I said in THIS case, it's how the market works. And it DOES work.. Do you have any evidence to suggest it doesn't?

Where I live, here's what the market looks like for cable broadband. There's Time-Warner and ... well, Time-Warner.

In Pennsylvania and many other East Coast states, it's Comcast and ... Comcast.

Out West, it's Qwest and ... Qwest.

Their business model is that they are regional monopolies able to charge whatever they want because they are ... well, regional monopolies.

So while I agree with you that increased competition would help, it's not a current alternative in many areas.

I'd also support efforts to break up or introduce more competition into the regional cable broadband arena if that's what you're arguing for.

Cheers
David

Now yer comparing Apples and Eskimos.. :D

Ok, ok. It's quite obvious we've reached a point where this has turned into a giant pissing match where neither of us wants to back down. I say this because you've pulled the "market is always good" card.

I never said the market is always good.

I said in THIS case, it's how the market works. And it DOES work.. Do you have any evidence to suggest it doesn't??

Comcast blocking Bittorrent Ports is NOT a good example, because there are other forces at work.. Comcast cannot come out and admit that they are in collusion with the RIAA and the MPIAA...

And, considering my own personal history in this regard, I am sure you can see why I would NOT side with them.. :D

Michale.....

63

There is absolutely no need for government interference.

Now where have I heard that before ... Hmmm. That sounds like what the banks and financial firms said when they wanted to deregulate the market in the name of giant Wall St profits.

Ok, ok. It's quite obvious we've reached a point where this has turned into a giant pissing match where neither of us wants to back down. I say this because you've pulled the "market is always good" card.

Earlier in the conversation, you at least acknowledged that maybe some govt regulation might be a good thing if it were to stop censorship. After all, these organizations act in many ways like utilities, as you mentioned.

So I'm going to step back and say that the sides, the FCC, people representing the NN movement, and the SPs (not us) could probably work this out and come to some sort of a compromise.

But here's what I think needs to happen:
- The SPs need to come clean and and talk about what the real issue is for them. It's not the fact that they can't innovate, it's not that they're at risk of losing hundreds of thousands of jobs, it's not the government taking over the world. I suspect the issue is video. And/or other Internet apps which are putting a strain on SP networks as you mentioned. But I'd want to see real data to show that this indeed is the case and not that they're just saying this in order to extract ever higher profits.
- The NN folks agree to negotiate and admit that it won't be the end of the world if some changes occur because the Internet has evolved since 1993.

If this happened, I think we could end up getting a truce in place that could benefit everyone for a long time to come. A Constitution of sorts for the Internet. And I think this would be a good thing.

What do you think, Michale? Anything else you'd want to see in a negotiation between the 3 sides?

Cheers
David

What's to stop ISPs from blocking content..

The answer to that is simple.

The Market..

If Comcast blocks Bittorrent protocols, then customers who want that service and are willing to pay for it will flock to other providers that DON'T block that content...

That's how the market works...

There is absolutely no need for government interference...

Do we HONESTLY need ANOTHER hundred or so government bureaucracies trying to regulate the Internet??

Of course we don't...

Michale.....

52

No...

ISPs want to be able charge more for premium services and block tangible content that is harmful to their networks and the health of the Internet in general...

That is the complete extent of what the ISP industry want...

And the ISPs DO have a valid point with regards to premium services.

Not so much with the blocking tangible content argument, but THAT argument is coming from groups like RIAA and MPIAA etc etc, not from the ISPs...

The ISPs would be pleased as punch to deliver all the bandwidth that protocols like Bittorrents etc etc (tangible content) need..

BUT, the ISPs want to be able to charge for the excessive usage...

It's really as simple as that...

Michale

51

I'm using the term "content" to refer to anything within an IP packet. Sorry, this is the network nerd in me.

I see your point. But I use the term "content" in the context of information. CW.COM, HuffPo, FNC, MSNBC....

But what you are referring are "tangible" items that you "physically" get from the Net. A movie, a TV show, a new game, etc etc...

Therein lies our issue...

NN will not do a thing to regulate "content" as I define it. As I said, I am certain there are regulations in place that cover this. If there isn't, there should be.

