“If we’re honest, we don’t know how to regulate the internet at a technical level. But we should stop pretending it’s a telephone network, and see how it handles packets. The ‘net neutrality’ lobby is saying all packets are equal – but that’s unsound and even inconsistent with common carrier law. There’s nothing to stop a transport offering different service levels for different prices.”

Past the first (subjective) statement, the factual incorrectness just goes on in that paragraph.

According to reality, Net Neutrality appeals to the people who do know that many ISPs are not network-neutral, and those who are ignorant of that fact practically couldn’t care less.

Spamming can be dealt with even with Net Neutrality in effect. Your argument regarding VoIP and telephony is pointless, because if the network is full, then the network will refuse all new connections to it anyway.

Every one of your arguments are basically suggesting that the speed of the transfers will decrease when there are other connections to the network of the ISP, but that is a latency problem caused by the ISP’s hardware, and loss of throughput is not normally caused by other connections to the network.

With Net Neutrality in effect, any consumer’s communication stream will not be unreasonably degraded by other communication streams, so your arguments to declare prioritization as favorable are pointless. If they do degrade, it is the fault of the ISP, not the other consumers who subscribe to the same ISP.

You are the one who needs to do real homework.

The Internet can be used for public services that are regulated by a government, but the Internet itself will not become such a thing due to its uniqueness.

“If we can justify treating packets differently [...]”

Provide logical proofs of why those reasons are valid, because just simply stating that prioritization has a benefit or so (none of them are as realistically significant as you claim them to be) is poor justification. Just one cause does not necessarily produce only one consequence.

“[...] We are already NON net-neutral for very good reason.”

As long as you don’t even mention that reason, your assertion is weak, let alone worthless.

“FORGET for the moment the medical emergency surgery taking too long to arrive to save a life and think about simple streaming TV.”

What doctor would expect to give critical instructions to a surgeon while sitting at an unreachable distance? As well, what surgeon will wait for an instruction from anyone that is unreachable? It is not as if the surgeon is alone in the emergency room. Your use of melodrama just shows that you have cannot provide substance of real arguments.

“[Worthless speculation]”

I’m going to ignore every one of your paragraphs that contain the word ‘if’ in it, since all of them consistently turn out to be utter drivel.

Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.

Simple HTTP traffic already consumers far more than, as you put, “BitTorrent porn download.”

You simply have no idea what you’re talking about do you?

Again, the hard truth is that P2P is here to stay. Get over it and come up with a solution. In the meantime, do us both a favor and quit repeating the same nonsense over and over again, that DPI is coming and NN means death for the sick THX to porn downloads.

Hmm, kind of reminds me of the Death Panel hype

Both of those thoughts quotes were given well before Comcast (2006? 2007?)began throttling BitTorrent over supposed network congestion (a farce).

The truth is that until we have honest competition amongst ISPs we do need NN.

“service classes” are not fine when you have only one provider to choose from.

READ > http://www.savetheinternet.com/

“What I mean, D.AN, is this, exactly what I said in my first post. The more consumers know, the more they will reject Net Neutrality.”

The flaw with your argument is that you neglect the fact that Net Neutrality has been demanded by consumers in the first place.

““Net Neutrality” sounds good to those who don’t comprehend that we are already very non-net neutral and it BENEFITS the end user. …”

On the contrary, according to reality, Net Neutrality appeals to the people who do know that many ISPs are not network-neutral, and those who are ignorant of that fact practically couldn’t care less.

“… Cases in point: [...]”

Spamming can be dealt with even with Net Neutrality in effect. Your argument regarding VoIP and telephony is pointless, because if the network is full, then the network will refuse new connections to it anyway.

Every one of your arguments are basically suggesting that the speed of the transfers will decrease when there are other connections to the network of the ISP. That is why data transfer speed is a large factor when deciding to subscribe for Internet. With Net Neutrality in effect, any consumer’s communication stream will not be unreasonably degraded by other communication streams, so your arguments to declare prioritization as favorable are pointless. If they do degrade, it is the fault of the ISP, not the other consumers who subscribe to the same ISP.

You are the one who needs to do real homework.

“The Internet has become a utility and will inevitably be subject to more and more regulation.”

You wish. The Internet can be used for public services that are regulated by a government, but the Internet itself will not become such a thing due to its uniqueness.

“If we can justify treating packets differently we likely will for all of the above reasons and a lot more that will be come clearer as new apps roll out into the future.”

Provide logical proofs of why those reasons are valid, because just simply stating that prioritization has a benefit or so (none of them are that actually as significant you claim it to be) is poor justification. Just one cause does not necessarily produce only one consequence.

“But the point is this D.AN:
We are already NON net-neutral for very good reason.”

Well, I’m still waiting for you to actually state it.

“FORGET for the moment the medical emergency surgery taking too long to arrive to save a life and think about simple streaming TV.”

What doctor would expect to give critical instructions to a surgeon while sitting at an unreachable distance?

“[Worthless speculation]”

I’m going to ignore every one of your paragraphs that contain the word ‘if’ in it, since all of them consistently turn out to be utter drivel.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/kahn_net_neutrality_warning/

The other is from Richard Bennett, an engineer who helped design the internet.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/17/net_neut_slow_death/

Could have been an accident. Let’s hope these stay up.

The Internet has become a utility and will inevitably be subject to more and more regulation. If we can justify treating packets differently we likely will for all of the above reasons and a lot more that will be come clearer as new apps roll out into the future. But the point is this D.AN:
We are already NON net-neutral for very good reason. FORGET for the moment the medical emergency surgery taking too long to arrive to save a life and think about simple streaming TV.

If poorly informed Net Neutrality acolytes succeed in disrupting already carefully ordered prioritization so that even streaming TV buffers for way too long to be valuable or stutters in playback during peak hours, you are going to have a lot of explaining to do to the average consumer how NN is some sort of improvement over what the past 30 years have already taught us.