Here's your net neutrality!

[mikegideon]

But JayC, there's no such thing and there never will be a free and open internet. People

invest in companies that provide innovation and technology to make the internet what it

already is, and will continue to do this. If the government tries to regulate this, it will only

hurt performance and stifle competition.

'and all those chillins won't get their free internet', like that silly progressive FCC commissioner

says they will.

A federal judge has already said no to this stuff, and it will be a nonstarter.

This is all politics to shut down the right minded talk shows and to censor everything else!

Fairness Doctrine in a new wrapping just in time for Christmas.

Please tell me you don't really believe that crap. There are legitimate arguments for avoiding additional regulation, but no sane person wants the return of the fairness doctrine. No sane person wants to shut down the right wing talks shows either. I'm surprised Beck isn't in hiding from all the boogie men that are after his whiney ass.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Please tell me you don't really believe that crap. There are legitimate arguments for avoiding additional regulation, but no sane person wants the return of the fairness doctrine. No sane person wants to shut down the right wing talks shows either. I'm surprised Beck isn't in hiding from all the boogie men that are after his whiney ass.

Well, perhaps sane is the operative word.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD_pqyV7N5o

Al Sharpton Meeting With FCC To Shut Down Limbaugh - Big Journalism

[mikegideon]

Sane IS the operative word. You think Sharpton can get this done by himself? He's just flappin' his jaws again.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Sane IS the operative word. You think Sharpton can get this done by himself? He's just flappin' his jaws again.

Hi Mike

We'll just have to see how many americans are crazy in this particular fashion. I don't have any idea the number, but it may be quite a few. Or not.

Even in Canada you can go to jail just for being a little too politically incorrect in public, and Canada is nearly the cultural twin of the USA.

[JayC]

I disagree, the Internet is just about as free as you can possible get it... free as in speech not as in cost.

The FCC isn't doing anything to impact innovation... If anything this regulation will continue to promote the innovation we've seen on the Internet for the last 15 years...

Lets use last weeks example of Comcast to highlight what will continue to happen if this regulation is blocked...

Netflix offers a streaming video service to it's customers over the Internet for the low price of $9 a month, you can watch as many movies as you want. It's starting to get very popular as a cheap way to watch movies - companies have started to sell cheap $99 set top boxes that stream Netflix directly to your TV in the last few months - this is a perfect example of good innovation on the Internet.

But Comcast pay per view priced at $4.99 per movie is starting to loose market share (ie less profit), because people tend to pay $8.99 for Netflix instead of $4.99 per movie to Comcast.. now in a free market, Comcast would be forced to offer a competitive plan to keep from loosing market share to Netflix...

So what does Comcast do? Instead of announcing their own streaming service and trying to compete with Netflix, they have their ISP business unit make a threat, pay us money or we'll block/degrade Netflix access to our customers... That sounds like the free market doesn't it?

Now mind you Comcast customers are already paying for Internet access, at X speed a month... And Comcast is making profits hand over fist on their Internet business unit already... Charging 10x or 20x the going rate for bandwidth. And I'm not complaining about them making a profit only pointing out that Netflix is not costing the ISP part of the business money...

This is exactly what the FCC regulation is aimed at stopping. Don't believe me that Comcast would do such a thing:

FCC looking into Comcast / Netflix blocking threat, Level 3 responds as analysts chime in -- Engadget

But JayC, there's no such thing and there never will be a free and open internet. People

invest in companies that provide innovation and technology to make the internet what it

already is, and will continue to do this. If the government tries to regulate this, it will only

hurt performance and stifle competition.

'and all those chillins won't get their free internet', like that silly progressive FCC commissioner

says they will.

A federal judge has already said no to this stuff, and it will be a nonstarter.

This is all politics to shut down the right minded talk shows and to censor everything else!

Fairness Doctrine in a new wrapping just in time for Christmas.

[mikegideon]

Hi Mike

We'll just have to see how many americans are crazy in this particular fashion. I don't have any idea the number, but it may be quite a few. Or not.

Even in Canada you can go to jail just for being a little too politically incorrect in public, and Canada is nearly the cultural twin of the USA.

Lester,

There is no significant support for it. Can be easily squashed by the Broadcast lobby alone. Ain't gonna happen.

EDIT: There are nuts out there that want to ban all guns too. That's ain't gonna happen either.

Edited December 8, 2010 by mikegideon

[leroy]

...Leroy,

If you don't bother to read the proposed regulation, how do you know the regulation is bad?

The tyranny of large corporations controlling information is just as bad if not worse than the tyranny of the government doing the same... at least in theory the courts will intervene with the government.

The threat of blocking this regulation is much greater to the free flow of information, than allowing it to go forward. Nobody is going to allow the cable and telephone companies to be dismantled... and until then they need to be caged...

Jay:___________

I simply wont play the "...if you dont read, you dont know..." game with you. That position destroys my basic premise about not needing more regulation. That part of the discussion is over. As i previously stated; i simply dont care how ...."winsome and well intentioned the proposed regulations are...". We dont need 'em to begin with.

You and I are having conversations from two polar opposite perspectives.

I'll try to sort them out:

Your perspective seems to be saying that "...i dont like regulation; but since we already have the regulatory system in place; why not do the "noble and alturistic thing" and promulgate regulations (...which, by the way, are the same as laws...) and "fix loopholes" with the internet that the "bad corporations" are taking advantage of. By the way, i have a problem with the concept of "bad corporations". How do we know when they are bad? Who is cloaked with the authority to pronounce them bad? When do they turn "bad" ?. The "bad" corporation thing seems suspiciously anti-capitalist to me; but im a suspicious man.

The fact is that you are either a capitalist or you are not. I'll grant that capitalism has problems; but my solution is to let the market and the consumer sort them out; not the government. When the government sorts them out, that is a "managed economy"; a euphanism for socialism (...which is exactly what we have in many parts of out economic system today, by the way; a hold over from the "New Deal"; another euphanism for FDR's great american socialist experiment...). Remember this, what the government "gives today"; it can "take away tomorrow". The best solution is to not give them the authority to give at all.

My perspective is "....we dont need any regulation to begin with....". Allowing the FCC to reach out and claim the regulation of the internet is, in fact, an expansion of government regulatory power and authority, and i dont like that. As my sainted old mom used to tell me as a child: "...what you dont start, you dont have to quit...". The fact is that we dont need more regulations; we need less. That being the case; i refuse to quibble about the "correctness and need" of such regulation. My position is that we dont need them to begin with.

While im on the regulation subject; i think a history lesson is in order. Regulatory bodies purport to take "things" (...broadcast radio, tv, the power industry, wateways, railroads; for example...) and seize the authority thru legislation to "regulate" them for the "public good". This is an old time political tool to raise money in fees, implement policies that otherwise cannot be implemented thru the legislative process, and generally interfere in the business of individual businesses in the name of the "public good". We can quibble about the beginnings of these things; but the end is always the same. The bureaucrats make the "regulatory agency" bigger, reach farther from their original intent, and reflect the views of the political class thru the appointment of directors and heads of agencies. The result of this is never good; and i challenge you to point to one modern "regulatory authority" that is improving anything. The whole "regulatory" concept is one that makes the regulated entities either serfs or "protected species"; depending on the regulatory posture, and increases costs for the consumer. Dont be drug off into the woods by the idea that says that "regulatory authorities" do a good work for the citizen; they simply dont. That presumes that mankind (...polititians and bureaucrats...) are fair, well-meaning, alturistic beings that are, in fact, the "best and brightest" and as such, would never make a mistake or do anything wrong. To all that, i say a hearty "....Baloney...". It simply aint so, and casual observation will validate my libertarian cynicism. Never believe the malarkey that polititians and bureaucrats are the most ethical, honest, or the brightest among us; it simply aint so.

We dont need more regulations; we need less. We dont need more bureaucrats; we need less.

Leroy

[JayC]

Leroy,

You're missing the entire point of my argument...

I'm 100% for a free market solution to this problem... But that is going to require the Government to break up these monopolies... The last mile of Internet service is 98% controlled by government created monopolies and duopolies... Which in the long run need to be broken apart...

The long term solution is similar to toll roads... The infrastructure should be privately owned and maintained, but are required to allow any car (data) to travel over the road no matter the maker of that car (data).

Then consumers should be able to by their car (data) for anywhere they choose... This is the EXACT way dial-up Internet service worked... it allowed anybody to start up an ISP in their basement and provide Internet access without any of the crazy government regulation... a true free market.

I'm all for a free market solution to the problem... but what are the chances we're going to slaughter all these cash cows anytime soon?

Here is the problem with your solution... we don't have a free market today... answer me this, how many broadband ISPs do you have access to chose from? 1or 2? If you live downtown in 1 of 4 major cities in the state maybe 3 or 4? So how exactly do you vote with your feet?

You can't just start up a broadband ISP either... because even if you had the money to, in most places in the state the cable and telephone companies have exclusive deals preventing others from entering the market place... many of those deals being 10, 20, and 99 years in length.

You're right, regulation is a bad thing.. sometimes it's the lesser of two evils, as in this case.

As far as bad corporations go... it's not anti-capitalist... trust me I'm 150% in favor of the government getting out of the free market... it's because some companies are 'bad' but if you want telephone service, or TV service, or Internet service you're left with choosing between bad and being left behind... Government backed Monopolies are a bad thing... they spawn bad corporations...

Jay:___________

I simply wont play the "...if you dont read, you dont know..." game with you. That position destroys my basic premise about not needing more regulation. That part of the discussion is over. As i previously stated; i simply dont care how ...."winsome and well intentioned the proposed regulations are...". We dont need 'em to begin with.

You and I are having conversations from two polar opposite perspectives.

I'll try to sort them out:

Your perspective seems to be saying that "...i dont like regulation; but since we already have the regulatory system in place; why not do the "noble and alturistic thing" and promulgate regulations (...which, by the way, are the same as laws...) and "fix loopholes" with the internet that the "bad corporations" are taking advantage of. By the way, i have a problem with the concept of "bad corporations". How do we know when they are bad? Who is cloaked with the authority to pronounce them bad? When do they turn "bad" ?. The "bad" corporation thing seems suspiciously anti-capitalist to me; but im a suspicious man.

The fact is that you are either a capitalist or you are not. I'll grant that capitalism has problems; but my solution is to let the market and the consumer sort them out; not the government. When the government sorts them out, that is a "managed economy"; a euphanism for socialism (...which is exactly what we have in many parts of out economic system today, by the way; a hold over from the "New Deal"; another euphanism for FDR's great american socialist experiment...). Remember this, what the government "gives today"; it can "take away tomorrow". The best solution is to not give them the authority to give at all.

My perspective is "....we dont need any regulation to begin with....". Allowing the FCC to reach out and claim the regulation of the internet is, in fact, an expansion of government regulatory power and authority, and i dont like that. As my sainted old mom used to tell me as a child: "...what you dont start, you dont have to quit...". The fact is that we dont need more regulations; we need less. That being the case; i refuse to quibble about the "correctness and need" of such regulation. My position is that we dont need them to begin with.

While im on the regulation subject; i think a history lesson is in order. Regulatory bodies purport to take "things" (...broadcast radio, tv, the power industry, wateways, railroads; for example...) and seize the authority thru legislation to "regulate" them for the "public good". This is an old time political tool to raise money in fees, implement policies that otherwise cannot be implemented thru the legislative process, and generally interfere in the business of individual businesses in the name of the "public good". We can quibble about the beginnings of these things; but the end is always the same. The bureaucrats make the "regulatory agency" bigger, reach farther from their original intent, and reflect the views of the political class thru the appointment of directors and heads of agencies. The result of this is never good; and i challenge you to point to one modern "regulatory authority" that is improving anything. The whole "regulatory" concept is one that makes the regulated entities either serfs or "protected species"; depending on the regulatory posture, and increases costs for the consumer. Dont be drug off into the woods by the idea that says that "regulatory authorities" do a good work for the citizen; they simply dont. That presumes that mankind (...polititians and bureaucrats...) are fair, well-meaning, alturistic beings that are, in fact, the "best and brightest" and as such, would never make a mistake or do anything wrong. To all that, i say a hearty "....Baloney...". It simply aint so, and casual observation will validate my libertarian cynicism. Never believe the malarkey that polititians and bureaucrats are the most ethical, honest, or the brightest among us; it simply aint so.

We dont need more regulations; we need less. We dont need more bureaucrats; we need less.

Leroy

[leroy]

Jay:_____________

I aint missing anything:

Leroy,

You're missing the entire point of my argument...

I'm 100% for a free market solution to this problem... But that is going to require the Government to break up these monopolies... The last mile of Internet service is 98% controlled by government created monopolies and duopolies... Which in the long run need to be broken apart...

Your arguement is that government needs to "regulate" to "break up". My solution is to "de-regulate". That's what Reagan did with the airlines in the 80's; so it can be done. I didn't miss a thing.

leroy

Late breaking news (...in case you had any doubt about what FCC "regulators" do...):

A Tyrant's Thinking

Posted 12/07/2010 06:59 PM ET

Regulation: A member of the Federal Communications Commission appears to want Washington in control of broadcast news. What a shame that people with such ideas are placed in positions of power.

The FCC's Michael Copps suggested last week that a "public value test" should determine who holds broadcast licenses for television and radio. Speaking at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, he said he was looking for "a renewed commitment to serious news and journalism."

So are we. We're weary of the hard-left bias ever so present in the media. We're fed up with celebrity treatment of all those on the left and contempt for all those on the right who aren't Republicans in name only. We've had enough of a press corps that makes no effort to understand economics and keeps promoting tired, freedom-choking, statist ideology.

We've been frustrated, as well, by networks that keep framing the issue — by 6-to-1, according to the Media Research Council — as a debate about "tax cuts for the rich" rather than a simple continuation of current rates.

And we're still dismayed by the media's refusal to look into Barack Obama's thin background during the 2008 presidential campaign, while digging up everything they could on Sarah Palin to portray her as an inexperienced ditz.

But there's another difference between us and Copps: We're not willing to use the police power of the state to force the outcome we prefer.

According to the Hill newspaper, Copps would issue licenses only when broadcasters:

"Prove they have made a meaningful commitment to public affairs and news programming, prove they are committed to diversity programming, report more to the government about which shows they plan to air, require greater disclosure about who funds political ads and devote 25% of their prime-time coverage to local news."

Who is Copps to make such demands? And why does a man who thinks like a tyrant hold such a high-ranking position in the U.S. government?

His appetite for power isn't new. It's been simmering for some time. He has a history of campaigning against media ownership laws that advance freedom, preferring instead regulations that limit how many media outlets one owner can have in a market.

"Why does any corporate interest need to own three stations in any city, other than to enjoy the 40%-50% profit margins most consolidated stations are racking up?" he wrote in 2003 in response to a proposal to relax media ownership rules.

In a free society, it's not for Copps or anyone else to ask why any corporate interest needs to own three stations in one city. Liberty doesn't always produce the conditions we like. But it never produces results that are damaging.

If one company owned every news outlet in the country, we'd have reservations. But that situation, as uncomfortable as it might be, would not violate the life, liberty or property of a single person.

But Copps' ideas would. A company's freedom to operate without government interference is infringed upon if that company must meet any of his standards if it's to have its broadcast license renewed.

It's reasonable to ask, as Republican Rep. Joe Barton of Texas did in a letter to Copps this week, if the commissioner means to give the federal government the power to determine what content is available for Americans to consume. Frankly, it's hard to interpret his remarks any other way; they are so consistent with his history of wanting to impose his ideas on others.

Three years ago, the FCC voted to eliminate some of its statist ownership rules. Copps and another Democrat were against the change, but the proposal passed on the three GOP votes. This was not a radical change but a marginal deregulatory shift toward greater freedom in the market. And some rules remain.

They're not enough, though, for Copps and like-minded leftists. They continue to rail at large media companies and media consolidation as if they were hatched in Hades, and grumble about a lack of diversity among owners.

Absent in their rants is any concern about the dominance of left-leaning journalism that has corrupted American thinking for decades. But then, that's expected because this deeply biased state of affairs is what they're trying to protect.

Link here: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=556103&p=2

Edited December 8, 2010 by leroy
Added note on FCC from investors.com....

[JayC]

Deregulation in this case only benefits the providers who are already in place.... unless you're going to remove their right away access... and in doing so, break all telephone, cable, and internet service throughout the country....

So, how do you propose we get enough broadband providers in TN through deregulation to provide consumers enough choice to avoid companies such as comcast shutting of competing services over the Internet? Lets hear you plan to solve this problem...

Jay:_____________

I aint missing anything:

Your arguement is that government needs to "regulate" to "break up". My solution is to "de-regulate". That's what Reagan did with the airlines in the 80's; so it can be done. I didn't miss a thing.

leroy

Late breaking news (...in case you had any doubt about what FCC "regulators" do...):

Link here: A Tyrant's Thinking - Investors.com

[Guest 1010011010]

ITT: People who think free markets would persist without regulations to define them into existence.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The cable companies don't owe you a damned thing. They will respond to market forces.

The FCC is in this for control. They have no right to control anything like this. The others I

have mentioned, and Lester pointed out, are the ones driving this stuff, in the first place.

Rangel isn't the only one spewing this stuff out.

That FCC commissioner, Mark Lloyd, Center for American Progress and several other lefties

are behind this. It has nothing to do with anything closely associated with the word "free".

I guess that just sounds good to some, but when you see what this bunch has done and

is trying to do to our country with health care and cap and tax, and the other agenda items,

I wonder where it will stop.

If there are monopolies that are neeeding to be broken up, that's what the courts are for.

JayC, how many choices do you think you will have if some of those companies are broken

up by some FCC mandate, which is not what they are supposed to be doing anyway, when

those companies won't exist and pull the plug on the innovation that caused the internet

to be what it is right now?

I happen to like it the way it is. You don't get more of anything with FCC mandates, except

higher cost.

Play along with these progressive, marxist bastiches and our country is doomed.

Edited December 9, 2010 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

ITT: People who think free markets would persist without regulations to define them into existence.

It ain't regulated right now and we're using it just fine.

[JayC]

They clearly aren't responding to market forces... In a free market you can't eliminate your competition by blocking the road... That is exactly what many of these large government backed monopolies are doing or threatening to do.

6.8,

The companies who we're talking about the FCC regulating aren't the one's doing any of the "innovating" you're talking about... The FCC is only proposing to regulate broadband ISPs, who are providing the last mile of service to the end users...

If anything this regulation keep the innovation going, by preventing these companies from abusing their monopolies on smaller web start-ups who are the innovators.

If the FCC/Congress does not act the Internet you're use to is DEAD... It will result in much higher costs, and much fewer choices... And while it won't be the FCC censoring content it will be these huge monopolies who will be.

If left unchecked, you'll be forced to buy telephone, movies, email, and everything else you can think of from this handful of companies, because they've blocked or priced their competition out of business. Say goodbye to accessing sites like TGO without having to pay an extra fee for the privilege.

