savetheinternet.com— Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott testified before the Senate to day on behalf of SavetheInternet.com coalition members Free Press, Consumers Union and Consumer Federation of America.
May 25, 2006View in Crawl 4
@argash - You seem to imply that net nuetrality is asking the government to fix a problem. That is not correct. Net Neutrality is asking the government to stop "fixing" the problem - to create a barrier that will stop legislators from selling off a public resource to corporate interests.
"2. It's not 'their pipes' WE payed for them, well actually we paid for a lot more than we ever got. (which has been discussed on digg and elsewhere)"WTF. No tax money has gone to the internet backbone since the early 90's. Quit spreading misinformation. Google, etc. only pays their ISP for last mile. All other flow of money to supporting the backbone is in peering agreements, which NN people want heavily regulated by the govt.
@nuvemResellers offer you choice even though they are selling the same exact service?So If I was able to pass legislation that forced Ford to let me buy their cars for below cost and then put my own emblems on them you would be OK with that? I'm only giving you choice ;)I have no problem with a DSL competitor who builds their own facilities (Choice One is a local phone competitor that comes to mind) but I have a serious problem with a company that is fromed only to skim the profits off of a service provided entirely by another!
@argash, please stop, you're embarrassing yourself. As I said before, you might have read the book but you clearly did not understand it. Reardon would have been more akin to Vonage, not the railroad companies. No one is telling the telcos who they can and cannot sale their service to (or in Reardon's case, who he must sell his metal to at a discount). Ayn Rand was against corporate welfare, just as Net Neutrality is. You have your understanding of the book backwards.
hmtksteveMay 26, 2006
What bandwidth rate does your contract provide for? Does it say you WILL get XMbs or does it say "up to" XMbs?
ultrasuprgeniusMay 26, 2006
@argash - You seem to imply that net nuetrality is asking the government to fix a problem. That is not correct. Net Neutrality is asking the government to stop "fixing" the problem - to create a barrier that will stop legislators from selling off a public resource to corporate interests.
geekeeMay 26, 2006
"well hello there shill?"nice ad hominem attck. dugg down. Why don't you actually try countering some of his points rather than name calling.
geekeeMay 26, 2006
"2. It's not 'their pipes' WE payed for them, well actually we paid for a lot more than we ever got. (which has been discussed on digg and elsewhere)"WTF. No tax money has gone to the internet backbone since the early 90's. Quit spreading misinformation. Google, etc. only pays their ISP for last mile. All other flow of money to supporting the backbone is in peering agreements, which NN people want heavily regulated by the govt.
hmtksteveMay 27, 2006
@nuvemResellers offer you choice even though they are selling the same exact service?So If I was able to pass legislation that forced Ford to let me buy their cars for below cost and then put my own emblems on them you would be OK with that? I'm only giving you choice ;)I have no problem with a DSL competitor who builds their own facilities (Choice One is a local phone competitor that comes to mind) but I have a serious problem with a company that is fromed only to skim the profits off of a service provided entirely by another!
ryosenMay 27, 2006
@argash, please stop, you're embarrassing yourself. As I said before, you might have read the book but you clearly did not understand it. Reardon would have been more akin to Vonage, not the railroad companies. No one is telling the telcos who they can and cannot sale their service to (or in Reardon's case, who he must sell his metal to at a discount). Ayn Rand was against corporate welfare, just as Net Neutrality is. You have your understanding of the book backwards.