Internet NEUTRALITY is VERY BAD

[ElectRonPaul2008]

There are trolls appearing on this forum trying to tell people that

INTERNET MUST STAY NEUTRAL.


This is the name of tha Government legislation NET NEUTRALITY ACT, which is basically GOVERNMENT CONTROL of the Internet.

Don't be fooled by the word NEUTRAL.

It is same kind of lie as FEDERAL RESERVE.

INTERNET MUST STAY FREE.

[Xonox]

Don't let it be neutralized!

[Ron2Win]

Patriot Act = Invasion of Privacy Act

Death Tax used to be Estate Tax

[BuddyRey]

There are trolls appearing on this forum trying to tell people that

INTERNET MUST STAY NEUTRAL.


This is the name of tha Government legislation NET NEUTRALITY ACT, which is basically GOVERNMENT CONTROL of the Internet.

Don't be fooled by the word NEUTRAL.

It is same kind of lie as FEDERAL RESERVE.

INTERNET MUST STAY FREE.

Sure, instead of government protection of a free speech outlet, which is demanded in our constitution, let's let Rupert Murdoch and the big telecoms buy up the net! The philosophy of liberty will really flourish then!

/sarcasm

[RucdelaSpook]

I recently took a "candidate calculator" survey to see which candidate I most agreed with (93% Ron Paul!!!:cool:), but I was confused by the term Internet neutrality. I read the description of it and decided to vote 'no' to internet neutrality.

Then I had an argument with my friend's dad as to what support for internet neutrality means. My friend took his dad's side and voted for Internet neutrality, on the basis that it 'should be kept neutral,' and 'fair for everyone.'

I got confused. Then, I've been looking all over the web for what Ron Paul thinks about Internet Neutrality (I know he had been opposed to regulation) and saw that he was Pro-neutrality and Anti-neutrality. I was wondering if others had been as confused as I was.

Now that I've read this it's clarified some things for me. Thanks!

(I think that the point I disagreed with Dr. Paul on was the Border Fence, I said no, even though he publicly claims that the only reason he voted for it was that it also meant denying amnesty towards illegal immigrants-- he doesn't really think a fence is a practical idea. I live in El Paso, TX, a border town, and I think the idea of a border fence is REDUNCULOUS.)

Here's the test if you want to take it: http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html

[Laja]

neutral to them means controlled!

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Im Pro- Patriot Act. We need to be patriotic. Patriotism needs to be protected, unless you want to leave patriotism to guys like Rupert Murdoch

[nebulous]

Sure, instead of government protection of a free speech outlet, which is demanded in our constitution, let's let Rupert Murdoch and the big telecoms buy up the net! The philosophy of liberty will really flourish then!

Murdoch is the son of a newspaper proprietor...
Murdoch Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch#Early_life_and_family)
His son James will probably take over so look out, no doubt he will try to build up more control by owning the internet or whatever he can! How else would he be able to top his dad as his dad... dad...
James Murdoch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Murdoch_%28media_executive%29#Business_caree r)

[Kasira]

All net neutrality means is that ISPs have to treat all data that comes through them equally. Without it, they could extort various websites to have their data display faster. Or, they could censor things and just say that it's not high priority data, and that's why it's not getting through. Or any number of nefarious things.

Net neutrality is important to have. I don't want Ma Bell controlling what I can and can't access. While it would be nice if we could let the market take care of it, 1) most people have only one provider in their area, and 2) they can still screw up other people's data that happens to go through their networks.

Don't be fooled by these idiots who only see "government regulation". We regulate monopolies. It's necessary. Get over it.

[Redcard]

Net neutrality means , quite simply... would you want providers to be allowed to filter, limit, control, or otherwise edit/manipulate/charge for various features of the internet.

For example, imagine paying an extra fee per month to use google. . or WoW.. or AIM/ICQ/Yahoochat.

That's NON neutrality.

What Net Neutrality means is that your access to reach any site is not controlled by a third party outside of you and the site.

I'm personally for it. If you think they're censoring Ron Paul now, wait until the cable companies and what not that control the access to the net start making it REAL hard to get to RPF.com

[Original_Intent]

Anybody against "No Child Left Behind" WANTS CHILDREN TO BE LEFT BEHIND! Oh the humanity....!

[Fox McCloud]

Don't be fooled by these idiots who only see "government regulation". We regulate monopolies. It's necessary. Get over it.

That's not very Libertarian; monopolies only exist because of government...regulating "monopolies" usually only benefits the companies in the long run.

Net neutrality....there's several arguments for and against it....I'm a bit neutral, but lean towards enforcing it, just not through legislation.

against:
-it's the telcom's networks; why should the government be able to tell them what to do with it?
-it could lead to more regulation in the future, only it would be negative.

For:
-free speech/interaction/websites could be hindered...just not by the government, but the corporations themselves.


Realistically, it's not getting at the very heart of the problem....and that's the FCC. The FCC helps create the monopolies by granting telcom and cablecom's exclusive rights to an area....often when a competing telephone company comes in, they're blocked from doing so because "there's already an established company".

This, in itself sets up the telcoms and cablecoms as media monopolies...if the FCC didn't exist (or do what they do), then we'd have a lot more cable and telephone companies all competing against each other....and the companies that would block certain traffic would fall off the edge of the world very quickly.

I really cannot truly describe how much I detest the FCC; even before I had Libertarian ideals, I wished they would be abolished, simply because of the amount of problems they've created and enforced.


So, net neutrality, for? Against?

I generally lean towards "against" and abolishing the FCC in the process.

as for if I wanted it to be enforced, then it should be handled by the court-system, and not through legislation.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Net neutrality means , quite simply... would you want providers to be allowed to filter, limit, control, or otherwise edit/manipulate/charge for various features of the internet.

For example, imagine paying an extra fee per month to use google. . or WoW.. or AIM/ICQ/Yahoochat.

This is like saying that the government should regulate McDonalds because you are worried they are going to start charging you extra for napkins

1. Its their napkins, they can charge money for them if they want.
2. There is no reason to believe they are actually going to do this

[Redcard]

This is like saying that the government should regulate McDonalds because you are worried they are going to start charging you extra for napkins

1. Its their napkins, they can charge money for them if they want.
2. There is no reason to believe they are actually going to do this

No.. your anaolgy is false.

It's MORE like saying that Youtube should charge you ONLY to watch Ron Paul Videos (or whatever they want to charge you for)

To make your analogy make more sense..

It's like McDonalds charging you for parking even though you walked in.

As for them "Not doing it", guess what? Comcast ALREADY IS limiting traffic on a variety of protocols, not the least of which is Bittorrent. They also delay traffic to websites. It's going on RIGHT NOW, because it's legal.

