|
I see ISPs as merely a physical connection from my house to the internet, they are akin to a router or a switch.
For some reason they want to be considered "content providers" ... that idea is laughable.
They are more like network operators. I think most would agree, they don't want anyone doing deep packet inspections and getting between their machine and the web servers or other peers they are trying to access.
This is an endpoint to endpoint issue with the least amount of interference between the bits from one end getting to the other end, and nothing more.
Treat all bits equally, provide them the fastest transport possible, AND AT THE LOWEST COST (without raping anyone).
David
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Duncan wrote: Unless the government decides to take over an industry and seize the companies' assets, does it really have the right to tell a given company what it can do with the wires that it owns?
What happens if you want to create your own search engine. And google has contracted with every single provider in the country to allow cheaper access to google. So for anyone to use your search engine they will have to pay a fee every time they use it.
Is that fair to the start up? Is that fair to the consumer?
|
|
|
|
|
No, it's not fair to the startup. It's also a violation of antitrust laws; we don't need more laws to prevent a situation like this.
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Fox wrote: It's also a violation of antitrust laws
Perhaps. But that would only be decided by the Justice Department and would be meaningless to a small start up since it would post their demise.
It would also be decided on a case by case basis. And wouldn't apply to the providers.
Net neutrality would prevent the possibility in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
What makes the fcc more capable of making such a decision than the justice department? And why do you think the fcc would always side with startups whereas the justice department wouldn't?
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Fox wrote: What makes the fcc more capable of making such a decision than the justice department
First I didn't claim that the FCC was the only possibility.
Second the FCC rule was placed on the providers and for all business. A anti-trust agreement would be unlikely to apply to providers nor all businesses.
Patrick Fox wrote: And why do you think the fcc would always side with startups whereas the justice department wouldn't?
That statement has nothing to do with what I said and also has nothing to do with the FCC rule that was just struck down.
|
|
|
|
|
The FCC attempt at expanding its authority under the guise of net neutrality is not necessary. It's just more expansion of government. Any real abuses in the marketplace can be handled with existing law. The FCC with its net neutrality provisions does not make it any more efficient at policing ISPs, it's decisions would have been made on as case by case basis as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Fox wrote: Any real abuses in the marketplace can be handled with existing law.
So you claim.
Patrick Fox wrote: it's decisions would have been made on as case by case basis as well.
What? The regulation would have made it illegal for any provider to differentiate service especially based on pricing. There is no "case by case" in that determination.
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose I agree, as long as the isp's "preferences" are made public.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been following this more closely; you have the right idea. Companies should be allowed to run themselves as necessary, within limits. I don't think Joe User should feel they have the right to choke all of an ISP's bandwidth. So long as more than 1 ISP exists competition should serve to balance between providing user's needs and gouging them.
Where only 1 ISP exists though, things could get ugly. But we do have laws on the books to deal with that and don't need another government body policing this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Never teach a pig to sing. You waste your time, and annoy the pig.
|
|
|
|
|
Collin Jasnoch wrote: ou realize that he likes it.
The brighter contestants also realize he's smarter than you. 
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
--Mark Twain
Veni, vidi, vici.
|
|
|
|
|
 I like that... and there's a lot of truth to it.
|
|
|
|
|
As an engineer.... I will have to agree with this... 
|
|
|
|
|
There are some large threads on the forum recently hating on Justin Bieber. Some food for thought:
* If you don't like his music, don't listen to it.
* Just because he looks different than you doesn't mean you have to call him a girl. Remember, if you're reading this, you're in IT and you're probably weird, and probably awkward.
* (For Parents) Remember what its like when somebody picks on your kid...
* If he is retiring from music, I'm personally jealous! He got in, made tons of money and can now do whatever he wants. The rest of us will continue going to work.
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
From my perspective, he's a hyped up talentless eejit who believes in his own hype. A waste of space and he invites derision.
He's made a lot of money, granted, but so do pron stars. Sooner gone, sooner forgotten - just like what's his name.
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: just like what's his name.
I'll never forget him. 
Veni, vidi, abiit domum
|
|
|
|
|
Because it isn't music?
Because if you have teenagers you can't "not listen to it" without murdering your offspring?
Because it saves time?
Never underestimate the power of stupid things in large numbers
--- Serious Sam
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Because it isn't music?
Why? because you don't like it?
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any better reason? 
|
|
|
|
|
I have daughters.
They 'like' this shyte.
I have to listen to it when they put the radio on loud.
And you lot wonder why I drink!
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
