Obama Picks Net Neutrality Backer as FCC Chief

[WesM63]

My $0.02.

I think Net Neutrality is a good thing. Currently, we have too many judges/rulings and company's with conflicting idea's of how the Internet should or should not be regulated.

We are first and foremost a nation of freedom, if Net Neutrality will give us that "freedom" on/for the internet, I'm all for it.

I see w1retap's point, if we give the government the power to regulate it, it could bite us in the ass. See China for example.

 

[w1retap]

Are you suggesting anarchy is the way to move forward? Idiot.

No. I'm suggesting sticking to our LIMITED GOVERNMENT as outlined by the Constitution of the United States. Don't make yourself look like the idiot.

 

[compres]

No. I'm suggesting sticking to our LIMITED GOVERNMENT as outlined by the Constitution of the United States. Don't make yourself look like the idiot.

Funny coming from you. After posting all your outrageous opinions and showing your lack of common sense.

 

[Gorankar]

If you want priority buy a buisness line, which most places above have, i pay my bill, what makes someone's VOIP more important then my email to someone...or my lInux torrent i am downloading to use for say a work project..

VOIP is latency and time critical, your torrents and e-mail can wait a second or two and have their max bandwidth slightly reduced to make way for VOIP and business traffic, without you hardly noticing or being effected. And as I have already said, shaping of that nature should only take place when the local infrastructure is nearing capacity. No need imho, to throttle or delay anything when the system is handling every thing fine and the system or node in question is not fully saturated.

 

[w1retap]

Funny coming from you. After posting all your outrageous opinions and showing your lack of common sense.

You have no argument. Feel free to dispute any point I've made and I'll gladly destroy your argument.

 

[Cannon_Fodder]

To risk sounding like w1retap, it is a tricky slippery slope we are dealing with here. Many are bringing up the issue that 'insert type of traffic here' should have more priority that other traffic. Who decides which traffic to limit or to allow open range. Why should a business get priority over my network when we both pay to have network connections. Granted business do pay more, but not for priority but for usage and steady uptime.

 

[compres]

You have no argument. Feel free to dispute any point I've made and I'll gladly destroy your argument.

I can't be bothered to quote all the nonsense you have been spouting.

It would be interesting to see how you measure your government's size. When do you know your government is small enough?

Looking forward to your insightful answer.

 

[w1retap]

I can't be bothered to quote all the nonsense you have been spouting.

It would be interesting to see how you measure your government's size. When do you know your government is small enough?

Looking forward to your insightful answer.

I knew you would have no counter-argument that uses logic and reason.

I know when my government is small enough when it meets the outline that our founding fathers wrote for us in the CONSTITUTION. No larger, no smaller. Tell me something... have you even read the U.S. Constitution before? I'm guessing you have not. They specifically intended to keep the government LIMITED, and used that specific language, for situations just like we're encountering today. When a government expands itself so large in every sector of the citizen's life, that's precisely what the Constitution was drawn up for to protect against. Government constantly infringing on my freedoms, including free enterprise, would have the founding fathers rolling in their graves. I'll go out on a limb and say you enjoy over-reaching government into your life.. but only if it meets your personal agenda. It's no fun when the other party gains power then injects itself into controlling various aspects of your life, is it? That's precisely what the LIMITED government aspect was designed for. It's for them to govern and remain small/limited enough not infringe upon the people in their daily lives.

 

[compres]

VOIP is latency and time critical, your torrents and e-mail can wait a second or two and have their max bandwidth slightly reduced to make way for VOIP and business traffic, without you hardly noticing or being effected. And as I have already said, shaping of that nature should only take place when the local infrastructure is nearing capacity. No need imho, to throttle or delay anything when the system is handling every thing fine and the system or node in question is not fully saturated.

They can do QoS without affecting the contracted bandwidth of the client. One client running a torrent 24 hours a day does not have to affect some other client running only VoIP. When they throttle torrents it is because they oversold their bandwidth, not because they affect other clients QoS.

 

[Gorankar]

To risk sounding like w1retap, it is a tricky slippery slope we are dealing with here. Many are bringing up the issue that 'insert type of traffic here' should have more priority that other traffic. Who decides which traffic to limit or to allow open range. Why should a business get priority over my network when we both pay to have network connections. Granted business do pay more, but not for priority but for usage and steady uptime.