But NN won't address that. NN addresses the "tangible" items that you define as "content". And NN says that you would have to treat those "tangible" items the same as you treat the "content" even though they are radically different and it requires much more ISP resources to deliver the "tangible" content than it does to deliver the informational content..

And that won't be good for the Internet. It will reduce ALL content, tangible and information, down to the lowest common content which is informational. And ISPs and businesses won't see any profit in producing the tangible content because they won't be able to charge any more for it..

???? You've lost me w/ your analogy. So you're saying I shouldn't use my Internet connection for my pot farm or nuclear device?

I told you it wasn't a very good analogy..

But what I am saying is that if you get more and better tangible content from the Internet, you should pay more than the person who just gets regular informational content.

Think of it as Dial Up vs DSL..

You don't expect to pay the same for DSL as you do for Dial Up, right??

Why?? Because you get MORE with DSL ergo you pay more..

If NN is passed as the Democrats want it to pass, then ISPs won't be able to charge more for better services..

THAT's the bottom line...

No. I'm saying is that packets should be treated agnostically. And that SPs should not be able to determine priority of traffic.

Nice word usage.. :D "agnostically" :D

Using your position, all packets are equal. This is the fallacy of your argument. Actually, you are partially correct.. All packets in and of themselves are, technologically equal... But some packets do different things.. Some packets are part of an informational load that is 10+ GIGs (tangible content) whereas some packets are mere 100+ K (CW.COM)...

To put it into a different context, so you have two trucks. One can haul 500 lbs and one can haul 500 tons.. According to Net Neutrality, the dealer would have to charge the same for each truck...

I understand that you as an SP owner want this ability. So you are arguing for what's best for your business.

I don't charge for one of my WISPs and the other I am lucky to make $10 a week... So, whatever happens with NN, it won't affect my business one iota...

As for me personally.. Well my downloading is well-known around these here parts, so NN would actually be a PLUS for me. And for everyone else like me who get's everything they want from the Net for free...

But only for a while. Once the ISPs start losing business by being forced to give away premium access for the price of Dial Up, they will start dropping like flies. Going out of business. Laying off hundreds of thousands...

So, yes. NN is good for the consumer. Until such time as there is nothing left to consume..

- It's more government regulation. I want to know why is this bad.

So, you don't have a problem with the GOP being the ones in control of the Regulation??

Seriously?? :D

Michale.....

49

In this case, SPs want the ability to charge more and regulate content in any way they see fit. But this doesn't sound good. So they say it's gonna bring you "innovation". It's gonna bring you "quality". It's gonna bring you freedom and pointy hats and rainbows and unicorns.

It looks to me like it's going to bring higher prices (which you seem to agree with), slower traffic, and a pay-to-play Internet.

Cheers
David

I'm using the term "content" to refer to anything within an IP packet. Sorry, this is the network nerd in me.

If you use that electricity to power a pot farm or build a nuclear device, then you are going to run into trouble.

???? You've lost me w/ your analogy. So you're saying I shouldn't use my Internet connection for my pot farm or nuclear device?

I didn't even know my Internet connection could power my pot farm. Here, I've been using luminescent lights in my attic. :)

But what you don't realize is that Net Neutrality is the biggest block of Internet Regulation to come down the pipe since the Net became the Net... And it gives the GOVERNMENT the right to regulate it.

No. I'm saying is that packets should be treated agnostically. And that SPs should not be able to determine priority of traffic.

I understand that you as an SP owner want this ability. So you are arguing for what's best for your business.

That makes sense. But if you're going to say ...

- It creates innovation. You have to be able to show me an innovation that I want. All I see is a worse product that costs more.
- It creates quality. I need to see how.
- It's more government regulation. I want to know why is this bad.

Otherwise, it's marketing my friend. I don't see any innovation, I don't see any improvements in quality, and I don't see it as a giant government takeover.

Marketing is language w/o any substance behind it.

I wanted to drive this point home...

Do you really want the GOVERNMENT regulating the Internet??

Because, in about 2 years, it's likely that there will be a COMPLETE GOP Government in control again..

So any type of government regulation/interference you set up now will be likely given to the GOP in 2012.

So, be careful what you wish for. You just might get it, but not in the way you wanted it.

Michale.....

48

Interesting article on Comcast regulating the use of Bittorrent. This is the case that's sparked all the recent debate.

And therein lies the problem with your argument.

