|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 01/21/2007 : 13:53:43
|
OK, I'm climbing up on a soapbox... fair warning. I imagine many of the well educated people on this forum will already be aware of this issue, but perhaps some do not, and I hope I can also energize all to move toward action.
Do you have or ever plan on having a website to promote your business? Do you ever visit the websites of small businesses or independent media on the Internet? Do you ever just surf the web for fun stuff created by every day people?
If you have, you need to be aware of, and work to protect Net Neutrality.
What is Net Neutrality? Currently, if someone visits the website of a big company like Verizon, or if they visit the website of the 10-year-old who lives down the street, the speed of access is the same. Rich companies do not have any advantage over small business owners, independent media sources, individuals just having fun, or free agents such as artists. This equal playing field on the Internet is called Net Neutrality.
Of course rich companies don't like this and are trying to get rid of Net Neutrality so that they can charge a ton of money for fast speed access. What this means is that unless you fork over a ton of money to these companies, even if you have a website, nobody will ever visit it because it will take a gazillion years just to load up the homepage.
Obviously losing Net Neutrality would majorly suck, so ACT NOW! The website www.savetheinternet.com has many simple ideas for how you can help protect Net Neutrality. Here are some ideas: http://www.savetheinternet.com/=act
You can get the info on your representatives to call, email, or send them a letter here: http://www.savetheinternet.com/=callin It even provides a transcript of what you can say to support net neutrality, although I suggest also personalizing it by mentioning how Net Neutrality has benefitted you.
It is imperative that we let our representatives know about this issue. Many of them are completely ignorant. For example, Democratic representative Chakah Fattah of Philadelphia voted against Net Neutrality last year! We must speak out and spread the word. Tell your friends and coworkers, write your representatives, write the newspaper. We must save the Internet or we'll lose cool stuff like “Ask a Ninja”: http://www.askaninja.com/news/2006/05/11/ask-a-ninja-special-delivery-4-net-neutrality not to mention gem sweater diva Leslie Hall and other self-made Internet celebrities: http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=dfc50c324a0695cfe48d7050a1dd9ccb.657909
Thanks for reading,
Martha
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
Edited by - marfknox on 01/21/2007 15:06:47
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2007 : 14:32:23 [Permalink]
|
| http://www.savetheinternet.com/ takes me somewhere, but not .org. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 01/21/2007 14:33:10 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2007 : 15:07:14 [Permalink]
|
| Thanks Gorgo, I just fixed it. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2007 : 19:54:11 [Permalink]
|
From the FAQ:This is about Internet freedom. "Network Neutrality" -- the First Amendment of the Internet -- ensures that the public can view the smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate Web site by preventing Internet companies like AT&T from rigging the playing field for only the highest-paying sites. This is complete nonsense is what it is. They're griping about private-entity Internet Service Providers charging money for the use of their own hardware. A completely apt analogy is to some Joe Schmoe complaining about not being able to air a 30-second TV advertisement during the Superbowl, like Budweiser can, because they've got deep pockets and Joe is ten grand in debt and out of work. Well, if you can't pay for the service, you shouldn't get the service. The "savetheinternet" group is spewing entitlement propaganda of the worst sort, especially when half the examples they seem to like to use are Canadian, making the whole tie-in with the "First Amendment of the Internet" an obvious sham used solely to push American emotional hot-buttons. "We must save the Internet" my Aunt Fanny. It's not going anywhere, and a U.S. law isn't going to protect any part of the Internet existing outside the U.S..
And the truly pathetic part of it all is that the Internet isn't neutral now, nor has it ever been, with service providers charging a range of fees for different tiers of service. ISPs have always practiced censorship of one form or another, if only to cover their own asses. Finding new ways to strong-arm money out of the marketplace is nothing new, either.
The "savetheinternet" message is hyperbolic and hypocritical. I'd be very much interested to see a well-reasoned and detailed look at why "the invisible hand" shouldn't be allowed to moderate the whole Internet, because that site doesn't have one. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2007 : 20:23:31 [Permalink]
|
To further illustrate my point:
At our most-popular times, the SFN uses maybe 2% of the bandwidth we're allowed by our service provider. If we were to suddenly become 50 times more popular, our ISP would be well within its rights - due to our agreement with them - to limit bandwidth by slowing page loads, or by charging us for bandwidth overages, or by demanding that we switch to a more-costly service package with a higher bandwidth allowance.
Our ISP itself only has so-much bandwidth to play with, so if we were to demand equal bandwidth as their most-popular customer (whoever that may be), it would only be out of a sense of selfishness (or maybe the misguided notion that the Internet should be "free"). It certainly isn't fair to demand equality when using a limited, owned resource, even if it is relatively inexpensive compared to other sorts of resources (like land or oil).
And on a different note, for years people have had the ability to pay Google (for example) money in order to get top-listing in search results. The "horrible" things being proposed by the likes of AT&T and Verizon is no different from that. And it's not going to effect the 10-year-old down the street or the budding entrepeneur very much, because they don't have the deep pockets or the stability of a Google or Yahoo! to make it worth AT&T's (for example) time to shake them down for bandwidth charges.
"Ask the Ninja" is going to get the same service he's always gotten as one-trillionth of the traffic of the entire Internet. To think he's going to get shut out because he's not going to pony up for the big ISPs is ludicrous, because they're hardly aware of his existence, bit-for-bit, when compared to the truly huge sites. It would cost an ISP more in labor dollars to just mail him a threatening letter than it would gain them in real revenue. And there will always be other ISPs. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2007 : 22:57:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
They're griping about private-entity Internet Service Providers charging money for the use of their own hardware. A completely apt analogy is to some Joe Schmoe complaining about not being able to air a 30-second TV advertisement during the Superbowl, like Budweiser can, because they've got deep pockets and Joe is ten grand in debt and out of work.
However, there is a major difference between TV and the internet. TV was never, at any point in its history, intended to allow equal broadcasting of all of it's users. On the other hand, the internet, although not created for this purpose, evolved into a system where all users have equal voice.
quote:
And the truly pathetic part of it all is that the Internet isn't neutral now, nor has it ever been, with service providers charging a range of fees for different tiers of service.
This is an abuse of the term "neutral" when being applied to the internet. Neutral refers to how an ISP handles the priority of individual packets. It has nothing to with the rate at which the packets will be sent to you itself. Packets on a non-neutral net travel at exactly the same rate as those on a neutral net. The only difference is that lower priority packets will take longer for the send to be initiated.
quote:
And on a different note, for years people have had the ability to pay Google (for example) money in order to get top-listing in search results. The "horrible" things being proposed by the likes of AT&T and Verizon is no different from that.
Huh? There is a huge difference between a corporation choosing what to display on it's pages and a corporation choosing which sites will load the fastest and more reliable for it's users.
But for the most part, I agree with you Dave.
Things such as YouTube increase the amount of packets being sent around the internet. This increases the cost for an ISP. So you have two choices: keep all prices the same and let all ISP's go out of business, or somehow, somewhere increase the money that an ISP gets. Obviously the first isn't really a choice.
ISP's could all just raise how much they charge consumers. Consumers don't tend to like this however, and so we look for other ways. Charging large corporations money for better service doesn't cost the consumer a cent. Also, some types of packets, such as those for streaming video, tend to come in a much larger quantity from a consumer. So perhaps the consumers who tend to use more packets should pay more.
Many people seem to be under the impression that this means any site who doesn't want to pay the ISP will just simply stop working. That is not the case. Lower priority simply means the packets won't get sent out as soon, but I'll be damned if an ISP uses a priority scheduler that doesn't take into account starvation. That is, the way that an ISP chooses which packet sends out guarantees that every packet will be sent out in a finite amount of time.
quote:
Leslie Hall and other self-made Internet celebrities: http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=dfc50c324a0695cfe48d7050a1dd9ccb.657909
This video made me feel like breaking something after I watched it for the first time. What does the video teach you about net neutrality? That big companies are doing something, and we want to "keep it free and keep it open". Too bad the internet was never free and even with net neutrality, it will still be open. Trash like this only serves to confuse the public. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
perrodetokio
Skeptic Friend
275 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2007 : 11:03:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
for years people have had the ability to pay Google (for example) money in order to get top-listing in search results.
Yes, and that´s terrible too. You´re searching for something, and whatever you type the first results will be: FIND (WHATEVER YOU TYPES) IN AMAZON. (or similar).
The internet is going to end up like TV. If you´re an advocate of free-enterprising, fine. However, if you would like the web to be an open channel for the people, well, then it´s really bad.
Example: when the government of mexico wanted to take the community lands of the farmers and pay them one dollar an acre in order to build another airport the farmers manifested against it. The mexican government sent the armay to crush the manifestation, only to find out that the world´s media and supported from many places in the world were already there at the march. Result: the goverment could not make the farmers "dissapear".
