Mike Hammett wrote:
Free speech protections are exactly that - free speech protections. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects you against the Government but I submit that if your ISP cuts you off from the Internet because they don't like your politics then your Free Speech has been restricted and that's why a rule is necessary to be sure your ISP can't cut you off not because of how much bandwidth you are using (they can slow you down to the level that you signed up for) but simply because of your opinions or what (legal) website you visit.Free speech protections are against the government, not individuals and companies. Speak your mind to your boss, get fired, then try to sue under the First Amendment. Fat chance. That's just not practical for many people, as I pointed out. They often can't go elsewhere and most people can't "start their own".I provided for there not being alternatives in my previous message... start ISP C (or B if no one else is there). If you don't like it, go somewhere else or do it on your own. And if the satellite company doesn't like it because your politics are different from their politics, now where are you going to go???You don't have the right to say whatever at zero cost (nor the right to an audience), just the right to say whatever. You can get wholesale satellite access anywhere in the world (host county regulations withstanding). There's your right to say what you want. You just have to weigh your desire to say it against the cost of doing so. Filtering for bandwidth is perfectly OK and any ISP that isn't already going that is WAAAAY behind the curve. But if you filter for bandwidth (as you should be doing already) then you can not filter just because you don't like what somebody is doing with the legal bandwidth that you agreed to sell them. You can restrict their bandwidth to the agreed-level (and you should) but if you cut me off because you don't like what I'm saying then that is (or should be) illegal.Besides, WE are the ISPs. I see ZERO possible way it benefits us at all. Not only does it force us to not filter, but it removes the business case of an ISP (or service) that doesn't filter. Since by law then no ISP could filter, there wouldn't be an advantage. I don't follow your point here. DO restrict bandwidth to the contracted level, just don't tell me where on the Internet I can or can not go.Maybe I had a $40 connection that had P2P speed limiters or blocking or what have you. I could have a $100 connection that didn't have those.... or a wholesale connection. Why would anyone want to spend $150/meg for unrestricted bandwidth instead of $40 for 6 megs when the government prevents you from restricting in the first place. "Reasonable" should be defined in the law and (if necessary) interpreted by the courts.Yes, I know there's a clause in there about reasonable protection measures, but the definition of reasonable is purposely vague. If someone doesn't like you, all of a sudden your restriction is unreasonable. I think you did an excellent job of expressing yourself without going off-track into politics. This issue is really bigger than traditional left-right politics. I think this issue is one area (I could be wrong; we'll see...) where the left and the right will agree that they don't want to be silenced by anybody - not by the government and not by telecom or Internet companies. Everybody understands the dangers of censorship and dictatorship where people lose their right to speak freely. I don't think that statement is too "political" either. I think Freedom transcends politics but if I'm wrong then I apologize. I've been pretty quiet lately but when it comes to preserving Freedom (for everyone, left, center and right) I feel I need to speak up and take a stand. I hope you understand.I think I said what I meant to say without going too far off topic into politics. jack ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jack Unger" <jun...@ask-wi.com> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 5:07 PM To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
