Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Ecclesine who wrote (8299)	12/9/2004 12:13:11 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 46821

Peter... hey, you can't blame me for doing a little bit of comparison shopping, can you? re: network neutrality, yes, you and I, and maybe a couple of other individuals around here have been primed as to the context in which this term (network neutrality) is being discussed on Cook and elsewhere. A number of blogs are now doing double time on this topic at the moment, resulting from several papers published last month. But I wanted to see what the term inspired in others here who might be less, shall we say, contaminated? And in this way maybe I could learn something about the subject that was useful, for a change! <g> Thanks for the information and the links concerning millimeter licensing, btw. Appreciate it. FAC

To: Peter Ecclesine who wrote (8299)	12/9/2004 8:00:18 AM
From: ftth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Net neutrality? Isn't it just one of those consensus-delusion phrases from the psychological warfare toolbag, among the dozens of other terms that mean nothing, or everything, or anything the speaker or press release needs at the moment? No one can be against "net neutrality" (not in public anyway) without looking anti-competitive. It's right up there with "technology neutral," a.k.a. technology agnostic. Use of the term allows a group to reach "ambiguous-consensus," giving a feeling of accomplishment when in fact none has been reached. Everyone knows it's ambiguous. That's why they agree...it sweeps a contentious issue under the rug but gives a future way out. Perfect language for legislation, policy positions, and mission statements in other words. Some day there will be a court challenge of it, due to its presence in some future legislation. Not unlike the recent Supreme Court challenge of the Telecom Act term "any entity" in Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League (see link below). That took 8 years to reach a "final" conclusion on. "Any entity" could just as easily have been the term "competition-neutral." The court ruled that "any entity" doesn't really mean "ANY" entity. It only means private-sector entities. supremecourtus.gov So, net neutral doesn't really mean "zero bit discrimination everywhere in the network" (which is what many want it to mean, or near-zero anyway). By avoiding an absolute definition now, it will end up meaning whatever historic case law dictates, because that's where the burden of definition is being swept. Heading it off at the pass and explicitly getting a definition codified into some legislation now is the only way to avoid that possibly undesirable outcome.