259 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

And yet you right wingers offer no alternative solution. Your fear of government is as over the top as your fear of acorn. Lack of sufficient government regulation is what leads to problems like oil spills caused by corporations cutting corners or stories like Erin Brockovich in which people suffer debilitating illnesses because of improperly handled toxic waste. If anything the government needs to do more overseeing, not less.

But no, conservatives never want government regulation, that is they never want it until they hear a curse word on tv or see janet jackson's nipple or too much blood in a video game. Then all the sudden they're clamouring for more government to protect them from these serious assaults on their eyes and ears. /sigh

• Reply
• 2 Replies

• Digg
• Bury

"It would be really nice if there could be a third party group that would head this up, but at this point it seems it would be too infested with the usual suspects."

Well duh! That's why the government oversees these kinds of things. They do it in just about every industry, though they are not perfect at it of course as the recent egg recall shows, but I fail to see how less regulation helps. If anything we need more. You've got to be on top of these corporations or they will do whatever it takes to increase profits.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Here's a solution that I would view as acceptable: Instead of mandating network neutrality, the FCC could simply mandate disclosures of content filtering and QOS practices.

So that way if my ISP decides they're going to ratchet down the bandwidth on my Netflix downloads they can do that. Hell, a lot of their customers probably won't mind. But then I'll at least know that it's going on and I'll be free to choose another ISP.

Of course, there are rarely more than three choices of high speed internet available in a given area so it's not like there's a lot of competition to be had in the first place. And something tells me the some folks who line up on the side of content providers and their right to engage in predatory business practices will find even that compromise objectionable. So screw it.

• Reply
• 1 Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@Bluto:

"sorry it will be a horrendous cluster that will require huge amounts of money. will cause the independent ISP's to up cost and/or go under... and they are your only real chance of a neutral net."

Explain to me how exactly it will cost more money *not* to do something. You don't seem to understand, net neutrality seeks to require network equipment to operate the way it does out of the box. Are you really telling me it will cost more *not* to arbitrarily prioritize data?

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@TGRH

"So that way if my ISP decides they're going to ratchet down the bandwidth on my Netflix downloads they can do that"

Ok well that is not net neutrality. You may be fine with that but I'm not.

• Reply
• 1 Reply

• Digg
• Bury

d4: "And yet you right wingers offer no alternative solution. Your fear of government is as over the top as your fear of acorn."

Recognizing the reality that unbridled governmental power is a recipe for oppression and tyranny is hardly "fear." More like an understanding history. Neither should contempt and disdain for ACORN be construed as such.

TGRH: "Instead of mandating network neutrality, the FCC could simply mandate disclosures of content filtering and QOS practices."

Now THAT seems very reasonable and pragmatic. I like it.

• Reply
• 1 Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@Flashing.

No, ISP's would be free offer different levels of service and even still have bandwidth fees for going over their caps.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@ TGRH

The problem is there a very few ISP choices in most markets, especially rural areas.

I live in Southwestern Ohio in a major metro area (you figure out exactly where). I have 3 choices in ISP:

-Time Warner
-The local telephone company (offers both DSL and Fiber network)
-Dish-based services (if I have Directv or DISH)]

Is it inconceivable that 2 of the 3 or possible all providers will be throttling or outright blocking access to certain services I wish to use?

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@atomheartmother

"Recognizing the reality that unbridled governmental power is a recipe for oppression and tyranny is hardly "fear." More like an understanding history. Neither should contempt and disdain for ACORN be construed as such."

Oh puhleeeze. Could you be more overdramatic? So asking for a net neutrality law is giving "unbridled governmental power" that is a "recipe for oppression and tyranny"? Will it also bring the Rapture and the end of days?

There's plenty of industries where government regulation has worked successfully -- not perfectly, but definitely successfully. Or would you prefer in your panic stricken mind that we dissolve the Food and Drug administration? Like having an extra amount of rat feces in your sausage? Would you be in favor of removing the FCC's ability to censor television and allow any nudity and cursing? Should the SEC stop policing insider trading and allow unfair monopolies? Should companies be allowed to dump their toxic waste in the nearest lake? Sounds like the doomsday scenario you are so scared of would actually take place if the government stopped regulating, not if it does more.

"TGRH: 'Instead of mandating network neutrality, the FCC could simply mandate disclosures of content filtering and QOS practices.'

Now THAT seems very reasonable and pragmatic. I like it."

Then you do not support net neutrality. You support allowing internet service providers to choose what content it's customers receive.

• Reply
• 1 Reply - Top reply has 2 diggs

• Digg
• Bury

@flashingcursor

"That would really give opportunities for small and specialty ISP's to compete. It would also provide customers with more choices. A single mother with a 12yo boy might want a 'No porn and torrents' connection for 5$ a month. Someone else might want a 'Totally anonymous, anything gos' connection for $50 a month."

So then we'd have to pay more for free and unfiltered internet access? No thanks. This is exactly what supporters of net neutrality are afraid of.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@shauncorleone

"Obvious big government hack is obvious. Newsflash: Not all private companies are evil. The advantage they have over government is that they have to offer a product or service to stay in business rather than make empty promises and accept payoffs from special interests."

