Mike, see our public disclosures. It’s been up for a long time, and I’m not going to repeat it here over and over again. We don’t hide our funding like Free Press which lists the majority of their major donations as “person”.

Now instead of attacking our funding, why don’t you explain your positions on which of these business models you would ban if any. Be courageous and take a stance rather than just lashing out with mindless rhetoric.

If anything, your blind following of Net Neutrality is going to harm consumers by killing off Paid Peering http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/fcc-nprm-ban-on-paid-peering-harms-new-innovators/ and forcing smaller content providers to pay more money for lousier Transit bandwidth.

We have plenty of people on here who disagree with us or flat out call us wrong, and we have a record of posting everyone’s comment short of something vulgar. TS has a particular history of trolling on this site, and there’s only so much we can tolerate. TS has had his say on this subject, but he’s not going to get to troll on for 10 threads.

Your “article” seems more like a pitch in support of their best interests. In the end, I worry the customers will lose.

Kicking someone off, or limiting someone’s freedom of speech isn’t the path to victory.

Good luck.

You admit CDN is an enhanced delivery model. Net Neutrality regulation from the FCC bans prioritized OR *ENHANCED* business models.

Statements like “That Jitter is the problem when the real problem is oversubscription and raw throughput” verify that you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.

A. Over-subscription is how ALL networks are built. You have to be delusional to think otherwise.
B. Jitter is a product of packet switching and can occur even when there is no over-subscription and can occur during low traffic states. This is due to the fact that many applications (any file transfer operation) are designed to exceed the network capacity hundreds of times per second.

Don’t need to rehash why you’re so wrong on your second set of questions when I can link to this.
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/debunking-the-myth-that-prioritized-networks-are-harmful/

And again, AT&T never rejected Google Voice. AT&T and Apple have both stated that Apple rejected the Google Voice *APPLICATION*. Note that Google Voice itself was never blocked and it functioned on the iPhone and other smart phones the entire time.

End thread.

TS, based on your history of abusive posts in which you troll endlessly, your subsequent comments in this thread have been and will be classified as spam. You get a few chances to have your say, but there’s a limit to the amount of trolling I’m going to allow on here.

Ouch. Let’s see, that’s coming from someone who argues:

1. Longer duty cycle is a better connection.
2. CDN is an enhanced delivery model when it is just a proximity optimization.
3. That Jitter is the problem when the real problem is oversubscription and raw throughput.(A network engineer should have known that)

Look, I think I will stop now. You don’t refute the fact that you are paid by Digital Society to write those articles, and Digital Society is sponsored by the telecoms. So your opinion is biased, and non-authentic.

In the end, you fight for telecom’s attempt to preserve old way of unfair business practices. Net neutrality proponents fight for the common sense ethics and fairness. You think net neutrality is about paid peering agreements. The real battle is about end users’ freedom to choose whatever application they want to run without artificial traffic shaping and preferential treatment.

Every time I bring up a question you couldn’t answer, you come up with another article to pump the same crap, only at a different angle.

Answer those questions first before you want people to believe you know what you are talking about alright?

1. Bits are the same. Why you think ISPs should have the power to prioritize based on their interpretation of what the bits represent?

2. Both customers ordered a dinner at a restaurant. Do you think it is ethical for the waiter to charge an extra $5 for prioritized service at the expense of a previous customer who ordered first, assuming that the number of chefs in the kitchen remains the same? Do you think it is ethical to give priority to a customer who ordered a higher priced dish?

3. AT&T allows Skype and Vonage on the iPhone, yet rejects Google Voice. The whole net neutrality thing was kicked into high gear because of that. Explain the logicality of that rejection.

You are right, I don’t know what I am talking about. Until you give satisfactory answers to those 3 questions, you are even more clueless than I thought.

TS :

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm

George, I do believe you and J.James have the intelligence to understand what I talked about. Give it a few months, you and Justin will be required by law to disclose any tangible or intangible payments you received from DigitalSociety to spread anti-Net Neturality messages.

That would affect the bloggosphere quite a bit going forward. Actually it probably would kill the majority of professional bloggers. We will see.

If you are interested in my full list of disclosures, I maintain it here:
http://www.thesophist.com/index.php?id=75

To summarize it, though, the only profit or gain I have ever made in relation to my writing on this particular site is that a magazine asked me to write an article for them based on seeing something I wrote here.

I should update my contributor entry on this site to point to that page. Last week, I pointed the TechRepublic folks to that page too, so they can more easily update their little bio of me on each of their pages.

J.Ja

“Net Neutrality would prevent ISPs from making choices for the end user about what applications the end users can use, or which “Content Application Service” the “End User” wants to reach, regardless if there is a peering agreement between the ISP and the CAS.”

You clearly haven’t a clue what you are talking about and you clearly haven’t even read any of the proposed regulation or legislation. Nobody is against rules that would stop censorship, but that is not where the proposed regulation and legislation ends. The problem is that Net Neutrality regulation as it is currently drafted by the FCC is vague and open ended and it appears to ban many types of valuable services offered by ISPs to content providers that I mentioned in my article which I linked to.

Justin James has zero relationship to Digital Society nor has he reviewed or even linked to any content there. I don’t even know why you’re dragging his name into this.

I work for Digital Society and it’s been clearly disclosed here http://www.formortals.com/contributors/ for a while. I am also linking to my own article so it’s pretty obvious I’m associated with them. I don’t need to disclose that I have financial relationships with myself.

George, I do believe you and J.James have the intelligence to understand what I talked about. Give it a few months, you and Justin will be required by law to disclose any tangible or intangible payments you received from DigitalSociety to spread anti-Net Neturality messages.

That would affect the bloggosphere quite a bit going forward. Actually it probably would kill the majority of professional bloggers. We will see.