WOW just saw the anti net-neutrality "mumbo jumbo" ad

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Using the grocery store analogy from before, it'd be like if one of the truckers that delivers the product to the store decided to open every box in his truck, and not deliver any boxes with cheese in it until 2 days later unless the dairy farmers send him a check. Then add in the fact that every box has to travel on at least 3 different trucks on the way to the store, and you never know when that renegade cheese hating truck driver might be one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if that happened, how long do you think it would take for someone to offer "we deliver when you want it delivered" service and get all the cheese business (along with the business of all the other guys who don't want truckers opening their boxes)?

[/ QUOTE ]
A very long time, considering the new company would have to replicate the entire Internet backbone from point A to point B,

[/ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]
redesign how the web works to make sure packets stayed on their equipment,

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Routers are software-updatable in minutes.

[ QUOTE ]
and get it out to everybody who "doesn't want the truckers opening thier boxes".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that would be hard. You'd be looking for someone, wouldn't you?

[ QUOTE ]
That's measured in the trillions of dollars, and I think it'll take you awhile to save up that kind of scratch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trillions? Just pulling numbers out of... where?

So your answer is "I think freedom is hard (or, at least, I personally can't think of how people will cope under such conditions), so instead we should use force and tell everyone else what to do (according to my personal preferences, of course)". And of course, what underlies this is the implication that if you can't think of some way to do something, nobody else can, either.

Wow. What a dismal, misanthropic, pessimistic, defeatist worldview.

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The US is 12th in internet access. 12th.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't mean anything relevant. It's more likely due to our culture viewing certain behaviors as "nerdy" and/or a disproportionate number of old people who aren't "getting with the times" than anything else. Are you suggesting forcing people to get high speed Internet who don't want it in order to correct this?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am suggesting that the telcos promised high speed access in order to get concessions, then they renegged on the deal.

[Meech]

pvn, if you think that the current internet backbone can be replaced by satellite, you are sadly mistaken.

[Meech]

Links of interest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j668eaTvCrE

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060702108.html

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonam...eutrality.html

http://www.newnetworks.com/scandalquotes.htm

[Barcalounger]

[ QUOTE ]

Trillions? Just pulling numbers out of... where?


[/ QUOTE ]
I was just basing them from proffesional experience. I did a quick google search on Telecom hardware and found this in a heritage.org article against public ownership of telecom:
[ QUOTE ]
At the end of 1996, the ILECs' gross PP&E stood at more than $307 billion, and their net PP&E stood at nearly $135 billion. From 1996 through 2002, the ILECs invested nearly $236 billion in new capital.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Int...ogy/bg1745.cfm
ILEC's are just the baby bells, PP&E is the tangible fixed property. So you're in the neighborhood of $350-$600 billion with the legacy + new stuff up until 2002 for one of many backbone carriers.
[ QUOTE ]
So your answer is "I think freedom is hard (or, at least, I personally can't think of how people will cope under such conditions), so instead we should use force and tell everyone else what to do (according to my personal preferences, of course)". And of course, what underlies this is the implication that if you can't think of some way to do something, nobody else can, either.

Wow. What a dismal, misanthropic, pessimistic, defeatist worldview.

[/ QUOTE ]
Misrepresentation and namecalling. Sigh. I guess trying to get a reasonable and intelligent debate out of you on this topic was probably hopeless from the beginning. Net neutrality is a very complicated subject and there are many great arguments against this type of regulation. Sadly, the fear-mongering TV ad in the OP and your text quoted above might have too much in common.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
pvn, if you think that the current internet backbone can be replaced by satellite, you are sadly mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's one option. There are others. There wouldn't be one single "replacement". Lots of different things are used, and would be used. And the suggestion that the "entire internet" would have to be reproduced is flat-out wrong, anyway.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Trillions? Just pulling numbers out of... where?


[/ QUOTE ]
I was just basing them from proffesional experience. I did a quick google search on Telecom hardware and found this in a heritage.org article against public ownership of telecom:
[ QUOTE ]
At the end of 1996, the ILECs' gross PP&E stood at more than $307 billion, and their net PP&E stood at nearly $135 billion. From 1996 through 2002, the ILECs invested nearly $236 billion in new capital.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Int...ogy/bg1745.cfm
ILEC's are just the baby bells, PP&E is the tangible fixed property. So you're in the neighborhood of $350-$600 billion with the legacy + new stuff up until 2002 for one of many backbone carriers.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we're not talking about reproducing "one of many" backbone carriers. The fact that there are already "many" others means the competition is *already there*. And note that even if we *are* talking about reproducing one fo these guys you're looking at costs for the entire operation, which includes a lot of stuff we're not talking about here.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So your answer is "I think freedom is hard (or, at least, I personally can't think of how people will cope under such conditions), so instead we should use force and tell everyone else what to do (according to my personal preferences, of course)". And of course, what underlies this is the implication that if you can't think of some way to do something, nobody else can, either.

Wow. What a dismal, misanthropic, pessimistic, defeatist worldview.

[/ QUOTE ]
Misrepresentation and namecalling.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's misrepresented?

[ QUOTE ]
I think it'll take you awhile to save up that kind of scratch.

[/ QUOTE ]

"I can't figure this out, so it's impossible."

[ QUOTE ]
Net neutrality is a very complicated subject

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. You want to tell other people what business model to use. That's pretty much all there is to it.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People have the individual freedom to go where they want, say what they want, and do consensual business with whoever they want.

...

Now there's a proposed government regulation to keep The Internet that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

By forcing people to do business in an open market. Very consensual.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

It what universe is a market where business models are dictated to participants only "approved" models are allowed) an "open" market? Talk about misrepresentation.

Black is white. Up is down.

[Meech]

The funny/ironic thing here is that the usual suspects who are against monopolies, are lobbying for monopolies in this case.

[ QUOTE ]

The smell of windfall profits is in the air in Washington. The phone companies are pulling out all the stops to legislate themselves monopoly power. They're spending tens of millions of dollars on inside-the-Beltway print, radio and TV ads; high-priced lobbyists; coin-operated think tanks; and sham "Astroturf" groups -- fake grass-roots operations with such Orwellian names as Hands Off the Internet and NetCompetition.org.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Barcalounger]

[ QUOTE ]
But we're not talking about reproducing "one of many" backbone carriers. ... And note that even if we *are* talking about reproducing one fo these guys you're looking at costs for the entire operation, which includes a lot of stuff we're not talking about here.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're missing something here, and it's a very fundamental to the way the web is designed. Do a trace route and notice how many different companies your packets pass through. Then realize that next time you do it, it could very well pass through a bunch of completely different companies. Your idea of controlling the process from point A to point B is flawed.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So your answer is "I think freedom is hard (or, at least, I personally can't think of how people will cope under such conditions), so instead we should use force and tell everyone else what to do (according to my personal preferences, of course)". And of course, what underlies this is the implication that if you can't think of some way to do something, nobody else can, either.

Wow. What a dismal, misanthropic, pessimistic, defeatist worldview.

[/ QUOTE ]
Misrepresentation and namecalling.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's misrepresented?


[/ QUOTE ]
You admit the namecalling? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]