Most liked posts in thread: Net Neutrality Slipping Away

I'm not going to argue against many benefits of Net Neutrality.

But here's a thought experiment....

How would you feel about the FCC telling you that you couldn't ban users from your site, because it's on the Internet? Or the FCC setting your advertising rates? Or dictating the terms of service your forum must operate under?

 

Sounds like Comcast is just trying to suck more money out of everyone. :mad5:

 

But these are all end use issues. Not user issues. Kinda like trying to tell someone they can't use caller ID to not answer the phone from someone they don't want to talk to. Or them dictating how much they can charge for the 900 numbers.

 

What ever it means, I just hope I can still access all those wonderful .ru sites.

 

There would be a huge outcry from people if ISP dudes started blocking sites from other countries. Something about censorship, and getting multiple news sources from unbiased places, outside observers & 3rd parties, I guess.

 

Well if this happens, there are more than enough smart people on the web that someone will be able to hack around whatever blocks are put in place...even if all else fails, look for a digital revolution of epic proportions!!!

 

You are applying access provider rules to destinations. That is sort of like saying speed limit laws would lead to price regulation for hotel rooms.

 

Nathan, you said a lot of what I would in your original post. You'd think that with our internet speed, as a whole, being so slow compared to other areas of the globe that net neutrality would hold water simply because it would foster competition. Then again, if you don't consider it a necessity you probably don't think it's important that everyone have it.

 

Big Brother

:frown2: As a comparison; There's a huge out cry RIGHT NOW about what's going on in the White House and the Congress but, Nothing's being done!!! :frown2: Jason

 

Hmmm. My point is that the access providers OWN THEIR NETWORKS. Just like homeowners own their front yard. And just like the cable and satellite companies own their content delivery networks.

The thought experiment is this: at what point does a provider of access OR content become "so popular" or "so ubiquitous" that we deem that we must start to deny them control of their own products and services? If you owned the network, and had invested vast personal funds to develop it, would you welcome others to limit how you could recover that investment, by changing the rules AFTER you had made the investment and thus created a service that yielded both significant public value AND an ability to recover the investment via profit?

And if that did happen, how would it influence your risk-taking and investment strategies in the future?

I'm not saying there aren't thorny issues here. At what point does something become a utility? What responsibility does an investor have for anticipating that the government is going to slap "utility" regulation on them as soon as they finish building out their proprietary asset? What responsibility does an oil company have for anticipating that Hugo Chavez is going to nationalize the petroleum industry in Venezuela before they invest there? Maybe it's all the fault of the evil oil companies. If they hadn't built the assets, Hugo wouldn't have taken them.

 

I still like that name, Hugo. Reminds me of an episode of The Jeffersons where George hired a body guard named Hugo Mojelewski. "High, remember me?":



There is also a local place called Hugo's that has a taco stand next to the 101 freeway on Coldwater. Their tacos are sooooooo gooooooood.

P.S. But the parent restaurant across the street does have free Wi-Fi.

 

If you owned a company and invested personal wealth to make it a monopoly, how would you feel about the government busting it up? So sad for those robber barons of the 19th and 20th centuries...

Internet providers such as Comcast and AT&T are very much like utilities for the following reasons:

1. For economic viability, it is becoming necessary for the average citizen to have internet access.
2. I requires considerable infrastructure. This limits competition.

How would you feel if there were only two car companies, say Fiat and Toyota, to choose from, and you needed to have a car to get to work?

 

Now that's just fear mongering. What if your choices where Porsche and a Honda? Not so bad anymore.

 

It is doubtful they would resemble the Porsche and Honda we know today.

 

November 2nd of this year and November 6th of '12 are when things should 'get done'. Getting 'things done' now smacks of anarchy.

 

Revisit and a Bump, important issue.