Internet deregulation

As opposed to giving equal services to all. Having websites pay for access to pipelines goes contrary to everything the Internet stands for.

Also, I'm not sure about where you guys are, but here in Michigan, the Cable Companies came in and requested a government-enforced monopoly because otherwise they wouldn't be able to survive. In exchange they promised to give competitors access to their lines. This goes directly against that.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Your point is valid, but the line between corporate ownership and government ownership is a blur here. I daresay the federal and local governments paid more in tax breaks, incentives, and enforced monopolies than any corporation paid for getting these lines put in.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

lready we have broadband and dialup. That's akin to a "fast lane", "slow lane" service.

On the USER side, this makes sense, since the users have contracts with their ISPs. This bill wants to make each website have to pay every telecom to guarantee service. Makes absolutely no sense.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Impossible? No. But it'd take considerable financial backing. If you assume that all the major companies (Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, the same people fighting this right now) spend the billions needed to start an infrastructure and governments/communities help, it could (I daresay would) happen.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Watts

I think that's taking a extremely liberal interpetation of the bill. Ahh well. Just more theatrics of political fear-mongering for the election year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020601624.html

Replace "Extremely Liberal" with "Documented Fact"

I was speaking idiomatically.

"Maintain its profitability". These companies have long since paid off the cost of all the lines they've laid. As a matter of fact, they're reneged on promises to lay more cable that they got tax breaks for. Source - That one gives one of the most in-depth explanations, which is why I linked to it in particular. If you want raw numbers of sources, it's all over Google as well. They're getting money for something that costs them essentially nothing.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

How different? Well Company A starts a long distance broadband phone service that utilizes the infastructure of Verizon. Since Verizon is also a phone carrier this is a direct competitor. The catch? Company A is not bound by the same regulations as Verizon and Verizon get's no royalty payments even though it's infastructure/assets are being used to generate a profit for Company A. It's this lack of foresight based upon one law that's gonna cost Verizon and could put them out of business? Is that fair? Screw fairness for a second and ask, is that right? This is a far cry from what most people in the thread are talking about or even considering.

If it's using the Phone System they're required to pay royalties. But if it's using Internet Bandwidth it's a completely seperate concept. Internet Bandwidth is Internet Bandwidth - it's all the same. Presuming that you meant for your analogy to represent VoIP, it's like saying that Henry Ford should have to pay royalties to Horse companies for using the roads.

FELIPE NO