How long before government tells us who can and can't post on this forum?

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by robbobobbo

Just... wow. These "reporters" make things up out of thin air and the people lap it up.

As Crawford explained her mission to The Wall Street Journal in April: “We should do a better job as a nation of making sure fast, affordable broadband is as ubiquitous as electricity, water, snail mail, or any other public utility.”

In other words, the agenda of her organization is to transform access to the Internet into a government entitlement project, with all the necessary government intrusion and control in order guarantee it to everyone—in the world.

Ok, how does one logically get from the first paragraph (we should improve broadband availability) to the second (the agenda is to increase govt intrusion and control)?

You can't. You can't by saying "In other words", either. In this case, "in other words" means, "I will now take something and transform it into a meaning completely of my own invention, devoid of any connection to the previous words."

Further down in the article, they give more "proof" by quoting Obama "he FCC isn’t pursuing this just because of orders coming from Obama’s Internet Czar.

This goes all the way to the top—Obama himself said on the campaign trail last year: "I will take a back seat to no one in my commitment to net Neutrality."

As if "net neutrality" means govt intrusion and control. This article depends on the readers' ignorance of net neutrality to make them jump to the conclusion that it means government restrictions.

Anyone who is informed on net neutrality can see this article is a bunch of hot air. Just another device to get the ignorati frothing.

Exactly. The article begins with capital "OPINON", but looks like there are always plenty of people who believe everything they get from the MSM Circus.

Nerwork Neutrality has been around by some 10 years now, and it is a standard proposed by internet providers, not the government.

"Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for residential broadband networks and potentially for all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams"

[halleda]

The net is already too PC for my benefit. I have my own opinion as to why this is but it is what it is.

[HappyTexan]

If you think about it there really is no neutrality with net neutrality.
It's one side or the other.

[Magnolia Bloom]

Thank you for explaining it so thoroughly and in a way that this non-techie can totally understand.

Great post.

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

First: That article is drivel.

It's somewhat complex, technically, but let me start with the important thing: Net Neutrality is the status quo. It is the MO the Internet has run under so far. It keeps the entry requirements for new players in the markets low, in effect making the Internet a very, very easy marketplace to enter.



OK, try this on: The Internet transports user data in discrete chunks called packets, each packet marked with a destination and source. The dedicated hardware (routers) that handle the traffic look at the destination address of each packet and forwards the traffic in the right direction. Your local provider (ISP) will typically not have its own network extend all the way to whatever host you're communicating with, so they set up peer agreements with other ISPs they can reach - in effect agreeing to handle data for each others customers and exchanging routing information. For those addresses outside any peering agreement, your ISP will purchase upstream capacity from a backbone provider. The backbone providers, in turn, have peering agreements with other backbone providers.

This interconnected nature makes the Internet somewhat resilient to outages, but it also means that you don't get to decide who handles your traffic. Your only choice as consumer is the ISP, and for many areas, ISPs have de facto monopolies.

What does all that have to do with NN? Traffic prioritization. Under NN, routers aren't supposed to prioritize packets due their IP addresses or, probably worse, content. Simple as that.

It is like the common carrier law in that respect, and this is a good thing.

Verizon is not allowed to make a deal with Amazon to see to it that traffic to Amazon's webpage takes priority over traffic to Barnes & Noble - or to any new players on the field. Cable TV companies acting as ISPs can't downgrade access to NetFlix - and they'd love to, because NetFlix eats into their PPV revenue. Likewise, the telcos would undoubtedly love to throw a wrench in the works of Skype.

It's maintaining equal access to the marketplace - any libertarian should cheer on NN.


Net Neutrality is the status quo, and I think it's led us to something pretty durn good.


You do not understand the debate. NN has nothing to do with content.



Ehm - the telcos own a good chunk of Internet backbone and access infrastructure, and they hate 3rdparty VOIP. It's costing them money hand over fist. They'd love to downgrade VOIP traffic on the spot. Since the availability of VOIP for business purposes became widespread, the price of international tielines have plummeted.

There's ample precedence under common carrier law. It's not good for the marketplace that established players enjoy advantages not accessible to all comers.

I have a pretty good clue. I am also 100% in favor.

I know, everybody on the Internet drives a Ferrari and dates a supermodel, but in real life, I am actually the senior network engineer in an entertainment company big enough that you'd recognize it. I've also worked for European telcos and ISPs, as a network engineer. I've set up hundreds BGP peerings on defaultless routers - this is my field.

[swbtoo]

Two bills recently introduced, S. 773 and 778, “The Cybersecurity Act of 2009, are quietly making their way through Congress. Both bills have been read twice and referred to committee in the Senate.

This expansive new power grab should really be called “The Internet Takeover Bill.”This bill mandates that private-sector networks only be managed by government-licensed “cybersecurity professionals,” even when there is no Government- declared “emergency.” This basically means that instead of dealing with your inhouse IT help desk, you will be dealing with a government trained and licensed cyvbersecurity professional.

The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to Obama.

Bill 778 grants the Secretary of Commerce access to all relevant data concerning so-called critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting access. This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.

Some links provided below, to suit every political persuasion from left to right. (Note that Mother Jones is a far left magazine).

Should Obama Control the Internet? | Mother Jones

Will bill give Obama control of Internet?

Obama SEEKING TO CONTROL INTERNET! Shades of Stalin and the press! at Desert Conservative (http://www.desertconservative.com/2009/10/16/obama-seeking-to-control-internet-shades-of-stalin-and-the-press/ - broken link)

One Old Vet » Obama to Control Internet in Times of ‘Emergency’ (http://oneoldvet.com/?p=5150 - broken link)