Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #5618

Re: POTUS backs net neutrality

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 22:12:13 +0200, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Anthony Giacalone <anthonyg@invalid.sdf.nospam.org>:

> I don't quite understand. If, say, Montana enacted a net neutrality law,
> how could Comcast escape that in Montana? If Comcast didn't want to do
> business in Montana, others would take its business there.

I thought that I just expained it, but let me give it another go:

Say I'm Comcast and I currently do business in Montana. Now say that
Montana enacts a net neutrality law that requires unfiltered access to
the Internet and with no "speed lanes", or preferred sites, or anything
like that. Great.

Now let's say that Comcast also does business in Idaho and Idaho does
not have any such restrictions (or, even worse, explicitly allows ISPs
to filter). And, by circumstance, a large switch exists in Idaho which 
serves the Montana area. Comcast could, in order to comply with Idaho law, 
claim that it is filtering and enacting restrictions in compliance with that
law and not Montana's even though it affects Montana residents, it's
subject to Idaho law and not Montana's. 

See the problem here? 

It's for these reasons (inconsistency of laws) that federal regulatory 
agencies exist and why historically the telecommunications industry fell 
under some strict regulations and why it was a complete mess prior to the 
1990s (remember the old long-distance provider fiascos? I dread going back 
to those days).

>> State legislation isn't going to solve this one. Net neutrality is one
>> of those all or nothing things which needs to be handled on a federal
>> level.
>
> You have a pretty limited view of the Internet. How do Canada,
> Australia, France and Lithuania factor in the "federal level?"

Thanks for telling me what I know. I'm so glad people like you exist to
remind me of these things!

Canada, Australia, France, and Lithuania are different countries. I
doubt that Comcast operates there...but I could be wrong, I suppose. And
not at all set up legally like the United States. That's what we're
discussing here, right? US law?

> Or should we let the UN administer the Internet? Otherwise, what would
> prevent Comcast from routing its traffic around the United States
> altogether?

No, that would be silly. And Comcast is subject to US law since they are
a US company and also subject to regulaion under many different federal
organizations--which is how our legal system is set up. My whole point
was that a state-by-state solution is not a good one because it is easy
to work around in any particular company's favor.

Back to comp.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

POTUS backs net neutrality Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-11-10 23:31 +0000
  Re: POTUS backs net neutrality RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-11-11 08:05 +0000
    Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-11-11 09:10 +0000
      Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-11-11 14:08 +0000
        Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Anthony Giacalone <anthonyg@invalid.sdf.nospam.org> - 2014-11-11 19:20 +0000
          Re: POTUS backs net neutrality RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-11-12 14:46 +0000
            Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-11-12 17:26 +0200
              Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Anthony Giacalone <anthonyg@invalid.sdf.nospam.org> - 2014-11-12 19:07 +0000
                Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-11-12 22:12 +0200
                Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Anthony Giacalone <anthonyg@invalid.sdf.nospam.org> - 2014-11-12 21:09 +0000
                Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-11-13 00:27 +0200
                Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-11-13 11:26 +0000
                Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Anthony Giacalone <anthonyg@invalid.sdf.nospam.org> - 2014-11-13 14:44 +0000
                Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-11-13 17:02 +0200
                Re: POTUS backs net neutrality RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-11-14 16:18 +0000
    Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-11-13 16:21 -0800

csiph-web