[besson3c]

It looks like John McCain is putting out a new bill that would destroy Net Neutrality. This from a guy who confesses to be a computer illiterate.

Is there anybody here that feels that Net Neutrality should be destroyed, and that corporate interests should be able to horde bandwidth?

[olePigeon]

He has to make up for the money he spent on campaigning for the presidency. He then has to make up for missed chances to go back on false promises, so he'll screw over consumers this way.

[The Final Dakar]

What does the bill say that would destroy net neutrality?

[olePigeon]

Senator McCain Introduces Bill to Restrict FCC Internet Regulation | John Paczkowski | Digital Daily | AllThingsD

[The Final Dakar]

Heh.

[besson3c]

Dakar: Google "internet freedom act". It's McCain's attempt to block the FCC's formalization of Net Neutrality guidelines, and it looks like it's basically a rebranding of the anti-Net Neutrality attempts (I can't remember what they were called prior).

The bill basically opposes "government regulation" meaning that the telcos that own the bandwidth can shape it to provide the fastest access to the sites they have the greatest vested interest in.

[Dork.]

The FCC has approved regulations that would forbid ISP's from restricting customer's access to particular Internet services (legal ones, of course), or favoring one type of lawful Internet use over another type. (For instance, if your ISP is your cable company, they can't block or downgrade Hulu just because they prefer you subscribe to cable.)

In response, McCain introduced the "Internet Freedom Act", which would strip the FCC of the ability to make regulations regarding the Internet.

Net neutrality faces political, legal hurdles - CNN.com

Rule #1 about Congress: the titles of bills often do the exact opposite of what they intend to do.

[olePigeon]

I actually would have support McCain, except that AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc. built their entire infrastructure using my tax dollars.

I'm supposed to have 45 Mbit synchronous internet connection with 250 channels and VOIP telephone service for $40/month... back in 2000.

If AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast aren't providing the infrastructure that we payed for like they promised, then f**k 'em. Instead of building out fiber like they were supposed to, they all pocketed the money and rolled out copper pairs. It all needs to be opened up and everyone should have equal access to the network. We payed for it, so we should get free reign.

Let anyone who wants to be an ISP start a business and offer real broadband at a competitive price.

[besson3c]

Wasn't it Ted Stevens who was against Net Neutrality prior? If so, how does swapping one guy who doesn't know jack **** about the internet for another old guy that doesn't know jack **** about the internet seem like a good idea in terms of representing this bill?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Dakar: Google "internet freedom act".

I'm not googling ****. If you don't have the courtesy to link to the relevant informaton you're starting a thread over, rethink the time you spend here.

As it is, you're lucky olePigeon decided to link to an article.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I actually would have support McCain, except that AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc. built their entire infrastructure using my tax dollars.

Well, It wouldn't have been done if you had to wait for the 'government' to do it. Hell, I'm stil waiting for the flying cars they promised in the 1960's.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Well, It wouldn't have been done if you had to wait for the 'government' to do it.

The government payed the Bells $200 billion. The Bells just ran off with the money.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm not googling ****. If you don't have the courtesy to link to the relevant informaton you're starting a thread over, rethink the time you spend here.

As it is, you're lucky olePigeon decided to link to an article.

Sorry. This story is plastered all over the news though, it's not hard to find. Here's one with the Boing Boing chick on Maddow:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_333820.html

[OAW]

When it comes to protecting the interests of consumers vs. the interests of corporations is it really all that surprising that a Republican, true to form, sides with the corporations? I mean seriously?

OAW

[besson3c]

Exactly why I disagree with all of the Conservatives who go on about how much our world would be a better place without any government regulation. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Regulation can make things frustrating for "normal" people, can feel restrictive on our freedoms, adds more bureaucratic red tape, etc. No regulation and corporations just start writing checks to their favorite politicians.

[olePigeon]

If the Bells had actually paid for their own infrastructure, I would actually support McCain's bill. The government shouldn't be telling the Bells how and what they use their own infrastructure for. However, having given those companies billions of our dollars to build up their infrastructure, then they don't do what they were supposed to do, I think the government has every right to force regulation.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

If the Bells had actually paid for their own infrastructure, I would actually support McCain's bill. The government shouldn't be telling the Bells how and what they use their own infrastructure for. However, having given those companies billions of our dollars to build up their infrastructure, then they don't do what they were supposed to do, I think the government has every right to force regulation.

Why would you? There is a reason why the utility companies are heavily regulated. If a utility company starts, say, jacking up the price of water just cause, or changing the price for certain neighborhoods, or changing their standards for purification and whatnot, this would have serious consequences on us all. The internet is just about the same now... When you start messing around with major backbones of the internet, an economy can come crashing to its knees. There may even be security/life threatening sorts of considerations here too, I know that some security systems, for instance door locks, are remote controlled. Some regulation is almost always needed when so much is at stake as far as the welfare of not just individual people, but entire societies.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why would you? There is a reason why the utility companies are heavily regulated. If a utility company starts, say, jacking up the price of water just cause, or changing the price for certain neighborhoods, or changing their standards for purification and whatnot, this would have serious consequences on us all.

Internet access isn't a utility, nor is it a necessity like clean water and electricity.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Internet access isn't a utility, nor is it a necessity like clean water and electricity.

It's getting damn near that status. I don't know what status a library maintains in our country by the internet is pretty much on par with that anymore.

[hyteckit]

Internet is a utility, much like phone landlines were.

It's the primary way to communicate these days. Email, IM, faceobok, forums.

[Arty50]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why would you? There is a reason why the utility companies are heavily regulated. If a utility company starts, say, jacking up the price of water just cause, or changing the price for certain neighborhoods, or changing their standards for purification and whatnot, this would have serious consequences on us all. The internet is just about the same now... When you start messing around with major backbones of the internet, an economy can come crashing to its knees. There may even be security/life threatening sorts of considerations here too, I know that some security systems, for instance door locks, are remote controlled. Some regulation is almost always needed when so much is at stake as far as the welfare of not just individual people, but entire societies.

There's more to it than that. Municipalites have essentially given telecom and cable companies monopoly power in their given regions. In exchange for having little to no competition, you have to accept regulation as a result. Competition is what keeps prices down, however in many municipalites there is little to no competition.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Internet access isn't a utility, nor is it a necessity like clean water and electricity.

You'd be surprised how many absolutely vital systems to our society depend on the internet or at least networked computers. I'm not just talking about porn and Facebook either

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Arty50 

There's more to it than that. Municipalites have essentially given telecom and cable companies monopoly power in their given regions. In exchange for having little to no competition, you have to accept regulation as a result. Competition is what keeps prices down, however in many municipalites there is little to no competition.

Good point. A regulated monopoly is almost always better than an unregulated one.