-----------------

Let me edit something, since that Youtube example still seems to be regulatory and is their decision.

The reason this is bad is because it is the antithesis of Free Trade. It's closed trade.. restricted trade. The government right now has no control over the internet, none. And they likely never will. Right now, the internet is controlled solely by the interests of large corporations. Up to now, they've played "nice" with each other. But, sometime down the road, they might NOT. I don't want to pay extra for Myspace because Comcast wants me to. I don't want to pay per google search. Trust me, they CAN do this.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Net Neutrality is supported by people who think our government angels will save us from the evil big corporations like Comcast. What they fail to realize is that the legislation will likely be designed by the guys over at Comcast.

[Smiley Gladhands]

Comcast is getting punished financially for many of its stupid mistakes already. As long as the government isn't regulating to create/benefit monopolies, wouldn't Comcast continue to be punished if they gave preferential treatment to some websites? A free(er) market would surely take care of this (potential) problem. No?

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Comcast is getting punished financially for many of its stupid mistakes already. As long as the government isn't regulating to create/benefit monopolies, wouldn't Comcast continue to be punished if they gave preferential treatment to some websites? A free(er) market would surely take care of this (potential) problem. No?

Exactly. Net Neutrality is nothing more than a system in which the corporations can establish their monopolies without fear of the free market.

Its just like the "Universal Healthcare" scam. Its a deal set up by the medical industry for a perpetual monopoly mandated by law.


Really, its a bunch of guys who saw what happened to AOL, and thought, "Hmm, If only we could screw customers without going bankrupt. . . NET NEUTRALITY!"

[billyjoeallen]

It's orwellian doublespeak, like the Patriot act. Net neutrality is net regulation. It is bad.

[brandon]

www.dontregulate.org

[Goldwater Conservative]

Why did net neutrality even become an issue in the first place? Did a corporation actually do anything to warrant the discussion, or did some politicians just want to start something for political points, or worse to appease some group of lobbyists, or worse still to gain control of the Internet?

Anyway, the government is just another corporation in my opinion, only with even more shareholders (voters) than there are in private corporations, which means each has less of a voice, and a monopoly on the use of coercive force.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Why did net neutrality even become an issue in the first place? Did a corporation actually do anything to warrant the discussion, or did some politicians just want to start something for political points, or worse to appease some group of lobbyists, or worse still to gain control of the Internet?

Even worse. As counter-intuitive as it sounds, its a plot for the corporations to gain control of the Internet.

[asgardshill]

It's orwellian doublespeak, like the Patriot act.

Or the "Fairness Doctrine". Or "A Nickel For America". Who could be against "fairness" or bemoan the loss of a mere nickel? :rolleyes:

[specsaregood]

People that think that the "Net Neutrality" legislation is a good thing are overlooking a very simple fact.

Is Washington corrupt? Yes.
Are our politicians owned by big corporate lobbyists? Yes.

If you agree with the above, why on earth would you think that ANY bill passed by these fools would increase our freedoms and rights? They have proven time and time again that the only serve to promote the interests of big corporations. Keep the government out of it. The corporations don't have the right to arrest you, the government does.

Trusting the government in its current form to actually help promote liberty is naive.

[Redcard]

Okay. But if you think the MSM has control over who you see on TV, in Newspapers, on TV, and on the Radio, get ready for them to have control over who you see online.

[BuddyRey]

What's the situation with the net right now?

Is it government-owned, or privately-owned?

In either case, I would advise preserving it exactly as it is right now. It's a winning formula, so why screw around with it?

And to those who believe corporations have some sort of royalist "manifest destiny" property rights over OUR free speech outlet, THIS is the biggest beef I have with libertarians in general; they're all for protecting people from the coercive power of government, but when businesses want to step all over the public trust (i.e. insurance companies not paying out after Hurricane Katrina, medical and genetic records being fair game for seizure by HMO's), they're mysteriously absent from the scene.

I love the concept of free and unregulated markets, but for Heaven's sake, you can't call yourself an individualist when you neglect your responsibility to speak out against atrocities perpetrated against individuals by collectives, whether they be public or private.

[Redcard]

What's the situation with the net right now?

Is it government-owned, or privately-owned?

In either case, I would advise preserving it exactly as it is right now. It's a winning formula, so why screw around with it?.

Currently , it's mostly privately owned. The reason companies haven't started instituting these type of "access levels" and "costing structures" as they have with cable TV and every other media outlet in the world, is because they are waiting for the government to take action on it. They don't want to put in all these intricate pricing schemes and then have the government take it all away witha free enterprise type rule.

If you like having this forum, and you like having the right to say what you want, and you like having the right to read blogs that are non-mainstream, then I suspect you are for Net Neutrality.

If we fail to suceed on this, count on paying your ISP a "WoW fee" to access WoW.. a Google Fee to access Google.. and other such fees. Count on Youtube fees, count on "Internet Lite" being just the "company approved" set of sites, maybe some email, and that's it.

They'll run it just like they do with cable, charging you more, and taking bribes and kickbacks from other companies to "prioritize" their sites.

If you don't believe it's happening, understand this. Myspace is owned by Rupert Murdoch.. and they are _ALREADY IN TALKS_ with various Cable providers to get Myspace preferential treatment.

Understand that this "government regulation" that you're so afraid of isn't controlling or restricting your information. It's not removing your free speech. It's ensuring that the internet doesn't become "The Internet, presented by Fox."

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Currently , it's mostly privately owned. The reason companies haven't started instituting these type of "access levels" and "costing structures" as they have with cable TV and every other media outlet in the world, is because they are waiting for the government to take action on it. They don't want to put in all these intricate pricing schemes and then have the government take it all away witha free enterprise type rule.

If you like having this forum, and you like having the right to say what you want, and you like having the right to read blogs that are non-mainstream, then I suspect you are for Net Neutrality.

If we fail to suceed on this, count on paying your ISP a "WoW fee" to access WoW.. a Google Fee to access Google.. and other such fees. Count on Youtube fees, count on "Internet Lite" being just the "company approved" set of sites, maybe some email, and that's it.

They'll run it just like they do with cable, charging you more, and taking bribes and kickbacks from other companies to "prioritize" their sites.

If you don't believe it's happening, understand this. Myspace is owned by Rupert Murdoch.. and they are _ALREADY IN TALKS_ with various Cable providers to get Myspace preferential treatment.

Understand that this "government regulation" that you're so afraid of isn't controlling or restricting your information. It's not removing your free speech. It's ensuring that the internet doesn't become "The Internet, presented by Fox."

To take a line from The Aviator:

"Now, you introduced this bill to the Senate. A lot of words. You write all of them? Did you write any of them, senator?"

