MoveOn.org and the GOA agree on something!

[308nato]

Beerslurpy:

I just have to ask when I visit my brother inlaw in Jacksonville can I
stop by and help taste test what you have in the white container.

 

[liberalgunnut]

I'm going into patent law, but I'm coming out of the tech sector so I sort of keep up to date on this stuff.

You're a good person to know.

I have to agree with you on the insane infringement damages... I'm from photography background. when we were shooting copywrite infringements were starting at $52k. I had a good buddy who paid for his kids college after Leno swiped one of his stock images of his kid for a joke image on the tonight show.

 

[Critter183]

Beerslurpy said: The marketplace has already indicated that it has the ability to punish the backbone providers when they dont play nice.

I agree. I think if any move is made to change the status quo, the loss of subscriber revenue to providers would be sufficient to effect a rethinking of thier ideas.

I know my $40 per month, and probably a few million others, would dry up in an instant. I don't know many industries that can lose $400 million per month in revenue and not be "punished". hehehe

 

[Critter183]

Maned Wolf said: If net neutrality ends, they'd be a battleship to your toy rowboat

But they would be a battleship with only a choir as an audience. The value of the internet is the wealth of information instantly accessable to anyone looking. Once that information becomes difficult to get, internet usage will shrink drastically, I think. Along with lost users goes lost revenue for providers.

I don't know many people willing to fork over $30 or $40 or more per month for high speed access to a select few sites they may or may not ever think of visiting. I know I won't.

I might switch to very cheap or free dial up just to be able to use email, but that's about it. My $40 a month for DSL will be gone, and so will my $50 per month for webhosting. That is $90 a month from one lost user. Multiply that by a few million, and it adds up quickly.

Ending net neutrality will be suicide for many ISPs, I think.

 

[WayneConrad]

I vote with my dollars already. I pay extra for a DSL provider that promises not to portscan me, not to filter my data, and not to care how many or what servers I am running.

Gee, you can charge more for a service and some people will desire it because it's got some differentiating feature? Who would have thought that the free market actually works.

The internet has been a spectacular economic success precicely because it's grown faster than the federal government's ability to regulate it.

The free market really can take care of most of what ails ya. In many cases where people say it hasn't, if you look behind the curtain, you'll find the hands of government were pulling the levers that were causing the whole mess.

 

[Gifted]

If the cable company needs more money to maintain the connection to my how, they can just raise the rates. They don't need this crap. If you look at website hosting, you'll see that you already pay more for greater bandwidth. So that's what told me this is crap.

I don't know many people willing to fork over $30 or $40 or more per month for high speed access to a select few sites they may or may not ever think of visiting. I know I won't.

WHy I don't have cable TV, even though Charter keeps sending me crap. If they threw it on top of my 30+ highspeed, I might get it, but not paying an EXTRA 30 for it.

Some of the stuff about wireless I've heard means that in a few years, this crap will be useless. Even if they pass it, it won't happen.