> The government would actually be the anti-regulation force here, and  
> the
> ISPs the regulators.

It seems there is a lot of agreement that the Internet shouldn't be  
regulated.


J

Sent from my iPod.
...because my other device is a BB Storm.


On Aug 20, 2010, at 3:09 AM, Mike Miller <mbmiller+l at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Harry Penner wrote:
>
>> Actually I wasn't telling you what you ought to do with regard to net
>> neutrality.  I was asking you to think before doing anything.
>
> Back in reality, on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 at 10:41:41, you wrote, "Seems  
> to me
> we ought to show up and tell the FCC to keep their paws off us."
>
>
>> I ask you again to think hard about what the consequences of such
>> regulation might be.  If we outlaw content meddling by ISPs, will it
>> cause unmetered connection prices to go up or maybe be phased out  
>> more
>> quickly than they otherwise would be?  Will it affect the usability  
>> of
>> VoIP or video streaming?  If we're dead set on some regulation as the
>> solution, is there a way to craft it to minimize those effects?  Your
>> point (in another thread) that we don't even know how the regulation
>> would be worded isn't an argument for or against it, but it would
>> certainly make me think twice.  Surely you wouldn't support a  
>> regulation
>> that would affect the entire Internet so broadly without knowing  
>> every
>> letter of what's in it?
>
> Right -- we have to know what's in it before we oppose it or support  
> it.
> This is what I've been saying and it is not what you were saying.  You
> might have meant to say something different, but your point was pretty
> clearly that government regulation will be bad, so we should oppose  
> it.
>
>
> I read a bunch of the stuff on this list today and a lot of it  
> wasn't very
> impressive but I did like what Tony Yarusso wrote.  I liked it so much
> that I'm appending it below.  What's wrong with what Tony is saying?
>
> Mike
>
>
> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:54:47
> From: Tony Yarusso <tonyyarusso at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: TCLUG Mailing List <tclug-list at mn-linux.org>
> To: TCLUG Mailing List <tclug-list at mn-linux.org>
> Subject: Re: [tclug-list] Net Neutrality hearing in Minnesota
>
> Much of this discussion actually looks at things somewhat backward,  
> IMO.
> The government would actually be the anti-regulation force here, and  
> the
> ISPs the regulators.
>
> Consider this:
>
> One option is to have a free-flowing Internet where everything is  
> equal,
> and just allowed to happen.  The "Information Superhighway" would be
> allowed to be a "free market" of ideas and content.
>
> The other option is to have business executives decide they want to  
> reward
> some of that traffic and punish others, or favor some customers over
> others, or charge extra fees for certain uses while subsidizing  
> others.
> No content is guaranteed passage, but rather must meet the particular
> rules set forth for it.
>
> Which one of those sounds like regulation to you?  Clearly it is the
> latter, which is the one done by ISPs, dictating which traffic will be
> "special" and which will be hindered.  The former is not regulation  
> by the
> government, but a mandate that regulation must not be done by
> corporations.
>
> The first case, with free flow of information, is the hands-off  
> approach
> that allowed the Internet to flourish.  The difference is that now the
> corporations have the technology to put a stop to that, so people are
> asking the government to intervene in order to protect the integrity  
> of
> the Internet's nature as it has been from the beginning.
>
>  - Tony Yarusso
>
> _______________________________________________
> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
> tclug-list at mn-linux.org
> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list