somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > 1) The claim that people should be given unhindered access to all free
> > information

> Nothing is free. Bits and bytes cost money to push around.

  I used "free" as in "you can read this article I wrote without paying
me money" (as opposed to eg. "if you want to listen to this piece of
music, you'll have to pay me money").

  I hate the English word "free". It has so many differing meanings that
it's almost impossible to use in an unambiguous way.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> If you don't like it, don't buy the Sony TV.

That's not what I asked. I asked why it's a good thing.  I.e., why are you 
in favor of this becoming a law?

> Buy another brand. In a free
> market, people speak with their wallets. Making it unlawful for Sony to
> manufacture such a TV is not the answer, it is censorship.

And if it were a free market, I'd even agree with you. In practice, it's not.

I take it you're in favor of MS including their browser for free in every 
version of Windows and such too. It's a free market, after all. If Dell 
doesn't want to sell Windows, they don't have to, so there's no reason not 
to have a law preventing Microsoft from making whatever deal with Dell they 
want?

> Newspapers already have editors in place to filter out unwanted content. So
> do broadcasters.

Yep. That's different tho, for reasons I already explained.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On 21-4-2009 17:52, Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> The ISP business is open and follows market demands, they will provide 
>> for whatever the customers want.
> 
> Not in the USA.  Aren't most telecom companies state-run in Europe? Am I 
> allowed to open a new telephone company in (say) Germany and dig up the 
> road and all, running new wires to houses in new developments?

The way that is handled here is that the monopolist company is split in 
one that does the hardware and one that uses that hardware. You can 
start a telephone or gas or electricity company and the company that 
does the hardware has to provide you with the same service for the same 
price as they do for their former monopoly part. In most cases the only 
thing that changes when you change provider is that the header of the 
invoice changes. And the price may differ, because that is the whole 
point. With electricity and perhaps also gas (I am not handling those 
invoices) you can even change from regular to green energy without any 
physical change at your house.
I hope that is more or less understandable ;)

Needless to say that quite often it does not work as expected.

Post a reply to this message

On 21-4-2009 19:10, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:22:02 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>> If they're privately held companies, they can do whatever they like.
>>>   That's certainly not true in the general case. There are tons of laws
>>> governing what private companies can and cannot do, even with their own
>>> property. Monopoly law is just one example.
> 
>> Sure, I was exaggerating for effect; they can, however, report the news 
>> that they feel is important, and they can do so in a biased way if they 
>> so desire.
> 
>   Well, there are also journalism ethics for unbiased reporting...
> 

Do we have Italians in this NG?

Post a reply to this message

On 21-4-2009 17:59, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> internet will adept to that. What happens if you add a connection to
>> your neighbour that has another ISP? Will that be illegal because you
>> now have access to sites your ISP does not want you to see?
> 
> 	Actually, under typical TOS in the US, that _would_ be violating your
> TOS. I'm sure somewhere in the TOS of my ISP, it says that I will not
> share the Internet with other apartments. People do it all the time, but
> in a legal sense, you're violating the contract.
> 
> 	To answer your question: Other than the TOS issue, it won't be illegal
> - apparently even with what I understand from the proposed law. If you
> circumvent the filters set in place by _your_ ISP to get access to a
> higher tier while paying for a lower one - that would definitely be bad.

Perhaps I should have stressed the 'because', I know there are other 
reasons. OTOH the issue indeed won't arise as there will be plenty of 
other more 'innocent' reasons to forbid it for the end user. For e.g. 
universities (and big international firms) it could still be an issue as 
they they may provide large bandwidth connections between them.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 21-4-2009 17:52, Darren New wrote:
>> scott wrote:
>>> The ISP business is open and follows market demands, they will 
>>> provide for whatever the customers want.
>>
>> Not in the USA.  Aren't most telecom companies state-run in Europe? Am 
>> I allowed to open a new telephone company in (say) Germany and dig up 
>> the road and all, running new wires to houses in new developments?
> 
> The way that is handled here 

Where is "here"?

> I hope that is more or less understandable ;)

I used to work for the company that provided the shared services to all the 
local phone companies that worked this way in the USA (i.e., I worked for 
Bellcore). It makes perfect sense.

And if an ISP could come in that could scoop up TW's customers that wanted 
unrestricted access and provide it at a lower price than TW's customers 
could get it, I'd agree that it's not a big problem. However, I suspect this 
new ISP would wind up paying for the cost of the filtering hardware anyway, 
since I'm sure TW would include that as "part of the price".  (TW being Time 
Warner, my personal local monopoly.)

I'd still ask why anyone thinks allowing this behavior is a good idea for 
the general public.

> Needless to say that quite often it does not work as expected.

Tell me about it. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Everybody seems to know that it's completely legal and not in violation
> of any human rights that ISPs can freely choose how they filter content
> and what part of the internet they will sell to who.
> 
>   Question: If this is indeed so, then why are the directives allowing this
> being in the process of admission in the first place? What do they need the
> directives for if the filtering is already legal and allowed?

	Valid question - one that I don't have the answer for. I wondered the
same thing when net neutrality was debated in the US. A cursory reading
shows that if ISP's are considered telecommunications companies (which I
think they currently aren't), then they're not allowed to discriminate.

	Which indicates that in the US, such rules are not intended for the
whole society (i.e. all private enterprises), but only to certain
categories (which was what I was referring to under "public good").

	The crux of my arguments in this whole thread was that the legal
position is not unambiguous or clear. Ultimately, society or the
government may rule that it is vital to the public good and make sure
this can't happen - but there's no generic law that's valid for all
private enterprises.

