Spork Boards

Loonie Legislators and that Wacky Webernet Thingo

John Willoughby's Avatar Picture John Willoughby – January 01, 2008 03:13AM Reply Quote
The topic that just keeps on giving.

Mokers (Moderator) – August 18, 2010 04:29PM Reply Quote
Formerly Remy Martin
ddt,

So if you are saying that the contract law should hold (assuming the contract doesn't break any laws), I don't understand why you would advocate net neutrality. As long as the ISP is not violating it's contract with its customers, why should it matter how they prioritize traffic? If I am reading you correctly, you are arguing against possible future abuse as the reason to push through net neutrality. I also don't see why you would agree that government intervention caused the problem and then in the same paragraph argue that because of that problem created by the government, we need more regulation from the government.

I also think that you shouldn't dismiss the thought that your options are increasing. Just this week HBO is offering web access to their content. Verizon is offering streaming to iPads for FIOS customers. Netflix streaming and Hulu plus are already limiting the reasons for people to get cable. As much as all of these companies suck, they are still trying to find ways for their customers to stick with them. And just because the options aren't available now doesn't mean that they will never be available. If service gets bad, then perhaps a condo or HOA decides to chip in for their own T1. maybe more unwired internet providers see opportunities to improve their coverage. perhaps some municipalities get back into the game of providing service. There are options.

Also, you should check unwired's coverage map, they have pretty good coverage in the east bay. If your place has enough line of sight to get directv, it is most likely possible to unwired unless you are on the wrong side of the hill. But again, at least they are not comcast.

ddt – August 18, 2010 05:20PM Reply Quote
So if you are saying that the contract law should hold (assuming the contract doesn't break any laws), I don't understand why you would advocate net neutrality. As long as the ISP is not violating it's contract with its customers, why should it matter how they prioritize traffic? If I am reading you correctly, you are arguing against possible future abuse as the reason to push through net neutrality. I also don't see why you would agree that government intervention caused the problem and then in the same paragraph argue that because of that problem created by the government, we need more regulation from the government.

Sorry for the long quote, and the brief response (at work, if you can believe it...): you're conflating, or maybe I wasn't clear. Contract law between two parties is what exists, and what would exist -- but FCC/FTC law and regulations can determine what can be considered in such contracts (see: Deceptive Practices). I guess I was addressing in one graf current issues and the debate over the future.

ddt

tomierna (Admin) – August 19, 2010 08:08AM Reply Quote
Hideously Unnatural
Net neutrality is what's needed to repair the damage of ISPs being misclassified as something other than Common Carriers.

Since ISPs haven't been subject to the regulations that Common Carriers are, monopoly situations happen more easily.

This is especially egregious with Verizon (née GTE) who used to be subject to CC with older telephone-based technologies, but isn't now with FiOS.

Huge complications arise when these companies (and other previously non-telcos like Time Warner Cable) begin offering telco-like services ala VOIP.

Historically, the way the CC regs have applied to Telcos since the breakup of Ma Bell actually increased competition and technology. Prior to the breakup, the technology was stagnating, and customers bore the brunt of it.

Now, the ISP angle has allowed an end-run around regulations designed to increase connectivity and transit.

It's as though all of these internet companies have forgotten how peering agreements work, simply because most of them are carrying content that they own or license and think that this traffic is more important than what comes through the peering contracts they have.

Also:

If service gets bad, then perhaps a condo or HOA decides to chip in for their own T1.

A T1 is 1.54 Mbit. A condo or HOA isn't going to increase service quality by sharing a T1. OC3? OC48? OC192? Now you are talking. But then you are putting the filtering/prioritizing in the hands of the condo/HOA and the upstream provider.

Net Neutrality is about codifying the rules and regs for ISPs to get them back in line with what they are, Common Carriers.

John Willoughby – September 13, 2010 10:40AM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support

ARL (Moderator) – December 28, 2010 03:26AM Reply Quote

El Jeffe – December 28, 2010 06:50AM Reply Quote
What a journey.
I saw that. I think collectively, governments appear to be moving toward as much control over the ether as they can muster. And this is but one front.

El Jeffe – February 10, 2011 01:06PM Reply Quote
What a journey.
Hard to say where exactly this belongs. Last week's (episode 3) was very interesting. But this week's is almost a MUST HEAR. I especially think TLIET will find this worthwhile. This was playing in the background while I was resting, but my brain perked up once it got fundamentally interesting.

http://twit.tv/tri4

tliet – February 10, 2011 04:06PM Reply Quote
Thanks Bill, I'll download them and listen to it during my commute.

tliet – February 11, 2011 12:12PM Reply Quote
DPBD

Thanks for that tip Bill, just listened to it in the car and that guy has some pretty brilliant thinking going...

El Jeffe – February 11, 2011 06:39PM Reply Quote
What a journey.
Yeah, initially I was blowing him off listening half-heartedly, passively. But something GRABBED MY BRAIN and said "Hey IDIOT! THIS STUFF IS GOLDEN!"

I know how much you like the way some things are managed/governed 'over there' compared to here/capitalistically. So, I thought of you with that.

It's one of the better things I've listened to lately. And I listen to WAY too much stuff. (Gore Vidal today)

ARL (Moderator) – February 11, 2011 07:06PM Reply Quote
Gore Vidal? What happened to Rush?

El Jeffe – February 11, 2011 08:00PM Reply Quote
What a journey.
I'm not sure I've read Rush. He can be entertaining drive-time. But I have not listened to him since 2008 or so.
I can say that I've added or I am trying out "Three Martini Lunch" this week. So far I am liking it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2011 08:04PM by El Jeffe.

ARL (Moderator) – February 12, 2011 12:19AM Reply Quote
I prefer the three martini breakfast - but YMMV...

ARL (Moderator) – March 01, 2011 11:51PM Reply Quote
DPBD!

Spanking is family fun but Mortal Combat is not...

When they ban WoW I'll be pissed.

John Willoughby – May 18, 2011 05:27PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support

ARL (Moderator) – May 18, 2011 07:31PM Reply Quote
I don't like the "guilty until proven innocent" or more accurately, any sort of habeas corpus provisions in the proposed legislation.

There should be some sort of show cause for the complainant to prove that it's a genuine IP case and just not some crap they've made up.

John Willoughby – May 18, 2011 08:09PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
But that would fetter the hands of multinationals in their efforts to sustain nonviable business models. I couldn't allow my human rights to get in the way of their bottom line.

ARL (Moderator) – May 18, 2011 08:21PM Reply Quote
I meant "show cause" as in the multinational should have to prove a fairly flagrant breach of copyright (ie a website illegally hosting the entire EMI music catalogue) before anything happens.

On a tangent, report on FaceBook privacy/security weakness and end up being arrested by police.

In-fucking-sane.

johnny k – May 19, 2011 01:37PM Reply Quote
At least in Canada they just assume that everyone's a pirate and tax accordingly. I can't say it strongly enough: support the EFF. (I know you do, JW.)
Think I'm going to add Russ Feingold's Progressives United too. Aside from his solitary vote against the PATRIOT Act, he's focusing on good governance issues like corruption and corporate welfare (those are different, right?). A good reminder of what Democrats were supposed to be.

I didn't realize he actually returned all pay raises he got in the Senate. Seems to be a rare principled politician.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2011 01:39PM by johnny k.

John Willoughby – June 08, 2011 06:50PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
Well, most of our forum avatars are now illegal in Tennessee.

The law prohibits the online distribution of any image that might "frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress" to someone who sees it. (Emphasis mine.)

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login