I am not a mad scientist, I'm just a very ticked off
scientist!!!
Michael A. Terrell
What do you expect from dimmie?
THE DIMBULB SCORECARD
Abbey Somebody <abno...@castlefrankenstein.org>
AllInTheChi <Hos...@magicregion.org>
AM <thisthata...@beherenow.org>
AnimalMagic <Anima...@petersbackyard.org>
Archimedes' Lever <OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org>
AtTheEndofMyRope <AtTheEnd...@AtTheEndofMyRope.org>
AwlSome Auger <AwlSom...@BuyOneGetOneFree.org>
BaltoTopDog <Ba...@gnomealaskaiscold.org>
BarnCat <Bar...@keepingthevermindownatthebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Bart! <B@rt_The_Sheriff_Is_A_Nig**!.org>
BigBalls <BiggestB...@thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
10
BillyPilgrim <BillyP...@thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
BlindBaby <BlindMel...@wellnevergetthatonethealbumcover.org>
Booong... Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum... (Intel ad)" <Quad...@noreflections.org>
Bungalow Bill <Bugal...@AbbeyRoad.UKCOM>
Capt. Cave Man <ItIsSoEasyAC...@upyers.org>
CellShocked <cells...@thecellvalueattheendofthespreadsheet.org>
ChairmanOfTheBored <RUB...@crackasmile.org>
Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
<thesli...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Copacetic <Copa...@iseverythingalright.org>
Corbomite Carrie <Corb...@maneuver.org>
20
DarkMatter <DarkM...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
DarkSucker <DarkS...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Do I really need to say? <ra...@thescree.org>
Dorothy with the Red Shoes on <Dor...@notinkansas.org>
Dr. Heywood R. Floyd <Hey...@thebarattheendofthemonolith.org>
DrParnassus <DrPar...@hereforlongtime.org>
FatBytestard <FatByt...@somewheronyourharddrive.org>
FigureItOut <Locus...@magicregion.org>
FunkyPunk FieldEffectTrollsistor <FunkShun...@yermomma.org>
FunkyPunk FieldEffectTrollsistor <FunkShu...@yermomma.org>
30
George Orr <Gerg...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
GooseMan <TheG...@gonnagiveittothegander.org>
GoldIntermetallicEmbrittlement
<GoldIntermetall...@youdontknowjack.org>
GotchaDumbfuck! <BigG...@inyourdreams.org>
Hattori Hanzo <Outint...@billsbackyard.org>
Herbert John \Jackie\" Gleason" <BufordT...@Texarkanacops.gov>
HiggsField <higgd...@whutthableapduyoukno.org>
IAmTheSlime <TheSlimeFr...@oozingacrossyourlivingroomfloor.org>
ItchyGato <Itch...@catswithcritters.org>
ItsASecretDummy <secreta...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
40
Jupiter Jaq <Jupit...@BuyOneGetOneFree.org>
Kai <k...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
The Keeper of the Key to The Locks
<TheL...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
LargeMarge <Large...@thetentwoposition.org>
life imitates life <past...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Lil Red Riding In The Hood
<lilredridi...@grandmashouseattheendoftheuniverse.org>
lurch <lu...@yourangcousinitslibrary.org>
MadManMoon <TheWholePl...@hereandnow.org>
MakeNoAttemptToAdjustYourSet <DoNotAttemptT...@anytime.org>
Massiv...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org
<Massiv...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
50
MeowSayTongue <MeowSa...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Mr.Eko <ekoint...@lostisland.org>
Mr. Haney <mrh...@thebarattheendofthefarmroad.org>
MrTallyman <MrTal...@BananaCountersRUs.org>
My Name Is Tsu How Do You Do <T...@hereforlongtime.org>
Mycelium <myceli...@underyourshrooms.org>
Mycelium <myce...@thematrixattheendofthemushroomstem.org>
Neanderthal <da...@gottafindawomanrighton.org>
Notably Stationed <Notable...@inlife.org>
Nunya <jack_s...@cox.net>
60
OutsideObserver <Stand And Del...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Perenis <Per...@hereforlongtime.org>
Pieyed Piper <pieye...@thebongshopattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Phat Bytestard <PhatBy...@getinmahharddrive.org>
RoyLFuchs <RoyL...@urfargingicehole.org>
scorpius
<scor...@thewormholethatemptiesontheothersideoftheuniverse.org>
SkyPilot <some...@theedgeofspace.org>
SomeKindOfWonderful
<SomeKindO...@allthegirlsintheworldbeware.org>
Son of a Sea Cook <NotaBr...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
SoothSayer <SayS...@TheMonastery.org>
70
Spurious Response <Spurious...@cleansignal.org>
StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt <Zarat...@thusspoke.org>
Sum Ting Wong <SumTi...@thebarattheendoftheVenusianLightnigBolt.org>
Sum Ting Wong
<SumTi...@thebarattheendoftheVenusianLightnigBoltmonolith.org>
SuspendedInGaffa <suspende...@kateshouse.org>
The Great Attractor
<Sup...@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org>
TheJoker <Leonardoofthe...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
The Keeper of the Key to The Locks
<TheL...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