Bittorrent is a process, a protocol. It is NOT content.

Content is FoxNews or MSNBC or CW.COM or HuffingtonPost...

Bittorent or Skype or Yahoo Messenger are processes or protocols..

But, as I said, I DO understand your point. Your are likening the Net to a utility like electricity. If you pay for the Electricity, you should be able to use it for whatever you want to.

But you can't.. If you use that electricity to power a pot farm or build a nuclear device, then you are going to run into trouble.

I know, it's a crappy analogy, because electricity can only be used for one thing whereas all the things that make up the Net are as varied as the Net itself.

I run into that all the time in my computer shop. Drives me nuts.. People come in and complain that their "Internet" is not working.. They say that they can get email, they can do AIM or YAHOO Messenger, but their "Internet is just not working."

Of course, what they mean is that their web browser is not working... And, of course, I spend an hour explaining to them that "yes" their internet IS working, it's just the web browser that is not..

But I digest...

As I mentioned above, I believe we are arguing different things.

But let me ask the question in a different way.. Cable Internet Access operates in a different way than DSL. Without going into the technical aspects, DSL is "static" while Cable is "dynamic". What that means is that the less people that are on your Cable connection, the faster your speed will be..

So, would you think it would be fair if someone invented a process where they could throttle other people's connections to slow them down, thereby giving them a faster connection at everyone else's expense?

Of course, you will say that ISN'T fair. But under the proposed NN laws, that is EXACTLY what could happen. After all, this person is using what he paid for in any manner he chooses.

You are against regulating the Internet. But what you don't realize is that Net Neutrality is the biggest block of Internet Regulation to come down the pipe since the Net became the Net... And it gives the GOVERNMENT the right to regulate it.

Is that what you really want??

Michale.....

47

Interesting article on Comcast regulating the use of Bittorrent. This is the case that's sparked all the recent debate.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2362320,00.asp

I still can't find anything that would prevent ISPs from entering into exclusive deals with content providers to favor certain content over other.

you just haaaaad to make it a dog and cat issue, didn't you?

~joshua

The American people just showed Obama and the Democrats what elections are for..

Interestingly enough, Obama and the Democrats are missing the message...

AGAIN....

How many seats did the GOP gain in the House??

65

How many seats did the GOP lose in the House??

3

How many seats did the GOP gain in the Senate??

8

How many seats did the GOP lose in the Senate??

0

How many seats did the GOP gain in State Legislatures??

650

How many State Legislatures did the GOP turn?

13

How many Governorships did the GOP gain?

6

How many Governorships did the GOP gain??

10

How many Governorships did the GOP lose??

0

Now, seriously???

Is that a problem with the Democrat's *message*???

Or is that a problem with the Democrat's agenda???

What happened is EXACTLY what elections are for.. :D

Michale.....

45

Michale.....

45

Looks like it is you who is buying into the propaganda.. :D

Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

The ISPs want to be able to charge more for high-bandwidth activities...

Those who support NN want to tell the ISPs to charge the same, regardless of bandwidth...

As I said, I am a HUGE bandwidth hog.. I do all sorts of high bandwidth activities.. I would LOVE to be able to pay rock bottom prices for that..

But I recognize that, eventually, I will get what I pay for. Rock bottom prices means no new goodies or toys down the line...

Rock bottom prices means rock bottom quality...

THAT is what it all boils down to..

Exactly. Republicans have convinced Joe Six-Pack that Democrats are un-American, communist, socialist, godless, homosexual, big government, Muslims.

Yer missing the point. I don't know if it's on purpose or what.. :D

If YOU are right, then there might have been a win for the GOP here or a win for the GOP there...

But we're talking a complete and utter shellacking all up and down the political line. Federal AND State..

That's not marketing..

In other words, those evil corrupt Republicans didn't have to "convince" Joe Six-Pack of anything.

Joe Six-Pack saw it for himself...

Quite simple. Stand for something.

No...

Stand for the same thing that the Independents and NPA's stand for..

That's the ONLY way that Democrats can woo back Independents and NPAs...

But if Democrats do that, they will lose their base..

Pretty pickle the Democrats have gotten themselves in, eh?? :D

Michale.....

44

How can Democrats woo back the Independent and NPA vote?

Quite simple. Stand for something.

Very well said! wished I had thought of that.

I didn't know that. Very cool. Yeah, hopefully CW can advise.

I would think that a public "utility" such as a Net Provider would, by law, be required NOT to censor content.

That there's gubt intervention, dashgummit! :)

This definitely bears some more research. Would be great if it were the case, but I don't think there's anything like that in place.

I am thinking that we have two different subject matters here. To put it in a different context, you seem to be talking about voice calls whereas I am talking about VoiceCalls vs VideoPhone vs 3D Holography.

It's all IP traffic and IP protocols. Just depends on which layer you filter it at and route and prioritize it using.

But I get where you're going. 3D video would be a big jump in bandwidth. Though people thought that would be the case w/ voice and it ended up not consuming the Internet.

If you're a company that needs to view 3-D - like a hospital using the new 3D surgery technology released by Viking Systems - you're paying extra for some big pipes anyways. I think that's as it should be.

But SPs making the decision as to which content is most important is not cool. I want that to be me!

But if you were to ask Joe Six-Pack if he agrees with the Democratic Party agenda as a whole

Exactly. Republicans have convinced Joe Six-Pack that Democrats are un-American, communist, socialist, godless, homosexual, big government, Muslims.

That's marketing :)

How can Democrats woo back the Independent and NPA vote?

Quite simple. Stand for something.

Cheers
David

It's your call, but if CW is using paypal, I think he gets charged by paypal every time someone donates. Maybe a couple donations? Don't want you to get hit w/ a $500 bill either.

Ooooo Good point..

However, I think that PayPal has a special "donation" setup for donations whereas the recipient doesn't get a charge.. I know that when you send a "gift" to someone thru PayPal, they are not charged for the transaction. I think donations are set up similar...

Perhaps CW can provide some guidance on this...

If there really are laws in place to prevent politicization of content like I mentioned, then I've learned something new today. But I don't think there's anything to stop ISPs from doing this - except public outcry. Will have to research this more but your perspective as an ISP owner is interesting.

Granted, I don't have any first hand knowledge of this. My WISPs are such small-time, I don't worry myself with such things...

But, I would liken it to Public Access media like NPR only presenting one viewpoint and not allowing any other.... :D

OK... Bad example... :D

Seriously, I would think that a public "utility" such as a Net Provider would, by law, be required NOT to censor content..

Imagine if, say FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT made a deal with Costco and refused to provide power to WAL MART Stores... I would think such an action would be illegal..

And, while I don't have any evidence to support it, I would think that a public "utility" like Comcast can say they will provide access to GOOGLE but NOT to Microsoft..

I can definitely research it if that is really your concern..

I am thinking that we have two different subject matters here.. You are referring to content and I am referring to protocols..

To put it in a different context, you seem to be talking about voice calls whereas I am talking about VoiceCalls vs VideoPhone vs 3D Holography...

Oddly enough, I think you're about on the money. People think the Democratic agenda is bad

No, no, no...

Is it possible that Democrats lost the marketing war because their agenda IS bad. Not that people THINK it's bad. It IS bad...

Is that possible??

That is, until you start asking them about specific issues. Then, in a majority of cases, they'll agree w/ the Democratic position even if they didn't know it was the Democratic position.

I have (and will again) concede that there are a few issues of the Democratic Party agenda that the average American agrees with...

But if you were to ask the Joe Six-Pack if he agrees with the Democratic Party agenda as a whole, he would say, "HELL NO"...

That's not a marketing problem...

It's an agenda problem..

But, let me ask you this..

How can Democrats woo back the Independent and NPA vote???

Michale.....

43

It's your call, but if CW is using paypal, I think he gets charged by paypal every time someone donates. Maybe a couple donations? Don't want you to get hit w/ a $500 bill either.

Maybe I see their side because I run two ISPs right now.

Gotcha. I was looking at this from a consumer standpoint.

Say someone develops your 3d app. Right now, I can access it on my connection and it will be prioritized just like any other content. I'll be subject to my connection speed of course, but it doesn't get any special priority.

What the SPs want to do is be able to charge me more - just like you said - for this high-bandwidth app. None of this goes to the app maker of course. Just to the SP.

They want to charge me more for something I have now.