-- 
If a pig lost it's voice, would it become disgruntled?


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>     I don't like what the ISP's may be planning, but I can't find a good
>> legal or constitutional argument against it
> 
> Look under "common carrier". If you start filtering, then you're

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality_in_the_United_States

"Cable modem Internet access has always been categorized under U.S. law
as an information service, and not a telecommunications service, and
thus has not been subject to common carrier regulations"

Citation not provided, and in any case, WINAL.


>>     It's like if I own a store with a bulletin board. I have the right to
>> dictate what goes on there and what doesn't. I could arbitrarily say
>> that you can post anything you want to sell on it, but no postings
>> regarding private tutoring are allowed.
> 
> Yes. But then if someone posts up naked children, you are *required* to
> take it down, on the grounds that you're policing the content to start
> with.

	I'm not 100% sure. I would think I'm required to take it down only if
notified of its presence. IOW, I don't think there's any law that states
that I _have_ to actively monitor what goes on on my Web site. Not sure,
though.

-- 
If a pig lost it's voice, would it become disgruntled?


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49ee0a2d@news.povray.org...

>   For example, if Apple wants to implement DRM in the music they sell
> online so that they will only play on Apple's own iPods, they have the
> full right to do so, don't they? They own the rights to sell the music,
> and they own the rights to their iPods. What rights does anyone else have
> to go and tell Apple that they can't do that? After all, if you don't like
> it, you can go and buy some other mp3 player.
>
>   Well, the European Union disagreed with this view and told Apple to
> lift their DRM from iPod.
>
>   So it's not always that simple, you see?

Nothing is simple. In this case, the complex but obvious observation is that
EU is not infallible.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> And vice versa. For a while, ESPN was refusing to serve content to Time
> Warner because TW wasn't paying ESPN extra.

	Unless something changed lately, I still don't get ESPN 360 through my
ISP...

-- 
If a pig lost it's voice, would it become disgruntled?


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>>         In the short term only. If some ISP is getting hurt by huge bandwidth
>> requirements (iplayer, youtube, Bittorrent, etc), in the long run they
>> may save more money by implementing filtering.
> 
>   Or simply by limiting its customers' bandwidth.
> 
>   Bandwidth limitation for technical reasons sounds a lot less dubious
> practice than filtering content.

	Yes, but easier to get more profit one way than another via marketing.

-- 
If a pig lost it's voice, would it become disgruntled?


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:49ee1019$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > If you don't like it, don't buy the Sony TV.
>
> That's not what I asked. I asked why it's a good thing.  I.e., why are you
> in favor of this becoming a law?

I'm in favour of the law not restricting what ISPs can deliver. The law
doesn't say ISP's *should* restrict what they deliver, does it?

> > Buy another brand. In a free
> > market, people speak with their wallets. Making it unlawful for Sony to
> > manufacture such a TV is not the answer, it is censorship.

> And if it were a free market, I'd even agree with you. In practice, it's
not.
>
> I take it you're in favor of MS including their browser for free in every
> version of Windows and such too.

Sure. They should also be able include whatever they want, including the
kitchen sink. Do people complain when the auto manufacturer includes a
stereo? Why the big fuss when MS includes a media player?

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	Which indicates that in the US, such rules are not intended for the
> whole society (i.e. all private enterprises), but only to certain
> categories (which was what I was referring to under "public good").

The category is "common carrier".

> 	The crux of my arguments in this whole thread was that the legal
> position is not unambiguous or clear. Ultimately, society or the
> government may rule that it is vital to the public good and make sure
> this can't happen - but there's no generic law that's valid for all
> private enterprises.

I don't think it's appropriate for private enterprises. Enterprises granted 
regional monopoly status by the government should be forced to not 
discriminate, because you've just removed the market forces.

And for the same reason the USA has the First Amendment, I'd suggest it's 
probably a good idea to force a business to either be a carrier or a 
provider of information, but not allow a business to be both.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> thus has not been subject to common carrier regulations"

Technically, then, they're responsible for what is sent over their cables, 
not unlike a television station can get fined for showing porn during prime 
time.  Or the RIAA could sue them for allowing downloads of copyrighted 
material and contributory infringement.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the cable companies and such managed 
to get laws making them neither common carriers nor responsible for the 
information they serve.

> 	I'm not 100% sure. I would think I'm required to take it down only if
> notified of its presence. IOW, I don't think there's any law that states
> that I _have_ to actively monitor what goes on on my Web site. Not sure,
> though.

No, there isn't. But if you *do* monitor it, you're responsible for it.

In this case, the ISP is saying "we *do* monitor where you go, and actively 
police that."  Hence, they're responsible for the content they deliver. You 
can't say "we watch everywhere you go, and block some legal sites for 
financial purposes, but we take no responsibility for blocking illegal 
sites."  IANAL still, but I did spend a year or so making sure the porn on 
the company's web server didn't leak out to the pages before you proved your 
age, so I spent a fair amount of time with the lawyers discussing it. If you 
filter the content, you're taking responsibility for being an "information 
service", and the information you serve needs to be legal.

I.e., it's the Pirate Bay defense: "we never looked at what we were serving, 
so you can't blame us for what the users put there."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> And vice versa. For a while, ESPN was refusing to serve content to Time
>> Warner because TW wasn't paying ESPN extra.
> 
> 	Unless something changed lately, I still don't get ESPN 360 through my
> ISP...