He is just taking it to it's free market business oriented logical extreme, while some of the others with their "the packets should all be equal and free like beer man" are heading towards opposite logical extreme.

Somewhere in the middle is prolly closer to what we actually need to make it all work properly. Limited traffic management by ISP's when they hit certain saturation traffic levels to insure time sensitive data gets where it needs to be when it needs to be there, and improve service levels, with a smidge of government involvement to keep the ISP's in line and not extorting money from voip providers and NetFlix or the like. I don't see it working out that way however. The idiot politicians are too ignorant of how the internet actually works, and too deep in the pockets of the lobbyists for anything reasonable to come of this.

We will either have no further government involvement in this and the ISP's will prolly eventually get way out of hand, (especially in areas where a broadband monopoly/duopoly exist), or we will have far more government involvement than is healthy and stagnation in services and infrastructure will occur. Either way, it will prolly not be good for we the people.

We will all see what happens eventually I guess.

 

[w1retap]

They can do QoS without affecting the contracted bandwidth of the client. One client running a torrent 24 hours a day does not have to affect some other client running only VoIP. When they throttle torrents it is because they oversold their bandwidth, not because they affect other clients QoS.

If that applied across the board, which net neutrality addresses, that would require more bandwidth than is available.

 

[compres]

I knew you would have no counter-argument that uses logic and reason.

I know when my government is small enough when it meets the outline that our founding fathers wrote for us in the CONSTITUTION. No larger, no smaller. Tell me something... have you even read the U.S. Constitution before? I'm guessing you have not. They specifically intended to keep the government LIMITED, and used that specific language, for situations just like we're encountering today. When a government expands itself so large in every sector of the citizen's life, that's precisely what the Constitution was drawn up for to protect against. Government constantly infringing on my freedoms, including free enterprise, would have the founding fathers rolling in their graves. I'll go out on a limb and say you enjoy over-reaching government into your life.. but only if it meets your personal agenda. It's no fun when the other party gains power then injects itself into controlling various aspects of your life, is it? That's precisely what the LIMITED government aspect was designed for. It's for them to govern and remain small/limited enough not infringe upon the people in their daily lives.

I don't care about your constitution.

However, countries that have governments that have far less control than the USA are shit countries. Just look at some Latin American countries for example. Over there the government is as thin as it can get, and why don't I see paradise there?

The other extreme is the communist countries. Those are also shit.

On the other hand, countries that have found some balance like Canada, the USA, some of Europe, are much better off.

In summary I believe the key is in finding that balance, not your one sided idea of less control is always better.

 

[kioras]

When do you know your government is small enough?
QUOTE]

Simple enough, when it no longer is telling me how to live my life, how I need to run my business, and the federal government is only dealing with the 2-3 things that it truthfullyhas any natural competance for. National Defense, Interstate Commerce and International Relations.

Most everything else that the federal government handles would be bettered to be handled by either the states, or more local governments, which are more responsive to their constituents, then congressional reps.

 

[GilmourD]

Personally, I want the government to stay the fuck away from my internet. That's the last thing I want them to regulate and ruin like everything else. I don't support this decision.

So you want ISPs to be allowed to charge you more to go to certain websites over others?

I've said this before and I'll say it again... Interesting considering your username...

 

[w1retap]

I don't care about your constitution.

However, countries that have governments that have far less control than the USA are shit countries. Just look at some Latin American countries for example. Over there the government is as thin as it can get, and why don't I see paradise there?

The other extreme is the communist countries. Those are also shit.

On the other hand, countries that have found some balance like Canada, the USA, some of Europe, are much better off.

In summary I believe the key is in finding that balance, not your one sided idea of less control is always better.

If you don't care about the Constitution, you have no business involving yourself in the argument, because that leads me to believe you aren't even a citizen of the country we are talking about, thus have no say so in how my is run in accordance to law.

 

[w1retap]

So you want ISPs to be allowed to charge you more to go to certain websites over others?

I've said this before and I'll say it again... Interesting considering your username...

No. I want choice between ISPs, and if certain sites cost more to visit, that's fine by me. Some stores charge more for the same product.. good thing I can shop other places. That doesn't mean we need to set national prices on every store, because that would eliminate the need/demand/supply for items in different areas of the country, thus eliminating business competition, thus eliminating prosperity and growth of wealth.

