Home | Community | Message Board

Avalon Magic Plants
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
Network neutrality
    #8241900 - 04/05/08 09:49 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

From:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/opinion/05kulash.html?_r=3&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Quote:

Op-Ed Contributor
Beware the New New Thing

RECENTLY, the House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust task force invited me to be the lead witness for its hearing on “net neutrality.” I’ve collaborated with the Future of Music Coalition, and my band, OK Go, has been among the first to find real success on the Internet — our songs and videos have been streamed and downloaded hundreds of millions of times (orders of magnitude above our CD sales) — so the committee thought I’d make a decent spokesman for up-and-coming musicians in this new era of digital pandemonium.

I’m flattered, of course, but it makes you wonder if Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner sit around arguing who was listening to Vampire Weekend first.

If you haven’t been following the debate on net neutrality, you’re not alone. The details of the issue can lead into realms where only tech geeks and policy wonks dare to tread, but at root there’s a pretty simple question: How much control should network operators be allowed to have over the information on their lines?

Most people assume that the Internet is a democratic free-for-all by nature — that it could be no other way. But the openness of the Internet as we know it is a byproduct of the fact that the network was started on phone lines. The phone system is subject to “common carriage” laws, which require phone companies to treat all calls and customers equally. They can’t offer tiered service in which higher-paying customers get their calls through faster or clearer, or calls originating on a competitor’s network are blocked or slowed.

These laws have been on the books for about as long as telephones have been ringing, and were meant to keep Bell from using its elephantine market share to squash everyone else. And because of common carriage, digital data running over the phone lines has essentially been off limits to the people who laid the lines. But in the last decade, the network providers have argued that since the Internet is no longer primarily run on phone lines, the laws of data equality no longer apply. They reason that they own the fiber optic and coaxial lines, so they should be able to do whatever they want with the information crossing them.

Under current law, they’re right. They can block certain files or Web sites for their subscribers, or slow or obstruct certain applications. And they do, albeit pretty rarely. Network providers have censored anti-Bush comments from an online Pearl Jam concert, refused to allow a text-messaging program from the pro-choice group Naral (saying it was “unsavory”), blocked access to the Internet phone service (and direct competitor) Vonage and selectively throttled online traffic that was using the BitTorrent protocol.

When the network operators pull these stunts, there is generally widespread outrage. But outright censorship and obstruction of access are only one part of the issue, and they represent the lesser threat, in the long run. What we should worry about more is not what’s kept from us today, but what will be built (or not built) in the years to come.

We hate when things are taken from us (so we rage at censorship), but we also love to get new things. And the providers are chomping at the bit to offer them to us: new high-bandwidth treats like superfast high-definition video and quick movie downloads. They can make it sound great: newer, bigger, faster, better! But the new fast lanes they propose will be theirs to control and exploit and sell access to, without the level playing field that common carriage built into today’s network.

They won’t be blocking anything per se — we’ll never know what we’re not getting — they’ll just be leapfrogging today’s technology with a new, higher-bandwidth network where they get to be the gatekeepers and toll collectors. The superlative new video on offer will be available from (surprise, surprise) them, or companies who’ve paid them for the privilege of access to their customers. If this model sounds familiar, that’s because it is. It’s how cable TV operates.

We can’t allow a system of gatekeepers to get built into the network. The Internet shouldn’t be harnessed for the profit of a few, rather than the good of the many; value should come from the quality of information, not the control of access to it.

For some parallel examples: there are only two guitar companies who make most of the guitars sold in America, but they don’t control what we play on those guitars. Whether we use a Mac or a PC doesn’t govern what we can make with our computers. The telephone company doesn’t get to decide what we discuss over our phone lines. It would be absurd to let the handful of companies who connect us to the Internet determine what we can do online. Congress needs to establish basic ground rules for an open Internet, just as common carriage laws did for the phone system.

The Internet, for now, is the type of place where my band’s homemade videos find a wider audience than the industry’s million-dollar productions. A good idea is still more important than deep pockets. If network providers are allowed to build the next generation of the Net as a pay-to-play system, we will all pay the price.