Similar thing happened in Bolivia when the water was "privatised" and te company (from San Francisco, I think) wanted to stop people from gathering the resource from rain or the lake. The whole thing had to be given up, since again, thanks to the internet, it got attention from various places in the world, so the militars could not erase everyperson that woul complain.
That (in my opinion) is a good thing about the internet.
Perhaps that could change if providers deside what goes and what stalls?
Perhaps, perhaps not. My point is: it´s not as simple as either side says it is.
cheers |
"Yes I have a belief in a creator/God but do not know that he exists." Bill Scott
"They are still mosquitoes! They did not turn into whales or lizards or anything else. They are still mosquitoes!..." Bill Scott
"We should have millions of missing links or transition fossils showing a fish turning into a philosopher..." Bill Scott |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2007 : 12:28:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
However, there is a major difference between TV and the internet. TV was never, at any point in its history, intended to allow equal broadcasting of all of it's users. On the other hand, the internet, although not created for this purpose, evolved into a system where all users have equal voice.
With the advent of public-access TV, there is the potential for everyone to have an equal TV voice. And it's good you used that term, since while everyone has an equal "voice" on the Internet, it's never been the case that everyone is equally heard.quote:
quote:
And the truly pathetic part of it all is that the Internet isn't neutral now, nor has it ever been, with service providers charging a range of fees for different tiers of service.
This is an abuse of the term "neutral" when being applied to the internet. Neutral refers to how an ISP handles the priority of individual packets. It has nothing to with the rate at which the packets will be sent to you itself. Packets on a non-neutral net travel at exactly the same rate as those on a neutral net. The only difference is that lower priority packets will take longer for the send to be initiated.
How can that be? How can AT&T (for example) regulate the speed at which the SFN's server initiate packet transmissions? Only through collusion with our ISP could they do so, and its precisely the people who don't cooperate that AT&T would like to punish the most. So if our Web server is pumping out packets as fast as it can, AT&T's only reaction could be to deliberately delay the packets somewhere within its own equipment.quote:
quote:
And on a different note, for years people have had the ability to pay Google (for example) money in order to get top-listing in search results. The "horrible" things being proposed by the likes of AT&T and Verizon is no different from that.
Huh? There is a huge difference between a corporation choosing what to display on it's pages and a corporation choosing which sites will load the fastest and more reliable for it's users.
How so? Google has the right to decide what appears on its Web site, and in exactly the same manner, since deregulation AT&T has the right to determine what content will course through its fiber optic cables. All ISPs reserve such a right, in one form or another. To not do so is to invite drug traffickers, identity thieves and child pornographers to become your main clients.quote:
...ISP's could all just raise how much they charge consumers. Consumers don't tend to like this however, and so we look for other ways.
"All" ISPs would never be able to collude in such a manner to begin with. There'd always be someone offering "discount" Internet service at lower rates in order to gain a larger audience for advertising and whatnot.quote:
That is, the way that an ISP chooses which packet sends out guarantees that every packet will be sent out in a finite amount of time.
Well, in the other examples of non-neutrality offered, the restriction of some services and/or information, that's not the case. If you use DSL from your local phone company, for example, and decide to terminate all your other phone services because you've switched to a VoIP phone service, you're directly and blatantly handing that money over to a competitor, but still making use of the local phone company's equipment. There have been numerous threats, and some actual activity, by local phone companies to actually prohibit data packets from reaching the VoIP services. If I remember correctly, Verizon and some other phone companies were particularly incensed at Skype about a year ago, and making threats of disconnection. An ISP doesn't have an obligation to ensure that 100% of packets reach their destinations (since they cannot do so), especially in cases where the data in the packets will harm the ISP's own business.quote:
quote:
Leslie Hall and other self-made Internet celebrities: http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=dfc50c324a0695cfe48d7050a1dd9ccb.657909
This video made me feel like breaking something after I watched it for the first time. What does the video teach you about net neutrality? That big companies are doing something, and we want to "keep it free and keep it open". Too bad the internet was never free and even with net neutrality, it will still be open. Trash like this only serves to confuse the public.
Well, I didn't feel like breaking anything, but I share the rest of your reaction. Also, it made me think that some people think that the Internet was intended for use as a broadcast medium for people's psychoses. Perhaps lucky for me that the only one I recognized was the guitar-playing kitten. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2007 : 14:20:10 [Permalink]
|
I dunno Dave about that equal access on public TV.