Ill tell you who is writing the Net Neutrality legislation; Executives working for Rupert Murdoch. Just as the insurance companies are writing the Universal Healthcare legislation.

[Crickett]

To take a line from The Aviator:

"Now, you introduced this bill to the Senate. A lot of words. You write all of them? Did you write any of them, senator?"

Ill tell you who is writing the Net Neutrality legislation; Executives working for Rupert Murdoch. Just as the insurance companies are writing the Universal Healthcare legislation.

I have really enjoyed your posts in this thread. I see NO reason WHATSOEVER for the government to even be discussing the internet. It was started by the people, for the people, and the gove't (sorry Red) can't do one thing to "help" it, so they can keep their grubby mitts off it..Free market will control it if necessary. NO regulations, I vote NO........I don't care if it is a regulation to keep it free forever or whatever, there will be fine print on the second to last page that says something else. NO NO NO

[Matt Collins]

Sure, instead of government protection of a free speech outlet, which is demanded in our constitution,No, the Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". The Constitution only protects the [federal] government from interfering in the press. It says nothing about ensuring "press remains free".

In other words, it isn't the [federal] government's responsibility to oversee the press. That's OUR job - We The People.

[Matt Collins]

Don't be fooled by these idiots who only see "government regulation". We regulate monopolies.But what you fail to realize is that those monopolies only exist because they are government granted monopolies. This means that they don't have to compete in the free market because the government has granted them special benefits/protections.

Also, no where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to regulate monopolies OR communications.


You should really do some more research.:rolleyes:


Oh - and by the way, you are hot! :D

[Matt Collins]

Net Neutrality is supported by people who think our government angels will save us from the evil big corporations like Comcast. What they fail to realize is that the legislation will likely be designed by the guys over at Comcast.HA HA HA! I almost spewed my drink when I read this. Sooooo true.


Yes - the government is going to save the Internet for us.
The same government that got us bogged down into Iraq
The same government that botched Katrina
The same government that can't balance it's own budget
The same government who doesn't follow it's own rules and spies on it's own citizens


Yeah... sorry if my faith in the government to solve anything is a bit weak :rolleyes:

[nebulous]

Currently , it's mostly privately owned. The reason companies haven't started instituting these type of "access levels" and "costing structures" as they have with cable TV and every other media outlet in the world, is because they are waiting for the government to take action on it. They don't want to put in all these intricate pricing schemes and then have the government take it all away witha free enterprise type rule.

If you like having this forum, and you like having the right to say what you want, and you like having the right to read blogs that are non-mainstream, then I suspect you are for Net Neutrality.

If we fail to suceed on this, count on paying your ISP a "WoW fee" to access WoW.. a Google Fee to access Google.. and other such fees. Count on Youtube fees, count on "Internet Lite" being just the "company approved" set of sites, maybe some email, and that's it.

They'll run it just like they do with cable, charging you more, and taking bribes and kickbacks from other companies to "prioritize" their sites.

If you don't believe it's happening, understand this. Myspace is owned by Rupert Murdoch.. and they are _ALREADY IN TALKS_ with various Cable providers to get Myspace preferential treatment.

Understand that this "government regulation" that you're so afraid of isn't controlling or restricting your information. It's not removing your free speech. It's ensuring that the internet doesn't become "The Internet, presented by Fox."
Who says we have to buy from providers who make deals with Murdoch this is why we need the market to be free from the government. There is another thread about starting the Liberty News Network, we could expand that with the Liberty Internet and provide service for people who want to stay away from Murdoch!

[Redcard]

Who says we have to buy from providers who make deals with Murdoch this is why we need the market to be free from the government. There is another thread about starting the Liberty News Network, we could expand that with the Liberty Internet and provide service for people who want to stay away from Murdoch!

And , you think that the backbone providers who sell space to Liberty News Network and Liberty Internet will ALLOW you to view those sites?

What if THEY'VE made deals with Fox as well?

[brandon]

And , you think that the backbone providers who sell space to Liberty News Network and Liberty Internet will ALLOW you to view those sites?

What if THEY'VE made deals with Fox as well?

You fail to understand free markets.

[Redcard]

You fail to understand free markets.

I clearly understand free markets.

You're seeing Free Markets in the Mainstream media right now. Actually, you're seeing restrained markets by the US Government. They want to be free, though, and Ron Paul wants them to be free.

[bhull]

I thought a free market meant no government regulation.

If comcast is filtering websites you go somewhere else, and once comcast loses enough customers/money they'll get the point.

[brandon]

I clearly understand free markets.

You're seeing Free Markets in the Mainstream media right now. Actually, you're seeing restrained markets by the US Government. They want to be free, though, and Ron Paul wants them to be free.

No you dont understand free markets. If you did you would realize that there would not only be ISP's that dont filter/prioritize packets, but there would be backbones as well.

If there is a market for something, then the service/product will be provided. Do you think there is a market for unfiltered, unregulated, unprioritized uncensored internet? I sure as hell do.

I dont understand your 2nd paragraph, are you trying to help me argue against your point?

[IRO-bot]

I thought a free market meant no government regulation.

If comcast is filtering websites you go somewhere else, and once comcast loses enough customers/money they'll get the point.

+1 QFT.

[Fox McCloud]

I thought a free market meant no government regulation.

If comcast is filtering websites you go somewhere else, and once comcast loses enough customers/money they'll get the point.

in an ideal situation, this would work...sadly, in most cases, it's Comcast or dial-up (though, in some instances, it's Comcast, a phone company, or dial-up).

This is what I was saying in a previous post...Net Neutrality doesn't get at the heart of the problem...it's like saying abolishing the income tax will eliminate all our ills from the Fed immediately.

It might start out as a noble thing, but I have no doubt it'll lead to regulation of the Internet, in a bad way, down the road.

The real issue is the FCC; they create and prop up these cable or telephone monopolies by giving them exclusive rights to service city "XXX" or town "YYY"...in a truly Free Market, you'd have multiple cable and telephone companies in most towns, and this wouldn't be an issue or a problem then.

still, even with the strictness of the FCC, things are getting better; there's EVDO, which is available in most large cities via Sprint, Verizon, or Alltel (Verizon once limited you to 5 GB per month, but they have since dropped this...I suspect they were losing a lot of customers to Sprint, who said they don't care WHAT you do with your service...you just can't host servers)...there's AT&T and T-Mobile that also has high-speed wireless Internet access.

Also, you'll be seeing WiMAX deployed in the near future by Sprint, which will have insane capabilities (high speed and low latency)....then you'll have AT&T and Verizon deploying LTE. EVDO isn't a competitor to the cable or telephone companies because of it's semi-bad latency and mediocre speed....but WiMAX and LTE will give them a run for their money.

plus, there's the whole "blimband" thing and low-orbital satellites (low latency) which could provide broadband too, in the next decade (or less).

even with the FCC, things will get better....but, realistically, we shouldn't have the FCC as they directly create media monopolies and conglomerates.

