Political Perspective does not help solve the problems. Dems want Net Neutrality mostly to start Internet regulation (read: new taxes), and Republicans want whoever paid them the most for their reelection campaigns. Independents tend to not want big government but also several want the neutrality of the past which is fantasy if they also want the carriers to expand the capacity.
I see the issue very difficult to come to a good solution without severe unintended consequences. I would prefer little to no government regulation but I'm not sure we can come to terms for a way for carriers to get profits they need to expand without targeting data volume. That is not acceptable to most so something different is needed; a new model is needed that doesn't force us into the old model of the telcos and avoids the bureaucratic model of the Federal government. Technology may be the solution. If we could eliminate the weaknesses of traditional IP-based networks and develop something that has QOS by default, there may be a solution, but it will not be the free Internet of the past. That is just not possible.
Technically, police do not have the right to require you to hand over a camera without a search warrent. Cameras are personal property and as such cannot be confascated unless a crime has been committed (not resisting arrest to hand over a camear).
Dude,
You go too far referencing the jerk pvt Manning. Violating national law and endangering soldiers is way different than video recording your own surrounding while on a motorcycle when a cops stops you.
Keep to the good stuff and not the bad examples.
I don't believe this is an issue of piryting software but the decission by the ISP to enject false DNS results to mislead a user to and send traffic to another private site previously agreed to through a private contract. this is too much like china's virtual firewall.
I do not believe ISP's have or should have the right to restrict Internnet traffic based on an agreement they achieve with another private company.
Do we want the ISP to always direct web queries to Microsoft's Live instead of Google because the signed an agreement with MS? Regardless of the "motive", the power for an ISP to do this is the question. Leave addressing Pirate Bay issues to other legal means.
The act is posioning the DNS query return with a false address on the request of a private company. Do you want to give ISPs the right to decide what websites you can and cannot go based on who "pays" them enough attention? Sounds too much like China to me.
I would think everyone would be concern when a private company redirects another private company without law as mandate or justice ruling.
the ISP does not have a legal right to provide false information on the DNS query. Do we want ISPs, like in China, to restrict access based on private policy?
No matter how you slice it OSF pushes a solution that is truely communal. To state that it is the "opposite" of communal is deceptive at best. The bias in the article is clear when the author states the alternative is: "government-granted monopolies" shows that there is a bias toward open source and that true alternativies (i.e. free commersicalism) are not even seen through the rose colored glasses.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by short link.
Many of us do not want the government involved. Period!
Political Perspective does not help solve the problems.
Dems want Net Neutrality mostly to start Internet regulation (read: new taxes), and Republicans want whoever paid them the most for their reelection campaigns. Independents tend to not want big government but also several want the neutrality of the past which is fantasy if they also want the carriers to expand the capacity.
I see the issue very difficult to come to a good solution without severe unintended consequences. I would prefer little to no government regulation but I'm not sure we can come to terms for a way for carriers to get profits they need to expand without targeting data volume. That is not acceptable to most so something different is needed; a new model is needed that doesn't force us into the old model of the telcos and avoids the bureaucratic model of the Federal government.
Technology may be the solution. If we could eliminate the weaknesses of traditional IP-based networks and develop something that has QOS by default, there may be a solution, but it will not be the free Internet of the past. That is just not possible.
Re: it is not so bizzare
Technically, police do not have the right to require you to hand over a camera without a search warrent. Cameras are personal property and as such cannot be confascated unless a crime has been committed (not resisting arrest to hand over a camear).
Re: Re:
Dude,
You go too far referencing the jerk pvt Manning. Violating national law and endangering soldiers is way different than video recording your own surrounding while on a motorcycle when a cops stops you.
Keep to the good stuff and not the bad examples.
Re:
I don't believe this is an issue of piryting software but the decission by the ISP to enject false DNS results to mislead a user to and send traffic to another private site previously agreed to through a private contract. this is too much like china's virtual firewall.
I do not believe ISP's have or should have the right to restrict Internnet traffic based on an agreement they achieve with another private company.
Do we want the ISP to always direct web queries to Microsoft's Live instead of Google because the signed an agreement with MS? Regardless of the "motive", the power for an ISP to do this is the question. Leave addressing Pirate Bay issues to other legal means.
Re: Re:
The act is posioning the DNS query return with a false address on the request of a private company. Do you want to give ISPs the right to decide what websites you can and cannot go based on who "pays" them enough attention? Sounds too much like China to me.
Re:
I would think everyone would be concern when a private company redirects another private company without law as mandate or justice ruling.
the ISP does not have a legal right to provide false information on the DNS query. Do we want ISPs, like in China, to restrict access based on private policy?
Re: =: open :=
In a short paragraph you have shown that Open means "closed minded" for you in both software and politics.
Open does mean communal in this case
No matter how you slice it OSF pushes a solution that is truely communal. To state that it is the "opposite" of communal is deceptive at best. The bias in the article is clear when the author states the alternative is: "government-granted monopolies" shows that there is a bias toward open source and that true alternativies (i.e. free commersicalism) are not even seen through the rose colored glasses.