Comments on: Musician Moby raises voice for Net neutrality

In rare Capitol Hill appearance, artist insists that politicians pass new regulations enforcing open Internet architecture.
Photo: Moby on Capitol Hill

[DryHeatDave]

I smell Death Match 3000

In the blue corner - the DRM musicians "pay for what you get" & in the red corner, the "we want a Porsche for the price of a Geo - out for what we can get" musicians.

Whatever happened to "get what you pay for - pay for what you get" ?

[DryHeatDave]

I smell Death Match 3000

In the blue corner - the DRM musicians "pay for what you get" & in the red corner, the "we want a Porsche for the price of a Geo - out for what we can get" musicians.

Whatever happened to "get what you pay for - pay for what you get" ?

[bstein]

This story is FALSE!

I am the FreedomWorks staff member who was assaulted by the MoveOn thug.

The sound was his sign hitting my face. There were plenty of witnesses. I reported the incident to the Capitol Police, but did not ask them to arrest the guy.

CNET needs to correct this error.

Also, I was not blocking his sign, he was blocking mine. Your reporting is woefully mistaken.

[bstein]

More Pictures from the Press Conference

These pictures clearly show that FreedomWorks signs were not blocking ANYONE's signs.

http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2588

As you can see, we were holding signs above or beside the Hill staffers who were there. The rest of the media can vouch for this fact.

[alexgp87]

heh

lol so you actually reported the guy to the police for hitting you with his paper sign? or was it cardboard? i mean if it was cardboard i... still wouldnt understand. heh o well

[bstein]

This story is FALSE!

I am the FreedomWorks staff member who was assaulted by the MoveOn thug.

The sound was his sign hitting my face. There were plenty of witnesses. I reported the incident to the Capitol Police, but did not ask them to arrest the guy.

CNET needs to correct this error.

Also, I was not blocking his sign, he was blocking mine. Your reporting is woefully mistaken.

[bstein]

More Pictures from the Press Conference

These pictures clearly show that FreedomWorks signs were not blocking ANYONE's signs.

http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2588

As you can see, we were holding signs above or beside the Hill staffers who were there. The rest of the media can vouch for this fact.

[alexgp87]

heh

lol so you actually reported the guy to the police for hitting you with his paper sign? or was it cardboard? i mean if it was cardboard i... still wouldnt understand. heh o well

[lingsun]

Hey Moby, just play your music and SHUTUP!!

I'm sick and tired of people being heard only because they're well-known in some way. Moby isn't an expert on anything. I wish people like Moby and Bono would just SHUT UP!!!

[vidyman]

So being famous

means you can't have an opinion?

[lingsun]

Hey Moby, just play your music and SHUTUP!!

I'm sick and tired of people being heard only because they're well-known in some way. Moby isn't an expert on anything. I wish people like Moby and Bono would just SHUT UP!!!

[vidyman]

So being famous

means you can't have an opinion?

[bbuckner38]

More Government bureaucracy

Why let the government regulate the Internet? If corporations truly wanted to charge these "egregious prices" for internet use not only would they lose business but they probably would have already put them in place.

Net Neutrality is yet another instance of the left attempting to overstep its boundaries and begin "fixing a problem" that does not exist. There was no net neutrality in the mid to late 90's when the Internet became a central part of America's economy and society, why put it in place now?

[binarysins]

My problem with the whole thing is this...

1) Content providers are already paying for their bandwidth from the telcoms. If they make money off of that bandwidth as a result of the content they provide, booyah for them. If the business model for the telcoms is no longer working, instead of trying to charge the content providers for a "fast track" maybe they should find a new business model. Sorry, but when I buy a car and go out and make a million dollars with it I don't think that the dealership has a right to come and ask for a cut of my profit just because they sold me the car.

2) The ability to be able to reach a particular website on network b from a computer on network a is contingent on the packets being able to cross at least one other network (network c). While the phrade "net neutrality" is relatively new, the idea that network c should route packets originating from network a and going to network b without discriminating against the originating or destination network is fundamental to allowing the Internet to work the way we are accustomed. In other words, if Verizon hadn't been routing packets originating with ATT and destined for WhoEverTelecom without additional charges, you wouldn't have been able to get to your Russian porn all these years.

3) Other organizations, such as the postal services and similar agencies, already have peering arrangements. This basically means that the telcoms need to work out some kind of exchange rate and swap money between each other. I.e. Verizon tells AT&T that we estimate that we route xGB of data coming from your network every month and you route xGB of data coming from ours. Let's exchange some cash for the trouble and call it even.

