http://pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2351739,00.asp

But in another article he says its needed:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334686,00.html

The apparent contradiction is resolved by the lack of clear of definition what “net neutrality” is…

Unlike you liberals, who now trust Government will always act in your interest (talk about blind faith), I suspect sinister motives…

There is too much crap happening now…the Establishment Media won’t report Government abuse…and there is figuratively reams of it…

Our “watchdogs” are now lapdogs…I’d rather see the independence of the press restored…before fundamental rules are changed by the government.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/24/mccain-internet-freedom/

…

Last night on Rachel Maddow’s show, Boing Boing co-editor Xeni Jardin explained the problem with McCain’s legislation:
Telecoms, Internet service providers — they already have a kind of monopoly. The idea here [with net neturality] is to prevent them from abusing that monopoly. … They want freedom all right. They want to find new ways to charge us more money. [...]
Whenever there’s a fight on the Internet, it’s always good to side with the geeks who built the Internet, rather than the fat-cat telecom lobbyists.

What’s the matter Alfred? Now you got something against Hawaiian shaman?

No wonder you’ve never got leid.

“Kahunas?”

Case closed.

Only 1 backbone. OWNED by the telco.

Why not create another backbone?? WHO made/built/paid for the original?? YOU PAID FOR IT. And it took 50-70 years.

Is the INTERNET, really a NET?? nope. Its like a ball of string with a few Knots in it to connect each of the pieces.

remember, CORPS pay for nothing. it comes from your pocket, be it, the Gov or a corp. The GOV will probably do it ALLOT cheaper/quicker/.. and build it to MAX spec. and upgradable.

Main problem with MOST of the tech?? there are advancements that could kill the Telco.
WE COULD take 2 fiber cables to EVERY HOME and …
Supply power
Cable TV with channels from around the world.
Internet access to 100mbps
Wireless access by AREA of the town, not 100 feet away.
Mini Cell tower on each home, insted of a GIANT tower every 5 miles.

With just THESE options/upgrades, we are hitting the power/cellphone/TV/satellite/Telco/internet industries. Even tho 1/2 of ALL these companies are already OWNED by the same group(or didnt you know that).

If we are going to regulate, LETS force them to UPGRADE the whole system.
If NOT..then lets tell the GOV. to UPGRADE the system, then FORCE the corps to PAY us for it.
Either way, WE/You and me, are going to be ALLOT poorer..

While you liberals believe letting the Wolf in sheep’s clothing into the hen house is good for the hens…I do not:

http://foxnews.com/opinion/2009/10/05/phil-kerpen-obama-internet-czar-acorn/

Proponents of net neutrality rely on the scare tactic that big bad cable and phone companies will block access to Web sites and cause other mischief unless the benevolent federal government rides to the rescue, and soon. But they’ve been ringing this alarm for the better part of a decade and none of the horrors they warn us about have happened. There is a simple reason—these companies are in an intense competition, especially in the wireless space, which is as cutthroat as any industry in America. If one company tried to block access to Web sites or engage in other mischief, they would lose their customers in droves to the competition.

Net neutrality regulations would destroy private investment and we would end up with a government-owned and controlled network. We’ll have nowhere to go if the government turns out to be not quite as benevolent as some have hoped. That’s a frightening scenario and we should do everything we can to stop the net neutrality regulation that would start us down that path.

###

That’s the pivot point…benevolent or malevolent? Which is Government?

I see Government as the founding fathers do…hence our “charter of negative rights”-Obama…the Constitution does not allow the Government screw us, it says so in writing.

There was a time when liberals distrusted Government…now that it lies to them every day about everything…that time has ceased…you “liberalism” should be renamed, its now “lapdogism.”

Both Beck and McCain are men of integrity…and we ignore their warnings at our peril.

If you want a neutral network, build your own. Raise capital, hire engineers, construction crews, sales people, marketing people, call centers, etc. Then lawyers to negotiate peering agreements, secure the “public” rights of way, pole attachments, etc.

At some point, you’ll realize it’s cheaper to lease fiber from the telcos, but not so cheap that you’ll make money without having a few thousand people’s traffic traversing that (somewhat) thin pipe you’re paying Qwest, AT&T and Verizon for.

The telcos don’t do anything to your traffic, other than mix it on to their SONET network, or if you feel like paying enough (like Level3, Sprint and MCI), you’ll get dark fiber in their sheath. You can terminate only where they say you can, which is usually somewhere near a railroad track. hopefully you’ll not need to get service to the other side of the tracks, because the railroads only let you cross at specific places, usually no where near where you need to be.

And what the heck is this public Internet anyway? Most traffic is handled through private peering agreements these days, not through MAEs. That’s one reason Google has such low latency: they peer directly with the ISPs. Will the FCC interfere with private peering agreements (contracts)? Dangerous precedent, slippery slope, whatever.

And remember, just because you like the guys in charge now, doesn’t mean they’ll be around in 4 years…

Cojones, anyone?

Kahunas are Hawaiian shamans (shamen?)

Sorry, qb. I did enjoy your posts, though.