Damian Kulash Jr. is the lead singer for OK Go.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedill705
Amazed
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 3,779
Loc: The Cat's Cradle
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Network neutrality [Re: phi1618]
    #8243166 - 04/05/08 04:33 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Keep the internet free :awesome:


--------------------
My advice is to find those things that give pleasure and do them often without too much attachment and relax and wait for the show to end.

-Icelander-

I like free markets and all. Truly I do, at least in general, but there needs to be some kind of oversight in recognition of sustainability. Life works the same way, on a bunch of sustainable systems. Why not honor what made us what we are and take some lessons? Nature FTW!

~dill705~

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleklimt
Stranger
Male


Registered: 03/07/08
Posts: 461
Re: Network neutrality [Re: phi1618]
    #8243177 - 04/05/08 04:37 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Net Neutrality = Net Socialism.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
Re: Network neutrality [Re: klimt]
    #8243397 - 04/05/08 05:34 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Net Neutrality = Net Socialism.




Care to elaborate on that?

Providers in the US have an effective monopoly - as a legal monopoly they should be regulated. Contrast the situation in the US with that in Japan - in 2000, the Japanese gov't compelled service providers to open up the lines to competition. As a result, Japan now has 10-100 times the capacity for half the price (part of this is better existing infrastructure and a more favorable distribution of people, but smart regulation is the most important factor).

Net neutrality ensures even competition for content providers, and prevents service providers from censoring and monopolizing content. This isn't a question of socialism, but of smart regulation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleklimt
Stranger
Male


Registered: 03/07/08
Posts: 461
Re: Network neutrality [Re: phi1618]
    #8243564 - 04/05/08 06:14 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

phil1618:

I have an open mind. I am willing to be convinced that there are some fundamental problems with the Internet that need to be addressed. From my reading there are problems, but Net Neutrality is not the way to go.

If you want to help me out, I am more than willing to be convinced of the merits of N.N. However, I have not found one scholarly journal that is advocating the implantation of N.N. On the other hand, I have found a plethora of scholars, including the father of the Internet, against it.

So, please: Google Scholar

find me at least two. I'll read it with an open mind and try to understand it as best as I can.

Here is one for you, from the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, page 8:

Quote:

I would like to explore whether imposing network neutrality would forestall the realization of important economic benefits. What emerges is a fascinating picture that is more complex than that suggested by the current literature. My analysis reveals that network neutrality is based on assumptions about the uniformity of consumer demand and the infeasibility of entry that, while having some validity during the early days of the Internet, no longer hold true. In addition, it suggests that the term “network neutrality” is something of a misnomer.

Adoption of any standardized interface has the inevitable effect of favoring certain applications and disfavoring others. For example, TCP/IP routes packets anonymously on a “first come, first served” and “best efforts” basis. Thus, it is poorly suited to applications that are less tolerant of variations in throughput rates, such as streaming media and VoIP, and is biased against network-based security features that protect e-commerce and ward off viruses and spam.

Contrary to what the nomenclature might suggest, network neutrality is anything but neutral. Indeed, using regulation to standardize interfaces has the unfortunate effect of forcing the government to act as the central planner of the technological evolution of the network.




I can provide you with twenty other scholars saying the same thing.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleklimt
Stranger
Male


Registered: 03/07/08
Posts: 461
Re: Network neutrality [Re: klimt]
    #8243602 - 04/05/08 06:20 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

By the way "forcing the government to act as the central planner" sounds like socialism to me. Therefore, I find a much more accurate and suitable term to be Net Socialism.

Edited by klimt (04/05/08 06:27 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
Re: Network neutrality [Re: klimt]
    #8243973 - 04/05/08 07:35 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

I will read the document you linked. However, you should be a little skeptical of what you read, scholarly journal or not - things in journals are highly unreliable, since their typically reports of current research that needs to be replicated and debated.

Here's a key observation of the work you've linked:
The author works for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.

Maybe I should read a document by somebody who doesn't work for the main lobbyist group opposing network neutrality instead?

Anyway, I'll get around to reading it.

