He Who Controls the Information Controls the World

[whateverdude]

Bad news for us

 

As much as I hate government regulation and expansion, some is needed here. I don’t like the idea of ISP’s controlling the information spigot. Turning the bandwidth spigot up for things they want us to see and down for things they don’t or have no intere$t in.

[murra]

Bad news for us

 

As much as I hate government regulation and expansion, some is needed here. I don’t like the idea of ISP’s controlling the information spigot. Turning the bandwidth spigot up for things they want us to see and down for things they don’t or have no intere$t in.

 

So you listened to Rush Limbaugh today?

[meazza]

Bad news for us

 

As much as I hate government regulation and expansion, some is needed here. I don’t like the idea of ISP’s controlling the information spigot. Turning the bandwidth spigot up for things they want us to see and down for things they don’t or have no intere$t in.

 

Whatever dude

[John Adams]

Bad news for us

 

As much as I hate government regulation and expansion, some is needed here. I don’t like the idea of ISP’s controlling the information spigot. Turning the bandwidth spigot up for things they want us to see and down for things they don’t or have no intere$t in.

 

Start your own ISP if you don't like it.

[GG]

You mean a court slapped a federal agency for regulatory overreach?

 

I know, shocking.

[drnykterstein]

Start your own ISP if you don't like it.

 

You have no !@#$ing clue how !@#$ing hard that is, apparently.

[John Adams]

You have no !@#$ing clue how !@#$ing hard that is, apparently.

 

Or maybe I do and I respect the people who spent all the money and risk to do it to run it how they like. Respecting private enterprise is above your pay grade but not mine.

 

If you are an ISP owner, why wouldn't you charge the bandwidth hogs more? Their small minority slows it down for the vast majority. That should come at a price. BFD.

[OCinBuffalo]

This again?

 

Good God people: This is hardware guys vs. software guys. Some of us deal with this every day, and those that do know that it will NEVER go away. The fact that its become political is hysterical. It used to be: whenever one side got the better of the other, the losing side would innovate, and "the balance would be restored".

 

In ALL cases, the very last thing we want is the government getting involved in this, because, by definition the good way to resolve it = innovation, will be killed off, and replaced by "whoever pays the lawyers and politicians more".

 

I will give you a real world example: the cell phone carriers keep screwing with their JAVA standards and web browsers. Why? Because they don't want software developers to be able to build something that works on everything. Why? Because if a certain technical architect was to build that, it means that their market and product goes back to being: a commodity, which means they have to fight an eternal price war.

 

So, whatever should that certain technical architect do? Run to the government, pay them off, and force these carriers to stop letting their marketing people mess with the standards/browsers...or...should he...innovate and create a software architecture that uses their own d-bag tactics against them, and remains platform agnostic in spite of all of their efforts?

 

As long as hardware people exist, they will be trying to tell you that somehow the hardware they are selling, which does the same exact thing that the other guy's does, is better, and will use whatever lame marketing tactic they can to differentiate. And worse, hardware people have deluded themselves into thinking that people buy hardware for hardware, and not the software that it runs.

 

And, as long as software guys exist, they will be bitching in general , and specifically bitching about proprietary hardware platforms having little tweaks/unreasonable charges that are a result of hardware marketing people trying to differentiate.

[RkFast]

Im sorry, all I can think of is...

 

"When you control the mail...you control....INFORMATION!"

 

-Newman

[whateverdude]

So you listened to Rush Limbaugh today?

 

Why what did he say about this?

 

Lets face it, access and use of the internet is like access and use of the gas, electric, water ect. It’s a utility and we’ll all have to pay for what we use but just like the other utilities it needs some form of regulation to prevent content manipulation by ISP's

[OCinBuffalo]

Why what did he say about this?

 

Lets face it, access and use of the internet is like access and use of the gas, electric, water ect. It’s a utility and we’ll all have to pay for what we use but just like the other utilities it needs some form of regulation to prevent content manipulation by ISP's

Horsecrap. The result of what you propose will be the exact opposite of what you intend. I doubt there is a finer example of "unintended consequences".

 

It's simple really: and Google is already doing it = making their own ISP. Also, you are predicating your analogy on the fact that the hardware companies, in this case, cable/Verizon/Satellite, will all stand together on this for all time.