Well, there you go. But that's ESPN extorting the ISP, not the ISP extorting 
the customers. Since ESPN creates the content, it seems perfectly reasonable 
that they control who can see it, just like any other author. ESPN just 
decided it was easier to collect money from ISPs than individual customers.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:49ee1019$1@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
> 
>>> If you don't like it, don't buy the Sony TV.
>> That's not what I asked. I asked why it's a good thing.  I.e., why are you
>> in favor of this becoming a law?
> 
> I'm in favour of the law not restricting what ISPs can deliver.

I 100% understand that. But for the third time you haven't answered the 
question. What's the benefit that comes from allowing ISPs to refuse to 
deliver certain kinds of content, or content from certain providers of 
information that are otherwise legal?

If you just reassert "it's bad", then you're not saying *why* you think it's 
bad. Convince me with logic, not "proof by repeated vigorous assertion."

> Sure. They should also be able include whatever they want, including the
> kitchen sink. Do people complain when the auto manufacturer includes a
> stereo? Why the big fuss when MS includes a media player?

Honestly, I don't know. I just wondered what your take on it was.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:51:41 -0700, Darren New wrote:

>  What's the benefit that comes from allowing ISPs to refuse to
> deliver certain kinds of content, or content from certain providers of
> information that are otherwise legal?

I think the real problem isn't so much in allowing ISPs to refuse to 
deliver certain kinds of content, but the line provider being an ISP and 
then refusing.

The loss of choice, then because the carrier provides the ISP service as 
well (as in the case of AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, etc) where you're 
locked into using their ISP and their line.

The setup I have is not unique, but it is relatively uncommon; I use DSL 
service from Earthlink, but they don't provide the line, Covad 
Communications provides the line - and actually that's a shared line with 
Qwest (since they provide the wire to the house).

With the cable companies in the US, they behave as a common carrier in 
that they are the sole provider of the line, but you can't (AFAIK) choose 
to use a different ISP if you use the cable provider.  So in my locale, 
Comcast controls the line and the network access, and the problem is them 
deciding arbitrarily that they aren't going to give reasonable (or any) 
access to, say, Qwest's online resources.  Comcast provides a telephone 
service as well, so if you get your 'net access from them, they *could* 
unilaterally decide to prevent you from paying your Qwest bill online by 
preventing you from visiting their website[1].

What I think needs to happen is that the line provider needs to be 
classified as a common carrier.  Common carrier status means they have to 
treat all data equal, and the service providers (ie, the one providing 
the network address and access to the Internet at large) then compete on 
features, access, availability, and bandwidth options.

Jim

[1] I'm not saying they'd actually do that, and that customers wouldn't 
be pissed off and make noise about it.  I am saying that if they decided 
to do that, they could tell the customers "well, you have a choice, you 
can go with lower-speed DSL, so suck on our truck nuts."  There would be  
a certain percentage who would switch to Comcast for phone service as a 
result, a certain percentage who would grumble and accept it, and a 
relatively small number who would say "screw you" and drop Comcast.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Nothing is simple. In this case, the complex but obvious observation is that
> EU is not infallible.

  So in your opinion Apple should be allowed to keep its monopoly status?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> How many network connections do you actually have access to in your house. 
> I only have a TV cable and a wire for the phone. I could probably get a 
> fiber installed, but maybe not. And I could probably get a cellular 
> wireless connection to the internet from two different companies.

About the same here actually.

> Everything but the wireless is a government-enforced monopoly.

Oh that's different here, the government-enforced monopoly that owns the 
wire for the phone is forced to let any other company use it.  This only 
happened quite recently (I think 5-10 years ago in the UK), but now there 
are plenty of ISPs to choose from with a wide range of prices.  Some even 
put their own equipment on their end of the line (like Arcor in Germany), 
whilst others presumably rent equipment from the government-enforced 
monopoly.

> Only if you were actually allowed to. Are you allowed to start a new 
> company that runs fiber into everyone's house?

I don't see why not, a company called NTL did this in my mum's street a 
while back.  If you get permission from the council (or whoever) and/or pay 
NTL then you can probably feed your fibre down their pipes too or build your 
own.

Anyway, if you want to start up an ISP, I don't see any reason why you 
can't, there are enough of them around (in UK and Germany at least).

>> Being an ISP is not like, say, providing live coverage of a sporting 
>> event, there is no restriction to how many companies can offer it.
>
> Are you sure?

Well if there is a restriction it is a really big number, the German 
wikipedia page for ISP lists about 25 companies.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> With the cable companies in the US, they behave as a common carrier in 
> that they are the sole provider of the line, but you can't (AFAIK) choose 
> to use a different ISP if you use the cable provider.

Sometimes you can. But then what happens is you have things like Time 
Warner, who provides ISP, VIOP, and IPTV services, giving lower priority to 
traffic destined for Vonage's VOIP servers, Hulu, and so on.

I.e., by saying "It's my ISP, I can do whatever I want," they can provide 
VOIP at $50/month, and then refuse to connect you to the $20/month VOIP 
service, or provide cable TV service expensively and refuse to let you watch 
TV provided by someone else online like Hulu. TW already does this to some 
extent, until people complained to the PUC.

Then Time Warner gets pay-per-view, and decides that you shouldn't be 
allowed to hit CinemaNow or NetFlix download servers.

> What I think needs to happen is that the line provider needs to be 
> classified as a common carrier.  Common carrier status means they have to 
> treat all data equal, and the service providers (ie, the one providing 
> the network address and access to the Internet at large) then compete on 
> features, access, availability, and bandwidth options.

Exactly.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Oh that's different here, the government-enforced monopoly that owns the 
> wire for the phone is forced to let any other company use it.

So that's what the law is trying to overturn, you see. The law would 
basically be saying that the ISP would be able to filter packets from any 
other ISP.

