This is typical of our government in action. Compare this to gun control. In 1934 the federal government passed the National Firearms Act, and the SCOTUS let it stand. This act was based on irrational fear (Machineguns? Oh, no!). This was the edge of the wedge. Now look at gun control in Washington DC, New York city and Chicago.
Look at the Internet now. It's a medium for the free exchange of information. The only inherent problem with the Internet is that my email has the same priority as your video feed. Presuming that this is a problem (I don't see it as such), why not fix the problem by assigning a priority to transmission? Instead of offering a real solution, this group wants to regulate (restrict) the Internet, which is no solution at all.
posted by madjack at 09:23 A.M. EST on Tue May 02, 2006 #
Maggie, it's really a good goddamn thing I don't live in your turf, because I'd be in your office verbally tearing you a new one on just how stupid doing away with Net Neutrality really is. Then I'd be starting a write-in campaign to get my butt into your office.
That article is the most stupid, illogical thing I've seen in forever.
Let’s say you want to send a birthday card to your nephew Ronnie. You put a 39-cent stamp on the envelope and drop it off at the post office. And away it goes (you hope). Now let’s say that instead of sending little Ronnie a birthday card, you want to send him a shiny, new bicycle. If you support so-called “net neutrality,” that means you think the government should require that the post office deliver Ronnie his shiny, new bike for the same price it charges to mail him the birthday card. The post office would have to be “neutral” in what it charges to mail any given item.
The fact is, mailing a bike eats up a lot more resources than mailing a card; just as it eats up a lot more resources to deliver broadcast quality movies through your Internet cable than it does to send a simple email. What “net neutrality” proponents are basically saying is that they want the government to guarantee that you can send a bike through the mail system for the same cost as a birthday card...which inevitably will mean the cost of mailing a birthday card will skyrocket.
I'm so absolutely enraged at this I'm speechless.
I'm going to fight really hard to keep this explanation civil, Maggie, and I really hope you take the time to read and appreciate it.
First off, from Wikipedia:
Network neutrality is a principle of network operational architecture. It means that the network is operated under the three principles of neutrality: non-discrimination, interconnection, and access. The principles can apply to any network. They govern the operation of the network, not the content or business practices of the network operator. Inherent in the defintion is that network operations are distinct from the content side. Network neutrality is one way to describe the operational architecture of the global Internet. Nearly every nation operating a portion of the Internet has adopted some form of the neutrality principle. Even countries like China that intercept certain content do not violate neutrality principles.
Non-discrimination means that at trafffic over the network (typically or exclusively digital packets or bits) are treated the same by the network, including the traffic originating with the network operator. This principle of 'bit parity' means that all bits are treated as 'just bits', and no bit traffic is prioritized over other bits, and none are hampered or disabled.
Interconnection means that network operators have both a duty of interconnection and a right of interconnection to any other network operator. Networks must be constructed so that there are a reasonable number of accessible interconnnect points; that traffic is carried to and from rival networks at reasonable rates; and that the network is built with sufficient excess capacity to accomodate the reasonably foreseeable traffic that may be presented at the head-ends or peering points. Without a right of interconnection, there is no network.
Access means that any end user can connect to any other end-user. End users may be people, but the term could also mean devices (modems, routers, switches) or even other networks. Access means that a piece of content, say, an email message, has a right to enter the network, and if it properly addressed, be received by the other end user, even if said user is on another network. In other words, traffic can begin at any point on the network and be delivered to any other point.
Let me explain this in terms of the telephone system.
Non-discrimination: I, a Verizon customer in Port Clinton, call you, a (let's say) Block Communications (they do phones) customer in Toledo. This is a "local long distance" call as Toledo and Port Clinton are in the same LATA (Local Access and Transport Area). My "local long distance" carrier is IDT. However, AT&T owns the physical lines between the telephone switch in Port Clinton and the telephone switch in Toledo.
Non-discrimination means that Verizon can't drop my call to you to a lower priority because it's leaving their service area, or because I'm an IDT customer, or because it's going to a Block customer. It means that AT&T can't put my call on hold and give their traffic higher priority. It means that Block can't refuse to put my call through because I'm calling you from a non-Block phone.
I see that commissioners.co.lucas.oh.us is hosted by Buckeye Cablevision/Block. Let's take a happy little trip from me here to you:
[root@YellowBox ~]# traceroute commissioners.co.lucas.oh.us
traceroute to co.lucas.oh.us (72.240.39.133), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 0.944 ms 0.714 ms 0.702 ms
2 68-169-64-1-gate.clvdoh.adelphia.net (68.169.64.1) 9.591 ms 9.783 ms 9.343 ms
3 68.170.218.25 (68.170.218.25) 8.897 ms 9.911 ms 9.936 ms
4 68.170.223.101 (68.170.223.101) 11.749 ms 11.514 ms 9.796 ms
5 68.170.223.97 (68.170.223.97) 10.887 ms 10.721 ms 9.955 ms
6 68.170.223.89 (68.170.223.89) 14.274 ms 11.593 ms 11.863 ms
7 68.170.127.9 (68.170.127.9) 16.877 ms 15.917 ms 29.878 ms
8 g1-00-00-00.a0.cle00.adelphiacom.net (66.109.14.97) 17.768 ms 16.084 ms 18.176 ms
9 unk-426d016e.adelphiacom.net (66.109.1.110) 16.962 ms 15.421 ms 16.440 ms
10 p3-00-01-00.c0.pit75.adelphiacom.net (66.109.1.105) 19.365 ms 19.741 ms 19.501 ms
11 p3-01-00-00.c1.pit75.adelphiacom.net (66.109.0.98) 19.016 ms 20.660 ms 20.083 ms
12 p3-02-01-00.c0.dca91.adelphiacom.net (66.109.0.113) 26.080 ms 23.688 ms 24.257 ms
13 a1-00-00-00.p1.dca91.adelphiacom.net (66.109.1.186) 28.216 ms 26.414 ms 26.365 ms
14 washdc5lcx1-gige15-0-25.wcg.net (64.200.89.85) 25.643 ms 24.411 ms 24.533 ms
15 hrndva1wcx2-pos15-0.wcg.net (64.200.89.69) 27.566 ms 26.913 ms 25.259 ms
16 brvwil1wcx3-pos4-0-oc192.wcg.net (64.200.249.18) 51.795 ms 44.321 ms 46.885 ms
17 brvwil1wjt1-so3.wcg.net (64.200.103.210) 44.866 ms 45.480 ms 45.481 ms
18 brvwil1wjt1-commisp-pic.wcg.net (64.200.61.86) 49.774 ms 48.468 ms 49.416 ms
19 72.240.0.195 (72.240.0.195) 50.045 ms 50.317 ms 50.771 ms
20 72.240.56.58 (72.240.56.58) 171.984 ms 113.082 ms 151.328 ms
Let's see now, for me to get to your happy little website, my little request goes from me on Adelphia Powerlink cable modem service in Port Clinton, to Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and then Washington DC where it gets handed off at a Network Access Point to WilTel Commnications Group, who take it to Herndon, Virginia (hrndva1wcx2-pos15-0.wcg.net), which shoots it over to Bridgeview, Illinios (brvwil1wjt1), where it gets sent to Buckeye/Block (the 72.240/16 netblock, who ought to hire me to fix their seriously lacking reverse DNS), who patch it through to the Lucas County Commissioners website.