Edited by phi1618 (04/05/08 07:39 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
Re: Network neutrality [Re: klimt]
    #8244030 - 04/05/08 07:45 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

How about Lawrence Lessig? He is even the first citation of the paper you link. He is a powerful proponent of network neutrality, well respected in technical circles even though he's a professor of law.

Here's an op-ed he wrote on the subject:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html
Quote:

No Tolls on The Internet

By Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney
Thursday, June 8, 2006; Page A23

Congress is about to cast a historic vote on the future of the Internet. It will decide whether the Internet remains a free and open technology fostering innovation, economic growth and democratic communication, or instead becomes the property of cable and phone companies that can put toll booths at every on-ramp and exit on the information superhighway.

At the center of the debate is the most important public policy you've probably never heard of: "network neutrality." Net neutrality means simply that all like Internet content must be treated alike and move at the same speed over the network. The owners of the Internet's wires cannot discriminate. This is the simple but brilliant "end-to-end" design of the Internet that has made it such a powerful force for economic and social good: All of the intelligence and control is held by producers and users, not the networks that connect them.

Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.

* Electro Mate
* Le D??panneur
* Telecom Trends


Full List of Blogs (293 links) »

Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web

Save & Share

* Tag This Article


Saving options
1. Save to description:
Headline (required)
Byline
2. Save to notes (255 character max):
Blurb
3. Tag This Article

The protections that guaranteed network neutrality have been law since the birth of the Internet -- right up until last year, when the Federal Communications Commission eliminated the rules that kept cable and phone companies from discriminating against content providers. This triggered a wave of announcements from phone company chief executives that they plan to do exactly that.

Now Congress faces a legislative decision. Will we reinstate net neutrality and keep the Internet free? Or will we let it die at the hands of network owners itching to become content gatekeepers? The implications of permanently losing network neutrality could not be more serious. The current legislation, backed by companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, would allow the firms to create different tiers of online service. They would be able to sell access to the express lane to deep-pocketed corporations and relegate everyone else to the digital equivalent of a winding dirt road. Worse still, these gatekeepers would determine who gets premium treatment and who doesn't.

Their idea is to stand between the content provider and the consumer, demanding a toll to guarantee quality delivery. It's what Timothy Wu, an Internet policy expert at Columbia University, calls "the Tony Soprano business model": By extorting protection money from every Web site -- from the smallest blogger to Google -- network owners would earn huge profits. Meanwhile, they could slow or even block the Web sites and services of their competitors or those who refuse to pay up. They'd like Congress to "trust them" to behave.

Without net neutrality, the Internet would start to look like cable TV. A handful of massive companies would control access and distribution of content, deciding what you get to see and how much it costs. Major industries such as health care, finance, retailing and gambling would face huge tariffs for fast, secure Internet use -- all subject to discriminatory and exclusive dealmaking with telephone and cable giants.

We would lose the opportunity to vastly expand access and distribution of independent news and community information through broadband television. More than 60 percent of Web content is created by regular people, not corporations. How will this innovation and production thrive if creators must seek permission from a cartel of network owners?

The smell of windfall profits is in the air in Washington. The phone companies are pulling out all the stops to legislate themselves monopoly power. They're spending tens of millions of dollars on inside-the-Beltway print, radio and TV ads; high-priced lobbyists; coin-operated think tanks; and sham "Astroturf" groups -- fake grass-roots operations with such Orwellian names as Hands Off the Internet and NetCompetition.org.

They're opposed by a real grass-roots coalition of more than 700 groups, 5,000 bloggers and 750,000 individual Americans who have rallied in support of net neutrality at http://www.savetheinternet.com/ . The coalition is left and right, commercial and noncommercial, public and private. Supporters include the Christian Coalition of America, MoveOn.org, National Religious Broadcasters, the Service Employees International Union, the American Library Association, AARP and nearly every consumer group. It includes the founders of the Internet, the brand names of Silicon Valley, and a bloc of retailers, innovators and entrepreneurs. Coalitions of such breadth, depth and purpose are rare in contemporary politics.