> happened quite recently (I think 5-10 years ago in the UK), but now 
> there are plenty of ISPs to choose from with a wide range of prices.  

And that's *because* of the presence of the law that they're trying to 
overturn, you see, that says they have to carry those packets.

> Anyway, if you want to start up an ISP, I don't see any reason why you 
> can't, there are enough of them around (in UK and Germany at least).

OK. It used to be more monopolistic a while back. Still is, for some kinds 
of connectivity in the USA.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:13:32 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> With the cable companies in the US, they behave as a common carrier in
>> that they are the sole provider of the line, but you can't (AFAIK)
>> choose to use a different ISP if you use the cable provider.
> 
> Sometimes you can. But then what happens is you have things like Time
> Warner, who provides ISP, VIOP, and IPTV services, giving lower priority
> to traffic destined for Vonage's VOIP servers, Hulu, and so on.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. :-)

> I.e., by saying "It's my ISP, I can do whatever I want," they can
> provide VOIP at $50/month, and then refuse to connect you to the
> $20/month VOIP service, or provide cable TV service expensively and
> refuse to let you watch TV provided by someone else online like Hulu. TW
> already does this to some extent, until people complained to the PUC.
> 
> Then Time Warner gets pay-per-view, and decides that you shouldn't be
> allowed to hit CinemaNow or NetFlix download servers.

Yup, and that's something that should be illegal - and I think people are 
perfectly reasonable to complain to the PUC about it.

>> What I think needs to happen is that the line provider needs to be
>> classified as a common carrier.  Common carrier status means they have
>> to treat all data equal, and the service providers (ie, the one
>> providing the network address and access to the Internet at large) then
>> compete on features, access, availability, and bandwidth options.
> 
> Exactly.

I worked for a company that owned a common carrier; as a common carrier, 
they were required by law to carry signals for competitors in the primary 
business (food and drug retail - yeah, I know, how they came to own a 
common carrier....well, I do know the history) and had to do so in a very 
clearly segmented way so as to not expose competitor data to our primary 
lines of business.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:49ee4dfd$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> > news:49ee1019$1@news.povray.org...
> >> somebody wrote:

> >>> If you don't like it, don't buy the Sony TV.
> >> That's not what I asked. I asked why it's a good thing.  I.e., why are
you
> >> in favor of this becoming a law?
> >
> > I'm in favour of the law not restricting what ISPs can deliver.
>
> I 100% understand that. But for the third time you haven't answered the
> question. What's the benefit that comes from allowing ISPs to refuse to
> deliver certain kinds of content, or content from certain providers of
> information that are otherwise legal?

Actually, I don't know. It's like asking what's the benefit of allowing
portable audio devices that pick up FM but not AM to be manufactured and
sold. I think the decision should be with the manufacturer / service
provider, and not with government. Beyond that, it's a technical / strategic
matter that depends on particulars and needs. For someone needing NNTP, for
instance, it's I guess not a good thing to allow ISPs to remove NNTP access.
Someone who never uses that will not care. Personally, if I'm going to be
charged the same, I want it all, just in case. If there's going to be
discounts or other incentives for limited access, say for those who don't
use P2P filesharing, I would certainly welcome that. Now that more and more
things are being delivered over the internet, customization of services may
be a good idea.

> If you just reassert "it's bad", then you're not saying *why* you think
it's
> bad. Convince me with logic, not "proof by repeated vigorous assertion."

I wasn't aware my assertions were particularly vigorous. Just stating my
opinion on the matter, as does everybody else. I do feel strongly, however,
that in a free market, producers and providers should have the freedom to
define their products with minimum government involvement, except when
obvious health hazards are involved.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > I 100% understand that. But for the third time you haven't answered the
> > question. What's the benefit that comes from allowing ISPs to refuse to
> > deliver certain kinds of content, or content from certain providers of
> > information that are otherwise legal?

> Actually, I don't know. It's like asking what's the benefit of allowing
> portable audio devices that pick up FM but not AM to be manufactured and
> sold.

  I don't think that comparison is valid. Supporting both FM and AM radio
requires additional circuitry and hardware. In other words, supporting only
eg. FM and not AM means that there is less circuitry needed, the user
interface of the radio becomes simpler, etc.

  In this case it's not a question of the ISP hardware or software becoming
more complicated/expensive if they support two information providers (which
are equivalent to each other in the amount of content), but the opposite:
Providing both is simpler and less expensive than building a filtering
logic which would filter one but not the other.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:32:04 -0400, Warp wrote:

>  Supporting both FM and AM radio
> requires additional circuitry and hardware.

Unless you're REALLY close to the transmitter.  Like under it.

I have an FM receiver that - in close proximity to US airports - can be 
used to tune into the ATC frequency for the airport.  US ATC (not sure 
about other parts of the world, but I imagine it's the case) is 
transmitted using AM equipment.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 21-4-2009 21:09, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 21-4-2009 17:52, Darren New wrote:
>>> scott wrote:
>>>> The ISP business is open and follows market demands, they will 
>>>> provide for whatever the customers want.
>>>
>>> Not in the USA.  Aren't most telecom companies state-run in Europe? 
>>> Am I allowed to open a new telephone company in (say) Germany and dig 
>>> up the road and all, running new wires to houses in new developments?
>>
>> The way that is handled here 
> 
> Where is "here"?

Netherlands

>> Needless to say that quite often it does not work as expected.
> 
> Tell me about it. :-)

I think you can imagine what happens.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I don't think that comparison is valid. Supporting both FM and AM radio
> requires additional circuitry and hardware.