 

There is no chance of that. None. The second that Verizon thinks it can get over on the cable people by cutting a sweetheart deal with Google, they will jump at it. I said above that hardware is always looking to differentiate.

 

Is there a better differentiating feature for Verizon than "install Fios, and Google Movies will run 3x faster, cost less, and you will get Google premium content that you can't get from the cable company"? Of course not. And, as soon as (insert ISP here) signs said deal with (Insert pervasive software company here), it will be like musical chairs, with everybody running around singing deals etc. Mark my words: all of this will happen, it's just a matter of time, and some good sales guys.

 

But, if you make it illegal for anybody to do anything, and that everybody has to serve the same content, get the same bandwidth, etc. you take away any possible competitive advantage out of it, then all that will happen is: suck. Prices will go up, with no increase in quality, service, innovation.

 

Look when it comes to the internet: you benefit from chaos, not order. The last thing you want is some tool in DC deciding what you get and how....and besides, if any of this does happen, I can guarantee you that I, and millions like me, will simply expand the undernet...and tell that DC tool to blow it out his azz.

 

EDIT: and that's just what the good guys will do. The black hats will make making DC tool's life miserable their mission in life.

[Joe Miner]

You have no !@#$ing clue how !@#$ing hard that is, apparently.

 

And why is it hard?

[GG]

You have no !@#$ing clue how !@#$ing hard that is, apparently.

 

Actually, starting an ISP is not really all that hard. Turning it into a successful and profitable buisness, is.

[OCinBuffalo]

And why is it hard?

It's not. And doubly so if you can offer your service tax/hassle/government regulation free. Which is also not hard. Look the government has a hard enough time protecting itself from the relatively small number baddies who attack them on a daily basis. They don't want to force millions of us onto their bad side through dopey legislation. They will lose big. It will be just like prohibition. Epic fail, and then, inevitable repeal.

 

It's the same thing, just like every time some newly elected politico, says "we are sick and tired of these internet people not paying taxes, etc. I am gonna go after these people and force them to do whatever I say...blah, blah, blah!" Remember the whole "we are gonna tax email!" thing? Ever wonder why that died just as fast as it started?

 

Dumbass lawyer turned politician, who thinks he knows IT, because, he is a lawyer, and lawyers know everything, comes in and talks smack on day 2 of his term...then, they bring in an actual IT consultant....and 2 days later, loud mouth lawyer, with tail firmly between legs at press conference says: "this issue needs more study"...

 

...translation? IT guy said: "you have no idea who you are f'ing with, better get out there and publicly back off or you will wake up tomorrow with half the state's hard drives scorched"...and, it's over, never to be heard from again.

 

Last time? it was Spitzer, now? Obama.

[Joe Miner]

Actually, starting an ISP is not really all that hard. Turning it into a successful and profitable buisness, is.

 

Then shame on those big ISP's that made their business successful and profitable. That's too hard for most people. Since it's too hard for most people, we just can't let those successful people run their ISP like they want. Someone needs to be in charge of them with my best interests since it's too hard for me to start a similar company and run it like I want.

[yall]

Horsecrap. The result of what you propose will be the exact opposite of what you intend. I doubt there is a finer example of "unintended consequences".

 

It's simple really: and Google is already doing it = making their own ISP. Also, you are predicating your analogy on the fact that the hardware companies, in this case, cable/Verizon/Satellite, will all stand together on this for all time.

 

There is no chance of that. None. The second that Verizon thinks it can get over on the cable people by cutting a sweetheart deal with Google, they will jump at it. I said above that hardware is always looking to differentiate.

 

Is there a better differentiating feature for Verizon than "install Fios, and Google Movies will run 3x faster, cost less, and you will get Google premium content that you can't get from the cable company"? Of course not. And, as soon as (insert ISP here) signs said deal with (Insert pervasive software company here), it will be like musical chairs, with everybody running around singing deals etc. Mark my words: all of this will happen, it's just a matter of time, and some good sales guys.

 

But, if you make it illegal for anybody to do anything, and that everybody has to serve the same content, get the same bandwidth, etc. you take away any possible competitive advantage out of it, then all that will happen is: suck. Prices will go up, with no increase in quality, service, innovation.