Obvious naive right winger is obvious. Newsflash: If you don't watch companies they will do dirty tricks to increase profits.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@AHM: I'm glad you like my compromise suggestion. Tell me though, what exactly would you do if none of the high speed ISP's in your area offer decent access to Digg, or some other service you like to use? After all sans net neutrality one of digg's competitors such as Reddit could offer your ISP cash to low down traffic going to Digg, and you'd never be the wiser. Even if my full disclosure suggestion were in place, in the average market your available choices for high speed ISP are satellite (which sucks for Internet access unless the speed of light gets faster), cable, and optionally FIOS. That's not a lot of choices.

And while vying for social network coverage may seem unrealistic, the same could apply to any online service you use. For example Blockbuster could pay for preferential treatment with streaming traffic as opposed to Netflix, or NBC could pay for better quality of service than CBS.

For arbitrary bandwidth throttling (as opposed to network management best practices) it actually costs less not to do it. Doing it and disclosing it likely would eat into whatever money could be made by doing it, and consumers don't have a wide variety of choices when it comes to high speed ISP's to allow traditional free market principles to take effect.

• Reply
• 1 Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@Frakkin,

An awful lot of the infrastructure was built with public money and they sure as hell don't own all the land their wires are under. The public does have significant ownership of that infrastructure.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"As long as you're just a user among many, as long as you don't own the infrastructure, you cannot dictate what it can or cannot be."

Clearly you don't understand how democracy works. If the people want it, they have the power to make it happen.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Frakkin, you do realize the government/taxpayers has paid for the infrastructure of the internet, right?

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"You want a free and open internet? Build it."

Ok, how about this: when the telecoms pay back the billions we've given them to build their networks, we'll use that to buiild our own network. Until then, we regulate theirs. Fair?

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"thats just it, Independent ISP's will have to prove they do not manipulate data. guess how we will do that?

by keeping records of your use, where and how much bandwidth you used while you where there. have to make sure we didn't throttle ya while you where there."

/yawn

You're just making up the worst scenario you can to scare people. Of course that's not how it would work. It's not hard for someone to test if certain addresses are being blocked or throttled.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"how are you going to prove I'm not doing this? how is the govt going to prove I'm not doing this?"

You're being deliberately as obtuse as possible. You're also biased since you are in the ISP business. Obviously there would be an investigation, most likely in response to complaints. People are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. They would have to show some evidence that you were throttling bandwidth to certain sites and it depend on what evidence was presented as to how you would refute it. Really, this isn't rocket science.

• Reply
• 1 Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Y'know, doing a show run on a cisco router or switch works wonders for demonstrating what kind of QOS is employed.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"how do you propose to prove thats the way is was last week?"

Well they wouldn't be attempting to fine you unless they had some good evidence. I think you greatly exaggerate how much extra work you'll have to put in. As long as you truly aren't filtering content, then what are you worried about? You're paranoid.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

And when they show up with that "good evidence" and try to fine you, how are you going to disprove their claims and defend yourself?

By having kept those records bluto36 is talking about.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Here's why it's a principle and not a concrete set of rules AHM: There is some traffic shaping that an ISP needs to do in order to manage its network equipment. For example it's not uncommon for an IT department that employs bandwidth management to allocate a small chunk of bandwidth to network management traffic, i.e. SNMP, ICMP, telnet, SSH, and possibly HTTPS. No one wants to regulate an ISP to the point that they can't manage their networks.

The intent behind network neutrality is simply that no ISP should be able to engage in predatory anticompetitive practices by exploiting what in many cases is a government-sanctioned monopoly and arbitrarily degrading services for traffic that relates to its competitors. It's a no-brainer.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"For example it's not uncommon for an IT department that employs bandwidth management to allocate a small chunk of bandwidth to network management traffic, i.e. SNMP, ICMP, telnet, SSH, and possibly HTTPS. No one wants to regulate an ISP to the point that they can't manage their networks."

Obviously the whole idea is referring to traffic that the customers use.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@ TRGH

"No one wants to regulate an ISP to the point that they can't manage their networks."

I sure as hell wouldn't on my measly company's network, imagine the nightmare of basically taking orders like a drive though for throttling specific IP's all day!

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Actually, the opposite is true. The more involvement the federal government has in terms of regulating free speech, the better. It is, and has been since the beginning, the federal government's job to make sure that the right to exercise free speech is not impinged. It is only through government intervention that protected speech remains protected. That is why the Constitution is such an important document.

• Reply
• 1 Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"The more involvement the federal government has in terms of regulating free speech, the better....That is why the Constitution is such an important document."

You're half-right, but very confused. The constitution is what guarantees free speech by constraining the ability of government to infringe upon it.

• Reply
• 1 Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Dont bother Kornbred, the anti-government crowd has been brain-washed. They hate the government because that is what their corporate overlords tell them to do.

• Reply
• 1 Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@atomheartmother

"The potential may exist to stifle free speech, though the regulations may be created with the best of intentions. That's a cause for concern."