Now, imagine Adelphia deciding that because I'm not looking at a website hosted by them, that the traffic caused by me wanting to see the LCC website gets a much lower priority. Well, too bad for you, Maggie, because they could throttle down my connection so it looks like the LCC website is slower than progress on a new sports arena or the Marina District. So I'd get ticked off and take my business to some other county whose website didn't appear to suck ass. Or imagine that some farmer takes his backhoe out into the field and chops up the big fiber optic cable (product of Owens Corning) that WilTel owns that runs between DC and Illinois. With net neutrality, the packets between me and the LCC website would find another route through a different series of companies and cables, at the same priority of that other traffic. Without, well... it'd look to me (assuming that I'm an average user instead of someone who knows how to actually tell the difference) like the LCC website was down. If I was looking to do business in Lucas County, well, you just lost out.
Interconnection -- okay, with the phone thing, this means that Block has to let AT&T plug into its switches and vice versa, that Verizon has to let AT&T interconnect to it and vice versa. Imagine what kind of Hell it would be if there was no interconnection. I want to call you? I better have a Block phone line. You want to call me? You better have a Verizon phone line. And an AT&T one for all the people in Toledo who want a word with you. And a Verizon one for people in Sylvania.
Imagine Block playing games and saying "oh, only WilTel can hook up to us" or "oh, only AT&T can hook up to us". Imagine I want to put a cell phone tower up in Toledo, and Block refuses to connect to it. Well, looks like my tower's pretty damn useless.
Imagine I start up an ISP over here in Port Clinton, and all my folks want a faster, shorter connection to Toledo rather than to go through a big hub like Cleveland or DC or Chicago... say I got a lot of traffic to the Blade website and to people on Buckeye Express, and therefore I want to put a direct link in to Buckeye. Buckeye says no way in Hell. Imagine how much fun I'm going to have with my customers screaming and yelling about how slow their access is to Buckeye, while Buckeye won't let me fix it. Then Buckeye decides to run service over here from Erie County... well gee, there go all my pissed off customers to Buckeye. Wasn't that a nice fair move?
Access. Let's say JR Block gets pissed off at, oh, the Toledo Free Press, and null-routes (blackholes, blocks, cuts off, deep-sixes, eliminates) all access to the Toledo Free Press website. Or he gets pissed off at you and cuts off access to the LCC website. Let's say that he cuts off his phone customers' access to Lucas County government offices and plays a Special Information Tone (beep Beep BEEP) "sorry, but this number is out of service" message when they try to call you, or a political endorsement for your rival before putting the call through.
Fortunately, we have government regulation of the phone system in the form of "common carrier" laws, that prevent all the scenarios I've mentioned concerning the telephone system from happening. Almost. Because, Maggie, the big thing now is Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), and Buckeye's offering that. And since there's no regulation on VoIP or on the cable modem or DSL service it runs over, Buckeye or anyone else can play games with that VoIP traffic, cut it off or give it low LOW priority. And there's nothing that really says JR Block or anyone else who owns a network provider who feels like it CAN'T cut off their customers' access to the LCC website, or the Republicans' website, or whatever else they want.
Now, Maggie, hopefully the lightbulb's gone on over your head.
You ought to print this out and go down to Republican Party HQ and tell 'em how NOT supporting Net Neutrality means that any "liberal" company or network owner (if there are such things) can go in and slow down and cut off traffic to all the Republicans and give the Democrats ultra fast super priority.
As for this "posting the bicycle" metaphor, the companies already pay each other for interconnection and bandwidth used. I pay Adelphia every month for cable modem access, they pay others, any big sites or businesses they host pay them for connection. If people start downloading entire TV shows (legally) from iTunes, then Apple's gotta pay for their bandwidth to pipe them to people... and if Adelphia's not happy because their customers are downloading videos from iTunes and it congests their network, they can put in a pipe direct to Apple's iTunes service, or they can put rates up, or they can come to some other arrangemnt.
Nobody's saying that Google should be able to send a bike to me for 39 cents. However, the current whining is from the big cable and telephone companies, because they are all hot and bothered that Google and Microsoft are popular and get all the traffic and are building out their own networks. In short, the "traditional" telecom companies (cable and telephone) want YOU to make it so THEY can tell YOU what you can and can't do online. Remember, NO regulation means there are NO laws that say they CANNOT play the games I've demonstrated above. Without any regulation, they can play all the games they want to try to monopolize the marketplace. And monopolies don't serve us, because once one exists, it's ALWAYS their way or the highway.
posted by anonymouscoward at 10:44 A.M. EST on Tue May 02, 2006 #
I don't think she was advocating this though AC - just asking for input.
If politicians are permitted to begin to apply controls to the internet - that would be the worst thing to happen to technology since - ok nothing that bad has ever happened. But it could.
Stay vigilent. Email your House Rep's and Senators. They actually do take your opinion into account.
The telecom's are pushing this. They are one of - if not THE - biggest lobby in DC. This is bad for the country and good for a select few who want to charge YOU to access the internet.
That's the bottom line. And the above line of logic is merely another good reason to do a bad thing.
There's ALWAYS many reasons to do the wrong thing. Usually there's only one reason to do the right thing and it's usually the HARDEST thing to do. But u need to just grit your teeth and do it.
posted by katie82640 at 10:50 A.M. EST on Tue May 02, 2006 #
AC, the fundamental issue stands no matter how you dig into the fine points to predict an outcome.
Government regulation is costly, opens the door to special interests and provides the first step towards taxation. This is not conjecture - this is fact. It has never failed to happen this way in other industries.
Across all industries, regulation and taxation has weakened our country's ability to compete globally and has fueled offshoring - the blame for which, of course, is laid at the feet of business - not the government that created it.
And ulitmately, it is the same old argument. Proponents of policy like this are fearful of other private citizens and their businesses, therefore they feel it is appropriate to co-opt, through government (which they trust), control of others' private property so that its use can be to their liking.
posted by babbleman at 12:42 P.M. EST on Tue May 02, 2006 #
AC is long-winded, but essentially correct. Once you accept the idea of a "common carrier", then proposals of discriminating against Internet traffic become morally impossible. In fact, a common carrier is specifically excluded from liability since they are NOT exerting editorial controls at all.