Plus, nothing prevents you from buying an FM radio *and* an AM radio, or one 
radio from someone else that supports both.  ISPs aren't quite so fungible.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49ef62a4@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:

> > > I 100% understand that. But for the third time you haven't answered
the
> > > question. What's the benefit that comes from allowing ISPs to refuse
to
> > > deliver certain kinds of content, or content from certain providers of
> > > information that are otherwise legal?
>
> > Actually, I don't know. It's like asking what's the benefit of allowing
> > portable audio devices that pick up FM but not AM to be manufactured and
> > sold.

>   I don't think that comparison is valid. Supporting both FM and AM radio
> requires additional circuitry and hardware.

I'm pretty sure providing NNTP a sever service, especially with the volume
of binary postings, isn't all that cheap either. At the very least,
eliminating certain servies or implementing filters will cut down on
bandwidth and related infrastructure, which isn't a free lunch even for
ISPs. Of course no analogy is perfect, but I think it's a fairly OK
comparison.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> I'm pretty sure providing NNTP a sever service, especially with the volume
> of binary postings, isn't all that cheap either.

But that's not what the bill is about. It's about the ISP disallowing you 
from using someone else's NNTP server unless you pay extra. It's about the 
ISP saying "you have to pay more to get to news.povray.org than to 
www.povray.org."  It has nothing to do with the cost of providing the bits 
and everything to do with the profit to be made from popular content.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:46:12 -0600, somebody wrote:

> I'm pretty sure providing NNTP a sever service, especially with the
> volume of binary postings, isn't all that cheap either.

And many providers don't provide NNTP service as a result.

I don't know of any in the US who explicitly block port 119 to prevent 
the customer from accessing a third party server, though.

Or who charge a premium to open those ports rather than use their own 
hosted service.

*That's* the topic under discussion.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:49efa6a7$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > I'm pretty sure providing NNTP a sever service, especially with the
volume
> > of binary postings, isn't all that cheap either.

> But that's not what the bill is about. It's about the ISP disallowing you

No, it's about *allowing* the ISPs to disallow you...

> from using someone else's NNTP server unless you pay extra. It's about the
> ISP saying "you have to pay more to get to news.povray.org than to
> www.povray.org."  It has nothing to do with the cost of providing the bits
> and everything to do with the profit to be made from popular content.

Still cuts down on bandwidth, since popular content = high bandwidth usage.
Why should strict www users subsidize p2p traffic?

There may be any number of reasons for ISPs to fine tune their services, or
not to. My point is, they should be *able* to do that, if they chose to do
so. Just like the customer can select *any* ISP (or none, as the case may
be).

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:08:01 -0600, somebody wrote:

> Still cuts down on bandwidth, since popular content = high bandwidth
> usage. Why should strict www users subsidize p2p traffic?

Why not go to the next step, then - why should anyone subsidize anyone 
else's traffic?  Pay by the byte.  Why should I subsidize my neighbors' 
use of Netflix on demand?  I don't use it, and I don't benefit from it.

</sarcasm>

> to do so. Just like the customer can select *any* ISP (or none, as the
> case may be).

In many localities, the customer *can't* select *any* ISP.  I have 
friends who live in very rural areas who have one option and one option 
only.  They either pay whatever the provider charges and live with the 
TOC or they go without.

*Infrastructure* is put in place so everyone can benefit.  Why do I pay 
for the water mains for another part of town (through my taxes)?  I don't 
benefit from the west side of Salt Lake City having water mains.  But my 
property tax pays for maintenance on things like that.

We are none of us an island.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:49f12814$1@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:08:01 -0600, somebody wrote:

> > Still cuts down on bandwidth, since popular content = high bandwidth
> > usage. Why should strict www users subsidize p2p traffic?

> Why not go to the next step, then - why should anyone subsidize anyone
> else's traffic?  Pay by the byte.  Why should I subsidize my neighbors'
> use of Netflix on demand?  I don't use it, and I don't benefit from it.
>
> </sarcasm>

> > to do so. Just like the customer can select *any* ISP (or none, as the
> > case may be).

> In many localities, the customer *can't* select *any* ISP.

Granted, I did not mean that, say, a Germany resident can chose an
Argentinian ISP. I meant one can chose any ISP available in his/her region.

> I have
> friends who live in very rural areas who have one option and one option
> only.  They either pay whatever the provider charges and live with the
> TOC or they go without.

That's true of many things. In very rural areas, there is also a reduced
selection of, say, supermarkets. I'm not sure if that's a good argument for
legislating that the existing supermarket carries all goods or brands.
Before the analogy police arrives, the point is that it's not a good idea to
limit what types of services private enterprise can offer based on
individuals with special circumstances. One can, to an extent, expect that
governments provide basic necessities to very rural areas (within reason,
even for government), but ISPs are private enterprises. Sometimes, even
though you can select any color, the only available one will be black. Such
is life.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Still cuts down on bandwidth, since popular content = high bandwidth usage.

  I still can't understand this bandwidth argument.

  If bandwidth is a problem for an ISP, then they should lower their
client's bandwidths. It's that simple. Problem solved.

  If your argument is "people who only read email don't need to access
high-bandwidth websites such as youtube", then the solution is extremely
simple, once again: Lower the user's bandwidth. What is the problem?

  "Selective filtering will allow ISPs to offer cheap connections which
only access low-bandwidth services of the internet". Again: Just offer
very low-bandwidth connections for cheap. Problem solved.

  Bandwidth is a really stupid excuse for trying to pass these directives.

  In fact, bandwith is a really stupid excuse for this whole idea. What
is going to sell better, a connection which you can't use to access the
whole internet with, or one which you can, even if it's a slower connection?

  The fundamental idea behind these directives is not bandwidth, but a
way to circumvent network neutrality. Where the ISPs *will* get money
from is from companies: Companies will have to pay the ISPs in order to
get their services to the "basic packages" of those ISPs.

  Both the companies and the users will suffer from this.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Still cuts down on bandwidth, since popular content = high bandwidth usage.
> Why should strict www users subsidize p2p traffic?

It's not about bandwidth. And, truly, popular web sites take *less* 
bandwidth than unpopular ones. That's what proxy servers are for.

> There may be any number of reasons for ISPs to fine tune their services, or
> not to. My point is, they should be *able* to do that, if they chose to do
> so. 

But you don't have any good reason for saying that, right?

I don't mind the ISP deciding what I can see and what I can't, as long as 
the ISP is *also* responsible for what they decide to deliver. If they're 
going to filter legal content, they should be responsible for not filtering 
illegal content.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:49f1c1fb$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > There may be any number of reasons for ISPs to fine tune their services,
or
> > not to. My point is, they should be *able* to do that, if they chose to
do
> > so.

> But you don't have any good reason for saying that, right?

Fundamental free market principles is an excellent reason, IMO.

> I don't mind the ISP deciding what I can see and what I can't, as long as
> the ISP is *also* responsible for what they decide to deliver. If they're
> going to filter legal content, they should be responsible for not
filtering
> illegal content.

I think they should try to filter out illegal content anyway. But if
legislated, it would have to be legislated in a manner not to make
perfection a requirement. The legislation, if anything, should protect ISPs
from liability for trying to filter out illegal content but not entirely
succeeding (either false positives or false negatives). Same thing with spam
filters too.

Do you run an anti-virus program? Are they liable for not being able to
catch new viruses that are not in their databases? Are they liable for
misidentifying a benign application as malware? I think at least the same
degree of liability protection should be there for ISPs trying to do good.

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:49ed9bb5$1@news.povray.org...

> Besides, ISPs have so far successfully convinced people that things like
> YouTube and iPlayer are "hogging" all the bandwidth. (Er, no, it's just
> that people are actually using *all* of what they've paid for, when your
> entire business model is based on the assumption that they won't do
> this,

A lot of business models are based on that assumption. Do you think banks
have remotely enough cash on hand if all customers want to withdraw their
money simultaneously?

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
>> But you don't have any good reason for saying that, right?
> Fundamental free market principles is an excellent reason, IMO.

And if there were a free market in ISPs, I'd agree with you. I don't think 
that's the case, tho.

> I think they should try to filter out illegal content anyway. But if
> legislated, it would have to be legislated in a manner not to make
> perfection a requirement.

Why? *My* downloads of content have to be perfect. How come the ISP would 
get a free pass on sending me child porn, but I wouldn't have a free pass on 
having it by mistake?

If you start saying "The ISP filters illegal content", people will rely on that.

> The legislation, if anything, should protect ISPs
> from liability for trying to filter out illegal content but not entirely
> succeeding (either false positives or false negatives). Same thing with spam
> filters too.

Why?

> Do you run an anti-virus program? 

Nope.

> Are they liable for not being able to
> catch new viruses that are not in their databases? 

Possibly.

> Are they liable for
> misidentifying a benign application as malware? 

Possibly.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:53:17 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:49f12814$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:08:01 -0600, somebody wrote:
> 
>> > Still cuts down on bandwidth, since popular content = high bandwidth
>> > usage. Why should strict www users subsidize p2p traffic?
> 
>> Why not go to the next step, then - why should anyone subsidize anyone
>> else's traffic?  Pay by the byte.  Why should I subsidize my neighbors'
>> use of Netflix on demand?  I don't use it, and I don't benefit from it.
>>
>> </sarcasm>
> 
>> > to do so. Just like the customer can select *any* ISP (or none, as
>> > the case may be).
> 
>> In many localities, the customer *can't* select *any* ISP.
> 
> Granted, I did not mean that, say, a Germany resident can chose an
> Argentinian ISP. I meant one can chose any ISP available in his/her
> region.

Now I *know* you know that's not what I meant.  I've explained before - 
if you want cable-like speeds, in most markets there is a single choice.  
I can't get anything but Comcast if I want 10 Mbps without paying for a 
dedicated line.  So my choice is to live with Comcast's draconian TOS or 
to use DSL - which gives me a whole 3 Mbps currently.

>> I have
>> friends who live in very rural areas who have one option and one option
>> only.  They either pay whatever the provider charges and live with the
>> TOC or they go without.
> 
> That's true of many things. In very rural areas, there is also a reduced
> selection of, say, supermarkets. I'm not sure if that's a good argument
> for legislating that the existing supermarket carries all goods or
> brands. Before the analogy police arrives, the point is that it's not a
> good idea to limit what types of services private enterprise can offer
> based on individuals with special circumstances. One can, to an extent,
> expect that governments provide basic necessities to very rural areas
> (within reason, even for government), but ISPs are private enterprises.
> Sometimes, even though you can select any color, the only available one
> will be black. Such is life.

You seem to be missing my point.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:49f1ec38@news.povray.org...

> Now I *know* you know that's not what I meant.  I've explained before -
> if you want cable-like speeds, in most markets there is a single choice.
> I can't get anything but Comcast if I want 10 Mbps without paying for a
> dedicated line.  So my choice is to live with Comcast's draconian TOS or
> to use DSL - which gives me a whole 3 Mbps currently.