[EvilNight]

Net Neutrality is a totally stupid idea.

We ALREADY HAD segregated services. Anyone here ever hear of CompuServe, AOL, Prodigy, Genie, etc? Each was a captive portal that only connected their own customers with their own content.

IT FAILED. The free market decided that everything should be interlinked. It's just that simple. If it was going to happen it would have already happened.

Furthermore, ISPs NEED to be able to discriminate based on traffic type. How the hell else can we get Voice-over-IP and other near-real time services to work as designed when they end up waiting for some teenager's latest torrents? Remember folks, bandwidth is a constantly growing resource. It is not finite, so there's no reason to legislate as if it were.

Comcast is already being sued for interference with bittorrent traffic, and they'll lose that lawsuit handily. The law is already taking care of this.

Net Neutrality is also PRE-EMPTIVE legislation, often the worst kind and the most poorly thought out. IF this problem actually does arise, THEN you can pass the laws, but not one second before.

[Mini-Me]

The principle of net neutrality is a great one - it's what made the Internet what it is today. NOBODY wants ISP's (local, regional, or backbone) blocking out sites they don't like. After all, sites like this would be the first to go!

However, we have to realize there's a reason why these big companies have the power to exploit consumers and call the shots like this: It's because they derive monopoly power from government in the first place, and they therefore have no competition to keep them in check. As I mentioned on another thread, most ISP's are quite literally given 15 year monopoly contracts by local governments based on who can wine and dine your local politicians the best. So, some people are essentially saying, "Let's continue to give the corporations monopoly contracts, and THEN, let's pass some regulations to ensure they treat customers fairly! Nevermind the fact that those regulations will only make it even worse for us, since the federal government is corrupt and these same corporations will be the ones writing the laws."

Although net neutrality is one of the most important principles of the Internet, allowing the federal government to get involved in regulating the Internet to "protect us" will make it even harder for us to break free of the stranglehold monopolies have on us. We need to fight at the local level to stop monopoly contracts to local ISP's, and if there are contracts at other levels (regional or backbone) at well, we then need to focus on those.

The fact is, most people on both sides of the debate in this thread are missing a crucial point:

The "let the free market work!" people are forgetting that we don't have a free market at all, and we need to fight for one by getting rid of the state-enforced monopolies. Once we have a free market and give it a few years to flourish, THEN it will work beautifully and we'll have a lot more choice in ISP's. Until that day comes, however, we really are at the mercy of the telecom companies.
The "let the federal government enforce net neutrality!" people are forgetting that government regulation is the whole reason we're in this mess in the first place. The corporations write the laws. Although the telecom companies are lobbying against net neutrality right now (hence current legislation probably is favorable to us...for now), setting the precedent that the federal government can regulate the Internet will only give those corporations an opening to bribe other regulatory legislation out of Congress that will put us right back where we started - except worse. (Not to mention the fact that allowing the government to regulate the Internet, even by just saying that ISP's have to keep it neutral, sets the precedent that they can regulate it toward the ends of the establishment itself, too.)


We're really between a rock and a hard place here, and there's no easy solution - the only real solution is doing this the hard way by dismantling regulations and monopoly contracts from the bottom up (or the top down...not sure which direction is more effective ;)).

[Redcard]

But it's not regulating the internet to say "You can't filter out things you don't like." It's regulating the business.

Saying we have "the power" to go to another company is a joke. What other company do you know of that will support the concepts of "Net Neutrality" that provides broadband high-speed access? They're ALL against it. It's ALL a land grab. Even the backbone providers are against it.

If we were dealing with something that was actually on the "Free market", that'd be different, but there is _NO_ _WAY_ that you can start up an internet company right now and NOT deal with these big businesses. Either you're buying business service from them directly, you're buying from their bandwidth suppliers, or you're buying from the backbone, and those are ALL owned by big business.

[nebulous]

in an ideal situation, this would work...sadly, in most cases, it's Comcast or dial-up (though, in some instances, it's Comcast, a phone company, or dial-up)...
Some areas has/had a satellite option I once had this and never had a problem, I moved and have not yet looked into that option but will.

[Mini-Me]

But it's not regulating the internet to say "You can't filter out things you don't like." It's regulating the business.


While you are correct, this is a matter of semantics; in the eyes of the federal government, network neutrality legislation will be considered a precedent for regulating the Internet whether we like to think of it that way or not.

Also...what makes you think that the law will merely say "you can't filter out things you don't like?" There are always loopholes, and they rarely work in the favor of the public...



Saying we have "the power" to go to another company is a joke. What other company do you know of that will support the concepts of "Net Neutrality" that provides broadband high-speed access? They're ALL against it. It's ALL a land grab. Even the backbone providers are against it.

If we were dealing with something that was actually on the "Free market", that'd be different, but there is _NO_ _WAY_ that you can start up an internet company right now and NOT deal with these big businesses. Either you're buying business service from them directly, you're buying from their bandwidth suppliers, or you're buying from the backbone, and those are ALL owned by big business.

You've hit the nail on the head - this is exactly why we're in such a tough situation. We've allowed ourselves to get to the point where local ISP's have monopoly contracts and there's really no competition at the backbone level, either. Large companies own and control all of the routers and "tubes" (;)) in the infrastructure. What we really need is more competing pathways - the more routers there are and interconnections between them, the less clout the existing hubs will have and the less they'll be able to get away with (because people will just route the packets through someone else). Building more infrastructure is certainly a monumental task; the Internet is a very expensive and large-scale project. All of the regulations in place that discourage competition make this even harder (which is why we need to get rid of them...). Even if someone did come up with a new infrastructure and marketed their backbone routers based on net neutrality principles, we'd need competition at the regional and local levels so we'd have friendly regional and local ISP's to take them up on it (which would require people to get rid of local monopoly contracts and such). However, this is the only way we will ever be able to free ourselves from the current corporate "gatekeepers" of the Internet.

Who can afford to create such an infrastructure? Well, for one, there ARE certain large companies (Google, for instance) that are very pissed off about the telecom industry's desire to filter traffic to their pleasing. If we don't enforce net neutrality and let things get really bad for a while, these companies will say "enough is enough" and create their own competing infrastructure. While this is the most likely solution to occur in the short-to-medium term, it obviously isn't the ideal situation: The infrastructure will still only be controlled by a handful of companies. Even if a new competitor (like Google) were to market their backbone based on network neutrality (and enough regional and local competition existed that some ISP's would take them up on it), they could always "join the telecom cartel" if they wanted.

