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.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (48720)	5/25/2006 2:36:05 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 90947

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT???? To H with them! I protested. This is absurd!

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (48720)	5/25/2006 6:39:46 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 90947

MoveOn.org's version of "network neutrality" might be something I'd have a problem with (I'd have to actually see it to be sure. But network neutrality is a very useful and potentially very important idea. If different ISPs and different backbone providers try to treat different types of internet traffic and different sources of internet traffic differently you can have a very negative situation result. It could be like having to pay the phone company per minute to dial with a modem or send a local fax, even if you have unlimited local calling, or maybe even like having the phone company charge more (or give lower quality of service) because of who you are, or what you say while talking over the phone. If the network doesn't allow new types of applications and date to cross without hindrance you also stifle innovation, or at least innovation by anyone who doesn't have a connection to a major ISP or a ton of money to pay the ISP. I think to determine if we should have network neutrality (and if it should be the subject of regulation) you have to determine exactly what you mean by it. Obviously there is no problem with the idea of paying extra money for extra bandwidth. OTOH many areas only have one high speed ISP, and having the monopoly provider block content critical of the ISP or allow music downloads from a partner (for example ITunes) while blocking access to competitors sites and blocking all MP3 downloads (which aren't always music files and aren't always copyright violations); or perhaps a site partnering with Google and blocking Yahoo or Microsoft searhc would be a problem IMO. OTOH you can have network neutrality (at least to a great enough degree to avoid major problems) without having a massive and highly intrusive set of regulations. Also I don't think having the strictest form of network neutrality, where all content providers are treated exactly the same is really necessary. Also see Message 22292367 Message 22079488 Message 22221306 Message 22259882 Message 20825853 and replies go forward from those posts and " * Blocked services: In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service. * Blocked content: In 2005, Canada’s telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute." netfreedomnow.org