Most of the great innovators in the history of the Internet started out in their garages with great ideas and little capital. This is no accident. Network neutrality protections minimized control by the network owners, maximized competition and invited outsiders in to innovate. Net neutrality guaranteed a free and competitive market for Internet content. The benefits are extraordinary and undeniable.

Congress is deciding on the fate of the Internet. The question before it is simple: Should the Internet be handed over to the handful of cable and telephone companies that control online access for 98 percent of the broadband market? Only a Congress besieged by high-priced telecom lobbyists and stuffed with campaign contributions could possibly even consider such an absurd act.

People are waking up to what's at stake, and their voices are growing louder by the day. As millions of citizens learn the facts, the message to Congress is clear: Save the Internet.

Lawrence Lessig is a law professor at Stanford University and founder of the Center for Internet and Society. Robert W. McChesney is a communications professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and co-founder of the media reform group Free Press.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
Re: Network neutrality [Re: klimt]
    #8244048 - 04/05/08 07:48 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Here's from the second text page of the article you linked:

Quote:

Leading cable modem and DSL providers have asserted that they have not blocked access to any content or applications and that competitive forces would preclude any future attempt to do so.8 Indeed, the FCC and leading congressional proponents of network neutrality have repeat-edly noted the lack of evidence of any such activity.




While this may have been the case in Fall 2005 when the article was published, it is patently not the case now, as numerous incidents of content-based censorship and protocol-based throttling have occurred.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleklimt
Stranger
Male


Registered: 03/07/08
Posts: 461
Re: Network neutrality [Re: phi1618]
    #8244138 - 04/05/08 08:12 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Do you notice the difference in quality of the article I sent you and the piece propaganda you sent me? The Harvard journal article I sent you is 77 pages long with over 300 sources with purposed solutions -- yours is a few paragraphs of empty rhetoric.

Can you please find a scholarly journal article? Use Google Scholar . I would be very interested in reading it. As to the incidents of censorship, please find me journal articles that discuss this problem.

Thanks for keeping an open mind...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
Re: Network neutrality [Re: klimt]
    #8244158 - 04/05/08 08:16 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Listen to this:
Quote:

network diversity might make it possible for three different last-mile networks to coexist: one optimized for tradi-tional Internet applications such as e-mail and website access; another incorporating security features to facilitate e-commerce and to guard against viruses, spam, and other undesirable aspects of life on the Internet; and a third that prioritizes packets in the manner needed to facilitate time-sensitive applications such as streaming media and VoIP. Each would survive by catering to the market segment that places the highest value on a particular type of service.
Extended to its logical conclusion, this analysis suggests that pub-lic policy would be better served if Congress and the FCC were to embrace a “network diversity” principle that permits network owners to deploy proprietary protocols and to enter into exclusivity agree-ments with content providers. Preventing network owners from differ-entiating their offerings would forestall this process. In other words, standardization of TCP/IP would have the effect of narrowing the di-mensions of competition, forcing networks to compete solely on the basis of price and network size. The commodification of bandwidth would foreclose one avenue for mitigating the advantages enjoyed by the largest players.




We get somehow from "might make it possible..." to "policy would be better served..." You follow that - lay out a hypothetical scenario that doesn't exist in today's world (and for a variety of reasons is highly unlikely to be the outcome of a lack of network neutrality regulation) and leap from that hypothetical to a concrete policy suggestion that we should "permit network owners to deploy proprietary protocols and to enter into exclusivity agree-ments with content providers."

The author suggests that, if we allow Verison to give us fast access to Verizon-TV and Verizon-IPhone but very slow access to Google and the Shroomery, a competitor will simply come along and build their own network.

I think it should be obvious that this will not work in the present environment. There are only so many wires going into each home, and there will only be so many wires in place. Are we going to pass a law that anybody can string wires, cable, or fiber along the side of the street to connect to people's homes?

The argument presented in that paper is basically that we should promote competition for the last mile, and allow services for the last mile to take any old form. Good in theory, but he suggests that the way to do this is to encourage new providers to build their own networks. These networks are built on public property, are super-duper expensive to install, benefit from massive "network effects", and it makes sense to only have a few. This is a stupid argument.

