Comments on: Thanks to BitTorrrent, Net neutrality debate reignites
Following claims of Comcast blocking file-sharing traffic, debate over whether to create laws to keep the Internet open has resurfaced.
Following claims of Comcast blocking file-sharing traffic, debate over whether to create laws to keep the Internet open has resurfaced.
December 8, 2009 12:01 AM PST
December 8, 2009 12:01 AM PST
December 7, 2009 10:50 PM PST
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Related quotes
The carriers' plans are obvious. Is the FCC completely bought and paid for by the telco lobbyists? The answer is obvious even to a casual observer.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/10/comcasts-world-without-network.html
Who gets to make use of future changes to the internet infastructre.
How to make everything work in realtime and how to satisfy all our demands.
Adopting internet 2 advances into the internet at large.
How much should local governent make use of the future internet world to extend the commons.
Is it best to run everything from a giant central cluster or can the internet be so much more.
Should anything have a central server point at all.
How well can you make full use of global P2P systems and does making it hybrid with central servers help it.
To know how this should all unfold technically america needs atleast a 6 year of engagment
during which telecommunications companies should be allow to experiment and certian neutrality issues should be upheld amounst other mesures to ensure fainess and a really engagment towards the best future solution.
The probblem is mistakes will cost the potential extendend economy improvments can make orand cost potential growth and economy of systems allready in place.
This current wangle is just the tip of the iceberg.
intervention is needed and it's about making the right desisions to ensure the best possible future.
All you can do is send pictures via P2P with windows or mac os basic software and all the wesites are having to pay to give you access to their vids.
This does still let you produce youtube vids but dosen't really let anyone small compete properly nor does it let you get all the stuff you want.
What do you do?, your tied down at your connecting.
Even to have a vid on your web site you now have to pay youtube.
Horrid ain't it, horrid little horris rules again rest assure you'll only see of comming wars what your supposed to.
Surley there must be a clever way round such a problem.
Well compression is all about curves and that power you'll have in your home computer you'll be able to curve that data up loads more effectivley than you can today.
So you may have a little peice of software that reads special lossless pictures ona site as a video.
The software might also collect and send pictures similar to how bit torrent works allowing you to do all the stuff you could before the crack down on neutrality.
The software could also change things that it does to stop people stopping it doing what it does.
The flaw with controling people who have computers as opposed to people who have TV's is that they have computers not TV's and so long as theres data going round theres a loop hole in the control actions of others and no law can ever come out that can preempt your technical way around the law and the system.
Does the electric company ask what you are using the electricity
for? No. Does the phone company ask what I'm going to be talking
about? No. Why should my supplier of Internet data ask what I'm
doing with the bits? It's not their responsibility.
I admit, Comcast was dumb about this. If they had just stuck with restricting BT uploads and been forthcoming about it, no one would have made a big stink about it, since its their right to monitor and control the bandwidth on their network. However, they were idiotic enough to try and hide what they were doing, plus going the extra step and forging customers id's and sending abort msg's to both ends of a BT upload.
However, as being part of the telecommunications industry, I do not want to see the ISP's lose the right to manage their network, and on the flip side I dont want them to get too much control over what and how they control on their network. It all comes down to a balance, not one side over the other. But, this is American politics, so you know thats not gonna happen.
The rest of use unless we want to pay millions will be out out of business and basically told who's information we can read and who we can do business with because gaining access to everything else will be slow and problamatic. This will set up the perfect environment also for blackmail and extortion type setups. If you don't think big companies would do things like this then you need to pull your heads out of the sand. Remember Enron, Health South, etc. etc.
Companies who's only goal is to make money can not be trusted to keep the web open and accessible for everyone. Greed will always win out this is why Comcast has increased their cable prices 93% over the last few years. Not because they give more, but because they just simply want more of your money. Greed will always win out over honesty and fairness.
Unfortunately, this also applies to the US government who is just run by a bunch of old idiot's. Who will do whatever the biggest contributor will ask them to do. As an example the DMCA!
Robert
nuff said
http://****************.blogspot.com
You have bad service from 1 provider and thus you conclude that the Federal Government must come to the rescue?
Wrong. Capitalism works. And if you don't like Verizon's service, you'll go to another provider, and Verizon will lose money. Why do you need the federal government to solve all your problems? Haven't you realized yet that government regulation of the Internet is a "Bad Thing?"
Where you go wrong.. is that you only consider your own freedoms. It is a very selfish perspective. Essentially, what you are saying is... "I know exactly what kind of service I want, and I want the government to force ABC Company to give me that service."
Well... what just happened to ABC Company's freedom? You stomped all over it, didn't you. Providers need to be free to run their own networks. If you don't like their service, you'll find a new provider. Its just that simple. If a provider loses too much business, they'll be forced to switch strategies. It is sad that you thin "Saving" the Internet is somethign the Federal government can do. The Internet matured w/o government interaction, and will survive as a robust and ever-changing platform, so long as we keep government's meddling hands out of it.
Support freedom of the Internet. If I build MY network, and you connect to it, then I get to make the rules. If its your network, you make the rules. If you don't like my rules, pay somebody who has better rules. This is the essence of freedom. What you suggest is the opposite. You suggest government revocation of the rights of network owners. Why should you enjoy freedom while the people who build businesses to service you are forced into regulation?
http://****************.blogspot.com
- WTF! Thanks to Comcast . . .
- by criticny December 1, 2007 12:26 AM PST
- The headlines for this article are so biased, I won't even bother to read it.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(33 Comments)Who decided to attribute Comcast's recent bad behavior to a P2P app that's been around for years? Pheh. Pteui. Ach.
As for "Eating up bandwidth . . .", not even worth commenting on.