you need to get out more that was way back in 2007. The Bit Torent thing and why Comcast went to wen to tiered plans so that people who want to DL 15 movies a day can do so, just be willing to pay more than normal intrernet users. another example of exactly why we do not need the net neutrality. Free market arrives at it's own solution.



http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=8316

__________________
Global warming alarmists are watermelons - green on the outside, red (socialist) on the inside

global warming , is there anything it cannot do ? http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

peer reviewed studies and graphs of the Medieval Warming periods can be found at http://www.co2science.org/

by the way according to the FCC as of June of 2008 over 86% of the zipcodes in the US have 5 or more high speed providers available and only .3% had only a single provider available. So if the one you have does not meet your needs, just about everyone has a alternative. Free market is your friend

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-292191A1.pdf

__________________
Global warming alarmists are watermelons - green on the outside, red (socialist) on the inside

global warming , is there anything it cannot do ? http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

peer reviewed studies and graphs of the Medieval Warming periods can be found at http://www.co2science.org/

Dude, you have been linked examples throughout the thread. The main example being what Comcast was trying to do. It was shot down, because the FCC imposed "Net Neutrality" based upon their power and little legislation at the time.

What McCain and his ilk want to legislate, is allowing the providers to create a virtual monopoly. In many areas, people only have one choice for high speed. In my case, I have two. Cox Cable and some form of Satellite internet, which is horribly slow and I wouldn't consider that broadband. So I really only have one choice for true high speed internet. There are not other cable companies, and Verizon doesn't offer DSL or FiOS to my home.

I use Vonage for my telephone provider. Cox also offers telephone service. If the right has their way, Cox can legally outright block ALL VOIP competitors from their network. Vonage. Skype. Etc.

Cox offers cable television programming. If the right has their way, Cox will legally be able to block ALL internet video, giving them a virtual monopoly on television content.

If a company is it odds with Cox over an issue (that what isn't relevant to my point), Cox can not only block their website, but it can block internet related searches for that company and any website that even mentions the company.

This is going a little far out there, but the potential is there for an ISP to make a deal with a government entity (say, oh.. like the white house) and legally block, or require customers to pay for, those websites that speak ill of that agency. I bet you would be crying foul if the Obama admin ended up with deals with ALL major ISP to block all those conservative and libertarian blogs and "news" sites.

Net Neutrality is *exactly* what is needed to maintain a free market system for ISPs. It enforces "equal opportunity".

And in closing, I DO NOT OPPOSE TIERED PLANS BASED ON USAGE (nor do almost any of those pushing net neutrality).

edit: also I should I own a webhosting company. So I do have a *little* knowledge about the topic, considering I am directly involved..

__________________
Sgt Jared Monti - a True American Hero
My Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.56

uh no, no one has linked anything other than the comcast issue which was resolved before the FCC took action while the hearings were still in progress

http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/s...4781055&EDATE=

again like I said a company can do almost anything, but if they do a competitor will rush in and offer a better deal cheaper. No government interferance is nescessary

Like I pointed out at the beginning of this thread, you guys are spinning your wheels trying to argue this. You don't have a single arguement that I cannot shoot down with facts. But feel free to keep trying LOL

lets sum it up

- if you use more bandwidth be prepared to pay more. That is why companies have tiered plans so you can choose the one that fits you best
- no company has ever blocked a legitimate site, except for comcast which was resolved by the company in conjuntion with Bit Torrent through arbitration when consumers complained
- countries that have government internet control tend to block services and sites
- only .3% of the zipcodes in the USA only have a single broadband supplier as June 2008

does that sum it up ?

__________________
Global warming alarmists are watermelons - green on the outside, red (socialist) on the inside

global warming , is there anything it cannot do ? http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

peer reviewed studies and graphs of the Medieval Warming periods can be found at http://www.co2science.org/

So you're outright ignoring my posts now?

Also, you're arguing an issue no one is disputing while ignoring the actual topic of debate by saying it's not true, it's not happening. Why is that?

__________________
And now, a message on trolling the forum.

why can't you list some links to back up your preposterous claims Robin? Who are all these net providers who are blocking and or slowing websites access?

__________________
Global warming alarmists are watermelons - green on the outside, red (socialist) on the inside

global warming , is there anything it cannot do ? http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

peer reviewed studies and graphs of the Medieval Warming periods can be found at http://www.co2science.org/

Maybe you don't understand what bandwidth is, in the context of TCP/IP networks? You keep arguing about bandwidth usage, which nobody here is arguing against which is why it appears you really don't know what net neutrality even is.

Right now, I pay for a tiered plan. I get a higher up/down speed from Cox for about $50/month. I *could* pay $20/mo or so and have slower speeds. BUT - I can access all the same content. I am ok with this. If I want fast speeds (which in networking, directly equates to more possible transfer per month) then I pay more for it.

You used a buffet correlation earlier in the topic (err, I think it was this one). What companies are considering (the cable-tv model - pay for your access to certain content - not how much Cable you watch) would in effect the same you going to a buffet and now, due to some corporate changes, the same $9.95 restricts you to just the salad bar. Want meats? Another 9.95. Pasta? Another 9.95. Oh yeah, and you need a drink. Want water? ok that's free. Tea is $4.00. Soda $10.

it's not really a apples/apples comparison, which is why I called you on it before, but it's the closest I can come with using a buffet as a model.

Yep, one ISP got slapped on the wrist. There are talks of providers looking at doing the same, they just haven't yet. And it's also why they are all fighting net neutrality. AGAIN, NET NEUTRALITY DOES NOT PREVENT TIERED SERVICE PLANS BASED ON USAGE. How hard is that to understand?

It sums your google knowledge, but not your intimate knowledge with the industry.

That 0.3%? Yeah, it's that small because they count satellite in their numbers. If you do that, virtually everyone in American can get "high speed". What they don't tell you, is satellite is horribly slow, has tremendously high latencies (worse than dialup in many cases) and requires expensive equipment (two way dishes, etc).

This wouldn't be government control, per se. It doesn't mean the FCC can all of a sudden say "nope, all news of the IRAQ war is blocked. Google is blocked.". What it does is give the FCC the power to enforce the providers to play clean and not create monopolies.

You claim another company will just swoop on in. Well yeah, if they have the capital to lay all new fiber (much like Verizon is doing in some places). DSL is very problematic except in cities. Rural areas are usually stuck with either dialup(not high speed) or satellite (like my dad) or one cable provider and satellite.

In any case, I can tell you right now, if I have to pay for content packages, I will be very very pissed off. I don't mind paying for what I use, in terms of bandwidth, but paying for what websites I can access? What web technologies I can use? No thanks.

__________________
Sgt Jared Monti - a True American Hero
My Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.56

Do I need to repost the links a third time, jackdong?

__________________
And now, a message on trolling the forum.

As a former ISP and web hoster, with a new streaming biz in the works, I can tell you that

Alarion has the best comprehension of what Net Neutrality is all about.

The right wing is successfully confusing the issue with misinforming talking points.

Alarion, please keep posting. Maybe they'll learn something.

You have not supplied any link except the Comcast claim and I debunked that already. Why wont you just admit you are wrong, instead of making false claims? By the way jackdong, that's real funny if you are a 5th grade I suppose...

__________________
Global warming alarmists are watermelons - green on the outside, red (socialist) on the inside

global warming , is there anything it cannot do ? http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

peer reviewed studies and graphs of the Medieval Warming periods can be found at http://www.co2science.org/