A better solution would be for smaller companies and individuals across the country to come together and plan out infrastructure that would be owned by much smaller, more numerous, and more diverse interests. In order to ensure competition, we don't need the redundancy of ten backbone networks all owned by a a few huge companies competing against each other. Instead, we just need one alternative path with many different sections owned by many different companies with diverse interests. No single node in the web would dare to infringe upon net neutrality, because it would only piss off everyone else, who could then create a new router to bypass the jackass. In other words, each independent node in the web would agree to be neutral because it's in their best interests for everyone else to remain neutral.

Another solution I've kicked around is the idea of a single [nonprofit, perhaps] backbone company created "by, for, and of the people." I'm imagining a "coop" kind of situation where a very large number of individuals and small businesses team up and pool their resources to create a new company which guarantees network neutrality (among other things) in its corporate contract (a "corporate constitution" of such) and uniform contract with its ever-expanding number of shareholders (each of which, by contract, own an equal token share of the infrastructure). As far as I'm aware, the major cost of running an ISP is buying the infrastructure, and maintaining it for day-to-day use probably isn't quite so bad. If enough people signed onto a contract promising to pay a certain up-front fee once a critical mass of pledges was reached, we could create a "publicly" owned infrastructure that cannot be interfered with by corrupt politicians. I haven't thought of the details on how this would work, but the basic idea is for a very large number of people to collectively own small bits the infrastructure in a manner that it cannot ever be controlled by a few big shareholders. Depending on how this arrangement was formulated, this solution could also reduce our monthly ISP charges by a lot, too ;)


The point is, yes, we're in a situation here, and the free market solution (once we can get a damn free market and get governments to lay off :mad:) would take a bit of work. However, it IS possible, and it's a much more permanent solution than allowing the government to step in and "enforce" net neutrality, which would likely tie a new double-knot in the regulatory chains that are holding down the free market.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I think a lot of people think that the little guy cant beat the big corporation.

3 letters:

A O L

If people are not happy with your services, they will go somewhere else. The market will always open. Other companies will always come in to take up your slack.

[Redcard]

I think a lot of people think that the little guy cant beat the big corporation.

3 letters

A O L

If people are not happy with your services, they will go somewhere else. The market will always open. Other companies will always come in to take up your slack.

But the market didn't open.

Time Warner bought AOL, and intentionally screwed it over so that they could sell people on Time Warner Cable. They bought AOL for the subscriber base, not to continue running a good service.

What happened with AOL is that a big fish got eaten by a bigger fish.. and then the smaller fish was gutted to encourage people to move to even larger companies. That's not the "little guy" beating the big guy.

A little guy beating the big guy would be a "Mindspring" or a "Delphi Internet" being a provider of Broadband. Where are they now?

[Smiley Gladhands]

But the market didn't open.

Time Warner bought AOL, and intentionally screwed it over so that they could sell people on Time Warner Cable. They bought AOL for the subscriber base, not to continue running a good service.

What happened with AOL is that a big fish got eaten by a bigger fish.. and then the smaller fish was gutted to encourage people to move to even larger companies. That's not the "little guy" beating the big guy.

A little guy beating the big guy would be a "Mindspring" or a "Delphi Internet" being a provider of Broadband. Where are they now?

And how has that worked for Time Warner?

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=TWX&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

In a free market, a large corporation can make silly mistakes and cost its shareholders money. In a corporatocracy, the large corporation instead uses government regulations to get the general public to pay for its mistakes.

[Redcard]

And how has that worked for Time Warner?

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=TWX&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

In a free market, a large corporation can make silly mistakes and cost its shareholders money. In a corporatocracy, the large corporation instead uses government regulations to get the general public to pay for its mistakes.

Well, let's see.

Time Warner reported revenues of $44,000,000,000 for the year ending 2007.

Much of the stock is held within the company or by higher ups in the company.

I think that means it's going pretty damn well for them, don't you?

[Mini-Me]

BTW, if people insist on going the regulation route, a much less dangerous (and more Constitutional) proposition would be for state and local governments to make an ultimatum to telecom companies based on property rights: If your "tubes" (;)) are going through public property (and of course, they must in order to get across roads :p), you must make all routers you own network neutral, and you may only connect your lines to other companies who make their routers network neutral as well.

That would avoid the corruption of the federal government, keep it Constitutional, and enforce network neutrality through government force all at once...and in a way, it's completely legitimate, since public property should only be used in the interests of the public (and therefore the public can make demands to companies that route their permanent infrastructure through such property).

There are many alternatives to federal regulation, and I find this one in particular quite satisfying in a sick little way. Telecom companies invoke property rights when they say they want to regulate their traffic however they want - it's quite ironic that we can make the door swing both ways, since they're using our public property to connect their routers. Without using our public property and agreeing to our terms, these telecom companies' routers are just little islands cut off from each other :D

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

AOL bought up 55% of the shares. Your entire premise is wrong, because AOL bought Time Warner, not the other way around.

AOL has lost most of their subscriber base, they are losing more every day, and their net value is plummeting. Nobody uses AOL anymore.


You can not maintain a business if your buyers are not happy with what you are selling. They will go somewhere else. If there is nowhere else to go, and enough customers are unhappy, a new competitor will emerge.

Wake up. This is a scheme for the corporations to set up monopolies. Ted Kennedy doesnt write the Net Neutrality bill. The guys over at Comcast do.

[brandon]

lol, it is funny how "series of tubes" really is a terrific description of the internet, yet everyone always uses it sarcastically.

[polomertz]

I just saw this.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/29/ron-paul-softens-stance-on-net-neutrality-talks-on-other-tech-issues/

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

lol, it is funny how "series of tubes" really is a terrific description of the internet, yet everyone always uses it sarcastically.

Well, its certainly not a truck.

[Mini-Me]

lol, it is funny how "series of tubes" really is a terrific description of the internet, yet everyone always uses it sarcastically.

Not really; a "series of tubes" is indeed an apt description for part of the Internet, but that part is only about half of the infrastructure of the Internet's core (the other half is routers). Intangible things like protocols are a big part of the net as well, and of course, all of the millions of endpoints...so the sarcasm is really directed at the implication that tubes comprise the entirety of the net.

[brandon]

Not really; a "series of tubes" is indeed an apt description for part of the Internet, but that part is only about half of the infrastructure of the Internet's core (the other half is routers). Intangible things like protocols are a big part of the net as well, and of course, all of the millions of endpoints...so the sarcasm is really directed at the implication that tubes comprise the entirety of the net.


Right, but I think things such as routers would be included in the phrase "series of tubes."

Like if i said that the sewer system is a series of tubes, would you argue back and say "No it also has valves and filters, and you cant forget about the toilets!"? SO while series of tubes is quite an oversimplification of the internet, at its core it still makes sence.