I have no problem with getting rid of network neutrality and in exchange opening up competition within the existing physical networks. However, this is not what Dr. Christopher "gimmie the telecom $$$" Yoo has in mind.

Seriously, this guy is an industry shill weaving fantastic stories to impress congress in exchange for money.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
Re: Network neutrality [Re: klimt]
    #8244176 - 04/05/08 08:19 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Do you have actual arguments, of just "appeal to authority"?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
Re: Network neutrality [Re: phi1618]
    #8244235 - 04/05/08 08:30 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Here's one linked through Google Scholar (the original pdf is missing) (copy/paste and remove the space, I'm having trouble getting the link to show properly):
http://66.102.1.104/scholar? hl=en&lr=&q=cache:BGX9m_SepNAJ:www.democraticmedia.org/PDFs/timwu.pdf
Notice again that Lawrence Lessig is mentioned right off; he is the main name in this debate. Also, although the paper opposes the "open-access" solutions favored by Lessig, it favors "anti-discrimination" statues, and gives examples of how such legislation might be written.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
Re: Network neutrality [Re: klimt]
    #8244244 - 04/05/08 08:32 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Here's another, right from Google Scholar - a whole book, by Lawrence Lessig (a real expert, not an industry shill):
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cluster=3286854057591034764

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
Re: Network neutrality [Re: klimt]
    #8244299 - 04/05/08 08:43 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Christopher Yoo (author of your paper) actually comes up frequently in network neutrality searches - he favors instead "network diversity" laws, but as I've stated above I believe his suggested regulations would lead, instead, to internet-TV, and that his arguments are most likely disingenuous.

Here's a paper by Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo, which is a pro-anti debate paper:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=953989

Unfortunately, as with the vast majority of journal articles, it's not available in full on the internet.

Tim Wu is a professor at Columbia who has written many papers relating to network neutrality (taking the pro- stance):
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=159088

Please keep in mind that CY takes money from NCTA (telecom lobbyists).

Here's my appeal to authority:
Tim Wu (never heard of him before today) and Lawrence Lessig (very famous among programmers and geeks): both respected scholars who've written on this issue in favor of network neutrality.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
Re: Network neutrality [Re: klimt]
    #8244338 - 04/05/08 08:52 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:


Do you notice the difference in quality of the article I sent you and the piece propaganda you sent me? The Harvard journal article I sent you is 77 pages long with over 300 sources with purposed solutions -- yours is a few paragraphs of empty rhetoric.




Did you actually read either one?

Yours was 77 pages of verbosity written by an industry shill and designed to hide the fact that his argument derives from the hypothetical development of competition among last mile providers without an enabling technology or regulation. Mine was a lucid op-ed by an acknowledged expert on the subject.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Network neutrality [Re: klimt]
    #8244975 - 04/05/08 11:40 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

wait, you're trying to equate an analogy about the imperfections of TCP/IP
to the notion of evening the playing field for content providers across the
internet infrastructure?

that doesn't really make much sense at all.

disregarding net neutrality because it is inherently flawed as a result of
the intrinsic problems of the present day transport protocol is like saying
we should forego democracy because the population is so stupid.

someone (voip, p2p, streaming) will always find a way to make due with
variant latency; you don't throw the baby out with the bath water.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 19 days
Re: Network neutrality [Re: phi1618]
    #8245390 - 04/06/08 02:59 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

> Do you have actual arguments, of just "appeal to authority"?

... followed by ...

> Mine was a lucid op-ed by an acknowledged expert on the subject.




I'm also curious about this claim:

> (Internet Service) Providers in the US have an effective monopoly

Thats kind of like saying Fast Food Restaurants have a monopoly on Fast Food. I'm guessing that you have a point, but I am failing to see it. There are many different companies that compete against each other to deliver internet service. Where is the monopoly?


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
Re: Network neutrality [Re: Seuss]
    #8245658 - 04/06/08 07:29 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

> Do you have actual arguments, of just "appeal to authority"?

... followed by ...

> Mine was a lucid op-ed by an acknowledged expert on the subject.




