Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    13 Apr '10 21:29
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/13/tech/main6392449.shtml

    Personally, I don't think it's the FCC's business to tell ISPs exactly how to divvy up their bandwidth allocation. There's no monopoly here. The free market can generally handle nefarious actions by ISPs.

    Now, I admit I'd be a little wary if ISPs started allocating bandwidth based on political message. But that's not what happened here. Comcast made a judgment that users of BitTorrent were hogging bandwidth and hurting other customers and so it didn't ban or prevent P2P applications, but merely allocated a bit more priority to other types of traffic.

    I have no problem with what Comcast did. In fact, I applaud it. I'm also glad the federal appeals court smacked down the FCC. I'm all for giving the FCC some jurisdiction to regulate ISPs (as will no doubt happen eventually). But enforcing complete net neutrality on all private ISPs? Too far, boys. Too far.
  2. 13 Apr '10 22:43
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/13/tech/main6392449.shtml

    Personally, I don't think it's the FCC's business to tell ISPs exactly how to divvy up their bandwidth allocation. There's no monopoly here. The free market can generally handle nefarious actions by ISPs.

    Now, I admit I'd be a little wary if ISPs started allocating bandwidth based on politic ...[text shortened]... ly). But enforcing complete net neutrality on all private ISPs? Too far, boys. Too far.
    The larger issue is more than just whether comcast should be able to hamstring their customers by preventing them from using bittorrent.

    Comcast now may buy NBC. Why shouldn't they make foxnews.com load as slow as molasses?

    Why should they let your puny blog load quickly when they can let corporations pay them to have the blog blocked from all their subscribers?

    Yes, there are competitors, but the great idea of the internet is that allows even the smallest of voices equal some of the more powerful and that can change if comcast, at&t et al start raising the bar of entry.

    I admit that the FCC isn't a perfect organization by any stretch, but net neutrality is a good thing.
  3. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    13 Apr '10 23:13
    I wish I understood what this was about. I hate people who download and upload tons of stuff all the time while they're not even there.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    13 Apr '10 23:42
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    The larger issue is more than just whether comcast should be able to hamstring their customers by preventing them from using bittorrent.

    Comcast now may buy NBC. Why shouldn't they make foxnews.com load as slow as molasses?

    Why should they let your puny blog load quickly when they can let corporations pay them to have the blog blocked from all thei ...[text shortened]... that the FCC isn't a perfect organization by any stretch, but net neutrality is a good thing.
    Fair points. But there's got to be a happy medium between complete anarchy on the web and enforced strict net neutrality.
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    13 Apr '10 23:44
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I wish I understood what this was about.
    Funny you should say so...

    At the risk of seeming like I'm resorting to a completely transparent and shameless plug...

    behold, my completely transparent and shameless plug:

    http://nationalparalegal.edu/lectures/takeonnews/View.asp?intTakeOnNewsID=50

    At the very least, it should help the viewer understand what this is all about.