Anyway, back to net neutrality. lol

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Really, the entire pro- Net Neutrality argument comes down to this:

"The corporations want to make your internet go slower unless you pay them more"

...

THEY ALREADY FUCKING DO THAT!

[TheInvestigatorOfFreedom]

net neutrality should be abolished internet shouldn't be owned by anyone and i don't think anyone owns the internet as a matter of fact

[Redcard]

net neutrality should be abolished internet shouldn't be owned by anyone and i don't think anyone owns the internet as a matter of fact

Uh. The internet is owned already. Net neutrality states that, at least in concept, that no traffic should be given preference over other traffic, that, in short, a packet is as equal as any other packet. Content, origin, or destination should not factor into the priority that the network handles the packet.

[brandon]

Uh. The internet is owned already. Net neutrality states that, at least in concept, that no traffic should be given preference over other traffic, that, in short, a packet is as equal as any other packet. Content, origin, or destination should not factor into the priority that the network handles the packet.

Who owns the internet?

Do you also support affirmative action?

[Kade]

There are trolls appearing on this forum trying to tell people that

INTERNET MUST STAY NEUTRAL.


This is the name of tha Government legislation NET NEUTRALITY ACT, which is basically GOVERNMENT CONTROL of the Internet.

Don't be fooled by the word NEUTRAL.

It is same kind of lie as FEDERAL RESERVE.

INTERNET MUST STAY FREE.


Proper legislation will protect the internet from big government or big business. Net Neutrality means just that. The internet belongs to the people. The government belongs to the people.

Take back your government and stop with the all caps and bold colored lettering.

You are like a screaming ranting car salesman for my eyes.

[Redcard]

Who owns the internet?

Do you also support affirmative action?

UUnet (now a division of Verizon), British Telecom, AT&T, Sprint Nextel, France Télécom, Reliance Communications, VSNL, BSNL, Teleglobe (now a division of VSNL International), Flag Telecom (now a division of Reliance Communications), TeliaSonera, Qwest, Level 3 Communications, AOL, SAVVIS and XO Communications.

Those companies (borrowed from Wikipedia) , own the majority of the backbones. A few small government lines still exist, and there are some educational ties that link into these. VERY few educational backbones come in at IXPs. Every person on the internet in some way or another pays money to these companies, and everyone's information is distributed and controlled by these companies.

Further, companies control the domain names as well, and can control whether or not you get to keep your domain name, how traffic reacts along your domain name, whether or not your domain points to your IP address, etc.

As for affirmative action, no, I don't support affirmative action, but that is apples and oranges to this. On the net, every packet IS treated as neutral by default. It takes an effort to make packets NON neutral. Affirmative action is taking a situation of neutrality, and then applying an effort to make some people non-neutral, and giving them preference.

Now, just to show you how "owned" things are..

Let's take RPF.

The Registrar is Godaddy. That's one company.
The Nameserver is owned by softlayer. That's a datacenter.
The IP address too, is owned by Softlayer. They own all IPs from 74.86.0.0 to 74.86.255.255
Softlayer gets its bandwidth from NTT America, Inc.. which is a wholly owned subsidiary of NTT Communications, which is a private company in Tokyo Japan.

See, it's all company owned.

[Mini-Me]

Proper legislation will protect the internet from big government or big business. Net Neutrality means just that. The internet belongs to the people. The government belongs to the people.

Take back your government and stop with the all caps and bold colored lettering.

You are like a screaming ranting car salesman for my eyes.

More specifically, each site belongs to the owner of each site. The infrastructure belongs to the owners of the infrastructure. Now, the companies who own the infrastructure think they have us by the throat...their view is, "HAH! Without our infrastructure, the sites you own are completely worthless! Bow before us!" However, as I mentioned in my last post, they forget that the only reason they even have infrastructure is because the public permits them to run their tubes through public property! Therefore, without the consent of the public to run their tubes through, their infrastructure (and source of money) is equally worthless :p That's why, based on property rights, state and local governments can act on behalf of the public to force telecom companies to agree to certain terms (like net neutrality) in exchange for the privilege of running their tubes through public property.

This is an angle that people easily miss, and I think it's a shame. Although I mistrust all government when it comes to regulating business (as you can see by local monopoly contracts, even local governments can be corrupted), there really is an easy solution based on property rights that can be implemented without the "help" of unconstitutional federal legislation.

[Kade]

More specifically, each site belongs to the owner of each site. The infrastructure belongs to the owners of the infrastructure. Now, the companies who own the infrastructure think they have us by the throat...their view is, "HAH! Without our infrastructure, the sites you own are completely worthless! Bow before us!" However, as I mentioned in my last post, they forget that the only reason they even have infrastructure is because the public permits them to run their tubes through public property! Therefore, without the consent of the public to run their tubes through, their infrastructure (and source of money) is equally worthless :p That's why, based on property rights, state and local governments can act on behalf of the public to force telecom companies to agree to certain terms (like net neutrality) in exchange for the privilege of running their tubes through public property.

This is an angle that people easily miss, and I think it's a shame. Although I mistrust all government when it comes to regulating business (as you can see by local monopoly contracts, even local governments can be corrupted), there really is an easy solution based on property rights that can be implemented without the "help" of the federal government.

That is my stance.

[Zyphlin]

I could just imagine this place if this was happening 10 years from now when the Telecoms have a stronger grasp on everything and restrictions becomes more normal.

"OMG! Those bastards over at Comcast and Cox are in the conspiracy to stop the Ron Paul rEVOLution! They've slowed our data crawl to 14.4"

[Redcard]

"OMG! Those bastards over at Comcast and Cox are in the conspiracy to stop the Ron Paul rEVOLution! They've slowed our data crawl to 14.4"

It's funny that there are threads screaming at the MSM for keeping RP off the air, and yet, somehow, the same MSM that owns large chunks if not all of the internet distribution stream gets a pass on Net Neutrality.

Hint: If the conspiracy is as big as you say it is regarding the MSM, you should be clamoring for Net Neutrality, not resisting it.

[Mini-Me]

It's funny that there are threads screaming at the MSM for keeping RP off the air, and yet, somehow, the same MSM that owns large chunks if not all of the internet distribution stream gets a pass on Net Neutrality.

Hint: If the conspiracy is as big as you say it is regarding the MSM, you should be clamoring for Net Neutrality, not resisting it.

There are ways to enforce it without unconstitutional federal legislation, though - and if we're going to be consistent in our principles, we must explore those other avenues.