AC didn't go into the details that I'm terribly interested in, those being that there probably exists some sort of Imperial or Fascist desire in America to control all forms of media and expression, for reasons both political and economic. To put it bluntly: media moguls and government officials are very, very threatened by our current, still-high levels of vocal- and economic-democracy, and they want to either (1) stop it, (2) tone it down or otherwise control it, and (3) get paid as much as possible for it. Sony wants to make sure that when you make a song on some of its audio equipment, that the digital file is stamped "Sony" and that it can control the distribution of such a file for economic purposes. Microsoft wants to use DRM ("Digital Rights Management" -- and I assure you, they aren't speaking of YOUR rights) to control all media through its Windows operating system for similar reasons. The government wants to mark all media for blatant Fascist reasons; the modern American government is at the "English Parliament - Stamp Act" level right now, having forced manufacturers of printers and copiers to produce little-noticed digital marks on all printouts so they can be tracked. Etc.
Returning to AC's hot-on details, the "posting the bicycle" metaphor as originally given is highly inaccurate in a way he didn't relate. In essence, the difference between posting a letter or a bicycle online is largely one of time, both for sending and accessing. To be more accurate with a metaphor, you'd have to come up with a NEW form of physical postal system to make the point. This new system demands that participants pay a set or slightly metered fee per month, and then you can literally use the system as much as you want (again, with a more metering rules applied -- ref. "bandwidth caps"). We don't have such a postal system -- er, then again, we actually DO have one somewhat like that, and it's called UPS/Fedex/DHL/etc. Small packages ride along the next-day delivery systems since the entire network has been heavily invested to make it so. Sending a package via Fedex is sort-of like paying a postcard fee for sending a bicycle, since a lot of fuels and labor are performed just to get your package to its destination overnight. Economy of scale doesn't account for all price difference.
Doesn't ANYONE remember the legal trouble that AOL got into by advertising "unlimited access" yet they were kicking users offline intentionally?
Sorry for the free-association thing. But AC's long point is very clear at its core: the system works quite well by consolidating a lot of traffic on huge common runs across regions. In fact, the system is overinvested and is at significant physical undercapacity, in that we have a big margin of "dark fiber" -- installed during the go-go 1990s -- that's in the ground, waiting to be used.
The only reasons anyone would think that this system is suffering are:
1. Such a traffic stream isn't designed for piecemeal fees. They want those fees, to nickel-and-dime people to death.
2. Such a traffic stream isn't designed for censorship of any kind. They want to control traffic for political purposes.
In summary, the only thing our elected representatives need to do is make sure the "common carrier" principle applies to new forms of old media. When a man plopped down a soapbox in the town square, no one had the right to take him down off it for his speech. Today, when a man like Jr plops down a website like ToledoTalk, no one has the right to force him to take it down for his speech. Of course, in contrast, Jr has to go through a private company to make his website accessible, hence this comparison has a critical difference ... Jr agreed to a set of terms with his hosting company and ISP company for the posting and access of material. ISPs, hosting companies, short- and long-distance communication companies are not a public town square ... which is why we made the "common carrier" concept. Beyond those contracts and special definitions, the general public has no right to take down websites, nor to deny carrying of content as long as said content is legal (i.e. no child porn, no copyright violations, etc.).
posted by GuestZero at 12:59 P.M. EST on Tue May 02, 2006 #
Babbleman, if I'm interpreting your complaint correctly, you should be happy instead for the "common carrier" status that accompanies regulation. Companies who carry things sight-unseen for others are compensated already by the liability exemption -- they don't have to spend any time in court defending themselves against the carrying of illegal materials or information. If companies bleat about the costs of regulation, they really have to explain how they intend to duck the costs of endlessly defending themselves in court over the cargoes and packets they claim they still have nothing to do with (even though they are making decisions about them, hence knowledge is implied, hence liability follows).
posted by GuestZero at 01:05 P.M. EST on Tue May 02, 2006 #
Oh Christ, babbleman.
Can't you see that LACK OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION is JUST AS BAD in some cases? Lack of regulation is what the special interests want in this case -- the special interests of the telcos (like AT&T, which has pretty much regained all the parts that it was broken up into back in the 80s) and the cable companies (when was the last time your rates went DOWN?)
They don't want a law that says they can't play games with Internet traffic at the moment, because such a law would threaten their current locks on Internet access to people's homes. Plus it would stop them from fighting with each other, after they kill off all the upstart companies or force them to submit to their wills.
People like you with this "all government regulation is bad" attitude annoy the hell out of me, because the first time you get bit in the ass by the lack of regulation, you start crying like babies and whining for some sort of controls.
Regulation might be costly to business, but lack of regulation is costly to you and me in the end. You want to whine about the cost of regulation? Fine, I say we repeal the food health and safety laws. No more Restaurant Report Card. Since there's no government regulation, the only incentive to keep a clean kitchen and not cut corners is if people can really see what's going on in there... and whoops, there's no laws for that either. So that leaves pure honesty as the only guarantee that your mayonaise has no "man" in it, that the cook washed his hands after taking a dump, and that your "all-beef" hamburger isn't 50% ground beef, 30% ground horse, 10% unspecified filler, and 10% rat droppings and ground up cockroach. What, you say? People will just go elsewhere and that place will die from lack of business? Not if they don't KNOW what they're really eating... so the business has maximum incentive to lie, blackmail, threaten, and coerce anyone who tries to blow the whistle on what's really going on.
So when you die from e.coli in your burger, babbleman, don't cry to me.
I just want to see a little regulation, a little, flexible, common-sense regulation. Special interests don't like that. They either want none at all (complete freedom to screw over everyone) or lots of very complex specifically taylored legislation (which grants them freedom to screw over a range of targets without being screwed over themselves and gives them a series of "legal defenses" to use against anyone who challenges them or the regulations themselves).
posted by anonymouscoward at 01:10 P.M. EST on Tue May 02, 2006 #
this would be the beginning of government control over conversations. Just like this one. It would be the end of uncensored dialogue. It would be the end to the 'net' as it went to a pay to use system. That's glaringly obvious. They want to put an end to just what we are doing here. Exchanging ideas and talking to each other.
I don't know what anybody else thinks, but I think that politician remotely associated with this one needs to start looking for another job. And the name collecting starts today.
And I'll work to put them out of a job. And I can work very much hard - yup yup yup.....lots of us out here too.
posted by katie82640 at 01:22 P.M. EST on Tue May 02, 2006 #
You will not be able to find an example of me "whining for some sort of controls" because it has never happened. The only controls I have ever advocated are those that would limit the government - not those that limit business or one's use of personal property.
And your comparison of this issue to the regulation of practices that are a serious threat to public safety, especially to dangers that the public cannot obviously see and thus cannot avoid of their own free will is not valid.
The purpose of this regulation is to undermine a free market by short circuiting competition and providing a legal basis for fines and taxation which will be used to grow government and redistribute wealth.
posted by babbleman at 02:03 P.M. EST on Tue May 02, 2006 #
AC - I do not advocate the position quoted in the original post. To be quite honest, I've been a bit busy just doing my job to worry about the detailed intricacies of how the internet works.
My core philosophy is less government involvement in our daily lives, so it should come as no surprise that I don't believe government should be involved in regulating the internet. I fear that if they start in one area of this great communication tool, they'll expand into ALL areas.
That being said, I asked for feedback from those of you more knowledgable than I am on the issue. It's something I do on many issues - seek out information and perspective from those who have different expertise.
Interesting AC that your reaction to my request for feedback was to say: "Maggie, it's really a good goddamn thing I don't live in your turf, because I'd be in your office verbally tearing you a new one... "
Despite your attack, I do appreciate the information and understanding that I've gained on the issue from both you and GuestZero.
posted by MaggieThurber at 02:11 P.M. EST on Tue May 02, 2006 #
I'm confused a little. Don't know much about the way the internet is (un)regulated. Do we already have Net Neutrality laws on the books or is this one in addition to existing laws?
I like the internet the way it is now for the most part; so if Net Neutrality keeps the internet the same then I'm all for it. If net neutrality brings in the possibility of censorship (excluding kiddie porn and other illegal activities) then I don't want it.
posted by HeyHey at 03:43 P.M. EST on Tue May 02, 2006 #
Despite your attack
Sorry. On the other hand, you posted an entire article that's pretty divorced from reality. Come on, surely you can Google up some info from the "other" side.
Except that the Net Neutrality issue is in part due to the incumbent telecom companies wanting to charge Google for priority access or you for priority access to Google.
Time Warner's pretty much the major cable provider in the region, more so when they get their chunk of Adelphia all bought and integrated. Do you want TW intentionally slowing your access to non-TW-owned info sources? Don't want to get your news from CNN.com (a TW property)? Welcome to intentionally slow speeds to MSNBC.com and FoxNews.com (unless they or you want to pay for "priority").
http://www.slate.com/id/2140850/
That's what would happen if discrimination reigned on the Internet: a transformation from a market where innovation rules to one where deal-making rules. Or, a market where firms rush to make exclusive agreements with AT&T and Verizon instead of trying to improve their products. There's a deeper point here: When who you know matters more than anything, the market is no longer meritocratic and consequently becomes less efficient. At the extreme, a market where centralized actors pick favorites isn't a market at all, but a planned economy.
So much for babbleman's big free market dream -- it's not a free market when the big players lock out the small players and plan how to carve things up amongst themselves.
HeyHey, Net Neutrality was the de facto policy for years, but now AT&T and Verizon and the like want MORE money and MORE control, which, right now, they'll only have in the ABSENCE of regulation. Of course, in time they'll find something they want regulated and push for that regulation... all completely irrelevant of this "government control" BS babbleman spouts.
posted by anonymouscoward at 04:15 P.M. EST on Tue May 02, 2006 #
http://news.com.com/2061-10796_3-6067493.html
What's going on right now, is that the likes of Time Warner Cable, Verizon, AT&T, and other broadband providers, are playing games with customers' traffic. Like, if you're a Skype user, or you subscribe to Vonage (and you've seen their ads, yes?), they are giving that traffic low priority or blocking it altogether. Skype and Vonage and other Voice over IP (VoIP) cut into the profits of Verizon and AT&T (who provide traditional land-line phone service which is easily replaced by VoIP) and of Time Warner (who are rolling out their own VoIP service). In addition, these guys want Microsoft and Google to pay THEM (and mind you, Microsoft and Google already pay them for network pipes and bandwidth) special for YOU to get to Microsoft and Google's services. As if the fact that both YOU and the people on the other end of the line aren't already paying them.
Part of this is also becase Verizon and AT&T are trying to roll out the equivalent of cable TV over the Internet, and they're all scared about the possibility that they would have to play by rules similar to that of the cable companies (including franchise agreements, which should have Carty and Maggie paying attention to the tax issues). Now, if Verizon wants to roll out FIOS (fiber to the home, which will never happen here because there's neither political attention or will or sufficient public awareness or demand for a service that would definitely attract those "technology professionals" and the associated jobs) here, that's fine, and since they offer cable TV over it, that's fine, but don't make me pay for their cable just to get Internet, and if I want to watch TV on the Internet over FIOS, I should have that right without getting a lower priority than the guy next door who is looking at nudie pics while his wife's out with the girls. But Verizon should pay the same franchise agreement with the city as Adelphia has for offering essentially the same service (cable TV).
posted by anonymouscoward at 04:35 P.M. EST on Tue May 02, 2006 #
Maggie,
that is what you get for posting the lovely blog piece. I would take AC's advice and try to reaseach the "other" side.
That goes for all of us.
It will be interesting to see how this issue is worked out.
posted by jdmsbyrd at 07:56 P.M. EST on Tue May 02, 2006 #
research not "re-ass-eee-ack"
:)
We will call that Karma comin to bite me!
posted by jdmsbyrd at 08:20 P.M. EST on Tue May 02, 2006 #
I have heard that the telecom industry has the largest lobby group in DC. It will surely be interesting to see how this plays out.
posted by katie82640 at 08:20 P.M. EST on Tue May 02, 2006 #
Enforcing neutrality in any system means resigning yourself to the lowest common denominator. How is innovation supposed to happen in an environment that is unnaturally forced into neutrality?
The quantity of the arguments above and their intellectual depth is impressive, but lets not over think this.
We have people on one end that have content and people at the other end that want the content and we have people in the middle that have risked capital to build the equipment that makes the transmission between the two people on the ends.
If one or some of the people in the middle want to take a higher risk (spend more to build a faster network) they have to get a higher reward or else investors won't give them the capital. But with network neutrality, they cannot segregate the higher paying providers or customers to their new, better-than-the-next-guy, pipe. The reward that is required to get the capital has been removed and innovation is, well, neutered.
AC and GZ, you both talk about how networks will throttle down the speed of some transmissions based on an evil motivation to control the media by punishing those that don't comply to their wishes. That works in Hollywood, but is totally backwards and has no practical (profit) outcome. The network operators are not building slower networks to oppress some people - they are building faster networks to elevate others.
And no, they cannot elevate everyone. That is sad, I understand. When they take a huge risk, not everyone can get a piece of it - only those that pay for it. But look, if they didn't take the risk, then no one would have it - so neutrality is worse.
But the cool thing is, as the faster network is digested by more and more of the market, and the risk has been rewarded, the cost goes down. And then guess what? Everyone has it! All we had to do was wait a couple of years and we have neutrality again, naturally. Except the next innovation is already in process, and probably already on the market - so the cycle continues.
But let's say that we enforce neutrality. Effectively, we have a single public system. There is no competition and thus no mechanism for innovation. It is, for all intents and purposes, run by the government. The network operators are standing there with blank stares, lobotomized by neutrality.
Everyone in the government is happy because they all have jobs that are secured by law - jobs whose description it is to enforce that law which means seeking out and punishing anyone that dares to provide a product that is better than someone else (those that break the first principle of network neutrality which is non-discrimination or, being different).
But, at some point, there will be a cry from the people to make it better. Why? Because some other country will come up with a faster network and all the engineering jobs will move overseas. Immediately, we will hold a public media execution of the network providers and their overpaid CEOs for not innovating. Then we will get down to the business of contemporary American government which is government.
If we are going to make it better, everyone has to get better at once based on the non-discrimination principle and the technical requirements of the interconnection principle.
The only way to accomplish this and abide by our neutrality principles is if one body does the innovation - no doubt that will be the government. Also, we have to raise capital to do the research. Wall Street isn't interested because their is no, umm, interest. So the only avenue we have is taxation. But taxes can be raised - that's no problem - maybe this will work.
Now we have the cash so we commission the research. We enlist the governmental form of competition: get the universities geeked up to see who can burn the most brain cells, who can write the best grants and who can do the best political maneuvering to divert the tax revenue to their payroll. Once we find the best university at doing all of those things we must have found the best product so we declare the winner! Academia saves the day!
But the product has not been market tested. It has just been theorized by professional theoreticians. And so the whole problem spirals further downward because it takes a lot of trials to get a mutation that works and one body cannot provide that.
Look, what your selling is the promise of freedom. But freedom cannot happen by enacting laws unless the laws are aimed at limiting government. This law is not limiting government. It is glorifying government based on a fear that the free market will not bring continuous improvement but that, somehow, government will.
posted by babbleman at 10:52 P.M. EST on Tue May 02, 2006 #
that sounds very good babble - excepting that here we are on a neutral net - communicating now.
And I'd call this innovation. The advent of pc's for home and office use in just a matter of 20 years or so.
We're innovating our little brains out all over the world :-)
posted by katie82640 at 07:47 A.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
katie, the development of client side processing did not happen under neutrality regulation. If it had we would still be using 486s.
posted by babbleman at 08:09 A.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
The other issue, which I didn't address above is access. That providers would split up end points, like cable providers do with television channels.
I suppose that is a legitimate fear. But it doesn't concern me that much because I think there would be an overwhelming demand from customers to have 100% access. So while some operators might offer premium packages of certain websites - there will always be operators that aggregate and offer everything because there would be a huge demand for it. The everything providers may not be the fastest or best network - but it wouldn't be any worse than the neutral one would have been.
I imagine the counter argument will be that the operators will run a planned or command economy in which they will ignore customer demand and do whatever they want. But that is impossible because it would involve collusion: an agreement between them all not to offer everything. That won't happen - there is too much profit available in satisfying customer demand. Again, there is no practically sustainable justification for businesses to become voluntary Stalinists.
The other possibilitly is that the content providers might ink an exclusive deal with a single network operator who then somehow licenses it and doesn't let it leave their network.
If that happens, then so be it. How is that different from a content provider limitinig access to members only? After all, this whole non-descrimination idea stops at the edges of the network anyway. Once you hit the edge, there is all kinds of discrimination. So a provider being exclusive to a network is no different.
posted by babbleman at 09:01 A.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
Frequently, gov't regulation is a GOOD thing. In this case, it would prevent large internet providers like AT&T and Verizon from messing around with the content we want to see, by blocking sites. Those who oppose net neutrality are the types that support corporatocracy. I don't want internet providers blocking sites. Next thing you know, Fox News will be the only news available on the net.
Support NET NEUTRALITY
posted by pink_slip at 11:06 A.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
babbleman said: "The network operators are not building slower networks to oppress some people - they are building faster networks to elevate others."
If that was true, then there would be choice. Please point out the choice in the matter when various telecomm companies (as carriers) want to unilaterially impose charges or bandwidth caps. I don't see any plan that uses your "providers would split up end points" outline.
babbleman said: "But with network neutrality, they cannot segregate the higher paying providers or customers to their new, better-than-the-next-guy, pipe."
Sorry, but my understanding is otherwise. They have every right to build another network and charge customers accordingly. This happens all the time with private networking. But said network is not a common carrier and cannot be used as such. Once it's opened to the general public without regard to contracts or specific customer relationships, it must fall under public laws. In short, they want a public network with private rules, which isn't morally possible under our laws.
Look at it this way: Say AT&T decided to build a toll road. (I believe there are private toll roads in the US, at least as run by private companies under contract to government.) But AT&T then decides that it wants to run its own laws on such a road. Let's say this also means that the "AT&T Highway Patrol" exists, with people in patrol cars and with guns who aren't actual government cops. This is blatantly illegal since any such road in America run as an invitation for public use (even if paid) is still covered by public law. AT&T can't set the law on this road, regardless of ownership of the road or ownership of the operation of said road.
babbleman said: "Enforcing neutrality in any system means resigning yourself to the lowest common denominator. How is innovation supposed to happen in an environment that is unnaturally forced into neutrality?"
Strange, but the Internet has managed to strongly innovate, market-penetrate and market-create in just such an environment.
Neutrality in this sense is an equality of liberty, which is a perfectly fine "lowest common denominator". What the hell are you thinking, anyway? I mean, look at the following "lowest common denominators" in America:
-one person, one vote
-a live birth is a citizen
-your dollars are as green as the next man's
-private property opened for public use is not entirely private anymore
... and so on. What's so terrible about such neutrality, and as well, the force we use to allow them to happen?
Still, despite my squawking, I'm essentially OK with letting the carriers monkey around with bandwidth settings per customer ... as long as we all understand that this breaks their "common carrier" status in half like a dried stick. If they want to avoid public regulation, they also don't get public protection. Hence they are liable for the packets they carry.
But this is NOT what those companies are planning. They aim to RETAIN common-carrier status while ALSO exercising editorial controls. I'm sure they're sensing that the time is ripe for such a contradiction, seeing as the highly Republican Congress is very permissive of such elitism and hypocrisy.
babbleman said: "Then we will get down to the business of contemporary American government which is government."