All the "innovation" seems to be innovation designed to help SPs make more money. Which is great if you're an SP! Especially a big SP. The Verizons and Comcasts of the world would reap the most benefit.

(Just for the record, I'd like to add the caveat that I'm talking about net neutrality in principle and not necessarily the Google/Verizon compromise.)

If there really are laws in place to prevent politicization of content like I mentioned, then I've learned something new today. But I don't think there's anything to stop ISPs from doing this - except public outcry. Will have to research this more but your perspective as an ISP owner is interesting.

Isn't it possible that Democrats lost the "marketing war" simply because their agenda IS bad?

Oddly enough, I think you're about on the money. People think the Democratic agenda is bad.

That is, until you start asking them about specific issues. Then, in a majority of cases, they'll agree w/ the Democratic position even if they didn't know it was the Democratic position.

That's good marketing, my friend. Getting people to vote against their own best interests takes powerful marketing. When people are blaming the government for the economic collapse instead of Wall St, that's powerful marketing. When people can be convinced to pay more money for something they already have, that's good marketing :)

Cheers
David

My initial plan was to simply mark my posts and then, at the end of the time frame, donate the stated $0.50 per post.

Then I realized that I might have a $500 bill due!! :D hehehehehehehehe

So, my plan is to make the donation ever 20 posts, there by tacking it down to $10 every few weeks (days!?? HOURS??? :D) rather than one big lump sum..

For those that have vowed to match my donations, it might make things easier for ya'all as well...

Just a thought...

Michale

42

Here's another example. Suppose your ISP enters into an exclusivity agreement with MSNBC. MSNBC wants to give their content priority. The SP could then restrict your access to Fox or other conservative sites.

There are already laws and regulations in place that prevent this sort of thing.

NN will not help this in the least because it's the same kind of content.

What we are discussing is different kinds of content.

Going to MSNBC or FOX doesn't use any more resources than one or the other.

However, downloading a bunch of movies or TV Shows (:D) DOES use a bunch more resources than going to MSNBC or FOX.

And THAT is what NN will have an impact on..

NN has nothing to do with Content.

It has everything to do with the TYPE of connections..

Sorry if getting rant-y here, Michale. It's not with you. But my marketing BS-o-meter is going off. I hear the cable companies saying "It's going to stifle innovation" and then they can't say how. That's a sure sign of marketing BS.

I have already shown exactly HOW it will stifle innovation.

Let's face it.. For the most part, people invent new things to make money..

If you take away the money incentive, then the vast majority of people who are in a position to invent new things simply won't..

I don't see how net neutrality would prevent this. They can still develop higher-bandwidth apps. And they can still charge for faster connection speeds.

No, they can't.. Because Net Neutrality won't LET ISPs charge more for higher bandwidth operations..

THAT's the whole point of Net Neutrality. To force ISPs to charge the same, regardless of the type of connection..

Ok, ok. I know you're just trying to say that the other side has a valid point. But I still don't see it. Looks like a bunch of marketing from the ISPs.

Maybe I see their side because I run two ISPs right now. Well, technically they are WISPs... But if NN becomes reality, I will have to charge the same whether a customer uses 5,000,000 GB of bandwidth or 5 GB of bandwidth.

And that's simply not fair. The people who use more should pay more.

It's really that simple.

NN will force the ISPs to charge the same, regardless of usage...

AND THAT is why it's wrong...

First, from a marketing and framing perspective. Democrats have lost this badly. Republicans have managed to bring back their "small government" mojo and have painted Democrats as for "big government".

I reject this explanation completely..

Isn't it possible that Democrats lost the "marketing war" simply because their agenda IS bad??

The vast majority of Americans see Democrats as "big government", not because the GOP told them so, but rather because the American people saw it for themselves..

You are falling into the "Obama" trap...

"If only I would have explained it better, THEN the people would be for it."

The people understood the "explanation" just fine.

They just don't like it.. Period...

THAT is what the Mid-Terms was all about.. It wasn't about framing or marketing or perspective.

It was simply about that the American People saw the Democrats' plans and the American People did not like them..

I realize that this explanation doesn't sit well with the Left, but it's the only explanation that fits all the facts...

And now, the Democrats' plan is to tack MORE to the Left...

And THAT will attract the Independents and NPAs???

