Gawain

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_supreme_court I don't know if it's a negative or positive, I understand she has never been on the bench, and while she is a lawyer, she's only practiced law for a few years. She's clerked for a couple of judges (Judge Marshall 87-88 and Appeals Court Judge Mikva 86-87), but after that, it's been campaigning (Dukakis 88), then White House staff through President Clinton's administration, followed by being a professor. One issue where I see this may get brought up in the confirmation hearings is that she actively campaigned for President Obama not just for President, but Illinois Senate as well. So, ideology will definitely be something that's looked at. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

I'm in the business, since before the NSFnet was retired. So are the other players on the neutrality side. I too, spent ten years in the industry, back when TELENET was around. Net neutrality is shrouded in the idea of ensuring that all data be treated equally...regardless of intent or impact on the network or to other customers. In fact, this will turn into an agenda to bridge the "digital divide". "Broadband for all! And all for broadband!!" Instead of incentives to bring that last mile solution to rural areas, or depressed areas...they're going to regulate it by "selectively" placing 70 year old rules? What this will also ignore are the wireless last mile services in effect also. WiMAX and "metro-wifi" services that are not the same facility, yet will be expected to follow the same rules... This whole thing is going to be tangle. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

Comcast sold "unlimited" internet. But didn't actually want to supply it. That's your basic problem. And changing providers isn't a trivial task, as inconvenient as changing cell phone carriers before number portability. I personally cannot afford any sort of downtime during a transition. I have a great reliance on my connectivity as part of my work. For that reason, I've been using Speakeasy since 2003, rather than the $20/month special this week. When you look at the Directv versus Comcast fight over Versus TV, you see exactly why net neutrality is required. Comcast certainly will play dirty, and its customers will suffer in the process. If it were truly possible to switch, as simple as changing the channel, that would be fine. But that isn't the case, esp when it comes to cable which is a regulated monopoly due to the issues with running cable to every home. Doesn't matter. The consumer-centric motive for this net-neutrality is anything but consumer minded. Again, Cable and Telephone are not your only options. The Telecom Act of 1996 saw to that. There are numerous competitors. If connectivity is that important to you from a business standpoint, then you wouldn't unplug one until another was up and running anyway, so that's really a pretty weak argument. My issue isn't with Comcast at all. It's their network. They should manage it without interference from people that know nothing about running a NOC, co-location or maintaining a data center. Genachowski is a lawyer. Copps is a politician. McDowell is a lawyer, and has some telecom industry trade experience. Clyburn is a politician. Baker is a politician. These are political appointments and with 100% lawyer/politician representation. McDowell has background with the numbering plan, but again, that's traditional telephony. With all the government is doing to "help" it still astounds me that people want this kind of interference. Ivan Seidenberg, the CEO of Verizon started as zone-tech on telephone poles at the old Ma-Bell. Randall Stephenson started at the old Southwestern Bell, and apparently his older brother is still a tech. LeRoy Carlson is the founder, and still CEO of TDS. Maggie Wilderotter, CEO of Frontier has a telco history going back to the old Cable Data. These folks know the business, and if the telcos think this is a bad idea, why, oh why, would you want to trust five politicians over folks that have effectively these businesses pretty well. When was the last time you didn't have dial-tone? If you have a business grade dedicated internet circuit, when was the last time that went down? When the power goes out, you still have dial tone (telco provided). If these companies are grumbling about this, and even worse, if the investors are...do the math...it's a no brainer. Besides, can you effectively tell me that your provider has denied you access to any information on the web, deliberately? So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

I get the feeling a lot of people will be hearing a very loud WHOOSH some time around now Actually, I had four big comic books about Asterix...my dad gave them to me when I was a kid after he had made a business trip to France. I don't have them anymore but I remember one story about Asterix having to steal Caesar's wreath in order to season a guy's soup. Lol. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

