Comments on: Network Neutrality: A Response

By: btopro

btopro — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 18:29:20 +0000

I see no evidence provided that these people tag-team blogs to make individuals look like they are the minority. Though I guess I could just be part of the conspiracy as well.

I agree with some of the postings above and largely with you John. Net Neutrality is a great thing at the highest level statement of it. The internet pipes, access to them and what’s done on them should be free and unfiltered. But tell me how another couple hundred to thousand pages of legislation is going to ensure that’s the only thing that happens? The road projects you site for intrastate commerce are a great thing which was less then 100 pages to create.

How about maintenance today? Are the roads maintained in an efficient and orderly fashion? Or is it that roads are tolled still, even with the regulation to create them in the first place. A lot of roads aren’t “free” as suggested. yes, there are many that are, but the government hasn’t said all roads need to be paid for through taxation as there are micro additional taxes levied on those that use certain roads specifically.

Again though, it’s not that we really disagree that Net Nuet is important, it’s that I want less regulation and less involvement. Of course an industry will cry fowl on being regulated, they don’t want hoops to have to jump through (no one does). I just haven’t seen compelling evidence to suggest that these companies are doing illegitimate things to block access. And I’ve seen what countries who DO regulate the internet do with that power (china, iran as quick, recent news examples). Don’t think that just because it happens elsewhere doesn’t mean it would never happen here :\

By: sagecast

sagecast — Sun, 21 May 2006 13:49:13 +0000

Readers of this comment thread should know that oldhats, pkp646 and Paulaner01 are part of a tag-team of industry shills who invade blog comments on net neutrality to argue against any government regulation of the telephone companies. Other names who run with this crowd are John Rice, lessgov and AJ Carey. (Google any of these names in combination and you’ll see how their game works).

By tag-teaming the blogs, this small handful of individuals gives the false impression of broad popular support for an industry-friendly position.

What they fail to point out is that Net Neutrality has been the rule that has governed access to the Internet since its inception. It’s the reason that the Internet has become such a dynamic force for new ideas, economic innovation and free speech. What they really want is for Congress to radically re-write our telecommunications laws so that companies like AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth can swoop in and become gatekeepers to Internet content — in a way that benefits no one except the largest ISPs.

I’d like these people to tell us how it is that they appear together (usually one after the other) spouting identical industry talking points.

What gives fellas? Are you being paid to do this? And by whom?

By: tpwk

tpwk — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 01:46:39 +0000

I’m also not sure I concede the premise that competition cannot provide a solution. A customer only has one provider, they do have the ability to decide whether they want to pay for premium services. Who would pay for a premium service in which they can’t get the access they want? Again, I don’t think we can ask government to intervene without compelling evidence that such intervention is necessary.

By: pkp646

pkp646 — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 05:39:42 +0000

John- While I know that you mention it as a minor point in your argument, I really think the competition idea should get a greater notice here. While actual options may currently be limited, investment in devoloping these options would explode should a market develop, especially for satellite and wi-fi providers. I’m just not convinced that supporting any legislation that seeks to regulate something that is already the case makes good sense.