| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (146)

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:44PM Dblade said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Seraphina, the problem though is whether or not unlimited usage and net neutrality is possible in a profit sense. If the FCC keeps neutrality standard, and it isn't just greedy businesses-they want to throttle traffic due to real bandwidth concerns, you will just succeed in either driving ISPs out of business or making the government ultimately the only one providing net access through a single carrier.

I'm not up on the technical aspects of this, but you have to admit bandwidth usage has exploded, with people watching movies and television online, as well as downloading complete games and other high-gig media. I think for net neutrality to be valid there also has to be the capacity to give unlimited use for a reasonable profit. If there isn't, it wont matter because legislation cant change the reality of doing business, something our EU friends need to learn.

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 5:27PM Eamil said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
She isn't necessarily saying that we SHOULD have both a free, unrestricted internet and one with unlimited bandwidth. As I read it, she's actually pointing out that bandwidth restrictions would be the cost of a guaranteed "net neutrality"-enabled internet.

A couple of comments have pointed out that this may not necessarily be true but that's not something I have the kind of knowledge to agree or disagree with myself. It's an interesting thing to consider though.
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I'm sorry but I can't understand anyone who would take Glenn Beck seriously.

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:46PM Ryn said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Amazing how I get called names and my commitment to this country is called in to question because i refuse to drink the kool aid. I never name called or even put in a bad light the opposing view. Most people name call when their argument starts to fall apart, hence what we have here.

Some just want to watch the world burn.

Why are the FOUNDING FATHERS so quickly discarded in the argument? These men fought for us. They are why we have what we do.

I may not agree with opposing views, but i do respect them. Will I stop reading Sera's articles because we disagree? Of course not. That would be petty.

The lack of tolerance for the opposition is embarrassing to say the least. Stop embarrassing yourselves.
Adams and Jefferson did not see things the same way, yet in the end they did manage to have respect for one another.

Net Neutrality? I'm all for it, but How can we have such a thing when every issue is debated like this? Who would be the "Neutral" party responsible? A crime on top of a crime does not equal justice.

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
What exactly do you think the founding fathers have to do with this discussion? I'm pretty sure "net neutrality" wasn't in the cards when TJ was drafting the Declaration of Independence. Trying to reconcile today's world with what the founding fathers thought, said, wrote or did is the most idiotic and futile endeavor one can undertake. I can safely say at least the founding fathers didn't fight for independence so that modern Americans could enjoy their right to be dumbasses.
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 5:02PM Thac0 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Adams and Jefferson's ideas were applicable to a small agrarian society of elites with limited technology. Their ideas if taken literally are severely outdated.
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 5:30PM Eamil said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"Amazing how I get called names and my commitment to this country is called in to question because i refuse to drink the kool aid."

If you're talking about the responses to your earlier comment, they all looked pretty civil to me... What did I miss?
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 5:00PM Matix said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Corporate vs. Government interests... greedy individualism vs. power-mad collectivism... no matter who wins, it's on our backs.

As a semi-serious student of politics and the law, I'd say we need to lobby to demand standards set in stone that neither corporations nor bueracrats could shift at a whim but that's just me.

As an aside Seraphina, you may wanna recheck your sources... or scrap them outright, because if the FCC got the kind of power/control it claimed in the briefs to have, it could do just as Mr. Beck suggests if the FCC so chose. If your sources are worth anything they should have links to the court documents.

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:49PM Ryn said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Amazing how I get called names and my commitment to this country is called in to question because i refuse to drink the kool aid. I never name called or even put in a bad light the opposing view. Most people name call when their argument starts to fall apart, hence what we have here.

Some just want to watch the world burn.

Why are the FOUNDING FATHERS so quickly discarded in the argument? These men fought for us. They are why we have what we do.

I may not agree with opposing views, but i do respect them. Will I stop reading Sera's articles because we disagree? Of course not. That would be petty.

The lack of tolerance for the opposition is embarrassing to say the least. Stop embarrassing yourselves.
Adams and Jefferson did not see things the same way, yet in the end they did manage to have respect for one another.

Net Neutrality? I'm all for it, but How can we have such a thing when every issue is debated like this? Who would be the "Neutral" party responsible? A crime on top of a crime does not equal justice.

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 5:19PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I am a conservative. However, in my neck of the woods, I only have 1 choice for serious gaming interwebs. Now, do I want them to lower my speed because its taxing on their system? Hellz no. I can't. I have nowhere else to go. So, in this case, it wouldn't be a bad thing for the Gov't to say..."Dudes, you can't do that." Besides... I pay for 10mb service, I should get 10mb service, no matter what. Common sense.

Where I do find hesitation is in how far the Gov't goes with their regulation...