Not sure I follow this argument. It seems to me they are regulating how content is transported on the net not what content is permissible. Never underestimate the complete lack of linear thought coming out of Washington DC. Applying 1930s era tariff requirements to 21st century data transport standards is the first indicator of this. You still haven't explained how net neutrality will lead to controlling content. If anything, allowing the telcos to configure packet priorities allows them to under-prioritize any content they want to suppress. http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/05/06/fcc-officials-lay-out-third-way-of-regulation/?KEYWORDS=net+neutrality http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704370704575228503914251096.html?KEYWORDS=net+neutrality Understandable, and even arguably benevolent. The FCC, by madating, "You will not interfere with content" and piece-meal application of 70 year old regulations keeps the door open to do what those regulations do to voice: regulate prices, provisioning of services, which in turn, can affect what content gets carried. I don't see it. First of all, it doesn't necessarily follow that net neutrality means price regulation or provisioning. That may have happened in voice but there's no evidence that the neutrality part was the causal factor in the price regulation or provisioning part. From reading your articles, it sounds like the telcos are trying to push that logical leap in order to increase their bottom line. As I said, it's very clear how the lack of neutrality could act as a back door to suppressing unwanted content. You just configure the packets for the undesired content at the lowest priority. I'll grant you that. However, what brought this whole new initiative on was a case where Comcast was throttling back the througput of some of its heaviest users. The nature of the technology of time made it a logical step, since cable internet connections are shared. The consumers complained. The FCC decided to sanction Comcast, who fought in court and won. During that time Comcast realized they could change the management protocol of their network and temporarily open up the pipe for the user that has a huge file to download (known as "speedboost"). This feature, to my knowledge, is available in their congested areas. However, this speedboost comes at the cost (however indiscernible) of other users on that cluster tied into the CO or where ever the cable company's gear is co-located (usually at a telco's CO). I'll go back to Verizon as a prime example. VZ has invested billions in a product called FiOS. If you're in a major market where VZ is the telco and they offer this product, you're lucky. For about $100/month you have digital phone/1080-HD-tv/video-on-demand/5-15Mbps internet with microscopic latency. It's a fantastic product, brings fiber to the premises. It's also expensive as hell to operate for the company. How they manage that spoke of their network is going to be different from the less dense areas where FiOS is not offered, and instead it's DSL, or dial-up. By the FCC saying that the data lines will be treated as voice, the carriers are going to have to offer minimum standards (because these are regulated at a state level) across all LATAs. Dial-tone is dial-tone everywhere. It's the same. A twisted pair works the same whether you're next door to the CO or on a farm 12 miles away. It's reliable, robust, and a common standard. Internet is not. Data is not. Now the FCC is saying, you must treat all data the same, but "we won't regulate other data" like email, etc. By claiming to adopt only part of the code, they leave the door open to adopt all of the code, and therein lies the rub: basic telephony regulations mandate what services may or may not be offered, and how they are provisioned. Using voice rules for data is not the way to approach the problem. In fact, since 2002, when such regulations on data were eased, there is more market penetration by broadband than ever before. So, the FCC's argument is not benevolent. It aims to get a foothold where it currently has not legal means to do so. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

Gawain drops a racial comment and you don't understand Corpus Delicti or double jeoprdy and all Gawain can do is give me shit for not knowing about a satirical website while hwt thinks MSNBCBS is a real media outlet. Guess you're jumping on board. Again, prove what you write Lucky. PROVE IT! Where's the racial comment? The only people that have made any racial comments are you. I've said nothing racial heritage. Unlike our very President who sent out a video message to "all minorities" to mobilize. For the uninitiated: Folks, Lucky is a guy who thinks the Onion is a legitimate news source and believes wikipedia has accreditation as an unimpeachable source of information (though we all reference it at one point). He has accused me at least twice of not being what I am and now accuses me of racism where no overt, derogatory, racist comments can be attributed to me anywhere on this site (or anywhere on the net for that matter). He does this while claiming to be a "one term" vet, with VA benefits which he cannot discern. Every now and again he brings forth a reasonable argument, but often it drowned out by repeated references to "facists" or whatever nom de guerre he's on any given day. Use your own judgment. I am not without flaws (as many here would gladly attest), however I have gone to great strides to not invoke the gratuitous name calling...though others appear to jump at the opportunity. With that, good day. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

"black ass"? No...I was initially thinking "sorry ass"... Right , we'll just keep playing stupid so as not to further upset you. No loud noises anyone. "Sorry" wouldn't require asterisks. If you can find a single racist comment I've made on DZ.com, you'd be vindicated. However, it appears to be everyone else defaulting to racist innuendo...not I. So there's your homework: find any racist comment I've made here with derogatory intent. Contact the Onion and have them send a news crew to cover the event. Then you'll have an incident that can be cataloged on wikipedia. Get going.... We have you refering to Obama as his black ass, as you veiled it in asterisks, I wasn't teh first to notice. Keep the lies going, you've tipped your hand ALL THE WAY OVER. How you interpret is not within my control. We all know your line of thinking whereas no one can reasonably believe your assertions. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

I am calm...that's why I said, "face in palm" not "this is an outrage!" For those that didn't read the article and instead chose to focus on my imprudent use of asterisks...(which I have edited, a losing proposition either way) First, what he's pointing out is nothing new in terms of the net/information found online. Second, the President himself exacerbates the very issue he's complaining about - saying in a sense that people don't know how to use the information they have access to...instead seeing it all as a mere distraction. We know he's wrong about that because his own "misdirections" on issues like health-care, taxes, and Arizona are not working. Third, just the very nature of "none of which I know how to work"...it's simply laughable. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