The Last Mimsy <mi...@TheOtherSideoftheLookingGlass.org>
The Loner <TheL...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
80
The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra <GeorgeT...@drmemory.org>
TheGlimmerMan <justag...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
TheKraken <ReachUpandSuckYo...@yup.org>
TheQuickBrownFox <thequick...@overthelazydog.org>
TralfamadoranJetPilot <BillyP...@thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
TutAm...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org
<TutAm...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
UltimatePatriot <Ultimat...@thebestcountry.org>
UpGrade <UpG...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
UpYerNose <UpYe...@witarubbahose.org>
ValleyGirl <LuvYe...@LikeIWouldGiveIt.Comeon>
90
VioletaPachydermata <PurpleE...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
WallyWallWhackr <wallywa...@thematrixattheendofthemushroomstem.org>
WarmUnderbelly <WarmUnderbe...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
WhySoSerious? <WhySoS...@leonardoofthelarcenouslaugh.org>
100WattDarkSucker <100WattD...@thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Rich Grise
>
> I'm curious, what do you see wrong with Net Neutrality?
These guys explain the problem much better than I can:
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/fcc-281240-internet-control.html
Hope This Helps!
Rich
mpm
Thanks, I'm trying to get on the road for the holidays so I will have
to read this later.
I stopped at the first paragraph when I got to the line that mentions
"The fear, hypothetical so far, is that companies that sell both
Internet access and Web content will block access to competitors'
content."
I'm expecting the whole premise of this article to be wrong.
Why?
Well, first we had Comcast blocking BitTorrent (mostly used for
movies, and Comcast cable also delivers movies).
Then, we have ATT, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile all blocking Skype on
smartphones, though many now do allow that traffic.
Those carriers provide voice services, and so does Skype.
So, there are just two real-world examples - hardly hypothetical.
And again, it's not just about blocking legal Internet traffic of
one's competitors.
Net Neutrality also has a component that deals with a consumers'
ability to connect any non-harmful device of their choice to the
network.
This has many parallels to the old days when Ma Bell controlled
everything. I expect the FCC to tackle this issue in 2011, probably
starting with cell phone boosters, the new 700MHz handsets (which
should be all-band capable to allow network portability AND benefit
public safety entities which might otherwise not be able to ramp
production on feature phones by themselves since the market is much
smaller). Also, I predict the FCC will start to clamp down on handset
exclusivity deals (ATT & the iPhone, for example), as this greatly
harms rural carriers (who can not effectively compete when locked out
of these devices), and of course, rural subscribers who have no access
to them as a result. I could go on....
After much careful consideration, I firmly believe we should separate
the pipe from the content.
And if we are not, then we definitely needs rules supporting Net
Neutrality so that the above Comcast, Skype, etc... situation does not
multiply.
And from what I've seen so far in the media, the rules passed
yesterday do not seem onerous (to me).
But then, I'm not on the board of directors of those corporations that
stand to lose their deathgrip on consumers, either.
Spehro Pefhany
<mpmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Dec 22, 3:30 am, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
>> mpm wrote:
>>
>> > I'm curious, what do you see wrong with Net Neutrality?
>>
>> These guys explain the problem much better than I can:http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/fcc-281240-internet-control.html
>>
>> Hope This Helps!
>> Rich
>
>Thanks, I'm trying to get on the road for the holidays so I will have
>to read this later.
>I stopped at the first paragraph when I got to the line that mentions
>"The fear, hypothetical so far, is that companies that sell both
>Internet access and Web content will block access to competitors'
>content."
>
>I'm expecting the whole premise of this article to be wrong.
>Why?
>
>Well, first we had Comcast blocking BitTorrent (mostly used for
>movies, and Comcast cable also delivers movies).
>Then, we have ATT, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile all blocking Skype on
>smartphones, though many now do allow that traffic.
>Those carriers provide voice services, and so does Skype.
>
>So, there are just two real-world examples - hardly hypothetical.
Not just blocking, but there are examples of cable companies
selectively throttling bandwidth for competitors such as Netflix.
