And that - lack of scientific knowledge to benefit humanity - is in a nutshell, precisely what the Schedule-1-ness of cannabis has given humanity. Yes, I know there are very rare, and very tightly controlled exceptions to the prohibition on medical studies, but seriously, I'm still waiting for the declassified report that explains that cannabis was invented by the CIA or KGB or some such. Sadly the only other plausible theory I have is shameful incompetence for generations on the part of our leaders. Or complicity in a conspiracy to profit on an invented vice market. Or... seriously people, chime in with theories. I've been smoking a lot of herb for half my life- a couple decades now. And those are the best theories I have...

disclaimer: complainant here: The terms say "prohibited". Look it up.

disclaimer: complainant here who hasn't RTFA yet. My standard response to the business issue is this quote from the FCC Network Neutrality document-

FCC-10-201 Report and Order Preserving the Open Internet:
(*** emphasis mine ***)
"
Startups and small businesses benefit because the Internet’s openness enables ***anyone connected to the network to reach and do business with anyone else***,(16) allowing even the smallest and most remotely located businesses to access national and global markets, and contribute to the economy through e-commerce
"

"If you're using the service more, you should expect to pay more."

disclaimer: complainant here: I agree with this. But there is not an option for it, nor an option to _not use the service more_ *and pay the same* (just happening to be running an openarena game server instead of skyping like your next door neighbor, but using no more bandwidth than your neighbor).

disclaimer: complainant here who hasn't RTFA yet. My standard response to the business issue is this quote from the FCC Network Neutrality document-

FCC-10-201 Report and Order Preserving the Open Internet:
(*** emphasis mine ***)
"
Startups and small businesses benefit because the Internet’s openness enables ***anyone connected to the network to reach and do business with anyone else***,(16) allowing even the smallest and most remotely located businesses to access national and global markets, and contribute to the economy through e-commerce
"

disclosure: complainant here- I'd consider it a favor if someone would mod the parent up. The comment it is responding to is 4-informative, and seems in my view to give sanction to the whitewashing of- well, if everybody has been making these blatant marketing lies about unlimited bandwidth while massaging the network for their maximum profits and convenience (engineering lazyness in part) at the expense of free speech empowerment for residential users (I would argue perhaps the most important class of internet end-points or edges)... Anyway, you get my point.

disclosure: complainant here. I disagree, as mentioned elsewhere about any legitimacy to commercial vs non-commercial. The point I make there is - when you trade your eyeball attention at google ads in exchange for an advanced gmail cloud service, you are engaging in commercial internet traffic. By capitalistic theory, you wouldn't be doing it if you didn't feel you'd profit from it. And in this case, the profit can be measured in dollars. Next, the way your last sentence sounds makes sense, but again, you are mistankenly tying different levels of SLA with "commercial/noncommercial". Correlation is not causation, though this is another case where that gets easily confused. I.e, call it "high-grade vs low-grade" service all you like and charge different prices. Just don't tell me that how much I profit personally as an end-user from a fixed number of packets determines how much I get charged from them. We don't need that extra taxman in the picture.

dislosure- complainant here: The *point* is that I don't care what they "don't care about". What I care about is being *free* to run that carpenter website, without feeling *guilty that I am willfully violating the simple and clear wording of a contract I entered into*.

That is the problem.

disclosure: complainant here. And I'm pointing out that the Network Neutrality rules forbid the blocking of traffic to *any/all* legal devices. They don't get to, either in their switches and routers, or in their terms of service, decide that my linux pc running an openarena server has less worthy traffic than my neighbor uploading lol-cat videos to youtube. Otherwise the network operators would be in too great a position to effectively shape and dominate the internet devices marketplace. Which of course they'd all love to do. Even Google.

What about a linux pc running an apache/web and openarena/game servers serving personal photos to friends and family? How about a custom carpenter showing off his work for potential customers to see and a phone number to call to arrange payment and shipment? Where exactly do you draw that line? Network Neutrality is about the idea that the network operator doesn't get to draw that line. They have to treat traffic as traffic. It doesn't matter whether it was a carpenter's server eating up traffic, or a chronic lol-cat youtube uploader. They have to deal with such congestion in ways that do not give preference to any lawful application, service, or device. Otherwise it won't be long till only Google branded, or Google certified devices are allowed to be used with your Google connection (bit of an exageration, the actual road forward will be subtler, but with as much as they can get away with that helps drive up their overall profits).

disclosure: complainant here- I like that you brought up the idea of charging for static IP addresses. I agree that IPv4 addresses are a scarcity, and thus it may be reasonable to charge for them. Do you think it is reasonable to charge for a static IPv6 address? Do you realize how not-a-scarcity they are?

So wrong... Look up TimeWarner's ToS as a start. I'm sure there are others. It's actually precisely because of network neutrality and how a server is a "lawful device". Google made a boo boo in not figuring that out much sooner.

complainant here, please mod (*THE PARENT*) up, which contains this text-
"
subject: and so the internet dies

The whole original IDEA was peer to peer networking that could route around damage. Somehow, we've let it become "everything gets routed through a few big players, and they can tell you what packets you can send and receive".

Sad thing is, this direction has been BLINDINGLY obvious for over a decade, easy. But nobody cared. It's only going to get worse and worse, until the internet is TV 2.0, just like the media companies wanted. And we - the internet using public - sat idly by and let them do it.
"

False. Just because servers on average use much more capacity than clients, does not mean mine will. Correlation is not causation.