Stay on topic, your lordship. — Cybergeezer

I am ‘on-target’.

What’s YOUR problem with that?

Happy New Year,

Chuck(le)

Probably because we have people like Google and Amy Alkon and Daily Kos and Charles Johnson….who….given a mind….tend to ‘kill’ people who disagree with them.

Imagine that capability of silencing people who disagree with them, as ‘managed’ by a government agency.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[If you can't beat them, 'kill' them. -- totalitarian view of Life, the Universe and everythink]

When me and my IT friends first got broadband we all set up Warez servers in our homes to share software, music, movies. As time went on some of our neighbors started to experience slow connect speeds. Our local subnet and router was basically overwhelmed. Largely due to the traffic we were generating. Some of us were moving an incredible amount of data 24/7. Once the complaints from paying customers started coming in, my ISP started to block ports to top me from doing this. Sadly it was the correct choice.

Fast forward 10 years to today. Several company’s buy excess bandwidth to distribute their product. Because the company who hosts their website charges for the amount of data that is downloaded. If you have not ever hosted a website, you would be socked at the price of bandwidth. Currently it averages 1-3 dollars a gig.

I guess my point is, I want to preserve my connection speeds. There is little choice but to let the person who controls the lines have some control. To protect against abuses. I suspect that there free markets can solve almost everything Net Neutrality hopes to accomplish and there is always the courts.

http://www.technologyreview.com/web/17245/page1/

Net Neutrality: Lessons from the Past

An Internet without net neutrality might become as fragmented as U.S. mobile phone networks, say some observers. But history may hold even richer lessons.

“Critics claim that without net neutrality, the Internet will be plagued by the same problems as the cell-phone networks: an oligopoly will emerge, innovators will be edged out, and technology will stagnate.

But some experts say history offers even more compelling lessons for those envisioning an Internet where content providers can pay to get their messages to customers as fast as possible.

Transformations in the telegraph industry in the mid-19th century provide one scenario for what can happen when owners of large networks extend their influence. During the Civil War, Western Union began controlling telegraph trunk lines across the country [and achieved] a near-monopoly by 1866… it focused on serving business customers, forgoing innovations that would have made it more affordable for the press or private citizens to communicate by telegraph…

“There does seem to me to be a historical analogy” with the current telecommunications marketplace, says Paul Starr, a social historian at Princeton University, who wrote about telegraphy and other early forms of telecommunications in his 2005 book, The Creation of the Media. “In both cases, the incumbents that dominate networks have tried to exploit their existing position rather than innovating.”

…”It doesn’t take much imagination to imagine Verizon treating their Internet property just like their cell phone network — short-sightedly milking it for all it’s worth, at great expense to the public, and to the future,” Glass wrote.

Mark Donovan, a senior analyst at M:Metrics, a Seattle market research firm that monitors mobile commerce, agrees. “The cable and long-distance companies would like to look a little more like mobile phone companies, in terms of their ability to control traffic on the Internet,” he says…

You already HAVE a 2d Amendment.

What you apparently lack is the will to use it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

“I asked Bob Kahn, the father of TCP/IP, and he made the point that the Internet is a Best Effort network and if you change that, well, you no longer have the Internet.”

With all due respect, I’ll trust Kahn rather than you, Burp.

If the ISP had capped traffic and not specific protocols, it likely would not have run into problems with EFF and such. Because it targeted Bittorrent only, that is why it ran into trouble.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,473924,00.html
Text Rip-Off? Pricey Messages ‘Cost Virtually Nothing’ to Carriers

“In 2008, 2.5 trillion messages were sent from cell phones worldwide, up 32 percent from the year before, according to the Gartner Group and reported by The New York Times. But, what also rose in the last three years was the price — doubling from 10 to 20 cents per message while the industry consolidated from six major carriers to four.”

If we had true competition in fiber-to-the-home (via required wholesaling) or in mobile, none of this would be an issue.

But we don’t have a free market in either situation!

BTW Burp, TCP/IP is inherently net neutral. Requiring carriers abide by the three rules Ross describes is simply following TCP/IP. What carriers have done in the recent past (Comcast for instance) is violate that neutrality with behavior like forging TCP RST packets if they detect BitTorrent.

Is it so onerous to ask the cable/telco monopolies to simply enforce TCP/IP?