You still have to produce a broadcastable program, and there are only so many slots in a day on one channel.
I will say it allows me to see Democracy Now broadcast twice a day. But I wouldn't call it equal access.
I think I may have posted about the critical importance of net neutrality on a thread about corporate controlled mainstream media. Net neutrality is absolutely critical.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2007 : 14:29:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I dunno Dave about that equal access on public TV.
Public access TV.quote:
You still have to produce a broadcastable program...
I've seen a public-access program which consisted of a guy complaining about things that he thought were unfair to him, with minimal production. It doesn't take much at all to get onto public access TV.quote:
...and there are only so many slots in a day on one channel.
And there's only so-much bandwidth on the Internet.quote:
I think I may have posted about the critical importance of net neutrality on a thread about corporate controlled mainstream media. Net neutrality is absolutely critical.
I'd like to see that argument again. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2007 : 15:16:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Perhaps lucky for me that the only one I recognized was the guitar-playing kitten.
Yes, Gaybar... a classic if there ever was one.
Are you telling me you missed TRON and the Chicken (commercial campaign, I'm sure there's a link to it archived in the humour section)? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2007 : 15:31:03 [Permalink]
|
ABout the chicken...
The Subservient Chicken.
Watch the live webcamera, and submit things to do. "Wave to me" "moonwalk" or use your imagination.
After you get tired to telling the chicken what to do, read what it really was about.
EDited to add: In the beginning it wasn't aparent that it was a marketing campaign for Burger King. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 01/22/2007 15:33:54 |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2007 : 15:46:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Perhaps lucky for me that the only one I recognized was the guitar-playing kitten.
Yes, Gaybar... a classic if there ever was one.
Are you telling me you missed TRON and the Chicken (commercial campaign, I'm sure there's a link to it archived in the humour section)?
That site rocks. I like the Hammer of the Gods...
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2007 : 17:06:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
With the advent of public-access TV, there is the potential for everyone to have an equal TV voice. And it's good you used that term, since while everyone has an equal "voice" on the Internet, it's never been the case that everyone is equally heard.
It takes much more time and effort to produce something for TV than it does to make a website. Because of this, TV will never have the same type of level playing field that the internet does. A website typically stays up for a year at the very least. How many times did the video of the man complaining run, and how many viewers do you think saw it?
quote:
How can that be? How can AT&T (for example) regulate the speed at which the SFN's server initiate packet transmissions?
By delaying its request for them.
quote:
AT&T's only reaction could be to deliberately delay the packets somewhere within its own equipment.
Yes, although the way you phrased that it makes it sound as if there is malicious intent involved. AT&T's can only handle so much traffic at any moment in time. Some must be delayed in case of a "traffic jam".
quote:
How so? Google has the right to decide what appears on its Web site, and in exactly the same manner, since deregulation AT&T has the right to determine what content will course through its fiber optic cables. All ISPs reserve such a right, in one form or another. To not do so is to invite drug traffickers, identity thieves and child pornographers to become your main clients.
I agree, to a point. Companies should attempt to detect illegal activities and stop these. However, this is where I believe the line must be drawn. My ISP should not be allowed to block me from going to www.fstdt.com, even if the current owner is an evangelical Christian.
quote:
"All" ISPs would never be able to collude in such a manner to begin with. There'd always be someone offering "discount" Internet service at lower rates in order to gain a larger audience for advertising and whatnot.
Some ISPs do use advertising, for example the free wireless network that Google is setting up in San Francisco. However, many consumers would rather pay than receive ads. Also, this type of network is only possible in high density populations, otherwise the cost of building and maintaining such a network is just too high for the number of users. So the rest of us, those not in cities, are stuck with paying.
But again, the problem is that the cost for ISPs are going up. It's because of this that prices must raise, somewhere.
quote:
An ISP doesn't have an obligation to ensure that 100% of packets reach their destinations (since they cannot do so), especially in cases where the data in the packets will harm the ISP's own business.
And so if a hypothetical ISP also happens to sell car tires, are they allowed to block all server transmissions from www.firestone.com? To me, this is crossing the line in exactly the same way your skype example is crossing the line.
quote:
If you use DSL from your local phone company, for example, and decide to terminate all your other phone services because you've switched to a VoIP phone service, you're directly and blatantly handing that money over to a competitor, but still making use of the local phone company's equipment. There have been numerous threats, and some actual activity, by local phone companies to actually prohibit data packets from reaching the VoIP services.
