Wave goodbye to Internet freedom

ericsnow

Thinker
E
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
201
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to add the Internet to its portfolio of regulated industries. The agency's chairman, Julius Genachowski, announced Wednesday that he circulated draft rules he says will "preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet." No statement could better reflect the gulf between the rhetoric and the reality of Obama administration policies.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/wave-goodbye-to-internet-freedom/
 
The Washington Times was started by a man who considers himself to be the son of God.

Try using more legitimate sources next time.
 
The article is a load of crap, from start to finish. It's obvious the author has no clue what Net Neutrality is or how the internet actually works - but somehow, he knows that if federal regulation is involved, somehow your freedom is at risk. :rolleyes:
 
Thunder said:
The Washington Times was started by a man who considers himself to be the son of God.

Try using more legitimate sources next time.
Click to expand...
Why would he start now? Eric only quotes the Washington Times, PrisonPlanet, World Daily and similar works of fiction.

BTW: Eric, remembered anything you've disagreed on with Alex Jones?
 
Net neutrality is awful! Keep your hands off my internet, damn government!

*downloads material from website not approved by ISP at 3 kb/s*
 
Ironically, the author of this editorial actually hits the solution to the problem on the head but is too busy ranting to realize it. Have ISPs charge more for downloading more. I can't imagine anyone really objecting to that. We already do it that way with electricity, phones and water. Letting ISPs choose what can and can't be downloaded is stupid.
 
Random said:
Ironically, the author of this editorial actually hits the solution to the problem on the head but is too busy ranting to realize it. Have ISPs charge more for downloading more. I can't imagine anyone really objecting to that. We already do it that way with electricity, phones and water. Letting ISPs choose what can and can't be downloaded is stupid.
Click to expand...

Eh, I tend to think the infrastructure for the internet should be handled like our interstate system. It's pretty much just as important. In fact, our current method for handling it is so bad that the USA ranks pretty terribly as far as internet access and speeds go among first world countries.
 
Drachasor said:
Eh, I tend to think the infrastructure for the internet should be handled like our interstate system. It's pretty much just as important. In fact, our current method for handling it is so bad that the USA ranks pretty terribly as far as internet access and speeds go among first world countries.
Click to expand...

Like the interstate system? Where it's insufficient where most of the people are? And there are some places where you have to pay tolls?
 
Drachasor said:
Eh, I tend to think the infrastructure for the internet should be handled like our interstate system. It's pretty much just as important. In fact, our current method for handling it is so bad that the USA ranks pretty terribly as far as internet access and speeds go among first world countries.
Click to expand...

We've also got a less-dense population than most first-world countries. That makes a significant difference to infrastructure costs.
 
I wonder what would happen to the download speeds of the sites that ericsnow loves if they can't pay the internet service providers enough. Hmmm....
 
Upchurch said:
OMFSM, the author of that editorial actually used the "series of tubes" metaphor when talking about the internet.

This only goes to further prove my hypothesis that those opposed to Network Neutrality have no idea what it is.
Click to expand...

it's serious business you know. Back in my day, the intertubes relied on dial-up!
 
Spindrift said:
Like the interstate system? Where it's insufficient where most of the people are? And there are some places where you have to pay tolls?
Click to expand...

The problem there is that we haven't kept it up to date, but the interstate system is better in public hands than in private. I don't see how internet infrastructure is any different.

Ziggurat said:
We've also got a less-dense population than most first-world countries. That makes a significant difference to infrastructure costs.
Click to expand...

We were top-notch in the 90s though, and frankly the tricky part doesn't come from distance, it comes from the last 10 or so miles (e.g. residential areas).
 
Last edited:
Drachasor said:
We were top-notch in the 90s though, and frankly the tricky part doesn't come from distance, it comes from the last 10 or so miles (e.g. residential areas).
Click to expand...

The last 10 or so miles is a distance, and the distance of that last 10 or so miles does matter to the cost. If a hub that serves, say, 10,000 people needs to run that last "10 or so miles" 10 or so miles, that will cost a lot more than a hub which only needs to run 2 or so miles to the people it serves. Density matters, even for those terminal stages. And we're less dense. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison. The relevant question isn't whether or not we've got the same broad-band access as Japan, or Germany, or wherever, the relevant question is whether or not we've got as much as we should have. And you could very well conclude that we don't. But that conclusion should be based on conditions within the US, not on comparisons with countries that have very different conditions than we do.
 
Ziggurat said:
The last 10 or so miles is a distance, and the distance of that last 10 or so miles does matter to the cost. If a hub that serves, say, 10,000 people needs to run that last "10 or so miles" 10 or so miles, that will cost a lot more than a hub which only needs to run 2 or so miles to the people it serves. Density matters, even for those terminal stages. And we're less dense. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison. The relevant question isn't whether or not we've got the same broad-band access as Japan, or Germany, or wherever, the relevant question is whether or not we've got as much as we should have. And you could very well conclude that we don't. But that conclusion should be based on conditions within the US, not on comparisons with countries that have very different conditions than we do.
Click to expand...

It's not density. Canada easily beats us too.

I'll grant it doesn't necessarily have to be built like the interstate though, so I'll retract that. Line-sharing at a minimum is needed, however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom