Welcome to the IHoP

[dem beats 1,223]

I has a comcast that I hate.

But their service is bettar than the DSL option. In general I feel I get what I pay for, and if I couldn't pay for it, I wouldn't get it.

Other that a bunch of people who are saying "it's not fair" why should this be law? If comcast tells me I can go anywhere with mega speed and then hold me back, sure string them up. But if I don't buy 100% supah speed everywhere why shouldn't they be able to hold back where you can and cannot go?

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

Other that a bunch of people who are saying "it's not fair" why should this be law?

Its because its not fair that they are mandating these rules, specifically the last two:

Under the draft rules, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not:

1) prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user's choice over the Internet;

2) prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user's choice;

3) prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user's choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network;

4) deprive any of its users of the user's entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers.

5) A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner.

6) A provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking

[Aaron Clinton 2,372]

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

It doesn't stop Comcast or any other telecom from operating, it merely forces them to operate in a responsible, ethical manner, at least when it comes to Internet operations...

[dem beats 1,223]

[dem beats 1,223]

Other that a bunch of people who are saying "it's not fair" why should this be law?

Its because its not fair that they are mandating these rules, specifically the last two:

Under the draft rules, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not:

1) prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user's choice over the Internet;

2) prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user's choice;

3) prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user's choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network;

4) deprive any of its users of the user's entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers.

5) A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner.

6) A provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking

If number 6 isn't a law, it should be. Disclosing what the product I buy in an honest manner is manditory by law I though.

As for #5, if a company is retarded to hold me back from a site that I care about;..... they will have one less customer.

I DO NOT WANT A FAIR COUNTRY. I want an ethical one where everyone has a chance to do as they please. Peaple who didn't read the fine print deserve to be punished for their folly IMHO.

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

You're right, I misspoke:

Its because they act in an unethical manner that they are mandating these rules, specifically the last two:

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

And if you notice the wording, they use the term lawful. Telecoms can still go after unlawful usages, such as botnets/DDoS attacks and the like...

[dem beats 1,223]

Im not realy opposed to it completely, I just have quite a bit of hate and discontent to the fcc in general.

I would perhaps argue that whatever "unethical" buisness practic,es are used by many ISP services would pale next to the FCC and some of their "ethical" practices.

I didn't intend to sound like I was going all glen beck there in all caps calling out the *fair* statement. Even reguarding ethics, self preservation should be the number one ethic. If a company were to give out more than it took in, it tanks. If said company is big enough it hurts society way more when they don't promote true self interest.

:coughGMcough:

[dem beats 1,223]

And if you notice the wording, they use the term lawful. Telecoms can still go after unlawful usages, such as botnets/DDoS attacks and the like...

true dat.

DOUBLETRUE!

[dem beats 1,223]

fooooook snow maybe tomorrow.

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

Even Verizon and Google are backing Net Neutrality:

The following is a joint statement from Lowell McAdam, CEO Verizon Wireless and Eric Schmidt, CEO Google:

Verizon and Google might seem unlikely bedfellows in the current debate around network neutrality, or an open Internet. And while it's true we do disagree quite strongly about certain aspects of government policy in this area--such as whether mobile networks should even be part of the discussion--there are many issues on which we agree. For starters we both think it's essential that the Internet remains an unrestricted and open platform--where people can access any content (so long as it's legal), as well as the services and applications of their choice.

There are two key factors driving innovation on the web today. First is the programming language of the Internet, which was designed over forty years ago by engineers who wanted the freedom to communicate from any computer, anywhere in the world. It enables Macs to talk to PCs, Blackberry Storms to iPhones, the newest computers to the oldest hardware on the planet across any kind of network--cable, DSL, fiber, mobile, WiFi or even dial up.

Second, private investment is dramatically increasing broadband capacity and the intelligence of networks, creating the infrastructure to support ever more sophisticated applications.

As a result, however or wherever you access the Internet the people you want to connect with can receive your message. There is no central authority that can step in and prevent you from talking to someone else, or that imposes rules prescribing what services should be available.

Transformative is an over-used word, especially in the tech sector. But the Internet has genuinely changed the world. Consumers of all stripes can decide which services they want to use and the companies they trust to provide them. In addition, if you're an entrepreneur with a big idea, you can launch your service online and instantly connect to an audience of billions. You don't need advance permission to use the network. At the same time, network providers are free to develop new applications, either on their own or in collaboration with others.

This kind of "innovation without permission" has changed the way we do business forever, fueling unprecedented collaboration, creativity and opportunity. And because America has been at the forefront of most of these changes, we have disproportionately benefited in terms of economic growth and job creation.

