Reading this post, it sounds to me like you're for net neutrality legislation. If you want the internet to continue to operate under the same guidelines it has since it's inception: you want net neutrality. If you feel that users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use: you want net neutrality. If you feel that broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content: you want net neutrality. If you want it to become regulated or run by businesses for their interests: you don't want net neutrality. If you want what you view dictated by corporations: you don't want net neutrality. I simply cannot make it any plainer than that and there is no incentive for anyone who currently uses the internet to be against net neutrality. This legislation has nothing to do with government control and everything to do with preventing corporate ownership of a public domain of information. So what is it: Are you for it, against it or have no clue what it is?
it is not my fault you are not good at reading. you realize for the purposes of this discussion "net neutrality" means "government manipulation of network providers and the removal of the rights of private companies to manage their own networks?" is that so? what if the the user is a private broadband company that wants to filter access and sell it? are they in control of the content then when your network neutrality gestapo FCC comes? i explicitly feel that broadband carriers should absolutely be permitted to discriminate. have you been reading at all? of course i want it regulated by businesses for their interests! what is wrong with you? can you read? PAY ATTENTION! I WANT CORPORATIONS NOT THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL THINGS! abre los ojos dude. do broadband providers use the internet? do they run businesses that profit from the internet? dont blame me because you are not good at reading comprehension. i am quite clearly stating that what i do not like is when the government tells private citizens and providers how networks must be run. when the socialists convince the left to purchase and run their own new internet, they can make the rules. i wont be using that network. i like my networks run by private citizens.
Perhaps I should have posted: You ≠ martin Sorry. I didn't realize that we were creating our very own interpretation of "net neutrality". I thought we were using the actual meaning of the term "net neutrality". How silly of me to think that this meaning would carry over to TigerForums.com from the rest of the world. Are there any other terms that mean something different here? Does "red" show up as a different color here than the rest of the world? What a crock of ****. That's not a user. That's a provider. How can you possibly confuse that? Yeah, I can read and I see what your point of view is. You have failed to explain why. I'm still waiting for that explanation. Yep and unless you're a broadband providder, you have no interest in seeing them ruin or restrict content simply because they can. So then you're against your definition of 'net neutrality' and for what the rest of the world considers 'net neutrality'. Thanks. That's much clearer now. I like my networks run by private citizens as well, but I like the internet run by no one. Net Neutrality ensures that it is run by no one the way it was meant to be run. I am just curious as to why someone would choose to oppose legislation that benefits them, especially when it costs nothing. You might as well choose to support Halliburton bottling the atmosphere and selling it back to us for profit.
why dont you explain how you disagree? do you not agree that we are discussing whether the FCC should impose rules on private networks? try to stay on topic. they dont do things simply because they can. they do things to improve their business. there is nothing wrong with that. you may not be aware of this but they actually want to make customers happy in order to make profits. you dont have to be scared of private management of the internet. it was worked fine so far, has it not? why do you want change? isnt your claim that the internet is working well now? how can that be, given that these FCC laws regarding neutrality are not yet in place? again, this is a political issue we are discussing. a legal issue. whether or not the FCC should enforce their idea of how private networks should be managed. not sure why that confuses you. you clearly dont if you are hoping the FCC gets involved. are you aware of who the FCC is? are you aware of their history of crippling mismanagement? if you want i can list things the government thought they needed to manage. i have long threads about food policy if you want to start there. just so you know, i am gonna ignore these sorts of irrelevancies.
It is clear to me now that you simply do not possess a firm grasp of the concepts involved in the net neutrality issue. First of all, the internet is not currently privately managed. You are extremely uninformed if you think the current state of he internet is managed by private industry. It's a vast mix of public and private and the only reason it's not completely screwed up is because public content to collaborate, share and access keeps the private industry honest. No one owns the internet and no one ever should. The telecom industry just provides some of the wire; Government provides pretty much the rest. When AOL first provided software that let you use your connection as an IP connection, the two became hopelessly entangled and blurred. There's no real way to seperate the two. Secondly, this legislation would make sure that it stays that way. Enacting this legislation would not impact the internet, but in fact prevent potential unfair business practices and commercialization that for lack of a better description ruin the internet and technologically set our country back decades. In fact, it ensures that things remain exactly the same as they currently are which is already too corporate for what the internet was intended to be. Until you understand this, there is very little point in discussing this matter with you further.
i am aware of how the internet works. i know how it started, and by whom, and why. i know how it is currently managed. what evidence do you have for this? you are simply making stuff up. for all you know total private management would be a tremendous boon to the internet. then why is it necessary? aha, imagined problems. the darling of the those that oppose freedom. anything to justify government meddling. i think you might consider that almost all of the men who designed the internet agree with me and think what you favor is dangerous and stifling to innovation. explain to me a scenario where this fcc BS is necessary. now in the scenario you are about to invent, i actually want the service the internet provider is offering. whatever you think is oppressive, i like. i want the filtering, i want the blocking, i want the packet shaping, i want the least amount of neutrality possible. it is a free country, right? i call it "optimization" and i agree with the reasoning of whoever is doing it. i want them to block and filter the way they choose. tell me why you should bring the government in to stop me from getting what i want from a private company that should be none of your business. my interactions with my service providers are none of your concern. if you want happy neutral service, you go right ahead and purchase it. leave everyone else alone.
This statement alone discredits anything you have written on this thread and further proves that you do not know what you are talking about. The two most influential scientists who have been given the lion's share of credit for creating the internet are vocally in favor of net neutrality because it preserves the internet as we know it. They do not favor corporations dictating and controlling content like you are in favor of. Vint Cerf: Inventor of Internet Protocol Tim Berners-Lee: Inventor of the Web When you begin to understand this, we can discuss how the internet was built with public tax dollars and how corporate America stole it from under our noses because we didn't enact legislation soon enough to prevent them from getting paid for what should be and was intended to be a free service by the original inventors and the government that funded it. This legislation is a pre-emptive measure to avoid similar injustices and is no more intrusive than current FCC powers that give oversight to telephone networks, protecting the interests of American citizens. We can also discuss if you like how some want for this to go beyond the internet and include wireless networks as well, which is something with which I do have a problem. The internet and current wireless network technology are not the same and should not be treated as such. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but you need a new source. There's a lot of good information out there, so there's no excuse. Shoot me a PM when you're ready.
co-inventor, with robert kahn who is a huge opponent of neutrality. also cerf is now a google employee, and google is basically a zillion dollar lobby group for net neutrality. they dont want providers to filter them, when providers should clearly have that right. the web is not the internet. you know this quite well and are making a very cheap point. ""Neutrality" legislation posed more of a danger than fragmentation, he concluded. With the exception of Google's man in Washington DC, Vint Cerf (with whom Kahn developed TCP/IP), most of the senior engineers responsible for developing the packet switched internetworking of today oppose "Neutrality" legislation. Dave Farber, often called the grandfather of the internet, has been the most prominent critic." Father of internet warns against Net Neutrality ? The Register havent you already said that internet works fine now? how could that be after it was "stole" by corporate america? a pm? why would i have any interest in that? i like to speak publicly.
Is Net Neutrality a FCC Trojan Horse? | Electronic Frontier Foundation "In the excitement surrounding the announcement, however, many have overlooked the fact that the this rulemaking is built on a shoddy and dangerous foundation – the idea that the FCC has unlimited authority to regulate the Internet." keep in mind that skepticism above is coming from the most pro-freedom group you can imagine on the internet. i cant understand how the rest of you do not see this as a dangerous precedent, this "nuetrality" nonsense. appropriate aphorisms: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. if it aint broke dont fix it.