So Comcast should be subject to your terms because there happens to be
little alternative in your locality?

It's OK to ask or lobby for Comcast to get what you need. I don't think it's
OK at all for legislation to dictate Comcast to offer you exactly what you
want.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:33:56 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:49f1ec38@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Now I *know* you know that's not what I meant.  I've explained before -
>> if you want cable-like speeds, in most markets there is a single
>> choice. I can't get anything but Comcast if I want 10 Mbps without
>> paying for a dedicated line.  So my choice is to live with Comcast's
>> draconian TOS or to use DSL - which gives me a whole 3 Mbps currently.
> 
> So Comcast should be subject to your terms because there happens to be
> little alternative in your locality?

Can you say "abuse of monopoly power"?  Yes, Comcast should be required 
to behave in a manner that doesn't permit them to abuse their monopoly, 
which includes dictating what traffic I can or cannot use.

They provide me with a pipe that sends bits back and forth.  But they 
should not be permitted to say "you may not use NNTP connections" or "you 
may not use p2p connections regardless of whether it's legal content or 
not".

Once they get into the business of filtering content, they open 
themselves up to lawsuits when their technology fails to "protect" people 
from illegal content.

This is why the provider of the pipe should not also be the ISP.  I 
notice that you completely ignored my earlier comments about the water 
mains and how my tax dollars subsidize people on the other side of town, 
even though I don't use *their* water pipes.

> It's OK to ask or lobby for Comcast to get what you need. I don't think
> it's OK at all for legislation to dictate Comcast to offer you exactly
> what you want.

What I and others want is for the providers to not be permitted to 
restrict traffic.

What makes it OK for Comcast to lobby congress and get legislation that 
allows them to apply arbitrary limits to the service?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:49f211c9$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:33:56 -0600, somebody wrote:
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> > news:49f1ec38@news.povray.org...

> >> Now I *know* you know that's not what I meant.  I've explained before -
> >> if you want cable-like speeds, in most markets there is a single
> >> choice. I can't get anything but Comcast if I want 10 Mbps without
> >> paying for a dedicated line.  So my choice is to live with Comcast's
> >> draconian TOS or to use DSL - which gives me a whole 3 Mbps currently.

> > So Comcast should be subject to your terms because there happens to be
> > little alternative in your locality?

> Can you say "abuse of monopoly power"?  Yes, Comcast should be required
> to behave in a manner that doesn't permit them to abuse their monopoly,

That's a very narrow (ego-centric) definition of monopoly on your part. The
only fast-food restaurant within about 75m of my house is Subway. Does that
make them a monopoly?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:16:35 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:49f211c9$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:33:56 -0600, somebody wrote:
>> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
>> > news:49f1ec38@news.povray.org...
> 
>> >> Now I *know* you know that's not what I meant.  I've explained
>> >> before - if you want cable-like speeds, in most markets there is a
>> >> single choice. I can't get anything but Comcast if I want 10 Mbps
>> >> without paying for a dedicated line.  So my choice is to live with
>> >> Comcast's draconian TOS or to use DSL - which gives me a whole 3
>> >> Mbps currently.
> 
>> > So Comcast should be subject to your terms because there happens to
>> > be little alternative in your locality?
> 
>> Can you say "abuse of monopoly power"?  Yes, Comcast should be required
>> to behave in a manner that doesn't permit them to abuse their monopoly,
> 
> That's a very narrow (ego-centric) definition of monopoly on your part.
> The only fast-food restaurant within about 75m of my house is Subway.
> Does that make them a monopoly?

No, because you can *drive* to another location.

One of my friends who lives in the sticks can't get faster service at 
home by driving to town.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:49f2776b@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:16:35 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> > news:49f211c9$1@news.povray.org...
> >> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:33:56 -0600, somebody wrote:
> >> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> >> > news:49f1ec38@news.povray.org...
> >
> >> >> Now I *know* you know that's not what I meant.  I've explained
> >> >> before - if you want cable-like speeds, in most markets there is a
> >> >> single choice. I can't get anything but Comcast if I want 10 Mbps
> >> >> without paying for a dedicated line.  So my choice is to live with
> >> >> Comcast's draconian TOS or to use DSL - which gives me a whole 3
> >> >> Mbps currently.
> >
> >> > So Comcast should be subject to your terms because there happens to
> >> > be little alternative in your locality?
> >
> >> Can you say "abuse of monopoly power"?  Yes, Comcast should be required
> >> to behave in a manner that doesn't permit them to abuse their monopoly,
> >
> > That's a very narrow (ego-centric) definition of monopoly on your part.
> > The only fast-food restaurant within about 75m of my house is Subway.
> > Does that make them a monopoly?
>
> No, because you can *drive* to another location.
>
> One of my friends who lives in the sticks can't get faster service at
> home by driving to town.

What if I don't have a license/car and am confined to a wheelchair?

The point is, the singular and particular circumstance of individuals and
local unavailability of competition do not make companies that happen to be
available monopolies. Why should Comcast be restricted in what they can
offer should they happen to be the only provider offering services to you?
If I'm a business in that situation, I would simply unavail my services to
you and be done with it instead of your singular circumstance have dictate
how I do business globally. Thus you would actually be worse off.

I am not seeing the point of legally forcing Comcast's hand and thus
effectively punishing them just because they provide services in areas where
nobody else is willing to. Sure, if they engage in illegal, monopolistic
practices, maybe to keep out the competition from your area, that's another
matter and should be dealt with existing anti-monopoly laws.