Agreed, though I also mention "here's my appeal to authority..."
I object strongly and viscerally to the suggestion that only scholarly journal articles are worth considering - what, now only JDs and PhDs can have opinions, and the rest of us should just count how many papers they've written and be happy?

Quote:

(Internet Service) Providers in the US have an effective monopoly



In my area, you have a choice between (local telephone company) and (local cable company), and there is no prospect that there will be any other choice in the area at any specific time in the future. This is, I guess, a duopoly rather than monopoly, but the principle is the same - this is not an environment of open competition for the last mile, and it is not an industry that's open to competition.

What this guy Christopher Yoo is saying is that maybe some people really want the AOL/Prodigy, or better yet cable TV, experience in high-def provided by Time Warner or Verison, and that we should not pass a law to prevent them from providing it. Fine in concept, but the likely result is that we'll end up with only the AOL/Prodigy experience, and other choices, at best, will be grossly expensive and attenuated.

As far as the suggestion that it's socialism - it's regulation, not socialism. I don't understand the argument, except as an attempt to associate any regulation with an unsavory word.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepsilomonkey
Twisted brainwrong of a oneoff man mental


Registered: 08/08/03
Posts: 812
Loc: Airstrip One
Re: Network neutrality [Re: klimt]
    #8245771 - 04/06/08 08:17 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

klimt said:
Net Neutrality = Net Socialism.




There a real problem if large operators enjoying a monopoly/oligopoly position in the market restrict applications or content to serve their vested interests. However I don't believe that imposing Net Communism is a good solution, and will, in fact, inevitably lead to less innovation and a more restrictive market.

Legislators are historically terrible when it come to technology, they don't understand the unintended consequences of their laws, and are easily swayed by the 'advice' of the richest lobby. So the largest operators will use the complexity of the technology and legislative process to get laws crafted that maintain their advantage and stifle competition; if not at first draft surely over time.

Top 3 telecoms providers in the UK each maintain regulatory department budgets many times larger that of the government regulator.

However the UK today does not face the level concern over provider content bias. The approach taken was the force the incumbent operator, and previous state owned monopoly BT, to allow access to its last mile infrastructure on an equal basis to all, including its own retail operation. This has resulted in an extremely competitive market in the UK. The naming and shaming of operators for restrictive practives is enough to cost them business, so the damage outweighs the advantage.

Competition is the solution, not state control.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMinstrel
Man of Science
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 1,974
Loc: Hogtown
Re: Network neutrality [Re: psilomonkey]
    #8245891 - 04/06/08 09:36 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Where I think everyone misses the mark on this issue, and which no one in the mainstream media connects the dots, is the anti-corporate sentiment behind those wanting net-neutrality.

Already, in our real world, corporations are represented legally, as an individual.  In the 20th century and onward, the growth of a new pillar of corporatism has eclipsed all others, and that is PR.  It is the single most important part of corporation; look at what some shitty 4 wall structure like ENRON can do with PR alone.

It's all really PR now with everything.  You as an individual begin to PR with everyone around you at work, even at home.  What else are your elections other than the PR spiels you get every 4 years?

Corporation dominated life is the (sad) definition of western civilization.  They already control the TV.  If the internet is to survive as a free medium of mass communication, it has to start here.

PS.  They want you to think it's an issue of socialism/capitalism or left/right.  That's doublethink; that is enemy propaganda; thats how they steal your freedom out from under you; they control the way you think.

PPS.  I still want a place for domestic terrorists to get their lulz.:awesome:


--------------------

Edited by Minstrel (04/06/08 09:56 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedill705
Amazed
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 3,779
Loc: The Cat's Cradle
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Network neutrality [Re: Minstrel]
    #8246048 - 04/06/08 10:32 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Now that you decided the issue pretty clearly for everyone (I hope everyone here likes free speech), we all need to e-mail our representatives and keep the internet free.


--------------------
My advice is to find those things that give pleasure and do them often without too much attachment and relax and wait for the show to end.

-Icelander-

I like free markets and all. Truly I do, at least in general, but there needs to be some kind of oversight in recognition of sustainability. Life works the same way, on a bunch of sustainable systems. Why not honor what made us what we are and take some lessons? Nature FTW!

