Ryan Coleman wrote: > I found the guy pushing regulation (or in this case, making the unofficial stance official) today on MPR was way off base. > > He said that an independent blogger would have no voice without paying money in the proposal by Google and Verizon. In my experience, this is not true; they just won't reap the benefits of people getting their content at the speed which their provider provides. > > I can afford a 12Mbit/2Mbit line at home now. Cheaper than colocation of my custom server (capacity right now of 7TB, soon 14TB) because I don't have $15,000 to spend on the rack space requirements for the servers plus the monthly colocation costs for 2U to 8U of space. > > My two bits. > -- > Ryan > > On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:01 AM, Erik Mitchell wrote: > > >> Harry, I think that's a very important point to make. There was a >> diary on DailyKos about the recent dustup over the Google/Verizon >> story: >> >> http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/8/12/892044/-End-of-the-Internet-As-We-Know-It! >> >> In short, it was broadly misreported by folks on the left. The story >> looked on the surface like a big corporations doing evil things story >> and so it got reported that way. >> >> In the process, the concept of net neutrality became redefined. Media >> outlets were defining it as saying that different content TYPES should >> be treated equally, rather than different content providers. >> Obviously, if this definition of net neutrality took hold, it would be >> bad -- especially in wireless. If you have a minute, read the diary. >> The dkos guy does a better job of explaining it than I can. >> >> My hope is that there are people at this hearing that know what >> they're talking about, who will stand up and make a good case. I don't >> think more regulation on the internet would be a good thing. However, >> I support net neutrality, in that every person's or company's data >> should get the same priority as anyone else's (given the same type of >> content). >> >> Anyway, it's a tough issue to get your head around, especially for the >> layperson. And unfortunately, Congress is full of laypeople. >> >> Long live Ted Stevens, >> >> -Erik >> >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Harry Penner <hpenner at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> At the risk of flames: the Internet as we know it has flourished in >>> large part because its original sponsor, the federal government, has >>> mostly left it alone. Why do we think adding government regulations >>> to it will make it better (or preserve the freedom we enjoy on it)? >>> Generally speaking, doesn't regulation take away freedom rather than >>> increasing it, by definition? I'm no futurist but it seems to me that >>> putting restrictions on the big guys is likely to affect us little >>> guys in some unforeseen but unpleasant way. >>> >>> Sorry if the above sounds trollish but I just think we should be >>> careful what we ask for. With companies you can usually vote with >>> your feet to try to change or avoid their bad behavior, but >>> regulations are usually universal and forever... And the regs will >>> surely by written by people not nearly as close to or as thoughtful >>> about the problem as we tclug'ers... >>> >>> Seems to me we ought to show up and tell the FCC to keep their paws off us. >>> >>> -Harry >>> >>> On Aug 19, 2010, at 9:52, Brian <goeko at Goecke-Dolan.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> There will be a hearing on the Net Neutrality here in the Twin Cities. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://savetheinternet.com/mnhearing >>>> >>>> >>>> I am not associated with this, just thought people would be interested >>>> to know. >>>> >>>> ==>brian. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota >>>> tclug-list at mn-linux.org >>>> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota >>> tclug-list at mn-linux.org >>> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Erik K. Mitchell -- Web Developer >> erik.mitchell at gmail.com >> erik at ekmitchell.com >> http://ekmitchell.com/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota >> tclug-list at mn-linux.org >> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >> > > > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > > Comcast effectively blocked content, using your logic, Erik. This issue is about access to the Internet, without providers inserting themselves between you and the content. Providers need to focus on transmission, not engage in selective censoring of what you and I want to see, hear, or communicate. The FCC needs to, at this point, reassign the Internet in order to limit the role of providers to that of transmission, rather than engage in services preferences activities. Think of the issue as one of: do we want the Internet to look like cable companies deciding what channels we receive for our Internet access fees? Tom