The cable companies don't owe you a damned thing. They will respond to market forces.

The FCC is in this for control. They have no right to control anything like this. The others I

have mentioned, and Lester pointed out, are the ones driving this stuff, in the first place.

Rangel isn't the only one spewing this stuff out.

That FCC commissioner, Mark Lloyd, Center for American Progress and several other lefties

are behind this. It has nothing to do with anything closely associated with the word "free".

I guess that just sounds good to some, but when you see what this bunch has done and

is trying to do to our country with health care and cap and tax, and the other agenda items,

I wonder where it will stop.

If there are monopolies that are neeeding to be broken up, that's what the courts are for.

JayC, how many choices do you think you will have if some of those companies are broken

up by some FCC mandate, which is not what they are supposed to be doing anyway, when

those companies won't exist and pull the plug on the innovation that caused the internet

to be what it is right now?

I happen to like it the way it is. You don't get more of anything with FCC mandates, except

higher cost.

Play along with these progressive, marxist bastiches and our country is doomed.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'll take my chances with the government left out of it.

If this article is any indication of what the FCC thinks their role is, we are all in trouble.

FCC push to regulate news draws fire - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

Don't tell me you really believe some of the things you have typed. I stand by my belief that this

garbage is entirely political. The only thing the government cares about concerning your internet

usability is their ability to tax it. If taxing something improves it, I'd like to have some examples to

ponder.

Your arguments about the Net Neutrality are from another time. There have been several game

changers since the original thoughts and have been twisted into political opportunities, which to me,

means we're the ones who will pay and/or suffer.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "left unchecked" because, with the exception of

Charter replacing my outside half mile long piece of cable, I'm quite happy with my internet.

Charter and I have been going around for several years about the cable ouside, due to its

being spliced several hundred times and dying when it rains. Somehow or another it has actually improved the last several rains.

Edited December 9, 2010 by 6.8 AR
add

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh and when you allow the the full force of the government to regulate without

legislative authority, you have become death, the destroyer. If they attempt to place

one piece of regulation against one internet company, they will be violating a judge's

ruling. Do you really think that is a good idea?

[leroy]

....Deregulation in this case only benefits the providers who are already in place.... unless you're going to remove their right away access... and in doing so, break all telephone, cable, and internet service throughout the country....

So, how do you propose we get enough broadband providers in TN through deregulation to provide consumers enough choice to avoid companies such as comcast shutting of competing services over the Internet? Lets hear you plan to solve this problem... ....

As to your question; there are at least 6 broadband providers available to me right now; and i didnt do anything but count them. I happen to use two of them.

Deregulation benefits everybody. A Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, or T-Mobile smartphone costs about $100.00 with a 2 year service contract today. My DSL costs about $35.00/month.

Right now, there are at least 6 service providers that i can use to type this little message. Seems to me that that is a "reasonable" choice of providers is already here. And the great thing is that "we" didn't need to do anything to "promote additional Broadband providers". Interesting aint it? No bunch of "Regulators" caused that phenemenon. The capitalist system caused it.

Leroy

[JayC]

As to your question; there are at least 6 broadband providers available to me right now; and i didnt do anything but count them. I happen to use two of them.

Deregulation benefits everybody. A Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, or T-Mobile smartphone costs about $100.00 with a 2 year service contract today. My DSL costs about $35.00/month.

Right now, there are at least 6 service providers that i can use to type this little message. Seems to me that that is a "reasonable" choice of providers is already here. And the great thing is that "we" didn't need to do anything to "promote additional Broadband providers". Interesting aint it? No bunch of "Regulators" caused that phenemenon. The capitalist system caused it.

Leroy

Wireless providers are generally NOT broadband ISPs (only 1 listed could maybe qualify if you're within their WiFiMAX zone).

So, maybe Sprint, but probably not... AT&T, Verizon, TMobile (even their "4G" network) do not meet the requirements for broadband speeds.

More importantly ALL of the listed prohibit the streaming of video over their wireless networks (from not approved partners), and their computer plans are capped at 5Gig transfer limit (about 3 to 4 hours of surfing at full 3G speeds).

Sprint/Clearwire have a WifiMAX solution, but only covers high density population centers... In TN it's only available in Nashville and has a fairly small footprint compared to cellphone 3G coverage.

So, in East TN you're back down to 1 or 2 ISPs, a DSL provider (probably AT&T) and/or a cable provider.

While cellphone Internet is growing in importance, it in general doesn't replace home based broadband, there isn't enough wireless freq's available to allow enough data to move through the air, we're YEARS (maybe a decade or two) away from streaming HD on demand video through the cellphone data networks. If you look at the problems the Iphone has caused to the AT&T 3G network in major cities, and they're not even allowing video streaming yet...

The cheapest AT&T DSL (~$20 a month - BTW because of an FCC requirement) is still faster than these $60-$80 a month 3G plans.

So, other than your DSL provider, what other broadband ISPs do you have to choose from?

[JayC]

My 'definition' of net neutrality comes from the 2009 proposed regulation... This is not a passing fancy of mine, this is an area that I have more than 15+ years of professional experience...

There are a lot of left leaning AND right leaning groups who want to go farther than this regulation... I don't support any of those ideas (trust me the left isn't the only group who wants to censor the Internet).

Charter has been caught doing some of the same bad things... Did you know Charter planned to the following until it was caught in 2008 and the FCC (those nasty guys) and congress intervened? Oh BTW, if they had done this, they could have sold the data to the government without a search warrant. Did you miss the announcement from Charter they were planning on doing this? No, that's because they didn't tell any of their customers.... they were just going to do it behind their backs.

An online advertising firm called NebuAd that pays ISPs to let it eavesdrop on web users doesn’t just passively record traffic, but actively injects fake packets into responses from other websites in order to deliver cookies to users, according to a technical report released by the advocacy groups Free Press and Public Knowledge on Wednesday.

NebuAd first drew widespread attention after Charter Communications, the nation’s fourth largest ISP, announced it would try out the company’s technology, promising that users would love having more targeted ads served to them. That announcement brought unwanted media and congressional attention to NebuAd, which had already installed monitoring boxes inside the network of at least one smaller ISP,

NebuAd has been been unwilling to talk about how its technology and opt-out process works, how long it stores data, whether users can see or delete their profiles, or even whether anyone at the company has any relevant privacy policy experience. The company’s only publicly available patent application is for a system that forges packets and replaces a website’s banner ads with its own as the data flows from a website to a user’s computer. But the company says it is not replacing other sites’ ads. (The company claims to have filed for a patent for its complicated opt-out system, but it has not turned up in patent searches and the company has declined to send Threat Level a copy of the application.)

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/06/nebuad-forges-g/

So yeah Charter Communications is really looking out for you... Not only would this new FCC regulation stop stuff like this... it would require them to at least tell you what they are doing to your Internet traffic.

Trust me, this isn't all slippery slope maybe this will happen... ISPs are the next form of big brother if the FCC doesn't regulate the same 'common carrier' rules which are in place for the telephone industry.

Now, the whole question of Title I vs Title II jurisdiction... I agree is splitting hairs, and may very well be an over reach on the FCC's part... It would be better if Congress passed a law approving the regulation, but make no mistake, this regulation is needed or the Internet as we know it is going bye-bye, and fast.

And yes I really do believe that.

I'll take my chances with the government left out of it.

If this article is any indication of what the FCC thinks their role is, we are all in trouble.

FCC push to regulate news draws fire - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

Don't tell me you really believe some of the things you have typed. I stand by my belief that this

garbage is entirely political. The only thing the government cares about concerning your internet

usability is their ability to tax it. If taxing something improves it, I'd like to have some examples to

ponder.

Your arguments about the Net Neutrality are from another time. There have been several game

changers since the original thoughts and have been twisted into political opportunities, which to me,

means we're the ones who will pay and/or suffer.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "left unchecked" because, with the exception of

Charter replacing my outside half mile long piece of cable, I'm quite happy with my internet.

Charter and I have been going around for several years about the cable ouside, due to its

being spliced several hundred times and dying when it rains. Somehow or another it has actually improved the last several rains.

[JayC]

Yeh and when you allow the the full force of the government to regulate without

legislative authority, you have become death, the destroyer. If they attempt to place

one piece of regulation against one internet company, they will be violating a judge's

ruling. Do you really think that is a good idea?

Thats not exactly true either... The judge ruled they couldn't regulate ISPs under a certain title of the communications act... they are writing the new regulation under a different title... it doesn't invalidate the judges ruling.

[leroy]

Jay:____________

As the great Foghorn Leghorn once said; "....Ya may be a little slow son. --- I already answered that!!!...".

....So, other than your DSL provider, what other broadband ISPs do you have to choose from? ...

I told ya all that in post # 42. The "definitions of broadband" dont mean anything; you can still surf the web with all six. The effect is the same. The count is still six choices. I'm sure you know, technology always moves forward. Dont worry, you will have that which you would like to have in a year or so; and the government wont cause a bit of it to happen. They generally hamper technology advances.

Leroy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And I'd like to know how much competition you need to stop calling something a monopoly?

I have available at least four choices here in Clarksville(not counting satellite). There are currently

two municipal allowed "monopolies" in Clarksville: Charter, by contract with the city, and CDE

LightBand(?).

The latter is completely controlled by Clarksville Dept of Electricity. I voted against

their existence. I don't like government involvement in the free market.

Yeh, let's get the feds involved. They have had so many successes.

I still haven't seen it anywhere in the Constitution that says you have the right to broadband.

Maybe Obama is trying to add it to FDR's Second Bill of Rights.