Seriously??? :D

Again, it's the Pelosi Syndrome rearing it's head..

Michale.....

41

If I'm paying for an 8MB connection, I'd think you should be allowed to use that 8MB for whatever you want. Video, audio, whatever. I'm not using any more ISP resources.

But perhaps video is a bad example. Because video will tend to use most of your 8MB while other sources wouldn't.

Here's another example. Suppose your ISP enters into an exclusivity agreement with MSNBC. MSNBC wants to give their content priority. The SP could then restrict your access to Fox or other conservative sites.

Sorry if getting rant-y here, Michale. It's not with you. But my marketing BS-o-meter is going off. I hear the cable companies saying "It's going to stifle innovation" and then they can't say how. That's a sure sign of marketing BS.

It's people like this guy that make me angry:
http://precursorblog.com/content/why-deregulated-broadband-public-interest

A lot of BS about "free markets" and the Constitution yet the guy can't tell you how it would be good for anyone but ISPs.

Let's say you invented a kewl new process that brings Glasses-Less 3D video to a person's home computer via the Web. But the process requires a 150Mbs connection.

I don't see how net neutrality would prevent this. They can still develop higher-bandwidth apps. And they can still charge for faster connection speeds.

But this is more like them saying, we're going to determine which content has higher priority and even which can be blocked.

"Don't tread on my Interwebs!" :)

Ok, ok. I know you're just trying to say that the other side has a valid point. But I still don't see it. Looks like a bunch of marketing from the ISPs.

How can ANYONE claim that the American people support the Democratic Party agenda?

I think you have to look at this in a couple of different ways, Michale.

First, from a marketing and framing perspective. Democrats have lost this badly. Republicans have managed to bring back their "small government" mojo and have painted Democrats as for "big government".

But if you look at the issues and talk to people about issues, people tend to agree with the positions Democrats are taking. Trouble is, people don't usually vote based on policy positions. They vote based on perceptions about what people stand for. And c'mon. I'm surprised you're not laughing at this point because I'm using "Democrat" and "stand for" in the same sentence :)

Cheers
David

Why don't you try some explaining and tell us all what you think accounted for the California exception of the midterms.

California...

'nuff said.. :D

Despite the glorious lack of a word limit around here, feel free to post your answer in non-brief, multiple parts. :)

"Schneeeeky, schneeeky...
-Butler, MR DEEDS

40

Why don't you try some explaining and tell us all what you think accounted for the California exception of the midterms.

Despite the glorious lack of a word limit around here, feel free to post your answer in non-brief, multiple parts. :)

Ya'all seem to think that the American people are not "FOR" the GOP, they are simply against the Democrats..

"A difference which makes no difference IS no difference."
-Commander Spock

But how do ya'all explain not only the "shellacking" that Democrats received at the Federal level, but also at the State level.

Republicans added over 650 seats in state legislatures across the country. In 13 states, legislatures switched from Democrat control to Republican control.

Governor races went to Republicans 29 to 19 with the GOP picking up TEN new states.

Given all these FACTS (and yes, they are FACTS) how can ANYONE claim that the American people support the Democratic Party agenda??

Michale.....

39

If you can understand higher connection speed prices then you should be able to understand higher prices for higher end content.

If I want to watch video on my connection, it should have the same level of service as audio, or as HTML, etc. The company shouldn't be determining what content I use.

You use more of the ISP's resources (bandwidth) when you watch a video than you do when you post here to CW.COM. Just like I use more of the ISP's resources when I have a 22Mbs connection than I do with my 8Mbs connection.. Since I use more resources, I have to pay more.

I don't see any innovation. How would an SP de-prioritizing video be a better "innovation"?

Let's say you invented a kewl new process that brings Glasses-Less 3D video to a person's home computer via the Web. But the process requires a 150Mbs connection. The companies that build networks and such would have to pay oodles of money to put in the infrastructure to support your process, but would not be able to charge customers for this premium content.

So your invention is not put into practice, because it's a losing proposition to put in the infrastructure to support it.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your points and they are valid points.

I simply say that the other side of the issue ALSO has valid points.

Michale.....

38

How?

If anything, I'd think that the SPs would be stifling innovation because they would have the ability to control what type of content gets what priority.

For example, say they think you should be paying more to watch video. They could then de-prioritize your video content.