However, you are still paying for the DSL line. It's not as if you are using their network for free.
quote:
quote:
...and there are only so many slots in a day on one channel.
And there's only so-much bandwidth on the Internet.
You can't seriously be comparing the two?
|
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2007 : 19:24:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
It takes much more time and effort to produce something for TV than it does to make a website. Because of this, TV will never have the same type of level playing field that the internet does. A website typically stays up for a year at the very least. How many times did the video of the man complaining run, and how many viewers do you think saw it?
But that's just my point, really. The Internet is not now a "level playing field" in that sudden popularity jumps can crush small websites with low bandwidth limits, sort of an accidental denial-of-service attack. The only way to fix such problems, as you correctly stated, is to mandate huge pipes for everyone, crushing the ISPs under staggering hardware invoices. Instead, the self-made "Internet celebrities" wind up paying for their popularity, one way or another, as it should be.quote:
quote:
How can that be? How can AT&T (for example) regulate the speed at which the SFN's server initiate packet transmissions?
By delaying its request for them.
To the end user, there is no difference: it takes longer between the time they click their SFN bookmark to the time the homepage loads, and the extra delay is caused by AT&T (our example) purposefully making the round-trip time longer because SFN isn't ponying up money to them.quote:
quote:
AT&T's only reaction could be to deliberately delay the packets somewhere within its own equipment.
Yes, although the way you phrased that it makes it sound as if there is malicious intent involved. AT&T's can only handle so much traffic at any moment in time. Some must be delayed in case of a "traffic jam".
No, we're talking about AT&T purposefully delaying packets because a site doesn't pay for "premium" response times across their network. That's the scenario that the "Net Neutrality" people are saying will happen to everyone, and slow 10-year-old Tammy's website down so much that nobody will view it anymore. There is no reason that AT&T cannot do that right now, but the neutrality folks want to mandate that it will never happen (at least not on U.S. soil).quote:
quote:
How so? Google has the right to decide what appears on its Web site, and in exactly the same manner, since deregulation AT&T has the right to determine what content will course through its fiber optic cables. All ISPs reserve such a right, in one form or another. To not do so is to invite drug traffickers, identity thieves and child pornographers to become your main clients.
I agree, to a point. Companies should attempt to detect illegal activities and stop these. However, this is where I believe the line must be drawn. My ISP should not be allowed to block me from going to www.fstdt.com, even if the current owner is an evangelical Christian.
Why not? If such behaviour is allowed by your contract with your ISP, and the equipment transmitting packets to you belongs to the ISP, then why must they bend to your wishes and transmit content which is objectionable to them?
All other forms of media transmission regulate their content, from newspapers to TV and radio stations. Why would you deny that right to an ISP?quote:
quote:
"All" ISPs would never be able to collude in such a manner to begin with. There'd always be someone offering "discount" Internet service at lower rates in order to gain a larger audience for advertising and whatnot.
Some ISPs do use advertising, for example the free wireless network that Google is setting up in San Francisco. However, many consumers would rather pay than receive ads. Also, this type of network is only possible in high density populations, otherwise the cost of building and maintaining such a network is just too high for the number of users. So the rest of us, those not in cities, are stuck with paying.
I was including Web site servers as ISPs, as well. And we've also been including the major cross-country pipe providers, like AT&T, as ISPs.
But that brings to mind another point: there's no guarantee that any particular Internet packet will follow any particular physical path. The neutrality folks seem to think that the owners of the major pipes present absolute roadblocks to speedy transmission (or transmission at all) for everyone in the country, but it's quite possible that my accesses of YouTube of the 10-year-old's site never cross AT&T owned equipment. In which case, AT&T trying to blackmail those sites won't affect me (until the blackmail is successful and the quality goes down for everyone due to increased production costs).quote:
But again, the problem is that the cost for ISPs are going up. It's because of this that prices must raise, somewhere.
The pro-neutrality folks seem to be ignoring this fact.quote:
quote:
An ISP doesn't have an obligation to ensure that 100% of packets reach their destinations (since they cannot do so), especially in cases where the data in the packets will harm the ISP's own business.
And so if a hypothetical ISP also happens to sell car tires, are they allowed to block all server transmissions from www.firestone.com? To me, this is crossing the line in exactly the same way your skype example is crossing the line.
Yes, it's exactly the same. And whether or not it crosses some line of moral outrage, it's legal, and doesn't even cross First Amendment boundaries since the ISP isn't Congress.
Newspapers |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
