Comments on: Government thinks it can “preserve” Internet

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 05:48:16 +0000

This goes both ways. The mantra that regulation will somehow choke investment is endlessly looped like a broken record. What about the reverse?

We already have evidence that internet providers are "gaming" the system. Comcast seems to be a virtual poster child of playing games with it's internet traffic euphemistically referred to as "Traffic Shaping" in the hopes that people won't notice that these actions are a violation of net-neutrality. In response to Comcast's unethical behavior, Ed Felten wrote: "All of which – surprise surprise – confirms my position on net neutrality: there is a risk of harmful behavior by ISPs, but writing and enforcing neutrality regulation is harder than it looks, and non-regulatory forces may constrain ISPs enough." As of now, I don't know if "non-regulatory forces may constrain ISPs enough", the point being that "harmful behavior" has willfully been demonstrated. Talking of willfull harmful behavior, Mike Masnick wrote an article titled: Can A Phone Service Provider Block Calls To Numbers It Doesn't Like?. In refernce to Magic Jack, Mike wrote: "In the past, of course, the FCC has indicated that it's a violation of federal rules to disallow phone calls to get through just because you don't like the numbers being dialed, and it seems that when you promise people free unlimited local and long distance phone calls throughout the US, then you need to live up to that promise.".

So before tossing out the anti-regulatory diatribe, ask the question, are the internet providers being honest and transparent? If you don't want to be regulated, you have the free will to follow net neutrality concepts. Since private industry has the free will live up to its promises, it can save the internet without government interference.

By: Bytes in the Margin :: Can the government impose Net Neutrality?

Bytes in the Margin :: Can the government impose Net Neutrality? — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:27:37 +0000

[...] their lobbying efforts on currying favor with the FCC.TLF breaks down the whole announcement, Government thinks it can “preserve” Internet, scrutinizing the major arguments made by FCC Chariman Julius [...]

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:48:16 +0000

This goes both ways. The mantra that regulation will somehow choke investment is endlessly looped like a broken record. What about the reverse?

We already have evidence that internet providers are "gaming" the system. Comcast seems to be a virtual poster child of playing games with it's internet traffic euphemistically referred to as "Traffic Shaping" in the hopes that people won't notice that these actions are a violation of net-neutrality. In response to Comcast's unethical behaviour, Ed Felten wrote: "All of which – surprise surprise – confirms my position on net neutrality: there is a risk of harmful behavior by ISPs, but writing and enforcing neutrality regulation is harder than it looks, and non-regulatory forces may constrain ISPs enough." As of now, I don't know if "non-regulatory forces may constrain ISPs enough", the point being that "harmful behavior" has willfully been demonstrated. Talking of willfull harmful behavior, Mike Masnick wrote an article titled: Can A Phone Service Provider Block Calls To Numbers It Doesn't Like?. In refernce to Magic Jack, Mike wrote: "In the past, of course, the FCC has indicated that it's a violation of federal rules to disallow phone calls to get through just because you don't like the numbers being dialed, and it seems that when you promise people free unlimited local and long distance phone calls throughout the US, then you need to live up to that promise.".

So before tossing out the anti-regulatory diatribe, ask the question, are the internet providers being honest and transparent? If you don't want to be regulated, you have the free will to be honest and not give the government the opportunity to regulate.