"black ass"? No...I was initially thinking "sorry ass"... Right , we'll just keep playing stupid so as not to further upset you. No loud noises anyone. "Sorry" wouldn't require asterisks. If you can find a single racist comment I've made on DZ.com, you'd be vindicated. However, it appears to be everyone else defaulting to racist innuendo...not I. So there's your homework: find any racist comment I've made here with derogatory intent. Contact the Onion and have them send a news crew to cover the event. Then you'll have an incident that can be cataloged on wikipedia. Get going.... So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

"black ass"? No...I was initially thinking "sorry ass"... So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

Not sure I follow this argument. It seems to me they are regulating how content is transported on the net not what content is permissible. Never underestimate the complete lack of linear thought coming out of Washington DC. Applying 1930s era tariff requirements to 21st century data transport standards is the first indicator of this. You still haven't explained how net neutrality will lead to controlling content. If anything, allowing the telcos to configure packet priorities allows them to under-prioritize any content they want to suppress. http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/05/06/fcc-officials-lay-out-third-way-of-regulation/?KEYWORDS=net+neutrality http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704370704575228503914251096.html?KEYWORDS=net+neutrality Understandable, and even arguably benevolent. The FCC, by madating, "You will not interfere with content" and piece-meal application of 70 year old regulations keeps the door open to do what those regulations do to voice: regulate prices, provisioning of services, which in turn, can affect what content gets carried. However the FCC has already been overruled by the courts for overreaching its authority with regards to a case with Comcast. The consumer end of this issue where the rub is, and it's where the FCC is being completely ignorant - how data gets fed to the consumer. There are practical limitations to the technology at hand. http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/05/06/digits-live-show-new-push-to-regulate-internet-access/?KEYWORDS=net+neutrality So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

Coming from a President who is so addicted to his BlackBerry (which is fine by me) that they had RIM ensure the "Presidential" berry be appropriately secure for the chief executive: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hcoyG-Ck3-VwZB7fqpUFXbffoObg Give me a f**k**g break...Sir, the very means and activities which you are bemoaning are the very means by which you mobilized young students to get out and vote for your sorry ass in the first place. Edited to express true meaning, as the accusations of racism are without merit. At least he got this part right: Damn right sir, and you're about to witness citizens fulfilling the obligations of their citizenship this coming November. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

I don't necessarily disagree with you guys but who do you think will replace them? Something/someone better? With all due respect, that's naive. As long as elections, key politicians and the mainstream news media (at all ends of the political spectrum) are all bought and paid for by the wealthiest families and corporations that really own the USA - which is to say, forever - nothing will change, even on the rare occasions that it appears to. Hence why I said, "If we're really lucky..." Other than that, I agree with you. Having said that, I have met some of these "wealthy" folks that stay off the radar and push agendas from behind the scenes. The ones that I've met do not have that "sinister" element per se. Rather, as was pointed out to me, it is literally a collision of diametrically opposed ideas, and it is trickling down through what we see on camera. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

Proof that this groundswell of dissent is against the incumbents in general, regardless of party. If we're really lucky, maybe we can replace all 435 in the House and whoever many are up in the Senate this year. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

While I'm not a fan of the New York Times, they do have notoriety and when even they are openly questioning the future of the Euro, and indeed the European Union, I'd say that makes it significant. I really don't know what to make of it. What do you think would happen? Then, let's assume for a moment what would happen if the Euro did fall...back to the Deutsche Mark, Franc, Lira? The first link is about the European Union. The second one is an opinion piece about the Euro and the realities being faced now. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/08/world/europe/08europe.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/opinion/30krugman.html So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

Venezuela annual inflation rate hits 30 percent How is this possible? Chavez has taken control to stop the "hegemony" of the private sector...by creating a whole new "hegemony" of the government sector. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

Not sure I follow this argument. It seems to me they are regulating how content is transported on the net not what content is permissible. Never underestimate the complete lack of linear thought coming out of Washington DC. Applying 1930s era tariff requirements to 21st century data transport standards is the first indicator of this. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

You were just citing about the consumer end. Tier 1 and Tier 2 providers don't even reach the last mile, let alone consumers. The whole net-neutral thing is supposedly about consumers right? Here's how it will play out. Example: Verizon Communications offers fiber to the premises in several major markets. With this service consumers get bandwidth of 15-50Mbps, plus digital dial tone, and video/cable on demand with virtually no latency. 50 miles away where VZ may still be the ILEC, but it's farmland, VZ will not be provisioning cable due to costs. DSL is available in some areas, but distance hinders bandwidth to 756kbps. POTS and cable are separate services. If VZ is forced to treat all data equally, the result will be that VZ will throttle back the FiOS customers because they will not provision services to enhance customers who live in the back country. FiOS customers will unsubscribe and use lower cost services, causing VZ to lose revenues, you know the rest of the story. Meanwhile, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Apple, et al, pay to ensure that there is plenty of bandwidth and throughput available to access their services and content. Naturally, a combination of dedicated circuits, SONET rings carrying OC-3/12/48/192 etc type capacity. Those services are on 99.999% of the time and have significant service level agreements. All of these services are available to those who are able to pay for it (like you cited). Given those conditions, there is no problem for "clusters" of activity like a campus (business or school or housing development). Back to the consumer. You were saying the Tier 3 provider (last mile) has plenty of bandwidth. Bandwidth isn't the only issue. There's throughput. There's distance to the facilities. There are physical considerations as well. DSL service ability begins to fade greatly past 3000 feet from the CO. Over a mile and most telcos don't even bother. Where the service is robust, the DSLAMs have limited ports to handle the consumer demand, but the natural ratio is between 10:1 and 15:1. The bandwidth is consistent, but throughput is not. Cable is another story. Distance is less of an issue, bandwidth is a problem though because for all the subscribers, they share one big pipe. Bandwidth is not consistent, but throughput is. This is why Comcast now has that "powerboost" feature (which oddly came out before the courts slapped down the FCC on this very issue a month ago). As for overhead, it depends on the standards being used. Packets by their very nature are sized or not whether it's Frame Relay or ATM... The whole net neutrality thing was sold initially as a way to ultimately get broadband to everyone. This is indeed about the last mile, and also dictating how the carriers, provider treat data. The courts have already ruled against the FCC once on this, less than a month ago. The courts will see that you cannot compare packet of data to frequency channels of voice. Packets of data can co-exist on common networks. Voice cannot since it exists in a closed circuit. Data does not. Their very nature is different. Core connections aren't the problem...as you said, there is plenty of capacity in the "cloud". I guarantee you this. If telcos are forced to file tariffs to each state regulator for each type of service like they do traditional telephony, there will be a halt in advanced services deployment outside of traditional MSAs. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

That's because those that back it (Google, Amazon, et al) that have petabytes of data they want to cram through the system don't have to pay the $50,000 per mile to lay fiber, or the $500,000 per stack of network gear, plus blades, plus air-conditioning, plus the real-estate involved to manage the data centers that make the internet run. Trying to get the internet providers to apply the same rules as applies to POTS and other legacy facility services is like using a repair manual for a 1940 Ford sedan on a Formula 1 racing engine. This is what will happen: by "forcing" neutrality, the investors that back the companies that provide the infrastructure by which ALL ISPs use to provide service (not even content), will see diminished return forecasts for expanding the infrastructure because the increased overhead forced by regulation. They will opt to not invest. That means deployment of new services will slow, or stop. Slowed or stopped activity will require less people. Thus, less jobs. The telcos will fight this and I believe they will win. The FCC, by mandating neutrality, by dictating what must be allowed on the net, can, by default can then dictate what cannot be carried. It oversteps their bounds. If you don't like how your provider manages your internet connection, you have choices. Don't like cable? Get DSL. Too far from the CO for DSL? Get satellite. What a physical line? Get a frac-T1. What to spend less? Get dial-up or ISDN. Don't want the local telco/cable provider at all? Use wireless. There are no shortages of options for the consumer. This initiative by the FCC has nothing to do with consumerism. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

Which credit card is it? Many cards have automatic insurance for car rentals. When you contact them, you should discuss with the credit card company about disputing the charges outright. Also, contact the rental agency and dispute the charge - citing that the vehicle was not blown when you called the incident in. If this is a major agency you should be able to get somewhere with them...hopefully. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

THANK GOD! ...and thank you Navy SEALS! So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

Your own CIA says you are wrong, but they have been known to get their facts wrong. (4.3%GDP, which places them 2nd on the list of European Countries after Macedonia, which is who Greece has tensions with). Nice edit of my post. As a percent of GDP, they are ahead of most of Europe. In terms of dollars spent, they aren't. http://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html Agreed. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

Oh, I know that for the most part it is on social programs in Greece. Interestingly enough (but really a side point) Greece also spends more on their military than most other European Nations. Nice parallell..... Um...no...Greece trails Netherlands, Spain, Turkey, Italy, Germany, UK, France, Poland...as a percentage of GDP, it's about 4.5%, which is ahead of many other EU percentages. In terms of absolute Euros spent, they aren't even in the top 20... Absolutely is material. Finite fiscal budgets can be adjusted (military, infrastructure), social programs are perpetual (like pensions, health care)... So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

The whole downfall can be traced back to someone returning a used tent to the Athens WalMart and getting a full refund. LMAO! So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

Well, if he heads south down I-5, and turns east toward Visalia (Rt 198), he could go to Sequoia National Park, and Kings Canyon National Park...they have redwoods there too. Striking! So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!