[leroy]

AR has went straight to the heart of this whole issue; and has hit the nail squarely on the head in three sentences here:

....I'd like to know how much competition you need to stop calling something a monopoly? ....I still haven't seen it anywhere in the Constitution that says you have the right to broadband. ....Maybe Obama is trying to add it to FDR's Second Bill of Rights. ...

Keep up the good work!

Libertarian Leroy (...the anti regulatory opiner, activist, and Foghorn Leghorn admirer...)

Edited December 10, 2010 by leroy
formatting!!!

[JayC]

Leroy,

There is a lot more to the "Internet" than surfing the web... So no there aren't 6 providers you can use... there are likely only 2.

Since you're clearly not getting it, lets break it down for...

The vast MAJOR of TN does not have 3G coverage (lets focus on CDMA since it's the most common and provides the best coverage for most of the state, GSM Edge and 3G throughput will be similar).... Lets also only focus on downloading data and skip over uploading right now...

So as I was saying... you're $35 dollar a month DSL is probably at least 1.5megabits per second download (it's likely a little bit faster than that but this is about the baseline for what is considered broadband)... of ~ (lets keep the math simple) 1500 kbits of download.

Netflix requires 1.5mbits to stream video, and recommends 3.0mbits for DVD quality video and sound.

The vast majority of TN has 1xRTT wireless coverage... you can see it on your 3G coverage maps from the provides... 1xRTT is about 60-100kbits (or 1/15th as fast as the minimum connection speed needed to run Netflix)... This connection is on a good day about twice as fast as a dial-up modem.

Along Interstates and in most mid-size towns and cities in the state we have EVDO or EVDOrevA coverage.... This coverage in theory get much higher speeds, if you're the only person using 3G sitting right on top of the cell tower you can see speed of 1200-1800kbits (about the same speed as our basic AT&T DSL line), but most of us don't live right under a cell tower... in practice it gets about 300kbits to 600 kbits of through put sometimes even slower if the tower has a lot of data users... again this is 20-30% the speed of your basic DSL line.

The future of the Internet in your house is live video, telephone service, video chatting, and a lot more... You can't do that today or anywhere in the near future on wireless... The build out of wireless data networks is going to take decades... The phone companies have barely started converting 1xRTT towers to EVDO, 2 Networks have started "4G" roll outs (technically neither Sprint nor TMboile's networks qualify as 4G but that's another story)... at the present rate it will be 10-15 years before all the 1xRTT towers have been converted to 4G service, which still isn't any faster than low to mid range DSL, or the bare bones cable packages we have today.

Lets compare that to cable and dsl technology... The vast majority of cable customers in the US are on at least DOCSIS 2.0 today which is able to do 40+mbits downlink... or about 27 times the speed of a basic DSL line... Within the next 3 years the majority of customers will be converted over to DOCSIS 3.0 (already available in part of TN today), which has a downlink cap of around 152-304mbits or about 200 times faster than your basic DSL package today...

ADSL today is capped at about 24mbits, or slower depending on your distance from the phone companies equipment... VDSL2 will start to roll out here in the US over the next 10 years with 50-200mbits depending on your distance from the phone companies equipment...

And finally we have Fiber... which some phone companies are currently rolling out... with speeds of 155mbit today, but to 600mbit could happen very quickly, but it will probably be 5+ years before we start to see that happen in the residential market... long term Fiber is going to be the way this ends up going IMHO.

10 years ago, 1.5 mbits was FAST, a lot of folks were on 256k to 768k DSL connections... the top tier of most cable systems was 2-3mbits... Today for a small fraction of the country, wireless is just now catching up... 10 years from now, we'll finally be seeing 4G service being rolled out to the more rural areas... while those same areas will be seeing 100+ mbit cable and DSL connections by that point.

If all you do is surf the web... and don't ever plan on doing anything more... this is all a mute point. But the Internet today is a lot more than webpages... Youtube needs 300-700kbits of bandwidth to stream VHS quality video today... Hulu, Netflix, and other sites, need even more to stream TV and movies to your house... More and more people are moving away from AT&T phone lines, towards VOIP provides such as Vonage and Skype who provide a much better solution at a much much lower price point... All fo these applications people are using today are bandwidth hungry...

Whats just around the corner is even more so... GoogleTV, AppleTV, Beebox, etc... we're going to see another HBO style revolution in TV entertainment in the next couple of years... You won't buy TV service, to watch ad supported TV shows... you'll stream them over your Internet connection... Think of a Titans or SEC application for your TV... with all the customization you have of a web browser today but for your favorite sports team... All of this stuff and a lot more is coming over the next 2 or 3 years... 5 years from now it will be as common place as a DVR/Tivo is today... And it scares the crap out of cable providers... They want to lock the Internet down, to prevent TV subscribers (cash cow) from being converted to pure Internet viewers...