~dill705~

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Network neutrality [Re: psilomonkey]
    #8246069 - 04/06/08 10:39 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

that's all the electric car needed....a little competition and
market demand...right?


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepsilomonkey
Twisted brainwrong of a oneoff man mental


Registered: 08/08/03
Posts: 812
Loc: Airstrip One
Re: Network neutrality [Re: afoaf]
    #8247116 - 04/06/08 03:42 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

The electric car needs to be something people can use and want, and not a horrifically expensive; mostly coal powered inefficient chemical storage fashion statement on wheels. Your point?

PS: Please don't discuss electric cars in this thread. I really don't see the relevance

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedill705
Amazed
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 3,779
Loc: The Cat's Cradle
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Network neutrality [Re: psilomonkey]
    #8247127 - 04/06/08 03:47 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

The internet should be the same is his point. Who wants an internet that's expensive and restricts what information can go through "it's" wiring?


--------------------
My advice is to find those things that give pleasure and do them often without too much attachment and relax and wait for the show to end.

-Icelander-

I like free markets and all. Truly I do, at least in general, but there needs to be some kind of oversight in recognition of sustainability. Life works the same way, on a bunch of sustainable systems. Why not honor what made us what we are and take some lessons? Nature FTW!

~dill705~

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepsilomonkey
Twisted brainwrong of a oneoff man mental


Registered: 08/08/03
Posts: 812
Loc: Airstrip One
Re: Network neutrality [Re: dill705]
    #8247155 - 04/06/08 03:53 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

I totally agree, I just think, if thats what you want, you are more likely to get it by opening monopoly controlled infrastructure to the market than having the ever lasting lawyer dance between government and multi-billion dollar corporations.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedill705
Amazed
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 3,779
Loc: The Cat's Cradle
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Network neutrality [Re: psilomonkey]
    #8247213 - 04/06/08 04:14 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

That may be true, but cost should be the same to every user of the same service and NO information should be favored, and I just don't think that the government wants to regulate 300 different IP's to make sure they obey the fucking rules.

Doesn't sound like the kind of thing they would sign up for to me.


--------------------
My advice is to find those things that give pleasure and do them often without too much attachment and relax and wait for the show to end.

-Icelander-

I like free markets and all. Truly I do, at least in general, but there needs to be some kind of oversight in recognition of sustainability. Life works the same way, on a bunch of sustainable systems. Why not honor what made us what we are and take some lessons? Nature FTW!

~dill705~

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepsilomonkey
Twisted brainwrong of a oneoff man mental


Registered: 08/08/03
Posts: 812
Loc: Airstrip One
Re: Network neutrality [Re: dill705]
    #8247223 - 04/06/08 04:19 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

So you would favor the single provider, total government control model? Guess that works for China.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Network neutrality [Re: psilomonkey]
    #8247252 - 04/06/08 04:32 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

I can't tell, but it seems like you're arguing both sides
or one side or maybe the same side as me?

implying that free markets and no regulation (where regulation
prevents monkeying with traffic going through your pipes) will
yield what people demand (equitable service across all network
based apps) is as ridiculous as presuming that market demand for
electric cars will magically turn the oil-vested auto manufacturers
in to cutting edge providers of economically and environmentally
feasible cars.

it didn't work there and it won't work for network applications
ESPECIALLY when you consider that the service providers are no
longer just providing internet, they are now the same company
piping cable television and telephone to your home. and since that
company is losing money on their phone offerings to competitor's
VOIP why not just lower that port's priority on the pipe...or
since they want to be able to upsell you on movies on demand
pushed over their pipes in 2 minutes or less why not cockblock
other traffic to guarantee your services enjoy unfettered latency
to your customers?

they are killing tivo...they will kill slingbox (if it was ever
really alive) and they will continue to use Microsoft like tactics
to eliminate market driven services and products and either adopt
them as their own or drop them on the floor outright.

once Time Warner owns your pipes and controls your apps, you're
on the teat and they don't really have much motivation for further
innovation...and if anyone comes up with a sweet new application
that jerks you off and does your dishes over a simple internet
connection all they have to do is throttle the port and render
it unusable.

you can disparage it with idiotic names like net-socialism but it's
a disingenuous attempt to malign what was originally and quite
appropriately described as net-neutrality.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedill705
Amazed
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 3,779
Loc: The Cat's Cradle
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Network neutrality [Re: psilomonkey]
    #8247263 - 04/06/08 04:34 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Nope, I prefer actual solutions to problems. This is not what the American government does best.