>And from what I've seen so far in the media, the rules passed
>yesterday do not seem onerous (to me).
>But then, I'm not on the board of directors of those corporations that
>stand to lose their deathgrip on consumers, either.
The gravitational pull of the enormous amounts of money involved can
induce lobbying sufficient to warp reality itself..
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>
> "lang...@fonz.dk" wrote:
>>
>> how can regulation that say ISPs cannot mess with what the bandwidth
>> they sell is used for be spun into something about censorship?
>
>
> According to the news on TV, the FCC can forcable shut down any
> website without advance notice.
>
>
John Larkin
I thought the NN concept was that they can't charge each other.
John
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
They obviously need to make more donations...
Charlie E.
<ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
It is basically defining 'net neutrality' where SOME nets are more
neutral than others... ;-)
Charlie
Jim Thompson
wrote:
It's the "Fairness Doctrine" applied to the Internet. It's
censorship, plain and simple.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Michael A. Terrell
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>
> On 22/12/2010 06:48, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >
> > "lang...@fonz.dk" wrote:
> >>
> >> how can regulation that say ISPs cannot mess with what the bandwidth
> >> they sell is used for be spun into something about censorship?
> >
> >
> > According to the news on TV, the FCC can forcable shut down any
> > website without advance notice.
> >
> >
> Er... only in the USA
Or access to sites outside the US.
Jim Thompson
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>
>> On 22/12/2010 06:48, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>> >
>> > "lang...@fonz.dk" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> how can regulation that say ISPs cannot mess with what the bandwidth
>> >> they sell is used for be spun into something about censorship?
>> >
>> >
>> > According to the news on TV, the FCC can forcable shut down any
>> > website without advance notice.
>> >
>> >
>> Er... only in the USA
>
>
> Or access to sites outside the US.
One might be cynical and think that Skype going down today was a first
test of "Net Neutrality".
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
> mpm wrote:
>>
>> I'm curious, what do you see wrong with Net Neutrality?
>
> It's an unconstitutional imposition of government control to restrict
> Freedom of Expression, and to dictate what people may or may not charge
> for bandwidth usage.
Its not so much a question of charging as it is blocking or throttling
altogether.
Personally, I hope this whole net neutrality thing just goes away and my ISP
can keep blocking the crackpot fundie Christian and right wing websites.
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.
hamilton
> Rich Grise wrote:
>
>> mpm wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm curious, what do you see wrong with Net Neutrality?
>>
>> It's an unconstitutional imposition of government control to restrict
>> Freedom of Expression, and to dictate what people may or may not charge
>> for bandwidth usage.
>
> Its not so much a question of charging as it is blocking or throttling
> altogether.
>
> Personally, I hope this whole net neutrality thing just goes away and my ISP
> can keep blocking the crackpot fundie Christian and right wing websites.
>
If my favorite right/left wing web site gets throttled, who will I be
able to complain to ??
The hidden agenda here is to covertly ban free speech at the source.
If ALL web sites have equal access, there is no complaint.
Or are the republicans (Jim) looking at banning free speech before the
next election ??
hamilton
Jim Thompson
<pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>Rich Grise wrote:
>
>> mpm wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm curious, what do you see wrong with Net Neutrality?
>>
>> It's an unconstitutional imposition of government control to restrict
>> Freedom of Expression, and to dictate what people may or may not charge
>> for bandwidth usage.
>
>Its not so much a question of charging as it is blocking or throttling
>altogether.
>
>Personally, I hope this whole net neutrality thing just goes away and my ISP
>can keep blocking the crackpot fundie Christian and right wing websites.
That's real Christian of you, Paul :-(
Why should any ISP block ACCESS to any site?
Someone making you go to those sites?
Martin Riddle
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote
in message news:m365h612f0vlvi90b...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:44:06 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>
>>> On 22/12/2010 06:48, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>> >
>>> > "lang...@fonz.dk" wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> how can regulation that say ISPs cannot mess with what the
>>> >> bandwidth
>>> >> they sell is used for be spun into something about censorship?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > According to the news on TV, the FCC can forcable shut down
>>> > any
>>> > website without advance notice.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Er... only in the USA
>>
>>
>> Or access to sites outside the US.
>
> One might be cynical and think that Skype going down today was a first
> test of "Net Neutrality".
>
> ...Jim Thompson
> --
Well they were supporting the new rules.
<http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/skype-ctia-net-neutrality/>
Alas, for a different outcome;)
Cheers
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 17:05:25 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
>>Rich Grise wrote:
>>
>>> mpm wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm curious, what do you see wrong with Net Neutrality?