You're just a loon with an irrational phobia of the government doing anything. I don't know how you think a law for net neutrality would allow the government to censor people. Censorship is what net neutrality is about *preventing*. There is nothing about net neutrality that gives the government power to stifle anyone's right to free speech.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@ homercles337

Oh, I know.

People like atomheartmother live in this fantasy land where all the founding fathers believed what they believe, that all of the Constitution framers wanted nothing to do with federalism, and that a strong federal government is some European, socialist plot to subvert American values.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Despite the hyperbolic personal attacks, it's not in doubt that the majority of the Republic's framers had a deep distrust of too much centralized authority. And that isn't just me saying that, it's borne out by their words and the federal restaints they sought to impose.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@atomtheartmother

You said you agreed with Ultimis who was arguing that zoning laws should be passed forbidding them to build. That is unconstitutional. When I told him that I believe you said I was speaking nonsense. Now, of course, you're changing your story.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"Don't lie. I said, specifically, that ultimis refuted your nonsensical drivel, and he did. If zoning laws are passed and later challenged, it's for the courts to decide if they're constitutional or not. Sorry, but you're not the arbiter of constitutionality."

You flip back and forth faster than a walleye fish. You either believe they have a constitutional right to build there or you believe a law should be passed barring muslim religious organizations from the area. You clearly agreed with Ultimis in supporting zoning laws banning muslims. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see how unconstitutional that is. It's the very definition of religious discrimination. And now you come here spouting about the founding fathers and the first amendment to support your arguments *against* net neutrality. Unbelievable.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Again, you really need to think about learning to tell the truth instead of provably lying. ultimis did not advocate religious discrimination at all. He said, specifically:

"No one is denying the constitutional right, you completely dodged zoning as stated. And no the zoning law would not need to be framed in terms of religion, only violence. "
http://digg.com/politics/Pelosi_calls_for_investigation_of_WTC_mosque_opposition?t=34384848#c34442707

So he wasn't arguing for zoning them out for religious reasons at all. Furthermore, just because I said that he refuted your nonsense (and he did) doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with every point that he made in a really long post/thread.

Now run along. In addition to being disingenuous, you obviously have very little to offer in the way of critical thinking skills and I've wasted enough time with you.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@quote

Ultimis argument was that a zoning law would not have to ban muslims from building -- it would ban violent groups from building, and then he rambled on about how violent muslims have been throughout history. By his logic this would not be unconstitutional because it would be worded to ban violent groups instead of religions. He was playing with semantics but the end result was the same -- he wants zoning laws to ban all muslims.

This is clearly not only completely unconstitutional but also highly bigoted to be blaming these american muslims for all the sins of all muslims throughout world history.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@d4nie1

Instead of claiming I said things, try and quote me.

"He was playing with semantics but the end result was the same -- he wants zoning laws to ban all muslims."

Apparently you failed to read 3 posts from the thread in which we were arguing. I'm not going to continue the debate, but you have some serious issues if you can only setup strawmans in order to view your position as correct.

The last example I'll leave you with:

A white supremacist group builds a center across the street from the location where Martin Luther King Jr. was assasinated. It is fully within their constitutional right to build there (and they weren't the ones who killed him), but everyone would agree that it would be wrong. A zoning law (which I cannot specify since I'm neither a lawyer nor a law maker) could be worded in a way to make groups associated with violence (but are not the culprits) from building symbols/centers in which the violence that occurred was related to them.

Your tired old line of "bigot" has no bearing and you know you have no position.

"They are american citizens and victims of 911 just like all americans."

And I'm sure the white supremacists would state the same thing when they build their center. You're obviously dense, or pretending to be so you can be a political shill for Obama. Get over it, you're in the wrong. And again, no one is refuting their constitution right, such as no one is refuting the constitutional right of a person to open a strip club.

@AHM

I'm sorry you were forced to defend contrived positions of mine. d4nie1 is a tool.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Oh but that's fine, that's capitalism.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

There were never any regulations forcing banks to give anyone loans. The banks screwed themselves because they thought they had a way to guarantee they wouldn't lose money on bad loans, so they started giving them out to everyone that walked in the door.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Or, people could just tell the government, "Hey, Comcast is trying to charge me for a movie tier on my internet!" and it would actually be a violation. Imagine that.

Otherwise, Cmcast can charge us for the ability to watch movies from any service online as they see fit, and we have no recourse to stop them. (And at this point you'll say, "take your business elsewhere, the free market will balance itself" but it won't. All of the ISPs will do it. We won't have a choice.)

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

They're conservatives. They saw the terms acorn and government regulation and know that liberals support it, so therefor they must be against it. Logic doesn't enter into the equation.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Because they're people who grew up with conservative parents.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

And by "working on compliance issues for over 10 years" you must mean "been a right-wing shill bitching about regulation for over 10 years..."

The internet became what it is because of net neutrality. Leave it to the conservatives to try to stop progress and innovation in order to make a quick buck.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

And we have courts do deal with these digressions. The government can't assume malpractice and create new laws to regulate based on actions that most corporations don't do.

• Reply