Reply #33: I *want* regulation of content to be allowed on my own damn networks. [View All]

I also worry that the FCC tends to over-reach. Also, this isn't just about Obama, this is about regulation that will exist under liberals and conservatives... as well as under content-ban attempts by the likes of Hillary Clinton (who didn't like video games), and Tipper Gore (who didn't like music), and the likes of the RIAA and MPAA. That's the downside of allowing *any* kind of federal content regulation that I, and others, are concerned about.

The flip side is that I *want* to be able to control content on my own networks. There's no sane reason the government should be allowed to step in and demand I always allow port 1433 into and through my networks, exposing my business clients to remote MSSQL attacks. The reason the internet has remained accessible and relatively safe is *because* me, and my peers, are able to react quickly and shut down, or control, unacceptable or excessive content, or be proactive and limit content ahead of time.

Heck, the whole reason for this problem, or, rather, the "spark" that ignited this, was content that has absolutely nothing to do with the web.

Let me repeat: Comcast was slowing down *non-web* traffic, in order to keep their web traffic flowing smoothly.

In specific, rather than shutting down port 80 (http), or 443 (https), traffic, they were sending "please stop" signals to people who were running non-web, file sharing, software (on ports 6881-6999), that was overloading their networks (BitTorrent traffic can easily swamp an entire neighborhood's worth of capacity, the "torrent" part of the name isn't an accident).

As far as Comcast having any kind of "monopoly", that's certainly not true where I live, nor is it true in most locations that I've lived and worked in.. there's a vast number of smaller companies that provide services to both large and small users.

Here's one way of finding more:
http://www.dslreports.com/search

edit: add a resource to locate competing ISP services