I guess it depends on whether you regard full access to the internet as a
right or not. To me, the baseline is no access at all. Anything above is a
bonus.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Can you say "abuse of monopoly power"?  Yes, Comcast should be required 
> to behave in a manner that doesn't permit them to abuse their monopoly, 
> which includes dictating what traffic I can or cannot use.

*Especially* since the *reason* they have a monopoly is that the government 
passed laws *giving* them a monopoly.

If there were actually ten or twenty competing high-speed ISPs from which to 
chose, your position might make sense. When the government says "Sorry, TW 
won the bid, you don't get to run any connectivity here", it seems perfectly 
reasonable to use the same government to make TW behave in a fair manner.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> That's a very narrow (ego-centric) definition of monopoly on your part. The
> only fast-food restaurant within about 75m of my house is Subway. Does that
> make them a monopoly?

No, but the government here *makes* it a monopoly.  You seem to be 
consistently ignoring that point.

What if your water company said "we don't run water out to houses occupied 
by people with green eyes."  Would that be OK?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:38:33 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Can you say "abuse of monopoly power"?  Yes, Comcast should be required
>> to behave in a manner that doesn't permit them to abuse their monopoly,
>> which includes dictating what traffic I can or cannot use.
> 
> *Especially* since the *reason* they have a monopoly is that the
> government passed laws *giving* them a monopoly.
> 
> If there were actually ten or twenty competing high-speed ISPs from
> which to chose, your position might make sense. When the government says
> "Sorry, TW won the bid, you don't get to run any connectivity here", it
> seems perfectly reasonable to use the same government to make TW behave
> in a fair manner.

Yup on all points. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 02:08:36 -0600, somebody wrote:

>> One of my friends who lives in the sticks can't get faster service at
>> home by driving to town.
> 
> What if I don't have a license/car and am confined to a wheelchair?

What if...what if....what if.  What if you have no hands and can't type?

We can play exceptions all day long.  Well, you can, I'm not going to.

> The point is, the singular and particular circumstance of individuals
> and local unavailability of competition do not make companies that
> happen to be available monopolies. 

As Darren pointed out, the government *made* them monopolies.

> Why should Comcast be restricted in
> what they can offer should they happen to be the only provider offering
> services to you? If I'm a business in that situation, I would simply
> unavail my services to you and be done with it instead of your singular
> circumstance have dictate how I do business globally. Thus you would
> actually be worse off.

And your customers would probably (a) be extremely pissed off, and (b) 
take it to the public utilities commission.  You don't seem to understand 
that we're talking about a utility service.

Until you come to that understanding, there's no point in further 
discussion.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Why should Comcast be restricted in what they can
> offer should they happen to be the only provider offering services to you?

You just answered your own question. They're not being restricted in what 
they offer. They're being restricted in how much they can charge, because 
they're the only providers offering that service to you.

> If I'm a business in that situation, I would simply unavail my services to
> you and be done with it instead of your singular circumstance have dictate
> how I do business globally. Thus you would actually be worse off.

Then you don't get to do business anywhere.  And at least that way, someone 
else can come in and provide services.

You think Microsoft couldn't just tell the EU "OK, we won't sell Windows 
there."  Why do you think they didn't do that?

And I mean, hey, why should we make it illegal for Comcast to come into your 
house and take money out of your wallet while you're sleeping? That'll get 
them lots of profit too.  Or maybe only to the people who can't drive, or 
are in a wheelchair, as long as you're making stupid arguments.

> I am not seeing the point of legally forcing Comcast's hand and thus
> effectively punishing them just because they provide services in areas where
> nobody else is willing to. 

You probably don't see the point in legally forcing owners of apartment 
complexes to rent to minorities, either, or making business owners mark some 
parking spots as reserved for disabled people, I'm guessing.

The point is the betterment of society in general. The same reason we make 
people get vaccinated, we send people to school, we require people to pass a 
drivers license test before driving, and we outlaw discrimination, and we 
let everyone vote without having to pay extra for the privilege.

Since the *only* reason to let Comcast filter certain "premium" connections 
is to make the corporation more money, and the corporation exists solely 
because individuals have granted that permission, I don't see why you think 
it's a good idea to let Comcast charge thru the nose their captive audiences.

But sure, continue to act like Comcast and TW are doing everyone a favor in 
spite of the fact that you've been told repeatedly that at least in this 
country they're all granted monopolies by the government. It's better than 
admitting you might have been wrong in some way, eh?

> Sure, if they engage in illegal, monopolistic
> practices, maybe to keep out the competition from your area, that's another
> matter and should be dealt with existing anti-monopoly laws.

I get the feeling you're not even reading the responses to your messages.

But that's OK. You probably think MCI sued AT&T for monopolistic practices, 
and that's what led to the break-up of AT&T in the '80s.

> I guess it depends on whether you regard full access to the internet as a
> right or not. To me, the baseline is no access at all. Anything above is a
> bonus.

It's a good thing to have an informed populace, don't you think? Do you 
think government secrecy, secret police raids, trials behind closed doors, 
and censorship are good things? It's not a matter of right. It's a matter of 
lots of people recognizing that government-granted monopolies of utilities 
need to be regulated to keep them from taking advantage of their customers.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> I am not seeing the point of legally forcing Comcast's hand and thus
> effectively punishing them just because they provide services in areas where
> nobody else is willing to. 

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2009/tc20090424_766570.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_technology

BTW, this is the kind of thing the law is about. Comcast blocking you from 
getting to online TV shows paid for by someone else (like Hulu) unless 
you're paying Comcast to get that TV show in analog on your cable subscription.

Nothing at all to do with bandwidth.


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message