 

[compres]

If you don't care about the Constitution, you have no business involving yourself in the argument, because that leads me to believe you aren't even a citizen of the country we are talking about, thus have no say so in how my is run in accordance to law.

Hehe easy way out. guess you have nothing to destroy my argument like you claimed early.

 

[w1retap]

Hehe easy way out. guess you have nothing to destroy my argument like you claimed early.

No. You took the easy way out. You said you didn't care about the Constitution acting like you're from some other country, which you probably are, so your argument was not valid in the first place. You made no logical argument based on the context of the discussion, so you can't even hold a debate. All you did was exclude yourself because you cannot think of anything valid as a counter-point. You're a joke.

 

[compres]

When do you know your government is small enough?
QUOTE]

Simple enough, when it no longer is telling me how to live my life, how I need to run my business, and the federal government is only dealing with the 2-3 things that it truthfullyhas any natural competance for. National Defense, Interstate Commerce and International Relations.

I don't quite get how you will be told how to live your life and run your business after something like net neutrality. Perhaps you can elaborate?

And limiting the government to 3 arbitrary functions seems like an overly simplified view.

 

[p4gs]

No. I want choice between ISPs, and if certain sites cost more to visit, that's fine by me. Some stores charge more for the same product.. good thing I can shop other places. That doesn't mean we need to set national prices on every store, because that would eliminate the need/demand/supply for items in different areas of the country, thus eliminating business competition, thus eliminating prosperity and growth of wealth.

you do realize that's a fairly different concept. you can't just quickly change over to a different ISP so you can pay less to visit a website in the same sense that you can drive 10 minutes down the road to a Walmart to pay less money to buy a DVD than you would have to pay at the Best Buy you were previously shopping.

there are contracts involved and shit.

you're still going to have a choice between ISPs.

 

[w1retap]

I don't quite get how you will be told how to live your life and run your business after something like net neutrality. Perhaps you can elaborate?

And limiting the government to 3 arbitrary functions seems like an overly simplified view.

1. You will be told how you have to allocate your bandwidth, what content is going over your lines, how much you have to charge 3rd parties for services, etc. Basically you'll be driven under and have to be bailed out like we've been seeing in very recent history...

2. You haven't read the Constitution, so it's very obvious why you have no idea what the simplistic beauty of the document outlines for government.

 

[compres]

No. You took the easy way out. You said you didn't care about the Constitution acting like you're from some other country, which you probably are, so your argument was not valid in the first place. You made no logical argument based on the context of the discussion, so you can't even hold a debate. All you did was exclude yourself because you cannot think of anything valid as a counter-point. You're a joke.

So I should remember everything that was said in the US constitution to have the honor of discussing with you? LOL idiot. How about you stop relying in a very outdated document and actually start using your brain.

Anyway, if you want to get rid of the government so bad, all you have to do is live by yourself in an island. Good luck.

 

[w1retap]

you do realize that's a fairly different concept. you can't just quickly change over to a different ISP so you can pay less to visit a website in the same sense that you can drive 10 minutes down the road to a Walmart to pay less money to buy a DVD than you would have to pay at the Best Buy you were previously shopping.

there are contracts involved and shit.

you're still going to have a choice between ISPs.

No it isn't. With net neutrality, it forces businesses to provide the same across the board for the good of the people. Choice of ISP's is now eliminated because the smaller ISP's can't keep up with the regulation due to their size and customer base unless they charge an exorbitant amount of money for their contracts. You'll be left with the giants who you were trying to escape from to begin with.

 

[GilmourD]

No. I want choice between ISPs, and if certain sites cost more to visit, that's fine by me. Some stores charge more for the same product.. good thing I can shop other places. That doesn't mean we need to set national prices on every store, because that would eliminate the need/demand/supply for items in different areas of the country, thus eliminating business competition, thus eliminating prosperity and growth of wealth.

I think you really missed the point of "net neutrality". However, people spouting off while being completely ignorant of a situation no longer surprises me. That's how wars start.

It's not that all ISPs would be locked into the same rates. It's that we should be allowed equal access to all sites. Things already aren't equal due to some sites being on slower connections to begin with or having slower servers... Let's not make the inequality worse just to line the pockets of greedy ISPs.

