Tylenol codeine. Codeine. Buy codeine. Fiorinal with codeine. Tylenol with codeine….

Oxycodone addiction. Oxycodone….

Buy butalbital….

Buy cheap lortab medication international 35381….

Comments have been closed on this post but the discussion continues here.

In order to build these large networks, every single one of the major ISPs received very large grants from the government in exchange for an agreement to act as “common carriers” that is, to NOT discriminate traffic. throttling or bandwidth discrimination based on traffic type or volume is a violation of this agreement.

Citation needed.

Also, common carriers differentiate between data and voice. And it’s not policy or an “agreement”, it’s the LAW (see: Telecom act of 1996). While they can’t block voice connections, network management is required at some levels on the data side.

1) In order to build these large networks, every single one of the major ISPs received very large grants from the government in exchange for an agreement to act as “common carriers” that is, to NOT discriminate traffic. throttling or bandwidth discrimination based on traffic type or volume is a violation of this agreement.

2) Every ISP as special agreements with the local municipalities that they operate in, most often giving them a limited monopoly to operate in that area and access to the right of ways for stringing or burying line. These agreements prevent anyone else from stepping in and offering competition.

3) Due to the extreme high cost of creating a network of any kind of physical wire, the unreliability of non-cellular wireless technology (and point number 2) the “barrier to entry” of anyone trying to start an ISP is astronomically high. Nobody short of a billionaire or billion dollar company can even consider it. As an example, Google has been toying with the idea for some time now according to industry scuttlebutt, but has yet to actually make a move in that direction, largely due to COST considerations.

4) The ISP’s (as evidenced by several incidents including the Comcast P2P filtering, a NYC local ISP filtering VOIP traffic, and statements by the AT&T CEO) have no intention of voluntarily sticking with their “common carrier” agreement for very much longer. It appears that they , rather than competing with EACH OTHER in the ISP arena, would rather collude with one another to PREVENT competition, and the enter OTHER arenas (such as the VOIP industry) and then leverage their control of networks to shut out other players. In other words, to stifle innovation and “Balkanize” the internet into little fiefdoms that they have direct control over.

This would effectively obliterate the internet as we know it today, and replace it with an unrecognizable and inferior replacement.

Frankly, those are sound and logical points. I think we have issues at BOTH ends of the spectrum and dishonest players on BOTH sides. I don’t trust the government to be an honest referee, as it has proven itself incapable of resisting the temptation to take over businesses, but I don’t trust the ISPs anymore either, as they have proven themselves dishonest brokers who aren’t willing to either stick with an agreement they made in good faith, OR to get out of the agreement by returning the money.

Based on this information, I just don’t know which side to pick. it’s very frustrating.

Let’s just suppose you want to open a new bar in your town. You want to allow smoking, so you inform all potential hires that it will be a smoking environment. You are willing to post a sign saying…’Warning Tobacco Smoke May Be Present.’ What, you still cannot open this business? Since it is a local law or even a state law, you can seek a locality where your business will be legal, or try and elect local/state leaders with a different view. Sucks, but livable law. But what if you want to open an airline under the same premise? No can do, and there is no locality to flee to. You will not be allowed to fly into or within the US at all.

Yet I would guess many here would think that THOSE restrictions are reasonable. It depends on whose ox is gored as to how ‘reasonable’ a restriction on private property is.

in the future, providers could set up tiered systems that dictate content delivery. Large companies and corporations could pay a fee to have their content would be delivered with top priority to their customers, while smaller companies or private individuals would have to settle for a less expensive option that would deliver their content with slower speed. Those that don’t pay a fee could possibly not have their information accessible at all, or at a very slow speed.

You mean… Capitalism? That’s the way is already is. Larger companies have an OC3 or better connection to their servers, smaller companies can usally get a couple of T1s or a T3.

Think: the One ring…whoever holds this has unbelievable power.

(Had to throw a little geek into the conversation.)

But…….if the government intervened it just might be the jump start some investors, with a profit motive, may need to fill the demand and carry the internet to the next level, find a way to manage all these communications sans government rules. And everyone would win. Except the government.

And so we’d move to round three.

TheUnrepentantGeek on October 23, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Depends. There would have to be some gigantic money mover with serious political ambitions. Know of any?

Um…China. Not only plausible, but already happening. Supposedly happening in Russia, too…but reportedly their efforts are being undermined by a great number of start-up ISPs refusing to filter anything. Complete word of mouth for that account.

MadisonConservative on October 23, 2009 at 12:44 PM

I actually meant a foreign power backed corporation buying an ISP here in the states to influence US politics by reducing the spread of some information – all the while claiming to be innocent of such. How hard would that be to catch? Is that even illegal? Are there disclosure requirements?

I admit it’d have to be done in a subtle fashion or else people would go bananas, but what if? What protections from that scenario exist? Am I being paranoid here or could something like that occur?

I mean, hell, what if a corporation based in a foreign country bought an ISP and started filtering inconvenient political facts about itself or whoever they support and then not telling people?

Is that a plausible scenario? I’m not sure, but the whole thing isn’t as clear cut for me.

TheUnrepentantGeek on October 23, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Um…China. Not only plausible, but already happening. Supposedly happening in Russia, too…but reportedly their efforts are being undermined by a great number of start-up ISPs refusing to filter anything. Complete word of mouth for that account.

Now, I don’t see these fears as irrational, personally. I’ve worried about a similar situation, but based more on political motivation and leanings of providers, that might block out content they find “offensive” or “objectionable”. However, there is a single point that overrides both my concerns and the concerns of net neutrality proponents: the proposed solution is to have the government dictate what private internet providers can or cannot do with their private property.

I’m not willing to say that this overrides my concerns yet. Wary as I am of government regulations involving the Internet, there needs to be more do to ensure competition particularly in areas with only 1 or 2 providers.

And yeah, the whole content filtering thing is worrisome. I really wish some ISPs would step up and make some loud statements about this.

I mean, hell, what if a corporation based in a foreign country bought an ISP and started filtering inconvenient political facts about itself or whoever they support and then not telling people?

Is that a plausible scenario? I’m not sure, but the whole thing isn’t as clear cut for me.

They complain about monopolies, but apparently don’t realize the companies never had to go there in the first place. By reading those comments, one might be led to believe it’s just shy of being a slave in ancient Egypt building a pyramid.

So we’re wanting to hand over power to the fedgov for something that might happen? Now, what could ever go wrong with that idea?