I pay about $30 a month for an 8 megabit connection at home, but I pay about $100 for a 22Mbs connection at my shop.

Higher connection speed prices I can understand. But what the SPs want to be able to do is to tell you what you can and can't see using your connections.

They want the ability to prioritize your content. It's not about rich/poor. But should the SP have the right to prioritize which content you watch?

If I want to watch video on my connection, it should have the same level of service as audio, or as HTML, etc. The company shouldn't be determining what content I use.

I don't see any innovation. How would an SP de-prioritizing video be a better "innovation"?

But if you want crappier and more expensive Internet service, I guess it's your right to ask for it! :)

-David

For the record, the Giants will be losing to Jacksonville next weekend. :D

Michale.....

37

Both sides of the argument do have logical points.

On the one hand, your point is good. The Net should remain free of such control where only the rich get the best of the Net..

On the other hand, such a move would stifle innovation. Why would anyone want to innovate or create something new, if it's going to be reduced to the lowest common denominator, price wise.

Further, we already pay more for better services and such a pricing structure is simply a logical extension of that. I pay about $30 a month for an 8 megabit connection at home, but I pay about $100 for a 22Mbs connection at my shop. It's not logical to expect that I would get the much faster connection for the same price as a slower connection.

So, I think the idea of Net Neutrality should be approached with a sense of keeping the Net as non-regulated as possible, but have some common sense about letting the market innovate and charge appropriately for it.

Giants losing to the Eagles ... tryptophan kicking in ... getting sleepy.

Although they didn't deserve it, the Jags pulled out a win against Cleveland.. SIX turnovers!!! Thank gods, the defense was unusually effective. They forced a three and out on 4 of the 6.

What's even better is that both Tennessee and and Indianapolis lost so that puts the Jags in a tie for 1st in the division. :D Woot!!

Michale.....

A few ramblings ...

Republicans playing politics with American security ... nice, CW. Though I cringed when you said "Joe-mentum".

Good to see the independent house ethics committee come out against Charlie Rangel. Too bad Mr. New Speaker Boehner wants to get rid of this group. Not a promising start, John.

Here's an area where - and I can't believe I'm saying this :) - I agree with the Tea Party. They want to keep and strengthen the committee.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/11/18/Boehner-walks-fine-line-on-ethics-office/UPI-36991290126183/

Thanks for the link, Kevin. It inspired much round-the-table after-Turkey talk. As Liz mentioned, we're conducting an informal fund drive for CW. During this drive, we'll match funds up to the 1st $250 of donations.

net neutrality

I'd hope you'd want net neutrality, Michale. Otherwise, service providers are going to give you the lowest level of service possible unless you pay for a higher tiered service.

Imagine waiting for minutes for CW's site to come up! Sounds like a return to dial-up days :) Simply follow the money to see who's backing this.

Giants losing to the Eagles ... tryptophan kicking in ... getting sleepy.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ....
-David

You DID pick some issues that Americans would agree with..

Unfortunately for Democrats, those few issues are probably the ONLY common ground available.

As I said above, if Democrats were smart politically, they would hold these common ground issues and push them thru when the GOP controls the House.

One issue I notice that you haven't touched on..

The issue of Net Neutrality..

What's your position on that?? Just curious...

Michale.....

34

I stand corrected;rather distracted today.:/

Kevin thanks for the link;even the cat who thinks she owns me liked it.

Glad you liked it Michale, and thanks for checking it out.

It was great.. I printed it off for the wife too, and she loved it...

Americulchie,

Thanks for that link;it provided me with a smile in a otherwise gruesome week.

As much as I would like to take credit for it, that was ALL Kevin.. :D

Michale.....

33

Ok, that was funny!

I have a similar cartoon on my fridge. It has a dog and a cat, both with thought balloons over their heads. It is titled: "If we could read their minds."

Dog balloon: (empty)

Cat balloon: "I have so many brilliant ideas running through my head right now, I'm going to have to pace myself."

Heh.

-CW

I'm not exactly what you'd call a pet lover, but that link you provided was pretty funny!

So, what's wrong with the Balloon Juice crowd? Wait a second ... Balloon Juice? Never mind ... :)

By the way, I trust you've heard about David's Fall Fund Drive for Chris ... it seems to be off to a great start!