It seems pretty simple that the internet should not end up like cable tv.

Do I have an answer? No. It's not my area of expertise nor my job. It's the job of every representtive and senator, which you should write to saying that the internet should remain free.


--------------------
My advice is to find those things that give pleasure and do them often without too much attachment and relax and wait for the show to end.

-Icelander-

I like free markets and all. Truly I do, at least in general, but there needs to be some kind of oversight in recognition of sustainability. Life works the same way, on a bunch of sustainable systems. Why not honor what made us what we are and take some lessons? Nature FTW!

~dill705~

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 19 days
Re: Network neutrality [Re: dill705]
    #8249844 - 04/07/08 09:16 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

> Do I have an answer?

I do. Keep the government out and make it illegal for ISPs to discriminate or prioritize internet data based upon data content or routing. The various ISPs are crying that a few customers are killing their networks, but this is a fabricated excuse. They have oversold their networks, and are trying to blame their customers usage for the lack of infrastructure. The solution is to add more infrastructure, to rate limit customers, or to charge more for higher bandwidth utilization. Unfortunately, the industry would like to have it both ways... charge more and provide less.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedill705
Amazed
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 3,779
Loc: The Cat's Cradle
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Network neutrality [Re: Seuss]
    #8250140 - 04/07/08 10:45 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

There ya go, Suess FTW.

We should just e-mail his post to our congress people.

I know I did. :wink:


--------------------
My advice is to find those things that give pleasure and do them often without too much attachment and relax and wait for the show to end.

-Icelander-

I like free markets and all. Truly I do, at least in general, but there needs to be some kind of oversight in recognition of sustainability. Life works the same way, on a bunch of sustainable systems. Why not honor what made us what we are and take some lessons? Nature FTW!

~dill705~

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexFrockx
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,457
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 12 days, 4 hours
Re: Network neutrality [Re: dill705]
    #8250520 - 04/07/08 12:49 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

If they make the internet stratified there's no stopping someone with a lot of servers from making another, free, worldwide network.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Network neutrality [Re: xFrockx]
    #8250716 - 04/07/08 01:22 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

and what bandwidth will this new worldwide web use?


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexFrockx
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,457
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 12 days, 4 hours
Re: Network neutrality [Re: afoaf]
    #8252306 - 04/07/08 07:35 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

you could run your own lines, start small, build it over time.

edit: or use wireless and make it a million times easier, just get some donations and build a few towers.

Edited by xFrockx (04/07/08 07:36 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* (back to the) future of the internet... Annapurna1 389 0 06/15/06 11:07 PM
by Annapurna1
* Researchers Explore Scrapping Internet
( 1 2 all )
FrenchSocialist 3,067 23 05/04/07 06:14 AM
by psilomonkey
* Save the Internet! StroFun 387 0 08/22/06 07:42 AM
by StroFun
* The end of the internet is nigh
( 1 2 all )
ekomstop 2,423 28 09/29/04 10:01 PM
by Grav
* Internet jihad Luddite 1,402 5 07/24/07 04:13 PM
by Luddite
* Bush Administration Proposes System to Monitor Internet
( 1 2 3 all )
Evolving 4,567 42 12/23/02 11:41 PM
by frogsheath
* NSA has Myspace and other Social Networking sites in its midst. The_Red_Crayon 861 3 06/15/06 01:32 PM
by Penguarky Tunguin
* The Internet Isn't A Truck, It's A Tube DiploidM 822 6 07/17/06 01:33 PM
by zappaisgod

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,567 topic views. 7 members, 5 guests and 26 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.