What comes next when we have 100+ mbit connections to the average home... I'm not sure... but if all data is treated the same, it's going to be a lot easier to innovate... As an innovator, my agreement is purely between me and the consumer... That is a truly free market... How does that negatively impact me as an innovator, if I have to ask for permission from every ISP, and probably have to pay a fee to even access the consumers? Then, I have to compete against their in house version of my product who doesn't have to pay that fee for access?

When consumers only have a choice between 1, 2 or 3 providers because of current government regulation, it's not a free market... We see that today in the wireless space, there are basically 4 major wireless providers... While it's not illegal, 3 of the 4 providers switched from an unlimited 3G wireless plan for ~$50-60 a month, to all having a limited 5 gig plan in a 60 day period... Seems kinda funny that 3 companies with 85% of the customer base, all switched their plans in the exact same way in such a short window huh? No amount of money can buy the old plan they offered... sounds like a free market to me

The same will happen with broadband ISPs... As soon as Comcast can get away with block Vonage, and other VOIP telephone providers, AT&T will follow suit shortly... There is no downside to them following suit... only upside, but the consumer will have to choice but to cancel their vonage account and purchase telephone service via one of their two ISPs, who charge more for the same level of service.

Here is an interesting question for you Leroy... ever use Skype? Ever wonder why in the US you can only use Skype via wifi on your smartphone (there is a single exception for a handful of Verizon phones)... but everywhere else in the world you can use skype on 3G on the exact same smartphone? That's because the phone carriers told skype, keep your data off our networks or we'll ban/block your software on our customers phones. But, nahh there is no way your DSL provider would do anything like that huh?

Jay:____________

As the great Foghorn Leghorn once said; "....Ya may be a little slow son. --- I already answered that!!!...".

I told ya all that in post # 42. The "definitions of broadband" dont mean anything; you can still surf the web with all six. The effect is the same. The count is still six choices. I'm sure you know, technology always moves forward. Dont worry, you will have that which you would like to have in a year or so; and the government wont cause a bit of it to happen. They generally hamper technology advances.

Leroy

[JayC]

What are the other 2 besides the Electric company, and the cable company? The government allowed telephone company? What is the fourth?

It's a free market when any company can enter the market for the same cost as the current government backed companies... When there is a set price that I can buy access to the 'right of way' exception Charter gets, and it's the same price Charter pays... Then you can have a free market... It's that government control of that right of away access that is the key... when the Government prohibits a second cable company from entering the market by signing exclusive deals with a single company, that company becomes a government backed monopoly...

3 different types of Government backed monopolies don't make a free market in my book. These exclusive deals are the root cause of this problem... If Comcast, Charter, and BillyBobs Cable could go head to head in the same town/city/county for the same customers, then you'd have choice... and I'd be 100% in agreement this regulation is not needed, and would only do harm. But, the VAST majority of customers have 2 choices, government backed telephone company X and government backed cable company Y, in some rarer cases government backed electric company Z... Why is it these companies can't handle have another direct competitor fighting them for the same customers?

Nobody has a Constitutional right to broadband Internet... just as nobody has the Constitutional right to telephone service... But the Feds regulate that, and that regulation prohibits them refusing service to a business who is competing with them.... Phone Companies aren't allowed to block competing operator/411 services because of Federal regulation.... If you're going to provide a communications infrastructure for customers, in an exclusive deal with the government, it's reasonable to require that provide must not use that advantage to block out competitors from using that infrastructure.

Else you end up with AT&T before it got broken up the first time.... do you remember some of the games AT&T played back in the day... You could only buy a telephone from AT&T... oh wait thats right.. you couldn't buy the phone, only lease it from AT&T, only an AT&T technician could work on the wiring in your phone... nobody else could provide directory assistance.....

So when have the feds gotten it right? I'll cite 2 examples of the FCC getting it right... 1. 1968 - 13 FCC 2d 420 - The ruling that required AT&T to allow other devices on it's telephone network as long as they did not cause damage.

Also the FCC ruling that cable providers must carry all broadcast TV stations within their market footprint... This kept a great number of LPTV stations alive including many Christian and conservative stations who would have otherwise been forced off the air.

The propose regulation is a dirty band-aide at best... but it's better than nothing... until we decided to fix the root cause of the problem, and require that local governments open up right of away access.

And I'd like to know how much competition you need to stop calling something a monopoly?

I have available at least four choices here in Clarksville(not counting satellite). There are currently

two municipal allowed "monopolies" in Clarksville: Charter, by contract with the city, and CDE

LightBand(?).

The latter is completely controlled by Clarksville Dept of Electricity. I voted against

their existence. I don't like government involvement in the free market.

Yeh, let's get the feds involved. They have had so many successes.

I still haven't seen it anywhere in the Constitution that says you have the right to broadband.

Maybe Obama is trying to add it to FDR's Second Bill of Rights.