Net neutrality...

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/0...outside-group/

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

flipper wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 08:47:52 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

Net neutrality...

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/0...outside-group/

...Jim Thompson

I often wonder just what the hell it is about "Congress shall make no
law..." that socialists find so damn confusing.
You fail to understand.._Congress_ is not making the laws, so
therefore ANY law on ANY subject in ANY direction can be made (and will..).

flipper wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 23:45:25 -0700, Robert Baer
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 08:47:52 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

Net neutrality...

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/0...outside-group/

...Jim Thompson
I often wonder just what the hell it is about "Congress shall make no
law..." that socialists find so damn confusing.
You fail to understand.._Congress_ is not making the laws, so
therefore ANY law on ANY subject in ANY direction can be made (and will..).

I debated with myself about bringing up the sophist argument that
'regulation' by an 'agency' is not 'Congress making law' but opted for
the plain and simple direct approach.

To wit, calling a pig a duck doesn't make it a duck but even if one
fell for that sophistry Congress still 'makes a law' in creating and
'authorizing' the offending agency so the 'simple and direct'
approach, that "Congress shall make no law...," is still perfectly
apropos.
Logically speaking, you are 100% correct.
BUT..
Politics seems to be as anti-logic as one can get..

In article ,
Jim Thompson
wrote:

Net neutrality...

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/0...lity-with-outs
ide-group/

...Jim Thompson

An excellent argument if it was 1990. The only people in the US seeing
a free market for Internet services are those that are still using
dialup.
--
I will not see posts from Google or e-mails from Yahoo because I must
filter them as spam

In article ,
Jim Thompson
wrote:

Net neutrality...

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/0...lity-with-outs
ide-group/

...Jim Thompson

An excellent argument if it was 1990. The only people in the US seeing
a free market for Internet services are those that are still using
dialup.
--
I will not see posts from Google or e-mails from Yahoo because I must
filter them as spam

On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 00:21:32 -0700, Kevin McMurtrie
wrote:

In article ,
Jim Thompson
wrote:

Net neutrality...

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/0...lity-with-outs
ide-group/

...Jim Thompson

An excellent argument if it was 1990. The only people in the US seeing
a free market for Internet services are those that are still using
dialup.

In some cities, you have a choise of wired DSL or cable or even
microwave. But in lots of places, people have only one provider of
reasonable-speed internet service. It's not unreasonable to demand
that a franchised provider, like a phone or cable company, transport
packets for a fee but not snoop their contents.

John

On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 00:21:32 -0700, Kevin McMurtrie
wrote:

In article ,
Jim Thompson
wrote:

Net neutrality...

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/0...lity-with-outs
ide-group/

...Jim Thompson

An excellent argument if it was 1990. The only people in the US seeing
a free market for Internet services are those that are still using
dialup.

In some cities, you have a choise of wired DSL or cable or even
microwave. But in lots of places, people have only one provider of
reasonable-speed internet service. It's not unreasonable to demand
that a franchised provider, like a phone or cable company, transport
packets for a fee but not snoop their contents.

John

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 00:21:32 -0700, Kevin McMurtrie
Jim Thompson

Net neutrality...

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/0...lity-with-outs
ide-group/

An excellent argument if it was 1990. The only people in the US seeing
a free market for Internet services are those that are still using
dialup.

In some cities, you have a choise of wired DSL or cable or even
microwave. But in lots of places, people have only one provider of
reasonable-speed internet service. It's not unreasonable to demand
that a franchised provider, like a phone or cable company, transport
packets for a fee but not snoop their contents.

Is there such a thing as a 2-way satellite link?

Thanks,
Rich

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 00:21:32 -0700, Kevin McMurtrie
Jim Thompson

Net neutrality...

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/0...lity-with-outs
ide-group/

An excellent argument if it was 1990. The only people in the US seeing
a free market for Internet services are those that are still using
dialup.

In some cities, you have a choise of wired DSL or cable or even
microwave. But in lots of places, people have only one provider of
reasonable-speed internet service. It's not unreasonable to demand
that a franchised provider, like a phone or cable company, transport
packets for a fee but not snoop their contents.

Is there such a thing as a 2-way satellite link?

Thanks,
Rich

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 00:21:32 -0700, Kevin McMurtrie
wrote:

In article ,
Jim Thompson
wrote:

Net neutrality...

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/0...lity-with-outs
ide-group/

...Jim Thompson
An excellent argument if it was 1990. The only people in the US seeing
a free market for Internet services are those that are still using
dialup.

In some cities, you have a choise of wired DSL or cable or even
microwave. But in lots of places, people have only one provider of
reasonable-speed internet service. It's not unreasonable to demand
that a franchised provider, like a phone or cable company, transport
packets for a fee but not snoop their contents.

John

You must live in fantasy land--"not snoop their contents".
The Feds are everywhere.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 20:24:08 -0700, Robert Baer
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 00:21:32 -0700, Kevin McMurtrie
wrote:

In article ,
Jim Thompson
wrote:

Net neutrality...

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/0...lity-with-outs
ide-group/

...Jim Thompson
An excellent argument if it was 1990. The only people in the US seeing
a free market for Internet services are those that are still using
dialup.

In some cities, you have a choise of wired DSL or cable or even
microwave. But in lots of places, people have only one provider of
reasonable-speed internet service. It's not unreasonable to demand
that a franchised provider, like a phone or cable company, transport
packets for a fee but not snoop their contents.

John

You must live in fantasy land--"not snoop their contents".
The Feds are everywhere.

Comcast shouldn't be "The Feds." They should ship stuff, like UPS, and
not poke around inside, or charge more for Netflix packets than for
their own.

Do you WANT your ISP to selectively slow down packets based on their
own self-interest?

John

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 20:24:08 -0700, Robert Baer
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 00:21:32 -0700, Kevin McMurtrie
wrote:

In article ,
Jim Thompson
wrote:

Net neutrality...

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/0...lity-with-outs
ide-group/

...Jim Thompson
An excellent argument if it was 1990. The only people in the US seeing
a free market for Internet services are those that are still using
dialup.
In some cities, you have a choise of wired DSL or cable or even
microwave. But in lots of places, people have only one provider of
reasonable-speed internet service. It's not unreasonable to demand
that a franchised provider, like a phone or cable company, transport
packets for a fee but not snoop their contents.

John

You must live in fantasy land--"not snoop their contents".
The Feds are everywhere.

Comcast shouldn't be "The Feds." They should ship stuff, like UPS, and
not poke around inside, or charge more for Netflix packets than for
their own.

Do you WANT your ISP to selectively slow down packets based on their
own self-interest?

John

Consult with the CIA etc about that...