>>>
>>> It's an unconstitutional imposition of government control to restrict
>>> Freedom of Expression, and to dictate what people may or may not charge
>>> for bandwidth usage.
>>
>>Its not so much a question of charging as it is blocking or throttling
>>altogether.
>>
>>Personally, I hope this whole net neutrality thing just goes away and my
>>ISP can keep blocking the crackpot fundie Christian and right wing
>>websites.
>
> That's real Christian of you, Paul :-(
>
> Why should any ISP block ACCESS to any site?
Because ISPs don't have common carrier protection from liability for the
delivered content. If someone should read a bunch of hate speech and then
go out and act on it, the ISP could be sued.
Or maybe they just don't like their politics.
> Someone making you go to those sites?
No. But a child could stumble across one. Think of the children, Jim!
mpm
wrote:
> On 22/12/2010 06:48, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
>
> >> how can regulation that say ISPs cannot mess with what the bandwidth
> >> they sell is used for be spun into something about censorship?
>
> > According to the news on TV, the FCC can forcable shut down any
> > website without advance notice.
>
> Er... only in the USA
>
> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.neopax.com/technomage/- My new bookhttp://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show
The FCC is a regulatory body, not an enforcement agency.
I doubt the agency has the ability, authority, and/or inclination to
shut down web sites.
JeffM
>>I'm curious, what do you see wrong with Net Neutrality?
>>
>These guys explain the problem much better than I can:
>http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/fcc-281240-internet-control.html
>
This is all about content providers
--who also own the pipe by which that content is delivered--
wanting to hang onto their last-century business models
and wanting to NOT compete with other providers of content.
Simply stated:
Network Neutrality means that all packets are created equal.
Instead, here is what is happening today:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1921504&cid=34645460
In a proper world, what would happen is divestiture
as happened with movie studios and theaters in 1948.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc.
Michael A. Terrell
Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:44:06 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> >>
> >> On 22/12/2010 06:48, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "lang...@fonz.dk" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> how can regulation that say ISPs cannot mess with what the bandwidth
> >> >> they sell is used for be spun into something about censorship?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > According to the news on TV, the FCC can forcable shut down any
> >> > website without advance notice.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Er... only in the USA
> >
> >
> > Or access to sites outside the US.
>
> One might be cynical and think that Skype going down today was a first
> test of "Net Neutrality".
I couldn't access Usenet during that time.
Jim Thompson
<pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 17:05:25 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
>> <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich Grise wrote:
>>>
>>>> mpm wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm curious, what do you see wrong with Net Neutrality?
>>>>
>>>> It's an unconstitutional imposition of government control to restrict
>>>> Freedom of Expression, and to dictate what people may or may not charge
>>>> for bandwidth usage.
>>>
>>>Its not so much a question of charging as it is blocking or throttling
>>>altogether.
>>>
>>>Personally, I hope this whole net neutrality thing just goes away and my
>>>ISP can keep blocking the crackpot fundie Christian and right wing
>>>websites.
>>
>> That's real Christian of you, Paul :-(
>>
>> Why should any ISP block ACCESS to any site?
>
>Because ISPs don't have common carrier protection from liability for the
>delivered content. If someone should read a bunch of hate speech and then
>go out and act on it, the ISP could be sued.
What a pile of "progressive" nonsense.
>
>Or maybe they just don't like their politics.
That's Obamateur's aim... shut off dissension and discussion.
>
>> Someone making you go to those sites?
>
>No. But a child could stumble across one. Think of the children, Jim!
Try being a parent, Paul... apply parental controls to your PC.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>
> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:44:06 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
>> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 22/12/2010 06:48, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "lang...@fonz.dk" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> how can regulation that say ISPs cannot mess with what the bandwidth
>>>>>> they sell is used for be spun into something about censorship?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> According to the news on TV, the FCC can forcable shut down any
>>>>> website without advance notice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Er... only in the USA
>>>
>>>
>>> Or access to sites outside the US.
>>
>> One might be cynical and think that Skype going down today was a first
>> test of "Net Neutrality".
>
>
> I couldn't access Usenet during that time.
>
OTOH, Skype is still down for me here (UK)
Michael A. Terrell
But would he still be allowed to use it? ;-)
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:20:04 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>>
>>No. But a child could stumble across one. Think of the children, Jim!
>
> Try being a parent, Paul... apply parental controls to your PC.
How do I filter out Christian crackpot websites?
Jim Thompson
<pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:20:04 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
>> <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>
>>>
>>>No. But a child could stumble across one. Think of the children, Jim!
>>
>> Try being a parent, Paul... apply parental controls to your PC.
>
>How do I filter out Christian crackpot websites?
