Forums | MacLife

There are, I suppose, thoughtful observers out there.

But thoughtful conservative observers? They're mythical.

The is a solution in search of a problem.

Net neutrality isn't needed.

As far as I can tell, the only things ISP's have done to intentionally throttle "competition" is the throttling of P2P - and let's face it, P2P is largely used for illegal activity and uses more bandwidth than anything else.

If you pay per byte transfered, then you should expect neutrality.
We don't pay per byte transfered, we pay a monthly fee for a service. The only way to keep bandwidth available for all customers in some cases is to throttle the P2P networks.

Don't want your P2P throttled, buy a business account where you pay per byte. Problem solved.

Now - if say AT&T who is in bed with Apple starts throttling Amazon MP3 traffic, then Amazon can file suit about fair business practices, I suspect there already are applicable laws on the books.

But throttling P2P - cry me a river.

We don't need net neutrality laws. Negotiate the terms of your contract when you buy your service. If residential service isn't good enough, buy commercial.

This net neutrality stuff seems to me to be largely people whining about wanting to make sure their ISP's continue to pay for the bandwidth needed for their piracy.

I'm a conservative. What am I suppose to be turned against?

Last edited by resedit (2009-10-27 9:49 pm)

Tim Lee is just a pirate.

Last edited by Tallgeese (2009-10-27 10:27 pm)

It is you who said so.

This net neutrality stuff seems to me to be largely people whining about wanting to make sure their ISP's continue to pay for the bandwidth needed for their piracy.

Notice the phrase "largely" - whether he personally pirates or not, I do not know (or care).
His arguments seem to be idealogical arguments about problems that just simply don't exist.

As I said - a solution without a problem.

Last edited by resedit (2009-10-27 10:12 pm)

user wrote:

They're just a bunch of hippies.

It doesn't matter WHAT they want to use the internet for, what's important is that ISPs can't discriminate between websites for high speed access.

Which is what net neutrality is about, not p2p throttling.

Tallgeese wrote:

user wrote:

They're just a bunch of hippies.

It doesn't matter WHAT they want to use the internet for, what's important is that ISPs can't discriminate between websites for high speed access.

Which is what net neutrality is about, not p2p throttling.

Show me an example of an actual problem net neutrality would fix that doesn't involve blocked ports and/or P2P.

You know what they call not anticipating future problems?

Stupidity.

So you are acknowledging that there isn't a problem this would solve.

There's a word for that. Paranoia.

Let me explain one possible outcome of this.
ISP's will no longer be allowed to throttle P2P traffic. In order to cut costs, they will change their contracts to monthly fee + bandwidth costs.

This will result in parents needing to limit what access their children have to Internet for simple economic reasons, just like many parents now deny Internet access on their children's cell phones due to cost.

Your noble solution to a problem that doesn't exist very well may end up stifling legitimate information exchange and the ability for kids to do adequate research from home.

In utopia it isn't an issue. However, we live in the real world.

Now there's no more Oak oppression, for they passed a noble law.
The trees are all kept equal, by hatchet, axe, and saw.
- Rush

Thank you.
Communism never entered this thread.