Net Neutrality

[Chad]

Not much better.

[Felix]

Regulations can act one way or another. Currently regulation has it that communication companies cannot restrict services based on content. The new regulation allows them to do that. Which of these regulations is liked by corporations and which is preferred by the public these companies claim to serve?

This is the beginning of the end of the internet as we know it. It was nice while it lasted.

[rube]

I don't believe consumers and companies will accept non-net neutrality.
The internet is used by too many people and business, world wide. Sooner or later some smart kid or a large company will find a way to bypass non-net neutrality.

[Chad]

I don't believe consumers and companies will accept non-net neutrality.
The internet is used by too many people and business, world wide. Sooner or later some smart kid or a large company will find a way to bypass non-net neutrality.

But, we already have net neutrality. It's foolish to go non-net neutral just on the chance someone can come up with something else to get us back to where we were. There is no advantage to this.

Plus, ATT, Comcast, etc. will fight that someone with millions of dollars, which that someone probably won't have.

[Seneca]

But, we already have net neutrality. It's foolish to go non-net neutral just on the chance someone can come up with something else to get us back to where we were. There is no advantage to this.

Plus, ATT, Comcast, etc. will fight that someone with millions of dollars, which that someone probably won't have.

Not to mention, along the way we may lose a better alternative to Amazon, FB etc.

I went looking for a link yesterday and couldn't find one, but the electricity crisis (blackouts and big price swings for commercial users) that hit California in 2000-2001 definitely added fuel to the dot com crash as there were small tech companies where server power was a big part of the budget. Bigger companies could survive until the problem was solved.

I agree, this truly sucks.

[Felix]

@Seneca: We collected another rare moment of agreement.

[jacob]

When a tool is misused it doesn't mean the tool itself is broken.

Yes and no. Realizing that tools can be used for good as well as evil (or more apt, that it has some subtle downsides) begets the question whether bringing the tool into the human sphere is a wise choice.

It might mean that humans are not wise enough to use it.

E.g. "guns don't kill people, people kill people"... yet guns sure make killing a whole lot easier. The acknowledgment that guns made it too easy for the prevailing powers was the reason for "banning"(*) guns during the Edo period. Like guns, regulations and bureaucracy is another techmology... perhaps not all good.

(*) It wasn't really. Kinda like with modern chemical weapons, they kept making them but detested their use.

[Riggerjack]

Think on that the next time someone talks about regulation of corporations being the solution to their most recent injustice. Corporations love regulations, they are a barrier to stop competition, and costs will be passed on to the customer.

That's like saying, "a man was murdered by a psycho with a hammer. Think on that next time you try hammering a nail."

When a tool is misused it doesn't mean the tool itself is broken. Regulations are a tool to keep large corporations from abusing their power. But when you let the foxes run the hen house, you get toothless regulations or regulations that perpetuate large corporations abusing power. Kinda like this situation.

I think what you meant was, "Think on that next time you vote in politicians that will continue to allow corporations to write their own rules."

I'm sorry,are you aware of any regulatory agency that isn't a tool of the regulated industry? Are you under the impression that a politician made this ruling? Seriously, have you ever even looked at the federal register?

[Riggerjack]

Copper lines can be used for DSL, metro Ethernet, you can pull 100 mbs off of metroE, on a limited range. How much do you want to spend, how much do your customers want to spend? My point was that the market is open, if you want in. You don't even have to build the network, it is available at cost.

[Spartan_Warrior]

I'm sorry,are you aware of any regulatory agency that isn't a tool of the regulated industry? Are you under the impression that a politician made this ruling? Seriously, have you ever even looked at the federal register?

LOL. You're asking the wrong guy. I'm not going to tell you what I do for a living but suffice it to say, yes, I have seen the Federal Register. Of course politicians don't write every word of every regulation. They certainly dictate the direction of the policy. I never said I was under the impression that a politician made a court ruling...

Regardless, my comment was a joke. There is no serious political party or contender in the U.S. that isn't bought and paid for by large corporations or other special interests.

The problem is money in politics. But this seems off-topic (and circular, for this forum).

[Riggerjack]

Sorry, sore point. I work in Telecom engineering. A few years ago, working the Fios rollout for vz, hammered home the regulation and politics of monopoly. Power and cable companies still operate on a cost plus basis for the most part, it makes for a strange market. For what it's worth, I support net neutrality. But watching people blame corporations for bad regulations is frustrating.

[Spartan_Warrior]

http://news.yahoo.com/u-appeals-court-k ... 13671.html

[Chad]

And, before that ATT testing the waters on net neutrality.
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/sponsored-d ... 18200.html

But, I shouldn't blame the corporations.