batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Combat Chuck
Re: Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is..
said by Combat Chuck  :as said by Ahrenl quote:
Point 1: If you're never going to do it, then why do you care if there is legislation?
The whole idea that you aren't doing anything wrong so you have nothing to worry about. So if you are doing nothing wrong they can look in your bead room window? Masturbating wile hugging your Care Bare is not wrong, let them watch. |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl :Implying that without regulation those people won't have unfettered access is speculation. How is that an argument against it? When talking about the future it's all speculation. This isn't a court of law.. you answer only implies that you have no way of refuting the assertion. said by Ahrenl :I'm willing to give it any chance rather than no chance, which is what we're left with. So what you're saying is that you're just scare-mongering?
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Combat Chuck
Oh really? I seem to remember it being ABUNDANTLY clear that they were floundering after the backlash when they first announced their idea. Well maybe that's your problem. Selective memory. They've reinforced this point many times after their initial announcement.
So when it comes to freedom of information your willing to throw it all on the line and give the politicians, that don't understand the situation (the tubes you alluded to), the reigns; and that even with their ignorance of the situation they'll somehow write good regulation on the issue. Perhaps afterwards they can step outside and give marine one a tune up since they're so good at fixing things they obviously don't understand.
I'm willing to give it any chance rather than no chance, which is what we're left with. Believe it or not, some congressmen actually write legislation for a living, as opposed to tuning up airplanes [sarcasm] good analogy as usual [/sarcasm].
Ok, so you name one. (no one else, let Ahrenl prove he's not just blowing smoke) You don't want anyone else naming them because it would be too easy? Because you recognize that they exist? Saying "everything" is "always" "anything" is inherently incorrect "always". :P Example: Signed Yesterday, Pension reform, and tax cuts for the poor, and small business's. A Great piece of legislation, which is why there was no bickering over it. (except when they tried to add the removal of the estate tax, which isn't even supported by the ultra rich)
Implying that without regulation those people won't have unfettered access is speculation. How is that an argument against it? When talking about the future it's all speculation. This isn't a court of law.. you answer only implies that you have no way of refuting the assertion.
If you can just jump ship then why do you need legislation? Another provider will step in and offer unfettered access (which ironically is what the Comcast guy just proposed) I said I wouldn't pay them as much, I can't jump ship, as there's no other boat in the water. The legislation is needed to ensure that tiny sliver of free flowing information stays intact.
Oh does it? So if a company narrows that pipe to almost nothing but gives you another pipe to their "associates" which has the same effect as lowering qos for non "associate" sites, your ok with that; that company would still be net neutral. As long as the bandwidth allocation to the pipes are separate, they can do whatever they want. That's what I want the legislation to enforce. If they think that's the best business plan, then so be it. |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl :It's not as hard as you make it out to be. I pay my monthly fee to have access to a dumb pipe. That's what net-neutrality applies to. Oh does it? So if a company narrows that pipe to almost nothing but gives you another pipe to their "associates" which has the same effect as lowering qos for non "associate" sites, your ok with that; that company would still be net neutral.
said by Ahrenl :If they want to try and sell me a narrow pipe, they'll lose all the extra revenue I'm willing to pay to have a fat pipe, as I won't be subscribing to their dedicated additionals. If you can just jump ship then why do you need legislation? Another provider will step in and offer unfettered access (which ironically is what the Comcast guy just proposed)
said by Ahrenl :If you think the future livelihood of our economy doesn't depend on 2/3's of it having unfettered access to the internet, well, you'd be wrong. Implying that without regulation those people won't have unfettered access is speculation.
said by Ahrenl :There are plenty of examples of good legislation Ok, so you name one. (no one else, let Ahrenl prove he's not just blowing smoke)
said by Ahrenl :it's just the bad ones effect life to a greater degree (because of the damage they can cause) and seem to be more plentiful. When it comes to the importance of freedom of information however, it is absolutely worth the small chance that it gets royally screwed. So when it comes to freedom of information your willing to throw it all on the line and give the politicians, that don't understand the situation (the tubes you alluded to), the reigns; and that even with their ignorance of the situation they'll somehow write good regulation on the issue. Perhaps afterwards they can step outside and give marine one a tune up since they're so good at fixing things they obviously don't understand.
said by Ahrenl :At this point, if something isn't done, the incumbents have made it ABUNDANTLY clear what their intentions are. Oh really? I seem to remember it being ABUNDANTLY clear that they were floundering after the backlash when they first announced their idea.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| reply to batterup
as said by Ahrenl
quote:
Point 1: If you're never going to do it, then why do you care if there is legislation?
The whole idea that you aren't doing anything wrong so you have nothing to worry about.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to LilYoda
said by LilYoda :said by Combat Chuck :But the idea that if they don't intend to do it they have nothing to fear from legislation is as ridiculous applied to this as it is applied to people who are concerned by wiretapping. Good point. What ever the point is it went over my head. What does wiretapping have to do with net-neutrality? |
|
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
| reply to Combat Chuck
said by Combat Chuck :But the idea that if they don't intend to do it they have nothing to fear from legislation is as ridiculous applied to this as it is applied to people who are concerned by wiretapping. Good point.
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison) |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Combat Chuck
It's not as hard as you make it out to be. I pay my monthly fee to have access to a dumb pipe. That's what net-neutrality applies to.
If they'd like to offer their own services on dedicated channels, that's fine and dandy, maybe someone will pay for that too. It's the choice of the dumb pipe that they need to maintain, because there is no competitor I can go to, to get it. If they want to try and sell me a narrow pipe, they'll lose all the extra revenue I'm willing to pay to have a fat pipe, as I won't be subscribing to their dedicated additionals.
If you think the future livelihood of our economy doesn't depend on 2/3's of it having unfettered access to the internet, well, you'd be wrong.
There are plenty of examples of good legislation, it's just the bad ones effect life to a greater degree (because of the damage they can cause) and seem to be more plentiful. When it comes to the importance of freedom of information however, it is absolutely worth the small chance that it gets royally screwed. At this point, if something isn't done, the incumbents have made it ABUNDANTLY clear what their intentions are. |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl :Fortunately the entire discussion is framed around the internet service pipe. Unfortunately that's not the entire discussion. Where is the line drawn? What constitutes being non-net-neutral?
Is it just charging content providers for higher QOS? Is limiting the speeds of end users based on how much they pay a month? Is it limiting free access of data by limiting internet access to a single channel while giving your own services dedicated channels?
The bottom line is that there is no way to target what is net neutral without either making the definition to broad (thus it encompasses charging customers more for higher speeds), or making the definition too narrow and thus ineffective (so a cable company could just put infrastructure in place to make it so preferred content has a wide channel while general internet gets squeezed thru a narrow pipe).
You can be sure as hell that legislators are going to choose the broad option if for no other reason then it allows them more control.
--edit--
just FYI, yes i know that the CC guy is making these announcements because he's worried about his companies bottom line, thus I could care less what he or any other CEO says about things like this. But the idea that if they don't intend to do it they have nothing to fear from legislation is as ridiculous applied to this as it is applied to people who are concerned by wiretapping.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. |
|