Why are you drawn to them ?:-)
Seriously, Paul, don't you know how to configure your browser to avoid
certain URL's?
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> Jim Thompson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:20:04 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
>> <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>
>>>
>>> No. But a child could stumble across one. Think of the children, Jim!
>>
>> Try being a parent, Paul... apply parental controls to your PC.
>
> How do I filter out Christian crackpot websites?
Ask the Chinese.
In fact, only get your filtered Net via China
Michael A. Terrell
Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:06:09 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
>
> ?Jim Thompson wrote:
> ?
> ?? On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:20:04 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> ?? ?pa...@hovnanian.com? wrote:
> ??
> ?[snip]
> ?
> ???
> ???No. But a child could stumble across one. Think of the children, Jim!
> ??
> ?? Try being a parent, Paul... apply parental controls to your PC.
> ?
> ?How do I filter out Christian crackpot websites?
>
> Why are you drawn to them ?:-)
>
> Seriously, Paul, don't you know how to configure your browser to avoid
> certain URL's?
And have nothng to bitch about? If he can't avoid the WBC website,
that's his problem.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:06:09 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
>>Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:20:04 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
>>> <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>
>>>>No. But a child could stumble across one. Think of the children, Jim!
>>>
>>> Try being a parent, Paul... apply parental controls to your PC.
>>
>>How do I filter out Christian crackpot websites?
>
> Why are you drawn to them ?:-)
Why are they drawn to children? Try stopping e-mail and Usenet spam,
Twitter, and Facebook Friends that attempt to seduce young minds.
I can ignore the loonies just fine myself.
Where was everyone when there was a big debate about putting all the porn
sites on a .xxx domain. But nothing was said about a domain for religious
sites that we can block easily.
Jim Thompson
<pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:06:09 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
>> <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:20:04 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
>>>> <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No. But a child could stumble across one. Think of the children, Jim!
>>>>
>>>> Try being a parent, Paul... apply parental controls to your PC.
>>>
>>>How do I filter out Christian crackpot websites?
>>
>> Why are you drawn to them ?:-)
>
>Why are they drawn to children? Try stopping e-mail and Usenet spam,
>Twitter, and Facebook Friends that attempt to seduce young minds.
You're deviating. Not unexpected... liberals are like that ;-)
I don't get E-mail spam. As I pointed out before, each business gets
assigned its own address (I have > 300 in play right now), any spam
from them I give them one chance to knock it off, 2nd spam, they're
bye-bye.
Usenet spam... none. I don't even get NymNoNuts, even when he changes
nom du jour. And I'm working on an automatic way to kill those that
troll feed him or Slowman.
Twitter and Facebook, that's a parental responsibility.
>
>I can ignore the loonies just fine myself.
>
>Where was everyone when there was a big debate about putting all the porn
>sites on a .xxx domain. But nothing was said about a domain for religious
>sites that we can block easily.
Trivial, read the Firefox help file.
Jasen Betts
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:54:13 -0800 (PST), "lang...@fonz.dk"
><lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>
>>On 21 Dec., 21:49, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
>>> mpm wrote:
>>>
>>> > I'm curious, what do you see wrong with Net Neutrality?
>>>
>>> It's an unconstitutional imposition of government control to restrict
>>> Freedom of Expression, and to dictate what people may or may not charge
>>> for bandwidth usage.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hope This Helps!
>>> Rich
>>
>>they sell
>>is used for be spun into something about censorship?
>
> jurisdiction over Internet content. Today they just decided that they do,
> even though they've been told they don't.
Yeah, isn't net neutrality an antitrust (competition law) issue?
whose dominion is that? DoJ?
--
⚂⚃ 100% natural
mpm
>
> - Show quoted text -
No. Net neutrality is regulation of broadband.
Violations of those regulations could conceivably lead to anti-trust
action.
Put another way, the FCC is a regulatory body, and DOJ is a judicial
body.
Enforcement is untimately up to Federal Marshals, although the FCC
does have its own Enforcement Bureau internally.
The FCC clearly has the authority to reclassify certain services as
Title-2 -- and I predict it will withstand scrutiny by the Courts
(where this is obviously headed?).
The authority to reclassify is delegated by the Congress.
If the Congress doesn't like it, they can re-write the Telecom Act.
Actually, not a bad idea anyway given how much is already outdated,
and some in the Congres are pursuing exactly that course.
Hope this clears it up for you.
-mpm
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
No! It's Congress', if anyone's [*], until they decide where to place the
burden of regulation. Neither the FCC, nor the DOJ, have *ANY* jurisdiction
until then.
[*] Ignoring any Constitutional issues.