[Fox McCloud]

UUnet (now a division of Verizon), British Telecom, AT&T, Sprint Nextel, France Télécom, Reliance Communications, VSNL, BSNL, Teleglobe (now a division of VSNL International), Flag Telecom (now a division of Reliance Communications), TeliaSonera, Qwest, Level 3 Communications, AOL, SAVVIS and XO Communications.

fortunately, Sprint "owns" most of the Internet (with Level 3 Communications, I think, coming in second, and AT&T 3rd...though I'm not sure...but Sprint is definitely #1), and they have proven to be very pro-customer (little restrictions on their EVDO access, Sprint SERO, etc).

[Redcard]

fortunately, Sprint "owns" most of the Internet (with Level 3 Communications, I think, coming in second, and AT&T 3rd...though I'm not sure...but Sprint is definitely #1), and they have proven to be very pro-customer (little restrictions on their EVDO access, Sprint SERO, etc).

You mean the same Sprint that powers my laptop wifi and has in the ToS:

"Customer is not to use Sprint's EVDO Service for any features save Web Browsing, Internet Mail (EMAIL) , and Internet Relay Chat."

Granted, they're better than most, and they've not come down on me for my WoW playing or my telnet, but.. still.

[dementedme]

no....


net neutrality gives GOVERNMENTAL control over the internet.

legislation and all that other jazz...


the internet has worked FINE this long, it will CONTINUE to work fine.

DO NOT SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY. PERIOD.

[dementedme]

You mean the same Sprint that powers my laptop wifi and has in the ToS:

"Customer is not to use Sprint's EVDO Service for any features save Web Browsing, Internet Mail (EMAIL) , and Internet Relay Chat."

Granted, they're better than most, and they've not come down on me for my WoW playing or my telnet, but.. still.

XO Communications owns most of the backbones around the united states.
http://www.xo.com/SiteCollectionImages/about-xo/xo-network/maps/map_complete_1600.gif

[Mini-Me]

no....


net neutrality gives GOVERNMENTAL control over the internet.

legislation and all that other jazz...


the internet has worked FINE this long, it will CONTINUE to work fine.

DO NOT SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY. PERIOD.

While I agree that federal network neutrality legislation is unconstitutional and not the way to go, your statement that "the internet has worked FINE this long, it will CONTINUE to work fine" makes me think you need to do a bit more research. For several reasons (some of them technical*), telecom companies have long abided by the principle of network neutrality voluntarily. However, that is actually about to change, and they're gearing up to discriminate for and against certain kinds of traffic based on whatever criteria they choose (source, destination, what kind of packet it is, what protocol is being used, etc.). Don't kid yourself; this is a huge problem for the Internet as a whole and "subversive" sites like this one in particular. However, federal regulation is still not the way to go (this can be fixed by either opening up the ISP market to competition and making it a true free market, or by state and local governments invoking property rights on the public property the ISP's are given the privilege of running their infrastructure through).

*One of the biggest technical reasons why telecom companies have abided by the network neutrality principle (which is precisely what made the Internet a bastion of free speech in the first place) is because the old IPv4 standard was based on routing packets via "best effort" (kind of like, "first come, first serve"), but the newer IPv6 standard includes provisions for QoS, or "quality of service," which makes it easier to give "different levels of service" to different packets based on various factors that I mentioned above.

[hypnagogue]

The internet is too important to leave up to our current corporate culture. When the day comes that we can once again rely on the markets to give the people what they desire, then we can do away with neutrality regulations.

We can debate individual bills, but the principle behind net neutrality is extremely necessary at this point in time. Net neutrality is simply the idea that Internet Service Providers must treat all traffic the same.

[Xenophage]

While I agree that federal network neutrality legislation is unconstitutional and not the way to go, your statement that "the internet has worked FINE this long, it will CONTINUE to work fine" makes me think you need to do a bit more research. For several reasons (some of them technical*), telecom companies have long abided by the principle of network neutrality voluntarily. However, that is actually about to change, and they're gearing up to discriminate for and against certain kinds of traffic based on whatever criteria they choose (source, destination, what kind of packet it is, what protocol is being used, etc.). Don't kid yourself; this is a huge problem for the Internet as a whole and "subversive" sites like this one in particular. However, federal regulation is still not the way to go (this can be fixed by either opening up the ISP market to competition and making it a true free market, or by state and local governments invoking property rights on the public property the ISP's are given the privilege of running their infrastructure through).

*One of the biggest technical reasons why telecom companies have abided by the network neutrality principle (which is precisely what made the Internet a bastion of free speech in the first place) is because the old IPv4 standard was based on routing packets via "best effort" (kind of like, "first come, first serve"), but the newer IPv6 standard includes provisions for QoS, or "quality of service," which makes it easier to give "different levels of service" to different packets based on various factors that I mentioned above.

You're throwing out a lot of techno-jargon that most people here won't understand, but in essence, you're not talking about *content.*

Free-speech on the internet is not going to be compromised by IPv6. That's absurd. Routing protocols *need* to change and improve. There are many more efficient ways to move data around, and forcing net neutrality simply hinders the progress of the technology.

Free markets will keep the internet a bastion of free speech and the free flow of information.

[Conza88]

Sure, instead of government protection of a free speech outlet, which is demanded in our constitution, let's let Rupert Murdoch and the big telecoms buy up the net! The philosophy of liberty will really flourish then!

/sarcasm

That is not a FREE market, it is a MANAGED market - with practically NO competition & oligopolies all round.

[roXet]

http://www.craphound.com/images/netneutralpricing.jpg

whatever it takes to prevent THIS, I am all for.

</thread>

[dementedme]

but the newer IPv6 standard includes provisions for QoS, or "quality of service," which makes it easier to give "different levels of service" to different packets based on various factors that I mentioned above.


you seem to be neglecting the idea that the types of traffic that travel across the internet are DIFFERENT... if you research QoS, you will see that it is a GOOD thing, and is absolutely necessary to continue the growth of the internet.

different technologies need to be implimented in order to manage the massive amounts of data that are traveling across the internet today. its not just basic data, its multimedia, streaming audio/video, etc.

various network equipment... WITHOUT optimization... will do a terrible job at moving data, and will bring the internet to a crawl.

the easiest way to do this is via a "Fair Use" policy where providers are NOT allowed to restrict traffic other than a bandwidth cap.

look at all the other projects the government is involved in. yeah.