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 5:08PM Vlo said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I can't understand anyone who would also take FoxNews seriously. People who defend FoxNews are probably idiots. This conservative/liberal/republican/democrat crap should be done. People should stop taking sides and think for themselves and question everybody no matter political view they have. Nationalism/patriotism just causes ignorance. Rather than fighting and claiming conservatives or liberals are better for this nation, how about improving this country to make it a good place to live?

-End rant-

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 5:12PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"Hahahahahaha! Seraphina, who's better known for "getting up in your business" and violating your will? Private companies, with whom your interactions are wholly voluntary, or the forceful, violent entity that is government?"

Porter

I mean, are you serious Porter? The last time I checked, the free market provided nearly all necessary goods and services in our country. Food, utilities, medical services...that doesn't sound like a voluntary interaction to me. And as some have dutifully commented before myself, we all know that private companies, when left to their own devices, will always do the right thing? Right? No, they won't.

I also write this in response to all of the conservatives who frequent this site and have had their sensibilities offended by the author's seemingly political tone. This issue (Net neutrality), like many other issues facing our nation at this time, is not a political one. Fox News is singled out because they appear to be the foremost news network that consistently and unapologetically distorts the truth. That isn't to say that it isn't done by other networks, but not on as large a scale as Fox. I mean, don't call it "Fair & Balanced" if it isn't ;)

But on to my main point. Net neutrality affects all users of the internet, regardless of their political ideology. Seraphina isn't arguing that capitalism is a bad thing, but that the fleecing of American consumers IS a bad thing. And as history has shown us time and time again, corporations will screw us six ways to Sunday if they can get away with it (even temporarily).

Government regulation when applied to Net neutrality would not be a bad thing. Regulations put forth by the government would provide consumers protection from those heavy-handed business practices detailed in Seraphina's article. I mean, isn't it obvious that certain regulations exist to protect the public? And at the end of the day, why the hell would the government become an internet provider? Since that would be the next logical step in the minds of those of you who hate government regulation in any case whatsoever, in the entire history of our democracy, I have never seen a case in which the government declared that they could do a better job at providing a service than the private sector.

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 5:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
As a network engineer, several people (friends, friends of friends, my dentist, etc) have actually asked me about this. I've found it interesting that the conservatives amongst them were actually OK with corporations deciding quality-of-service in regards to their (the corporations' and partners') interests.

Until, that is, I ask them to explain how they most often use the Internet, and then provide examples of how this would affect them. After that I see the light bulb go off as they begin to connect the dots and realize that 'Net neutrality is actually the pro-freedom platform in this debate.

It's amazing how hilariously misinformed Fox News viewers are. Scratch that - it's actually a bit frightening.

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 5:42PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Mifune: Won't let me reply to the same post so this will have to do; reread my post and think before you respond in the future.

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 6:05PM DiscordSK said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Eventually won't happen until someone steps in and makes a change ;)

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 6:10PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Both sides are saying the sky is falling.

When Sera lists the concept of charged services and "packs", she forgot that the reason both venues are so successful is because they are "free." Subsequently, the illusion of a cost-less form of entertainment is utilized by the ISP to sell their service. No ISP would be so stupid as to kill a *legal* symbiotic relationship that benefits them. There's a point where writers need to distinguish between being wary of a corporation and what seems plausible.




Posted: Apr 7th 2010 6:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I'd rather see the ISP's of the world treat data like they did telephone service. If a line is too congested they build a new line, add another switch. They didn't lower the quality of your voice or time you can spend on the phone. This is effectively what the bandwidth caps and selective throttling are. Less backend monitoring and manipulation, more lines, more routers, more switches, more jobs.

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 6:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Not Cool Comcast Not Cool!!!

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 6:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Net neutrality would put federal bureaucrats in charge of broadband business models instead of market forces. Seeing as how bureaucracy messes up every thing it's involved in (see the Katrina FEMA debacle). I would rather have those "evil, greedy" corporations running the show. Even in the areas where only one service is available it would still be better to have the government uninvolved. I mean, does anyone seriously believe the government could possibly know the needs of millions of consumers? Ask the Soviets how that went. Ask the North Koreans how it's going now. The government doesn't have to pass the profit/loss test. They can't even deliver the mail at a budget. Only the market can deliver what consumers want at an affordable price, even if it is not 100% perfect.

If the government were intervening by centrally planning the business models of broadband providers ala a fascist style system, and make no mistake - government planning of private business is economic fascism, then that would hinder market forces from influencing business planning and thus hinder broadband providers from turning a profit and perhaps lead to broadband providers going out of business. Then what? One government intervention leads to another and another. Would the government perhaps swoop in and take over the company in trouble? No. They would never do that. *cough*, GM...

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 6:41PM Randomessa said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Why is it always Soviet Russia and North Korea when these things come up, as though those are the only options? Why is it never Canada, or Sweden, or the Netherlands, or Great Britain? Life is not exactly a totalitarian nightmare in those places. I guess it doesn't make for good rhetoric, though.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW