WRONG! Straight up. In most countries it was government funded, including the US. They received billions upon billions for this.

And you have absolutely 0 understanding how BGP and other Level 1 traffic mitigation techniques work. You have made countless factual errors throughout your document.

State control of nominally private enterprises is fascism. There can be no “partnership” at the point of a gun.

You’re both wrong. Our telecommunications infrastructure is a private-public partnership. The government grants special powers (such as the power to force landowners to let a transmission line to be run across their property), special access (such as the right to dig up public roadways to lay cable), and special rights (such as right to use a portion of the broadcast spectrum). In return, the public companies must agree to live by the rules set by government.

Government holds public property in trust for the people. The government is (supposed to be) the people’s representative.

It is thoroughly appropriate for government to regulate ISPs. That’s the deal they signed up to.

That is false. Networks like AT&T, Level 3, and Comcast own the net’s backbone. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone

> The original case which broke up the major telephone companies so long ago ruled their infrastructure was public domain.

That is false too. AT&T was broken up because it was a government created monopoly. Monopolies are only possible when they are maintained by coercive government intervention – a form of fascism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System_divestiture

ISP’s dont own the ‘pipes’. The transport infrastructure, believe it or not, is public domain. The original case which broke up the major telephone companies so long ago ruled their infrastructure was public domain.

The ‘pipes’ are owned by anyone. In fact, it’s incredibly easy to start up your own ISP (well, at least a Stub Autonomous system, which is what customers use..). This idea that the ISP’s own the infrastructure is a flat out lie.

Your historical examples fall flat. Look up “Railroads” and the exorbitant fees they charged before Teddy Roosevelt broke them up. That’s what will happen. The innovation is mostly driven by academics and defense spending. Maybe if ISP’s spent a reasonable amount on R&D, i’d beleive you, but they hardly spend ANY money on R&D. Preventing ISP’s from destroying end-user traffic wont have any effect on defense spending nor on academic research.

The internet ought to be treated as a piece of infrastructure, a component of a healthy society. Getting mired in this “who gets money for what” nonsense when you are talking about a stage in our civilization as human beings is utterly preposterous.

Perhaps you’ll read this as high minded rhetoric that ignores the finer details of the needs of ISPs as businesses. Why are other governments, like Japan and Norway, treating the internet as a public utility? Because they understand that we have this thing now, it’s part of our social climate, of our civilization, and it whoever first invented it, or provides it, it belongs to us collectively by virtue of the fact that nothing, literally nothing, gets done without it. It’s the same with roads, schools, and the like.

“Innovation”: Tell me what’s “innovative” about allowing one person’s watching of last night’s “American Idol” to take priority over somebody else’s academic research?

Because that’s the real issue here, driven by the ongoing merger of the telecommunications and content industries. Why should regular people have to finance, by paying their internet bills, other people’s compressed-video habits?

“The Internet is Private Property”: OK, in that case, Ma Bell can start paying for all those public rights-of-way it presently enjoys for free or below market rates.

AND Ma Bell can start footing 100% of the research bill for making bigger/faster/better internet itself. No more public funding for that.

AND it can hand back all the public tax subsidies it has enjoyed to build out a network that still does not exist.

And while we’re at it, toll roads are managed by private companies, but aren’t exactly considered private property. And that’s what we’re really talking about here, is a series of “roads” that we’ve allowed certain companies to sell access to in a monopolistic/oligarchic environment.

As it is, Telecommunications companies get paid TWICE for every bit that passes over the tubes. First, by people paying for internet access, and second, by people paying for website hosting access.

Can you explain to me why “private property rights” should give Big Telecom the right to create a third lane out of thin air, and then get paid a third and fourth time selling “preferred access” to it?

Net neutrality = net liberty. Net neutrality has been there from day one and is exactly what enabled Internet to grow into what it is today. Without it the Internet stops to exist at all.

FCC now wants to make it a law, so violators can be prosecuted like when your ISP starts blocking or slowing down traffic to your favorite web site because they want you to use their service instead.

the point is its an innacurate analogy. he said he was sent a file and it didnt arrive until the next morning because it was stuck in the pipes. spoken like a man who doesnt understand his work. would you agree?

“What you think is fair or unfair doesn’t give you the moral right to go around with a gun and force people to respect your notion of “fairness” – which is what “net neutrality” regulations are.”

that’s not really on the topic of net neutrality more of a general statement on people and their opinions and how much credence we should give them. but I do want to point out how great it is that we can debate this topic on such a minute scale in a public forum. something that could possibly be at stake with net neutrality on the line

“An NSP is just an ISP’s ISP. It’s still private property.”

point is still valid. ISPs are asking for cash money not NSPs who have more claim to them

btw i posted a comment on your website for your august 21 post

It’s not evidence, its an analogy.

“Nobody owns it and beyond a standard service fee, it is not fair to ask consumers extra to play in a public playground.”

What you think is fair or unfair doesn’t give you the moral right to go around with a gun and force people to respect your notion of “fairness” – which is what “net neutrality” regulations are.

“These “pipes” are not owned by ISPs, they are put into place by Network Service Providers.”

An NSP is just an ISP’s ISP. It’s still private property.