Right now we're living in a world of net neutrality. I'm sure you like it, now. What if one day you had to pay more to be able to go to the [H] or all your favorite porn sites?

 

[kioras]

I don't care about your constitution.

However, countries that have governments that have far less control than the USA are shit countries. Just look at some Latin American countries for example. Over there the government is as thin as it can get, and why don't I see paradise there?

The other extreme is the communist countries. Those are also shit.

On the other hand, countries that have found some balance like Canada, the USA, some of Europe, are much better off.

In summary I believe the key is in finding that balance, not your one sided idea of less control is always better.

You are confusing Kleptocracies, and counties that do not have a strong history of constitional governance with modern counties. Counties were the rule of law is not respected, where bribery is an accepted businese expense still have too much government, just much of it is more interested in fleecing you, instead of telling you how to live your life.

The real basis for a successful modern society is not some mythical balance of government control, but a combination of individual liberty and personal responsibility.

When a society has the personal, relgious and economic liberty to persue there own goals, and the responsibility to take credit or blame for what happens, instead of blaming some shadow conspiracy, a stable society is easier to form.

 

[w1retap]

So I should remember everything that was said in the US constitution to have the honor of discussing with you? LOL idiot. How about you stop relying in a very outdated document and actually start using your brain.

Anyway, if you want to get rid of the government so bad, all you have to do is live by yourself in an island. Good luck.

You really don't understand history, do you? Yeah, let's throw the Constitution out the window.. rofl. Let's have a dictator run the country.. they know best. We don't need separation of powers or limited government... no. Let's get rid of it all.

Also, I do not want to "get rid of government". I would like it to return to what the government is supposed to be. A limited governing body which doesn't infringe on the rights of it's citizens.

Just listen to yourself.. you can't even hold a logical debate.

 

[compres]

I think you really missed the point of "net neutrality". However, people spouting off while being completely ignorant of a situation no longer surprises me. That's how wars start.

It's not that all ISPs would be locked into the same rates. It's that we should be allowed equal access to all sites. Things already aren't equal due to some sites being on slower connections to begin with or having slower servers... Let's not make the inequality worse just to line the pockets of greedy ISPs.

Right now we're living in a world of net neutrality. I'm sure you like it, now. What if one day you had to pay more to be able to go to the [H] or all your favorite porn sites?

Well put, exactly my thoughts.

 

[GilmourD]

No it isn't. With net neutrality, it forces businesses to provide the same across the board for the good of the people. Choice of ISP's is now eliminated because the smaller ISP's can't keep up with the regulation due to their size and customer base unless they charge an exorbitant amount of money for their contracts. You'll be left with the giants who you were trying to escape from to begin with.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

We have net neutrality right now. The regulation is to keep the giants from killing everybody.

 

[compres]

You really don't understand history, do you? Yeah, let's throw the Constitution out the window.. rofl. Let's have a dictator run the country.. they know best. We don't need separation of powers or limited government... no. Let's get rid of it all.

Also, I do not want to "get rid of government". I would like it to return to what the government is supposed to be. A limited governing body which doesn't infringe on the rights of it's citizens.

Just listen to yourself.. you can't even hold a logical debate.

The logical debate were to take place if you countered my points instead of insisting I go re-read the US constitution. You are the one avoiding discussion.

 

[w1retap]

I think you really missed the point of "net neutrality". However, people spouting off while being completely ignorant of a situation no longer surprises me. That's how wars start.

It's not that all ISPs would be locked into the same rates. It's that we should be allowed equal access to all sites. Things already aren't equal due to some sites being on slower connections to begin with or having slower servers... Let's not make the inequality worse just to line the pockets of greedy ISPs.

Right now we're living in a world of net neutrality. I'm sure you like it, now. What if one day you had to pay more to be able to go to the [H] or all your favorite porn sites?

No, I definitely didn't miss the point. I've read into it pretty deep. You're confusing the issues at hand with net neutrality, and how the smaller companies, or companies starting up wouldn't have a chance. The regulations imposed on them wouldn't even leave them with a chance to pay for it all. The consumer would get raped yet again.

 

[compres]

No, I definitely didn't miss the point. I've read into it pretty deep. You're confusing the issues at hand with net neutrality, and how the smaller companies, or companies starting up wouldn't have a chance. The regulations imposed on them wouldn't even leave them with a chance to pay for it all. The consumer would get raped yet again.