 

Look when it comes to the internet: you benefit from chaos, not order. The last thing you want is some tool in DC deciding what you get and how....and besides, if any of this does happen, I can guarantee you that I, and millions like me, will simply expand the undernet...and tell that DC tool to blow it out his azz.

 

EDIT: and that's just what the good guys will do. The black hats will make making DC tool's life miserable their mission in life.

 

I agree with some of what you are saying, but the flip side could protect consumers could it not?

 

What if your area only has 1 viable option for ISP? While that may be less of a concern down the road, it's very real now, at least in terms of broadband availability in some areas.

 

Net neutrality would make sure your ISP can't block traffic from Google if it has some sweetheart deal with MS for example.

[Joe Miner]

I agree with some of what you are saying, but the flip side could protect consumers could it not?

 

What if your area only has 1 viable option for ISP? While that may be less of a concern down the road, it's very real now, at least in terms of broadband availability in some areas.

 

Net neutrality would make sure your ISP can't block traffic from Google if it has some sweetheart deal with MS for example.

 

If you don't like the service, don't use it, find another, or start your own.

 

Why should you get to dictate how a company you don't own runs itself?

 

Vote with your money instead of a ballot. It's a lot more effective.

[yall]

If you don't like the service, don't use it, find another, or start your own.

 

Why should you get to dictate how a company you don't own runs itself?

 

Vote with your money instead of a ballot. It's a lot more effective.

 

It's called 'regulation' and we have all sorts of it in place for companies on which the public relies.

 

As I mentioned, 'finding another' may not be an option for some people. Starting your own is probably not either. And I'm inclined to believe that when our taxes help fund things like phone lines, cable lines, and fiber optic lines that carry the signals, then yeah, we ought to get some say (mind you not all lines were subsidized by taxes but IIRC many were).

 

edit: And I want to be clear I don't care if a company limits your bandwidth, puts on caps, etc. I'm talking specifically about limiting your abililty to access sites/servers based upon their particular interests.

[Joe Miner]

It's called 'regulation' and we have all sorts of it in place for companies on which the public relies.

 

As I mentioned, 'finding another' may not be an option for some people. Starting your own is probably not either. And I'm inclined to believe that when our taxes help fund things like phone lines, cable lines, and fiber optic lines that carry the signals, then yeah, we ought to get some say (mind you not all lines were subsidized by taxes but IIRC many were).

 

edit: And I want to be clear I don't care if a company limits your bandwidth, puts on caps, etc. I'm talking specifically about limiting your abililty to access sites/servers based upon their particular interests.

 

No, you really shouldn't get a say as to how the company builds its infrastructure and operates it's system unless you are a large shareholder. The company's first responsibility is making money for the shareholders, not to provide the service you like best.

 

Our taxes fund tons of stuff that we have absolutely no say in.

 

You already live with all sorts of content regulation. What makes the internet so special?

 

My cable company won't give me the porn channels. They limited my ability to get them by charging a hefty premium. Heck, other companies carry some channels that my provider doesn't carry at all. That sure seems to limit my ability to choose exactly what I want to watch. There isn't even a premium I can pay to get those channels.

 

Lots of things are regulated, and one can only wonder what the country would be like if they hadn't been regulated to the extent that they are. Perhaps the only thing regulation really does is tighten the service options so that there isn't room in the market for another competitor? If everyone has to provide pretty much the exact same service, what incentive would investors have to financially back me so that I could start up a competitive business to do the exact same thing that's already being done?

[GG]

I agree with some of what you are saying, but the flip side could protect consumers could it not?

 

What if your area only has 1 viable option for ISP? While that may be less of a concern down the road, it's very real now, at least in terms of broadband availability in some areas.

 

Net neutrality would make sure your ISP can't block traffic from Google if it has some sweetheart deal with MS for example.

 

I am not aware of any area in the US that only has access to one ISP. You may be talking about one high speed intrenet ISP, but even that if a tenuous position since you can always get broadband staellite service for $60/mo.

 

So, the argument as always revolves around the Constitutionally protected right to cheap high speed internet.