tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18740044.post115264776456502547..comments2023-11-05T05:55:08.294-04:00Comments on THIS IS NOT ->Delawareliberal: Net Neutrality for dummiesjasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07119892776164779402noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18740044.post-1153530879957706702006-07-21T21:14:00.000-04:002006-07-21T21:14:00.000-04:00Very best site. Keep working. Will return in the n...Very best site. Keep working. Will return in the near future.<BR/><A HREF="http://texas_hold_em.fabiga3.be/texas_hold_em_directions.html" REL="nofollow">»</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18740044.post-1152802460310536492006-07-13T10:54:00.000-04:002006-07-13T10:54:00.000-04:00Now, without Net Neutrality, the big media/telecom...<I>Now, without Net Neutrality, the big media/telecomm corps would be free to charge extra for access to sites like YouTube. Or they could make it run rea-ll-y sloooow... unless you signed up and paid.</I><BR/><BR/>That is the point, that the telecoms don't want the consumers to be stuck with the bill for upgrading the internet, which will cost billions. The content providers should pay their share and not kick the cost over to consumers. While the content providers, like youtube, do pay for bandwidth, under net neutrality regulations they could not be charged more for the faster and improved service that the new fiber network would provide. <BR/><BR/>The content providers are making a ton of money using the network and they don't want to pay more for better service. If net neutrality regulations are put in place they would be getting a free ride on the improved network although the incentive to upgrade would be greatly diminished.<BR/><BR/>In addition, if the site ran slow it wouldn't be due to the ISP slowing it down, but the fact that a content provider didn't want to pay for faster service. As I mentioned before during hours of peak activity this could lead to slower service on the slower tier.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18740044.post-1152792543723132762006-07-13T08:09:00.000-04:002006-07-13T08:09:00.000-04:00While I'm in favor of net neutrality, there really...<I>While I'm in favor of net neutrality, there really is something to the point that sites like YouTube, Yahoo, Google, etc. are running their businesses and offering their services for free on the backs of the telecom companies' broadband services It does seem inherently unfair.</I><BR/><BR/>You are SO busted.<BR/><BR/>Nobody is getting a free ride.<BR/><BR/>YouTube is PAYING one of those big telecoms for every bit it sends out of its web servers.<BR/><BR/>You are PAYING Comcast or Verizon, or whatever your ISP is, for every bit you pull off the YouTube servers. <BR/><BR/>Try this to start:<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutralityAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18740044.post-1152786649179865552006-07-13T06:30:00.000-04:002006-07-13T06:30:00.000-04:00While I'm in favor of net neutrality, there really...While I'm in favor of net neutrality, there really is something to the point that sites like YouTube, Yahoo, Google, etc. are running their businesses and offering their services for free on the backs of the telecom companies' broadband services. It does seem inherently unfair.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12637878620645626245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18740044.post-1152754318886875602006-07-12T21:31:00.000-04:002006-07-12T21:31:00.000-04:00Props to the only Delaware blogger talking about N...Props to the only Delaware blogger talking about Net Neutrality (well, at least the only one I read).<BR/><BR/>Here's one more reason to be for Net Neutrality: Atrios <A HREF="http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_07_09_atrios_archive.html#115271396054481929" REL="nofollow">notes</A> that more than 100,000 people have clicked to watch a Ned Lamont ad on YouTube.com. Not only that, the Lamont-ians have been posting serious campaign videos on the Internet FOR FREE that they aren't even paying to put on TV, and people are watching them. This has got to scare the pro-Bush corporate media.<BR/><BR/>Atrios: <BR/><I>"During the whole FEC hearing process one of the big concerns by the people who wanted to regulate the internets was that if we didn't then people (horror!) might put candidate videos and stuff online and that would be bad because... well, I was never quite sure but it was going to be bad."</I> <BR/><BR/>Now, without Net Neutrality, the big media/telecomm corps would be free to charge extra for access to sites like YouTube. Or they could make it run rea-ll-y sloooow... unless you signed up and paid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18740044.post-1152738493657796052006-07-12T17:08:00.000-04:002006-07-12T17:08:00.000-04:00Jason, you're exactly right, not fully understandi...Jason, you're exactly right, not fully understanding the net neutrality debate isn't just a Senator Stevens problem. I'm sure almost all members of Congress could use a tutorial on the issue. <BR/><BR/>I work with the Hands Off the Internet coalition and we are opposed to additional net neutrality regulations. <BR/><BR/>The telecoms wouldn't block access to content. However, given that they are spending billions to upgrade the infrastructure from copper to fiber lines the content providers should pay their share of these costs. If a content provider is sending IPTV, VOIP or other bandwidth intense traffic then they should pay more for faster service on the upgraded network. This will ensure that calls aren't dropped and reception isn't interrupted during peak activity hours. <BR/> <BR/>In addition, even the VP of Google, Vince Cerf has said the telecoms aren't abusing the internet and that if they do he would take up his complaints with the Department of Justice.<BR/><BR/>Why add burdensome regulations to the internet if there isn't even a problem?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18740044.post-1152726508976066842006-07-12T13:48:00.000-04:002006-07-12T13:48:00.000-04:00Who you calling a dummy? ('Course, if you're talki...Who you calling a dummy? <BR/><BR/>('Course, if you're talking about me, you're probably right.)Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12637878620645626245noreply@blogger.com