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/index.php/2010/11/16/cats-vs-dogs/

"I don't care who you are, that right thar was funny as hell, I tell yooo what."
-Larry The Cable Guy

:D

Michale

32

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/index.php/2010/11/16/cats-vs-dogs/

Are we all agreed that Democrats lost Independents and NPAs massively this election?

Can we at least agree on that??

Michale

31

Well, Democrats make up less than half of these United States..

Perhaps Democrats should worry less about Democrats and more about Americans, eh?? :D

I think with about the same dissatisfaction with both parties, compromise is what the american people want,

I would dispute that American voters gave the Democrats a "shellacking" because they wanted the GOP to compromise with the Democrats.

The American people want the GOP to STOP the Democrats and their agenda, not compromise over it..

If the Democrats didn't learn that lesson by the last shellacking, I am sure the American people will be happy to show them again in 2012... :D

Michale.....

30

Of course, you continue to assume what others think...

I meant Democrats. If Liberals are a mere 20% then nothing that is "liberal" would ever get passed in the house. If you look at Pelosi's record of getting stuff passed, it's much better than that.

What is popular with the American people? Are we talking the 42% that voted? Do you know what the non-voting 58% thinks? Or maybe the slightly less than 50% that voted for the other guy? Or the slightly more than 50% that voted for the winner?

There is no "Popularity with ALL Americans" Because at any one time right around half plus or minus think the exact opposite.

Either Boehner is going to learn to compromise or he will see all his bills die in the Senate. A filibuster is a two way street, though I think that will be rare as anything to extreme will quietly die long before it reaches the Senate floor. Just because Liberals no longer identify themselves with that word does not mean they have all become conservatives.

I think with about the same dissatisfaction with both parties, compromise is what the american people want, or maybe just the 35% of moderates...

By "peeps", of course you mean Liberals..

Funny thing about that. Liberals make up a small percentage of the population of the United States. What was it?? Something like 20%??

So, popularity with "peeps" is not the goal. Popularity with ALL Americans *SHOULD* be the goal.

Sadly, Democrats fail to learn this lesson over and over despite being told by the American people. Over and over and over again.

Soon it will be replaced with "The Boehner Syndrome" but will pretty much be exactly the same thing.

Any quatloos on that?? :D

Michale.....

29

The Pelosi Syndrome....

Symptoms of The Pelosi Syndrome (AKA TPS or the "Seriously???" Syndrome) are a complete and utter denial of reality even after said reality reaches out and Gibbs-smacks the sufferer of the syndrome upside the head. Other symptoms include a nearly overwhelming desire to fiddle when in the presence of severe conflagrations..

It's gonna be a fun two years.. :D

On another, unrelated note.... I would like to encourage everyone and anyone who enjoys CW.COM and follow Liz's lead and match my post total/donation. You can see the number of my posts in Italics after my... er... "sig" (such as it is)

Now, for those who aren't regulars here at CW.COM, you might wonder why should you donate?

To answer this, I invite you to take a gander at some other Left Wing blogging sites.. With no exception, those sites are what is known as "Head Stomping" sites.

Don't believe me? Here's a little test for you to try.. Go over to a certain site (identified by babies wrapped in cellophane... Funny, iddn't it :^/) site and post, "Ya know, Sarah Palin really isn't all that bad. She is a fellow American after all and should be give that respect at least"... Then watch how fast your head gets stomped.. Or, point out the hypocrisy of Elvis who whines and cries about the "violent" Right Wing and then suggests that everyone declare "Jihad" on the Right..

This is but one example of how other sites handle dissent. They "Head Stomp" anyone who speaks against the Echo Chamber..

But, not here at CW.COM. Here at CW, you can speak your mind. You don't have to worry about being banned or censored just because your opinion is different from other people. As long as you are respectful of others as human beings and you attack the message and not the messenger, you will always have fun and be welcome here at CW.COM..

And THAT is why everyone who reads here, everyone who posts here, everyone who enjoys this site should match my post/donation..

OK, enough of all this serious stuff. I am tearing up here.. :D

Michale.....

28

It was a pretty good week for Democrats ... with the promise of a few more good weeks before the end of the year.

And, on that happy note, enjoy your long overdue and much deserved break from all of this!