Politicos divided on need for 'net neutrality' mandate

TalkBack 18 of 22:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Actually, I did. You ignore it.

You make a claim, I make a point claiming your view is wrong. Instead of debating my point, you simply say "Everything the gov't touches turns to fecal matter" and restate your original claim, without addressing my points. At this point I do not know if you are a mindless bot making posts; or if you are simply slow.

When I claimed the discussion was dead, I stopped making additional comments on the issue, and stated why I feel it's dead. Then you say the discussion is dead, but turn around and make new arguments trying to substantiate your original claim (ie: it's dead, so here are more claims). And you still ignore my counter-arguments.

Now you claim that "I don't think those other vendors should get a free ride on my provider's network and drive up the cost." This goes all the way back to the original article (yes, going full circle in your arguments). No one is getting a free ride. Your provider's customers have paid for their pipes. The content providers have paid for their own pipe with their ISP. Your provider has been paid. If they are unable to satisfy the loads that their customers demand, then your provider has over-sold and needs to upgrade their infrastructure.

Also, try to remember that nothing in the concept of net neutrality prevents an ISP from selling tiers of service to its own customers. They have every right to sell higher bandwidth and higher QoS to their own customers. Net neutrality would prevent an ISP from giving higher priority within the purchased pipe to one source over another. They could still set different types of packets to different priorities, but a single type of packet would all need to be treated equally.

Your example of receiving "an email suggesting I upgrade to RoadRunner Business Class for using a P2P program 4 years ago" was between you and your provider. Should the ISP for the party on the other end of that P2P connection also be able to charge you? Should your provider also have the right to charge the party on the other end of that P2P connection an additional charge, even if they use a different ISP? Net neutrality would prevent that - in fact it's the core argument within net neutrality.

You also again put words in my mouth. I never claimed life was fair. I also never argued whether or not the law is good; there is no law on it, there is no text of a bill yet to outline a law. There is discussions in congress on the concept of net neutrality.

You now also claim that "The law is flawed because it will be too costly to enforce. The law will be getting too many phone calls over normal network outage. It is a market solution rendering the law moot." Ignoring for the moment that it's not a law at this point and only one senator's one line comment that's not yet even written into the text of a bill; it can still be said that you are wrong. First, it covers network communications, so the enforcement agency would likely be the FCC. They will require that claims be substantiated, just as they do for other issues. This means that the consumer will need to work with the content provider to gather evidence that the customer's ISP is violating the law. Once substantiated, the data would be sent to the FCC for review.

Posted by: ac2_z   Posted on: 02/08/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Infrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now