4) The entire tiering scheme could result in a fractured Internet (alluded to above) where you can only access websites that are part of the package that you purchase. Just because the telcoms are on their best behavior now ("Oh, we wouldn't restrict access to website based on that site not being part of our preferred network") doesn't mean that in the future you won't have to buy blocks of domains that are accessible to you based on cable TV-like service packages. That goes against the spirit and the letter of how the Internet was built.

That's all just me though...

[AEBOG]

You Have It Backwards

You have that backwards. Net Neutrality exists now, but lobbiests are trying to get congress to change it so corporations have more control over the Internet.

This is to stop the goverment from messing things up by changing what currently exists. It does not add extra bureaucracy.

[J.G.]

Back to 1860?

Frankly, the false argument that "the left" always has a negative
impact in its relations with government gets boring. Anyone
with even a minimal grasp of history knows that "the left" is
responsible for the reforms that have created a more livable and
equitable society, ranging from ending slavery to environmental
regulation. The campaign for net neutrality is another effort to
protect the defenseless from the powerful.

If the bbuckners had had their way, people would still be owning
other people, women would be barefront and pregnant, there
would be no wage and labor laws, we would be need to carry our
own oxygen supplies in our cities. . . .It boggles the mind that
anyone even bothers to listen to the nonsense spouted by
reactionaries.

[bbuckner38]

More Government bureaucracy

Why let the government regulate the Internet? If corporations truly wanted to charge these "egregious prices" for internet use not only would they lose business but they probably would have already put them in place.

Net Neutrality is yet another instance of the left attempting to overstep its boundaries and begin "fixing a problem" that does not exist. There was no net neutrality in the mid to late 90's when the Internet became a central part of America's economy and society, why put it in place now?

[binarysins]

My problem with the whole thing is this...

1) Content providers are already paying for their bandwidth from the telcoms. If they make money off of that bandwidth as a result of the content they provide, booyah for them. If the business model for the telcoms is no longer working, instead of trying to charge the content providers for a "fast track" maybe they should find a new business model. Sorry, but when I buy a car and go out and make a million dollars with it I don't think that the dealership has a right to come and ask for a cut of my profit just because they sold me the car.

2) The ability to be able to reach a particular website on network b from a computer on network a is contingent on the packets being able to cross at least one other network (network c). While the phrade "net neutrality" is relatively new, the idea that network c should route packets originating from network a and going to network b without discriminating against the originating or destination network is fundamental to allowing the Internet to work the way we are accustomed. In other words, if Verizon hadn't been routing packets originating with ATT and destined for WhoEverTelecom without additional charges, you wouldn't have been able to get to your Russian porn all these years.

3) Other organizations, such as the postal services and similar agencies, already have peering arrangements. This basically means that the telcoms need to work out some kind of exchange rate and swap money between each other. I.e. Verizon tells AT&T that we estimate that we route xGB of data coming from your network every month and you route xGB of data coming from ours. Let's exchange some cash for the trouble and call it even.

4) The entire tiering scheme could result in a fractured Internet (alluded to above) where you can only access websites that are part of the package that you purchase. Just because the telcoms are on their best behavior now ("Oh, we wouldn't restrict access to website based on that site not being part of our preferred network") doesn't mean that in the future you won't have to buy blocks of domains that are accessible to you based on cable TV-like service packages. That goes against the spirit and the letter of how the Internet was built.

That's all just me though...

[AEBOG]

You Have It Backwards

You have that backwards. Net Neutrality exists now, but lobbiests are trying to get congress to change it so corporations have more control over the Internet.

This is to stop the goverment from messing things up by changing what currently exists. It does not add extra bureaucracy.

[J.G.]

Back to 1860?

Frankly, the false argument that "the left" always has a negative
impact in its relations with government gets boring. Anyone
with even a minimal grasp of history knows that "the left" is
responsible for the reforms that have created a more livable and
equitable society, ranging from ending slavery to environmental
regulation. The campaign for net neutrality is another effort to
protect the defenseless from the powerful.

If the bbuckners had had their way, people would still be owning
other people, women would be barefront and pregnant, there
would be no wage and labor laws, we would be need to carry our
own oxygen supplies in our cities. . . .It boggles the mind that
anyone even bothers to listen to the nonsense spouted by
reactionaries.