"In the fields of packet-switched networks and computer networking, the traffic engineering term Quality of Service, abbreviated QoS, refers to resource reservation control mechanisms rather than the achieved service quality. Quality of Service is the ability to provide different priority to different applications, users, or data flows, or to guarantee a certain level of performance to a data flow. Quality of Service guarantees are important if the network capacity is limited, for example in cellular data communication, especially for real-time streaming multimedia applications, for example voice over IP and IP-TV, since these often require fixed bit rate and are delay sensitive."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_Service



what you may be concerned about is "Traffic Shaping" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_shaping

Traffic shaping (also known as "packet shaping") is an attempt to control computer network traffic in order to optimize or guarantee performance, low latency, and/or bandwidth by delaying packets.[1] More specifically, traffic shaping is any action on a set of packets (often called a stream or a flow) which imposes additional delay on those packets such that they conform to some predetermined constraint (a contract or traffic profile).[2] Traffic shaping provides a means to control the volume of traffic being sent into a network in a specified period (bandwidth throttling), or the maximum rate at which the traffic is sent (rate limiting), or more complex criteria such as GCRA. "


now... you may be against this sort of thing... but if it's written into the companies contract that you sign when you sign up for their service, its LEGAL!
you are using a service of a private company, and they are allowed to do whatever they want with it. if YOU dont like it, you can find another ISP... which is FREE MARKET! the more people that get their internet restricted, the more people will look for an ISP that does not restrict their internet.

[Mini-Me]

but the newer IPv6 standard includes provisions for QoS, or "quality of service," which makes it easier to give "different levels of service" to different packets based on various factors that I mentioned above.

you seem to be neglecting the idea that the types of traffic that travel across the internet are DIFFERENT... if you research QoS, you will see that it is a GOOD thing, and is absolutely necessary to continue the growth of the internet.

different technologies need to be implimented in order to manage the massive amounts of data that are traveling across the internet today. its not just basic data, its multimedia, streaming audio/video, etc.

various network equipment... WITHOUT optimization... will do a terrible job at moving data, and will bring the internet to a crawl.

the easiest way to do this is via a "Fair Use" policy where providers are NOT allowed to restrict traffic other than a bandwidth cap.



You and Xenophage seem to be under the impression that I think IPv6 is a bad thing. It isn't - you're right about that! Routing protocols do need to change in order to feed the expansion of the Internet. HOWEVER, the point I was getting across is that this newer protocol/technology allows for our ISP's to do some very anticonsumer things that were not easily possible before. In other words, I'm not arguing that IPv6 is bad, as you and Xenophage seem to think; I'm merely arguing that it DOES change the ballgame. I was explaining to you why net neutrality is becoming an issue now, after all of these years. We are moving into a new era with this, and things aren't just going to stay the same way they always have been (with companies voluntarily enforcing net neutrality).





<SNIP>

now... you may be against this sort of thing... but if it's written into the companies contract that you sign when you sign up for their service, its LEGAL!
you are using a service of a private company, and they are allowed to do whatever they want with it. if YOU dont like it, you can find another ISP... which is FREE MARKET! the more people that get their internet restricted, the more people will look for an ISP that does not restrict their internet.

As I've mentioned, I agree that the federal government has no place forcing net neutrality with legislation (besides, it's unconstitutional). However, you need to get one VERY important thing through your head - and repeat after me:
We do not have a free market with ISP's!!! To think that we do is simply delusional. The whole reason the net neutrality thing is becoming an issue is because government involvement has destroyed any semblance of free market competition in the ISP market! You seem to be under the impression that the free market will solve everything, and while I would agree if we actually had a free market, our situation is very, very different. Local governments give cable and phone companies monopolies through contracts (for instance, 15-year exclusivity contracts based on which company wined and dined the politicians the best). Furthermore, although the situation is a bit complicated (the regulations aren't as bad as they used to be), the federal government also plays a role here in limiting competition. We need to change this if we want any hope of a free market.

However, we need to be realistic: It doesn't look like we're going to get a free market back for a long time...therefore, rather than rolling over and letting government-mandated monopolies dictate terms to us, we can actually take advantage of a very ironic fact about property rights: In order to function at all, these "private" ISP's (at all levels - local, regional, and backbone) absolutely have to route their own infrastructure through public property! In other words, we the people have the right to deny them this privilege or impose conditions on such a privilege (such as - you're not allowed to "traffic shape" if you want to make use of such a privilege). These telecom companies do not have some God-given inalienable right to route their pipes through public property and then turn around and claim that their networks are wholly theirs and to use them, we have to agree to whatever terms they set. It doesn't work that way - the door swings both ways.

[Xenophage]

You and Xenophage seem to be under the impression that I think IPv6 is a bad thing. It isn't - you're right about that! Routing protocols do need to change in order to feed the expansion of the Internet. HOWEVER, the point I was getting across is that this newer protocol/technology allows for our ISP's to do some very anticonsumer things that were not easily possible before. In other words, I'm not arguing that IPv6 is bad, as you and Xenophage seem to think; I'm merely arguing that it DOES change the ballgame. I was explaining to you why net neutrality is becoming an issue now, after all of these years. We are moving into a new era with this, and things aren't just going to stay the same way they always have been (with companies voluntarily enforcing net neutrality).





As I've mentioned, I agree that the federal government has no place forcing net neutrality with legislation (besides, it's unconstitutional). However, you need to get one VERY important thing through your head - and repeat after me:
We do not have a free market with ISP's!!! To think that we do is simply delusional. The whole reason the net neutrality thing is becoming an issue is because government involvement has destroyed any semblance of free market competition in the ISP market! You seem to be under the impression that the free market will solve everything, and while I would agree if we actually had a free market, our situation is very, very different. Local governments give cable and phone companies monopolies through contracts (for instance, 15-year exclusivity contracts based on which company wined and dined the politicians the best). Furthermore, although the situation is a bit complicated (the regulations aren't as bad as they used to be), the federal government also plays a role here in limiting competition. We need to change this if we want any hope of a free market.

However, we need to be realistic: It doesn't look like we're going to get a free market back for a long time...therefore, rather than rolling over and letting government-mandated monopolies dictate terms to us, we can actually take advantage of a very ironic fact about property rights: In order to function at all, these "private" ISP's (at all levels - local, regional, and backbone) absolutely have to route their own infrastructure through public property! In other words, we the people have the right to deny them this privilege or impose conditions on such a privilege (such as - you're not allowed to "traffic shape" if you want to make use of such a privilege). These telecom companies do not have some God-given inalienable right to route their pipes through public property and then turn around and claim that their networks are wholly theirs and to use them, we have to agree to whatever terms they set. It doesn't work that way - the door swings both ways.

You brought up some good points and you're right, most utility companies hold monopolies through contracts with local governments - especially phone companies. Where I live there is a bit of competition between the phone and cable companies to provide high bandwidth internet, but it could certainly be *more* competition.

When everyone started getting online in the 90's with dial-up modems, ISP's were everywhere and there was very heavy competition in the industry, with lots of locally owned small businesses offering service. Broadband killed the little guy ISP, but only because phone and cable companies held a monopoly on providing the technology.