Can you provide any source of information you are basing this conclusions on?

It feels like we are not even talking about the same thing.

 

[w1retap]

The logical debate were to take place if you countered my points instead of insisting I go re-read the US constitution. You are the one avoiding discussion.

No I'm not.. the Constitution is the entire basis of the argument. It's the reason why the government should not even be involved with this in the first place. It's the root of the problem. Are you just going to play the psychology 101 general fallacy game? Listen to what you're saying. You have no argument, thus you're just turning the blame around in avoidance of contributing to the actual discussion with a logical argument. You are incoherent and don't even realize it. Please, at least bring something to the table.

 

[w1retap]

Can you provide any source of information you are basing this conclusions on?

It feels like we are not even talking about the same thing.

Source? Look at what they did with the credit markets. Equal credit lending.

 

[kioras]

I think you really missed the point of "net neutrality". However, people spouting off while being completely ignorant of a situation no longer surprises me. That's how wars start.

It's not that all ISPs would be locked into the same rates. It's that we should be allowed equal access to all sites. Things already aren't equal due to some sites being on slower connections to begin with or having slower servers... Let's not make the inequality worse just to line the pockets of greedy ISPs.

Right now we're living in a world of net neutrality. I'm sure you like it, now. What if one day you had to pay more to be able to go to the [H] or all your favorite porn sites?

The issue is that the net neutrality like this limits innovation.

Lets assume a new ISP provider appeared, and had a very good algorithium on it's network to prioritize certain types of traffic. They primarily setup to offer web retailers faster connections with their customers, and do this at a slighlty cheaper rate, then a major ISP, like comcast.

Another ISP, using different algorithiums, is able to effectively manage and identify, media steams, and cut down on latency it causes inside there network, while increasing the transfer rates, and so is used by some content providers that stream media such as video, internet radio and music.

Under net neutrality, such companies will never get off the ground, as they would be regulated into non-existance. It would effectively freeze the current system, and reduce innovation, which also reduces creative destruction of the market as new idea's, and ways of doing business forces existing companies to adapt or die.

 

[Gott]

I'm all for net neutrality. I don't want my ISP dictating who gets priority over me.

 

[w1retap]

I'm all for net neutrality. I don't want my ISP dictating who gets priority over me.

You pay for priority with prioritized higher level lines because the infrastructure cannot handle everyone having priority at the same time. Who is going to pay for the multi-trillion dollar infrastructure renovation which allows for everyone with an internet connection to have their own dedicated full priority line to their home?

 

[GilmourD]

You pay for priority with prioritized higher level lines because the infrastructure cannot handle everyone having priority at the same time. Who is going to pay for the multi-trillion dollar infrastructure renovation which allows for everyone with an internet connection to have their own dedicated full priority line to their home?

I really think you've missed the point there, bucko, but apparently you have your fingers in your ears so I won't bother explaining it to you.

 

[w1retap]

I really think you've missed the point there, bucko, but apparently you have your fingers in your ears so I won't bother explaining it to you.

Either refute the point or don't say anything at all.. because you didn't make an argument there.

Who is going to pay for the entire infrastructure overhaul so every person has equal priority on the internet?

 

[Methadras]

this is a myth, you believe in something that has never existed, yet are so sure it would work. Get over it. You are the ass, dumb ass.

How many historical examples do you need that government intrusion into commerce is never wise? I've never said a pure free market has ever existed, but what I am saying is that a free market with the least amount of government intrusion and frankly one without out is a far better offering than the ones we've seen historically. A myth is something that has a kernel of truth to it.

 

[Methadras]

IMO, the main problem isn't so much network neutrality as it is a lack of competition. If we each had 10 ISPs to choose from, none of them would even consider restricting any protocols since it would be easy for customers to switch. I think what needs to happen is the phone and cable companies should be split in two. One that is in charge of the physical last mile connections land connections and one that provides the internet service. The company providing the last mile connections should be required to lease access of the lines to any ISP at wholesale prices. This would bring down the costs for other ISPs to enter the market and drive down prices and improve service.

That already happened back in the day when Ma Bell was split up and now they are consolidating again. There are only 3 maybe 4 large operators in this country. I think AT&T and/or MCI are still the largest tier 1 holders in this country.