Comments on: Musicians for a Well-Regulated Internet http://techliberation.com/2006/05/21/musicians-for-a-well-regulated-internet/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Terra http://techliberation.com/2006/05/21/musicians-for-a-well-regulated-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-51051 Terra Thu, 25 May 2006 07:14:10 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/21/musicians-for-a-well-regulated-internet/#comment-51051 <p>One must be careful about supporting legislation that one does not understand. Please study up on channelization and the concepts of routing/prioritization. The language in the Neutrality camp is far too vague and ineffective. I am only starting to see language on the issue that will come close to preventing "preferred" treatment over the public internet. And the language is coming from folks that are being deemed as the enemy in the neutrality press. They came up with the concept of tiered service and with ways to help prevent inappropriate filtering. This is actually a viable approach. The original language that's been floating around as "Network Neutrality" is flawed at best, fantastical at worst. I think it's good that radical viewpoints are keeping the issue alive..."oh, no the internet is falling". But I also think that folks that are in the know aren't stupid. Nor one sided. They invented the public internet...something that is a beautiful and not easily curruptable thing. And they have been working on this issue for a while. So be patient. Keep the issue alive, but please don't position these techs as "the enemy."<br><br>Our best defense, of course, is to do business with people that we trust. Subscribe to ISPs with value systems that in line with our thinking. We are not stuck with one ISP. The Telecom Act of 1996 helped insure that. So the government isn't doing THAT bad of a job. Not perfect, and must continually be reminded of what's important to us. But please stop making it sound like "the government" is all bad and is totally in cahoots with "the big bad carriers." Most of these folks are just like you and I.</p> One must be careful about supporting legislation that one does not understand. Please study up on channelization and the concepts of routing/prioritization. The language in the Neutrality camp is far too vague and ineffective. I am only starting to see language on the issue that will come close to preventing “preferred” treatment over the public internet. And the language is coming from folks that are being deemed as the enemy in the neutrality press. They came up with the concept of tiered service and with ways to help prevent inappropriate filtering. This is actually a viable approach. The original language that’s been floating around as “Network Neutrality” is flawed at best, fantastical at worst. I think it’s good that radical viewpoints are keeping the issue alive…”oh, no the internet is falling”. But I also think that folks that are in the know aren’t stupid. Nor one sided. They invented the public internet…something that is a beautiful and not easily curruptable thing. And they have been working on this issue for a while. So be patient. Keep the issue alive, but please don’t position these techs as “the enemy.”

Our best defense, of course, is to do business with people that we trust. Subscribe to ISPs with value systems that in line with our thinking. We are not stuck with one ISP. The Telecom Act of 1996 helped insure that. So the government isn’t doing THAT bad of a job. Not perfect, and must continually be reminded of what’s important to us. But please stop making it sound like “the government” is all bad and is totally in cahoots with “the big bad carriers.” Most of these folks are just like you and I.

]]> By: Terra http://techliberation.com/2006/05/21/musicians-for-a-well-regulated-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-33544 Terra Thu, 25 May 2006 06:14:10 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/21/musicians-for-a-well-regulated-internet/#comment-33544 <p>One must be careful about supporting legislation that one does not understand. Please study up on channelization and the concepts of routing/prioritization. The language in the Neutrality camp is far too vague and ineffective. I am only starting to see language on the issue that will come close to preventing "preferred" treatment over the public internet. And the language is coming from folks that are being deemed as the enemy in the neutrality press. They came up with the concept of tiered service and with ways to help prevent inappropriate filtering. This is actually a viable approach. The original language that's been floating around as "Network Neutrality" is flawed at best, fantastical at worst. I think it's good that radical viewpoints are keeping the issue alive..."oh, no the internet is falling". But I also think that folks that are in the know aren't stupid. Nor one sided. They invented the public internet...something that is a beautiful and not easily curruptable thing. And they have been working on this issue for a while. So be patient. Keep the issue alive, but please don't position these techs as "the enemy."</p> <p>Our best defense, of course, is to do business with people that we trust. Subscribe to ISPs with value systems that in line with our thinking. We are not stuck with one ISP. The Telecom Act of 1996 helped insure that. So the government isn't doing THAT bad of a job. Not perfect, and must continually be reminded of what's important to us. But please stop making it sound like "the government" is all bad and is totally in cahoots with "the big bad carriers." Most of these folks are just like you and I.</p> One must be careful about supporting legislation that one does not understand. Please study up on channelization and the concepts of routing/prioritization. The language in the Neutrality camp is far too vague and ineffective. I am only starting to see language on the issue that will come close to preventing “preferred” treatment over the public internet. And the language is coming from folks that are being deemed as the enemy in the neutrality press. They came up with the concept of tiered service and with ways to help prevent inappropriate filtering. This is actually a viable approach. The original language that’s been floating around as “Network Neutrality” is flawed at best, fantastical at worst. I think it’s good that radical viewpoints are keeping the issue alive…”oh, no the internet is falling”. But I also think that folks that are in the know aren’t stupid. Nor one sided. They invented the public internet…something that is a beautiful and not easily curruptable thing. And they have been working on this issue for a while. So be patient. Keep the issue alive, but please don’t position these techs as “the enemy.”

Our best defense, of course, is to do business with people that we trust. Subscribe to ISPs with value systems that in line with our thinking. We are not stuck with one ISP. The Telecom Act of 1996 helped insure that. So the government isn’t doing THAT bad of a job. Not perfect, and must continually be reminded of what’s important to us. But please stop making it sound like “the government” is all bad and is totally in cahoots with “the big bad carriers.” Most of these folks are just like you and I.

]]> By: John B. http://techliberation.com/2006/05/21/musicians-for-a-well-regulated-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-51050 John B. Wed, 24 May 2006 16:58:13 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/21/musicians-for-a-well-regulated-internet/#comment-51050 <p>Isn't your position more deceptive than any other? In a law-free environment ATT, Bellsouth, Time Warner and other large telecoms can impose tiered services under which those who ;pay more get faster/better service. If Congress enacts NN, it will protect consumers from that in the same way the FCC Act protects them from suffering tiered service with "slower" phone service for those who don't pay more. The telecos should remain common carriers, not content deciders. If that takes a federal law, so be it.</p> Isn’t your position more deceptive than any other? In a law-free environment ATT, Bellsouth, Time Warner and other large telecoms can impose tiered services under which those who ;pay more get faster/better service. If Congress enacts NN, it will protect consumers from that in the same way the FCC Act protects them from suffering tiered service with “slower” phone service for those who don’t pay more. The telecos should remain common carriers, not content deciders. If that takes a federal law, so be it.

]]> By: John B. http://techliberation.com/2006/05/21/musicians-for-a-well-regulated-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-33543 John B. Wed, 24 May 2006 15:58:13 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/21/musicians-for-a-well-regulated-internet/#comment-33543 <p>Isn't your position more deceptive than any other? In a law-free environment ATT, Bellsouth, Time Warner and other large telecoms can impose tiered services under which those who ;pay more get faster/better service. If Congress enacts NN, it will protect consumers from that in the same way the FCC Act protects them from suffering tiered service with "slower" phone service for those who don't pay more. The telecos should remain common carriers, not content deciders. If that takes a federal law, so be it.</p> Isn’t your position more deceptive than any other? In a law-free environment ATT, Bellsouth, Time Warner and other large telecoms can impose tiered services under which those who ;pay more get faster/better service. If Congress enacts NN, it will protect consumers from that in the same way the FCC Act protects them from suffering tiered service with “slower” phone service for those who don’t pay more. The telecos should remain common carriers, not content deciders. If that takes a federal law, so be it.

]]> By: MikeT http://techliberation.com/2006/05/21/musicians-for-a-well-regulated-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-51048 MikeT Mon, 22 May 2006 15:45:14 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/21/musicians-for-a-well-regulated-internet/#comment-51048 <p>Tim, if you look at the rhetoric of the anti-NN side, it's clear that they are flat out liars. How can they seriously argue that Google and others want to dump all of the costs on consumers? They <a href="http://blindmindseye.com/2006/05/14/the-people-shouldnt-have-to-pay-for-internet-access-at-all/" rel="nofollow">are trying to present themselves</a> as passing the buck off to the Big Bad Content Providers rather than home users. Well, that is why they're doing. They want to use the former to subsidize the latter.</p> Tim, if you look at the rhetoric of the anti-NN side, it’s clear that they are flat out liars. How can they seriously argue that Google and others want to dump all of the costs on consumers? They are trying to present themselves as passing the buck off to the Big Bad Content Providers rather than home users. Well, that is why they’re doing. They want to use the former to subsidize the latter.

]]> By: MikeT http://techliberation.com/2006/05/21/musicians-for-a-well-regulated-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-33542 MikeT Mon, 22 May 2006 14:45:14 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/21/musicians-for-a-well-regulated-internet/#comment-33542 <p>Tim, if you look at the rhetoric of the anti-NN side, it's clear that they are flat out liars. How can they seriously argue that Google and others want to dump all of the costs on consumers? They <a href="http://blindmindseye.com/2006/05/14/the-people-shouldnt-have-to-pay-for-internet-access-at-all/" rel="nofollow">are trying to present themselves</a> as passing the buck off to the Big Bad Content Providers rather than home users. Well, that is why they're doing. They want to use the former to subsidize the latter.</p> Tim, if you look at the rhetoric of the anti-NN side, it’s clear that they are flat out liars. How can they seriously argue that Google and others want to dump all of the costs on consumers? They are trying to present themselves as passing the buck off to the Big Bad Content Providers rather than home users. Well, that is why they’re doing. They want to use the former to subsidize the latter.

]]>