So, in conjunction with the Federal Communications Commission's national plan to bring broadband to all Americans, we understand its decision to start a debate about how best to protect and promote the openness of the Internet. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has promised a thoughtful, transparent decision-making process, and we look forward to taking part in the analysis and discussion that is to follow. We believe this kind of process can work, because as the two of us have debated these issues we have found a number of basic concepts to agree on.

First, it's obvious that users should continue to have the final say about their web experience, from the networks and software they use, to the hardware they plug in to the Internet and the services they access online. The Internet revolution has been people powered from the very beginning, and should remain so. The minute that anyone, whether from government or the private sector, starts to control how people use the Internet, it is the beginning of the end of the Net as we know it.

Second, advanced and open networks are essential to the future development of the Web. Policies that continue to provide incentives for investment and innovation are a vital part of the debate we are now beginning.

Third, the FCC's existing wireline broadband principles make clear that users are in charge of all aspects of their Internet experience--from access to apps and content. So we think it makes sense for the Commission to establish that these existing principles are enforceable, and implement them on a case-by-case basis.

Fourth, we're in wild agreement that in this rapidly changing Internet ecosystem, flexibility in government policy is key. Policymakers sometimes fall prey to the temptation to write overly detailed rules, attempting to predict every possible scenario and address every possible concern. This can have unintended consequences.

Fifth, broadband network providers should have the flexibility to manage their networks to deal with issues like traffic congestion, spam, "malware" and denial of service attacks, as well as other threats that may emerge in the future--so long as they do it reasonably, consistent with their customers' preferences, and don't unreasonably discriminate in ways that either harm users or are anti-competitive. They should also be free to offer managed network services, such as IP television.

Finally, transparency is a must. Chairman Genachowski has proposed adding this principle to the FCC's guidelines, and we both support this step. All providers of broadband access, services and applications should provide their customers with clear information about their offerings.

Doubtless, there will be disagreements along the way. While Verizon supports openness across its networks, it believes that there is no evidence of a problem today -- especially for wireless -- and no basis for new rules and that regulation in the US could have a detrimental effect globally. While Google supports light touch regulation, it believes that safeguards are needed to combat the incentives for carriers to pick winners and losers online.

Both of our businesses rely on each other. So we believe it's appropriate to discuss how we ensure that consumers can get the information, products, and services they want online, encourage investment in advanced networks and ensure the openness of the web around the world. We're ready to engage in this important policy discussion.

[///M5 2,833]

On a plane, in my flippy floppies on

You're not truely MN unless you rock birkenstocks(socks are allowed) in newly fell snow and swim trunks at 0 or below.

IMO socks aren't allowed, but that is because I refuse to wear them with socks.

[///M5 2,833]

Goin home, maybe even for 3 weeks striaght too!!

what are the plans then?

? Drink ?

[///M5 2,833]

Nope, I was just curious wtf was in smallville MO so I googled it and found the town website company directory, short list.

ya, no kidding, I think if this happens, I'd just live in Columbia and commute the 20 miles

I just can't see you living in a small Missouri town Tom... Living in Columbia would be quite a bit more exciting, halfway between K.C. and St. Louis too.

Columbia would probably be culture shock enough, Centralia would be twilight-zone-esque

Columbia is a std college town.

std = standard or sexually transmitted disease? lol

standard, lol

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

I didn't intend to sound like I was going all glen beck there in all caps calling out the *fair* statement.

No, you were right. I have a tendency to use the word "fair" when I should be using the word "ethical".

If life were fair, I wouldn't have had to bury 3 dogs, my grandfather (although he kind of brought it upon himself), and an uncle; I would have been born with a fully developed muscle structure in my left eye, I wouldn't have ADD, I would have 20/20 vision, and I wouldn't have this metal rod running down my shin.

Life sucks and then you die; the trick is to make the most of the non sucking times...

[///M5 2,833]

Holy Agent Orange gas. Jeez.

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

Remember kids: KEEP. YOUR. HEAD. UP!

BAM

[dem beats 1,223]

Goin home, maybe even for 3 weeks striaght too!!

what are the plans then?

? Drink ?

Booze FTW..

Did you eat some bad food while away Sean? I'm makin curry tonight

[///M5 2,833]

Bad food? My ass sure thinks so.

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

gives new meaning to "blowing smoke"

[///M5 2,833]

delayaTOP

[lithium 358]

badddaassss PC

it would be pretty sick to win this SOB!

Would love to have that for SETI.

too bad for you, I JUST WON IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dem beats 1,223]

you won that little unit?

that's kinda cool.

I'm thinking about going dual sli with my nvidias. price came down so far, the boost would be great if/when I tripple/dual moniter.

congrats to you mang.

[KU40 173]

Oh I really have nothing to say.