I have always wished that this will become true. Under the core principles of fiscal conservatism and limited government (note: already well defined under the US Constitution!), we two have significant common ground for a strong compromise, if not outright agreement and cooperation.
Now: your turn to expose the foolish mistakes in my posting. :^)
posted by GuestZero at 12:45 P.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
an update:
"A twice-defeated Democratic proposal to write Net neutrality principles into law is making a comeback. Massachusetts Democrat Edward Markey on Tuesday took to the U.S. House of Representatives floor to introduce a bill called the Network Neutrality Act of 2006. His measure is similar to a Senate proposal, which was introduced in March but has seen no action yet."
- CNET blog, 5/2/06
posted by MaggieThurber at 02:59 P.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
aw it'll languish in committee.
posted by katie82640 at 04:17 P.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
But let's say that we enforce neutrality. Effectively, we have a single public system. There is no competition and thus no mechanism for innovation. It is, for all intents and purposes, run by the government. The network operators are standing there with blank stares, lobotomized by neutrality.
Bullshit.
You tell me how Verizon giving Yahoo! (or anyone else) priority access aids competition. It doesn't.
Go read that Slate article I linked, will ya?
Exclusivity agreements don't benefit competition. EA Sports having an exclusive lock on making football video games with NFL teams and players in them doesn't benefit competition, because it removes competition (nobody else can make a game with NFL teams and players). Yeah they can make something similar, but it's not the same thing, it has a distinct disadvantage in marketing, etc.
DirecTV has NFL Sunday Ticket on an exclusive lock. Dish Network can't get Sunday Ticket. Therefore, Dish can't attract NFL nuts. Dish can offer all the soccer and cricket they can get their hands on, but not NFL. Meanwhile, DirecTV can overcompress NFL Sunday Ticket channels, make them really shitty quality, and otherwise rape the customer... and if they don't have the option of cable, they can either suck it or live without Sunday Ticket.
Verizon and AT&T picking what they want me to have priority access to is not good. Naturally, most people aren't smart enough to know when this is going on, so if they make an agreement with Yahoo! to give customers priority to Yahoo! services, this makes access to Google services crappy... people will assume Google services are crappy by default... and then Google loses.
So much for competition.
I want my Internet pipe to have equal access to EVERYONE and the same priority as everyone else. Just like the phone or the highway. Now, just maybe IF I had a WIDE choice of providers, I *possibly* see the whole partnership/priority/exclusivity thing, but let's see now... my choices for Internet come down to ONE cable company or ONE phone company (especially since these guys don't want anyone else to have access to the wires already going to my house). Now if there was municipal fiber to the home or something, or options to pick up service from someone else over those wires (and an absolute guarantee that the incumbent companies that own those wires won't screw me and the competing carrier over), that'd be awesome, and I'd be a little less worried about Net Neutrality.
Think about it like this, babbleman: How much innovation would there be if Microsoft blocked everyone from downloading Linux distributions, Firefox and other non-IE browsers, Eudora and other non-Outlook Express email clients, AIM and other non-MSN chat programs, and so on from being downloaded or used? That's right, there'd be VERY DAMN LITTLE. And yet, the only thing that's stopped Microsoft from playing these games is the government (both the USA until Bush II got in despite the original antitrust case starting back in Bush I's term, and the EU government). I don't want to go ONLY where Bill Gates says to go today. That's a stifling of innovation. And with the DMCA and other legislation the incumbent powers have paid off Congress to put in place, there's even less for fear of litigation and legal penalties. You're claiming that ALL legislation will stifle innovation, which is BS because antitrust legislation and government oversight is the only thing that's kept Microsoft from locking out any challengers.
We need Net Neutrality right now, a carefully crafted form.
posted by anonymouscoward at 05:00 P.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
We may already have a significant amount of non-net-neutrality, simply from the exertion of economics and limitations of vendor offerings.
As an example, AC may feel he is due equal access to a site about natural treatments for dermatitis, but such a site may be hosted poorly due to a lack of funding. AC, dejected, turns away and soon enough latches onto a more pharma-heavy site for treating dermatitis, but one that is well funded and is hosted on blazing fast servers hooked to an OC3 of its own.
We can continue exploring the possibilities by looking at sites that start small yet are overwhelmed by their success. This happens to nearly any small site that is mentioned in a Slashdot article (leading to the dreaded "Slashdotting"). Popularity itself (which fulfills AC's philosophical needs for competition) can even destroy a business or online site.
So, partially addressed to Babbleman, I'm thinking that a form of non-net-neutrality already exists. Perhaps what I'm sensing here is that there is a supply-side non-net-neutrality, not a demand side one. For example, if Google finds itself being throttled down by the so-called common carriers, it might turn around and squeeze more revenue from its advertising businesses, to make up the difference and then return to the level of speed X access that it enjoyed before. Of course, the carriers will make more money, merely by placing customers into categories and then by treating them differently -- and it's not like the customers can go to a real competitor, which is why again we call them "common carriers" ... although there is some level of choice at different levels of networking, admittedly.
I'm finding this topic particularly thought-provoking. :^9
posted by GuestZero at 05:36 P.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
Owens Corning does not made fiber optic cable - never did. Corning Inc does (GLW).
posted by sergey at 07:00 P.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
I think it's interesting too. Maybe a case of he who has does - only on the net.
posted by katie82640 at 10:12 P.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
I can't get past the feeling that by the time the government figures out what's going on, then Internet2 will be more accessable. Band-width there will be less of a problem, eh?
Isn't the bloke-in-charge at UM?
posted by Mad_Anthony at 09:38 A.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Yes anthony.
posted by katie82640 at 12:58 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
In taking the criticism from AC about not doing enough personal research on this issue, I came across the following site which I really liked...
yes, it's a "say no to government regulation of the internet" site, but the sponsoring organizations are very interesting - telecommunications companies AND others, including Citizens Against Government Waste, Ministerial Alliance Against the Digital Divide, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Black Chamber of Commerce.
www.handsoff.org
posted by MaggieThurber at 02:02 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Nice try, Maggie, but since they include AT&T as a member organization... that's not the "other side".
posted by anonymouscoward at 04:46 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Never said it was the "other side," AC...said I found the site while researching the topic - and I was very upfront about it being a "no to regulation" site...
I found it through a rebuttal to a salon.com article...
Also, I thought the combination of member organizations was interesting.
posted by MaggieThurber at 05:01 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
http://savetheinternet.com/
Let's see just how many diverse groups have come out for Net Neutrality:
Gun Owners of America
Parents Television Council
The conservative Instapundit.com
MoveOn.org Civic Action
Democrats.com
Ohio Community Computing Network
posted by anonymouscoward at 05:02 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Okay, AC, just out of curiosity and since I'd hadn't heard of them, I used your link and then went to the Gun Owners of America website and found this as their position:
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585
Monday, March 27, 2006
Gun Owners of America alerted you a couple of weeks ago to legislation -- introduced by Texas Congressmen Jeb Hensarling and Ron Paul -- that will exempt the Internet from regulation under federal "electioneering" laws.
The bill, H.R. 1606, was supposed to come to a vote on March 16, but it was inexplicably pulled from the House calendar. The good news is that bill is now back on the calendar, and it is scheduled for a vote as early as Wednesday.
Unless the Hensarling-Paul bill is enacted, many major blogs and web sites could be shut down for 60 days before any general election -- and for 30 days prior to any primary -- making it much more difficult for groups like Gun Owners of America to criticize anti-gun candidates.
These regulations have resulted from two court opinions that followed the passage of the Incumbent Protection Act -- a law sponsored by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold. One opinion upheld the McCain-Feingold law almost in its entirely [McConnell v. FEC]. In the other -- Shays v. Federal Election Commission -- judges ordered the Federal Election Commission to regulate the Internet.
The FEC is still mightily fighting the court to minimize the regulation of the Internet. But who knows if they will prevail, or if a future administration will take a much different view. This is why H.R. 1606 is so important.
The danger, as it stands now, is that if Hensarling and Paul are unsuccessful in exempting the Internet from FEC regulation, many major blogs and web sites could one day be construed to be engaged in "electioneering communications" because they praise or criticize candidates. And, if this happens, they could be shut down for 60 days prior to an election -- or, at least, subject to a "gag rule" on what they are allowed to say.
I admit that I'm still learning about this issue, but their "position" doesn't seem to have anything to do with much of what's been discussed here so far. In fact, I couldn't find any position on their site other than supporting the one quoted above.
I agree with their support of the Hensarling-Paul bill, by the way.
Here's another interesting perspective - basically a "wait and see" approach
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/OpEd/050306_oped2.html
posted by MaggieThurber at 05:37 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
then there's this from the Progress and Freedom Foundation...with specific suggestions on how to ensure the openness of the internet without too much regulation
http://www.pff.org/news/news/2006/033006mayhousetestimony.html
posted by MaggieThurber at 05:41 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
And this from the Financial Times:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/392ad708-b837-11da-bfc5-0000779e2340.html
which concludes:
Policies to invigorate such rivalry are the answer. There are crucial steps to take, such as unplugging local government franchise barriers and the asphyxiating constraints applied by the spectrum allocation regime. A recent statement on US broadband policy by 25 policy economists (including myself) states the pro-competitive case.
Cerf is aware that the alternative path, crafting regulations, is a tall order. He takes it as a challenge to find “language that would give us an objective measure of neutrality.” But no single policy mandate, articulate or clumsy, would capture the efficiencies that emerge from the trials and errors of the market. An irresistible irony is that cable TV systems are being hammered for flat, all-you-can-eat video pricing, with regulators threatening to impose a la carte menus, customers paying for each network separately. But flat rate pricing, politically popular in some instances and controversial in others, has thus far proven highly efficient, and has been widely adopted for both basic cable television and broadband access.
Allowing continued market-based evolution will not end the internet as we know it. Commencing to impose regulated solutions just might.
posted by MaggieThurber at 05:48 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Maggie, let me sum up why we need Net Neutrality by asking you a question:
Who is your ISP?
I'd like to know so I can see about getting them to block your access to ToledoTalk. I mean, clearly, you support the free market and no regulation, so I should be free to deal with them to block you out, yes? And if you don't like it, you can outbid me or switch to a different provider or even sell off some rare coins to start your own service (provided I don't buy off everyone that you could connect to).
posted by anonymouscoward at 10:01 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
I can see it now: A modest projection is that if outlawed during election times, Internet political speech will devolve into "blogsharing" through illegal P2P applications, using strong encryption. Each election cycle, the government will maintain a "blogforce" of Internet savvy geekcops whose job it is to try to sign onto these restricted blogshares to try to ID people and make arrests.
We'll start seeing posters (with retro propaganda artwork) put up that say:
"Blogging about a candidate? If during an election, it's illegal! Make a post, poison the vote!"
And here I was thinking that this was America. Owa! Tana! Siam!
posted by GuestZero at 12:56 A.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
AC - I really don't see your scenario as a viable concern - but maybe you're just being extreme in your example...
I'm here trying to understand the issue, so do you have anything constructive (not personally derogatory) to add about the two articles I posted and about taking a "wait and see approach?"
GZ - For some reason, I'm reminded of a quote from Ben Franklin. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
posted by MaggieThurber at 06:33 A.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
For anyone who wants to know what one of the lobby's that is almost the size of the telecom's has to say:
"Internet 'Neutrality': An Issue For Banks?"
Excerpts: Some lobbyists argue that such a system is a risk for banks, which have invested millions in promoting online banking services. If the telecom giants get their way, banks would have to pay more to guarantee their customers' online transactions are given priority and executed with high quality, the lobbyists said.
and
He recommends the financial services industry join a coalition of Internet companies, including Microsoft Corp., Google, and Yahoo Inc., that have pushed Congress to enact legislation that would ban telecom companies from offering tiered level of service.
Story is here: http://www.americanbanker.com/article.html?id=20060504XES98M6G&from=home
This should be quite interesting. Two of the biggest dogs in America - squared off and gloves off....
posted by katie82640 at 01:05 P.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
You know, data operators should be able to provide services that Akamai http://www.akamai.com/ has been providing since the late 90s early 00s which many major businesses now use to connect to the Internet. Akamai is special network made for high-speed connectivity that companies can subscribe/connect to. The theory of a common carrier has only been in debate and not in reality. There are already different levels of networks out there now. I noticed this has not come up in the debate and I think that Telecoms should be allowed to provide their own high speed networks, it will lower the price to allow more people to subscribe and allow more features, such as streaming video.
posted by chrismyers at 09:12 A.M. EST on Sun May 07, 2006 #
noticed this has not come up in the debate and I think that Telecoms should be allowed to provide their own high speed networks, it will lower the price to allow more people to subscribe and allow more features, such as streaming video.
Huh what?
posted by anonymouscoward at 09:46 A.M. EST on Sun May 07, 2006 #
AC, I would love to host content through the Akamai network, but the price is way too steep. Imagine if there were more type of networks like Akamai, the prices would lower and would put it in the range of smaller potatoes like myself or you even. Forcing the concept of net neutrality would inhibit the growth of such networks and new networks like streaming video nets, and we all will still be stuck with a so-so network that is reaching the bursting point.
posted by chrismyers at 12:43 P.M. EST on Sun May 07, 2006 #
Forcing the concept of net neutrality would inhibit the growth of such networks and new networks like streaming video nets, and we all will still be stuck with a so-so network that is reaching the bursting point.
BS. There's thousands of miles of dark fiber out there that could be lit up. Google (a net neutrality proponent) owns a lot of it and can light it up any time they feel like it. AT&T and Verizon are trying to extort money from Google, claiming Google gets a free ride etc. when Google's actually paying for pipes from AT&T and Verizon.
Besides, if you want to go down the route about how Net Neutrality would kill competition, then fine, let's assume competition comes along. Without Net Neutrality, nothing says that the shiny new network builder gets to connect their new network to the Internet... the incumbents can deny access to interconnection, allow connection but block traffic, or just throttle down traffic to or from the new guy to a snail's pace.
Suppose I get tired of Akamai's rates and I want to build my own network.
CNN (a Time Warner property) has a deal with Akamai for CNN.com content.
Time Warner can go give all their cable modem customers super high priority access to CNN.com content on Akamai.
If my new company signs a deal with, oh, Fox News, to serve Fox News content, all the TW customers are going to see things suck, and my business is going to hurt.
Time Warner could even deny access to their network, even if I wanted to PAY to put in a pipe to Time Warner's customers so they get faster, more direct access. Time Warner could route traffic to or from my network by way of packets printed out by hand and delivered over the Silk Road by peasant grandmothers, if they wanted.
Yeah, that's going to be really good for competition, right there.
The incumbents are being whiny bitches who want no regulation right now because no regulation means they can do whatever they want in the name of the "free market" to shaft over any competition and divide the market up between themselves. Simply put, they don't want Google and Microsoft and Amazon (who have cash and fiber) to enter the IP network provider arena, and Verizon and AT&T don't want the cable companies doing Voice over IP (cuts into phone company profits) while Time Warner, Comcast, Cablevision, etc don't want Verizon and AT&T playing around with television services (cuts into their profits). Lack of regulation at this point means the cable and phone companies can conspire to screw the plans of Google and Microsoft and Amazon over and then screw each other over while trying to get Congress to pass regulation that favors one side or the other in the cable vs phone fight.
Of course, they'll ALL fight against any kind of municipal broadband initiative... main argument: government has no business providing Internet access... but they already provide water/sewer, electricity in some places....
posted by anonymouscoward at 01:22 A.M. EST on Mon May 08, 2006 #
Ya might want to try actually reading this link.
There's a dog fight afoot. I'm banking on - well - hate to say it - the BANKERS!!!!
http://www.americanbanker.com/article.html?id=20060504XES98M6G&from=home
Hello? anybody home???
posted by katie82640 at 09:03 P.M. EST on Mon May 08, 2006 #
playing devil's advocate here...
The banks have been able to save a lot of money by offering on-line services. If they have to pay more for priority of transactions over the internet, that will eat into the savings/profits they've been making...so they're opposed to paying what the market demands for the service they're getting and they want the government to allow them to continue receiving a product at the price they set?
...
In trying to get to the basis of this argument, I'm wondering if it boils down to this question: Is the internet a "public utility" that should be treated like other public utilities and regulated?
posted by MaggieThurber at 05:32 A.M. EST on Tue May 09, 2006 #
The Internet is used as a combination of the paradigms of traditional systems: phone, mail, cable/broadcast TV and finally printed media distribution. #1 and #2 are essentially utilities. #3 is not a utility, but is still heavily regulated with strong public interest held. The last is entirely private.
I'd say then that yes, from these examples the Internet should be considered a utility. (The 4th function given above can simply be considered a ride-along, much like private enterprise runs well enough over public roads.) The physical plant is essentially in line with the phone system -- the same wiring, equipment, etc. -- so it should be regulated similarly.
posted by GuestZero at 02:06 P.M. EST on Tue May 09, 2006 #
"I'm wondering if it boils down to this question: Is the internet a "public utility" that should be treated like other public utilities and regulated?
posted by MaggieThurber at 06:32 A.M. EST on Tue May 09, 2006"
I think, failing this latest venture, that'll be the next tact that the telecoms try.
posted by katie82640 at 04:15 P.M. EST on Tue May 09, 2006 #
Mitchipd on MyDD has this view
The point is not that telco efforts to offer competitive video services (and to lobby for the right to quickly get franchises for this purpose) are inherently bad. The real issue is that both telcos and cable operators want the "playing field" to be limited to their vertically-integrated "walled garden" duopoly market structure, where they throttle bandwidth for IP-based services that compete with their own services and limit competition to cable vs. telco, with all other service providers increasingly weakened by lack of access to affordable bandwidth (or for startups, totally shut out of the market).
They fight over "telco TV franchising" and, yes, it is an important piece of the intra-duopoly competitive dynamic. But they're united on wanting to kill or at least hobble (by legislative wording, etc.) network neutrality provisions (that insure they DON'T throttle bandwidth for competitors web-delivered services) and municipal broadband initiatives, which are popping up all around the country. In my view as an industry analyst, net neutrality provisions would pose a moderate threat to their business plans. But I'm starting to believe that muni-nets (which can be cost-justified by a wide range of social benefits and perhaps also from involvement by the likes of Google) could ultimately present a mortal threat to their financial health. Given this, I'd suggest the progressive political and tech communities both watch out for any lobbying or other maneuvers that try to restrict muni-nets, either at the national or state level (they already exist in more than dozen states).
The fight over telco TV franchising is really just a sideshow from the broader public policy perspective. Its only about which duopolist gets a bit of competitive advantage while they both work to choke off the free and open Internet (not too quickly, mind you, so as to not attract more regulatory scrutiny). They're not bad guys, they're just trying to make money on business models that are technically and economically becoming obsolete in the wake of the open Internet. The fact that they're not bad guys doesn't mean, of course, that we shouldn't fight (and unite) to stop them.
While there are compelling arguments on both sides of the Net Neutrality issue, people should be aware it will have a dramatic impact on how the Web evolves. If bigger service and content providers have an economic advantage in the New Web, it could mean that smaller, more innovative companies will be creatively neutered. What happens when a hot Web 2.0 start-up comes out of nowhere only to discover its success is problematic because of the tollgate fees involved. Before everyone jumps on the tollgate bandwagon, these are issues that need to be thought through.
posted by KraZyKat at 08:02 A.M. EST on Wed May 10, 2006 #
They're not bad guys, they're just trying to make money on business models that are technically and economically becoming obsolete in the wake of the open Internet.
Along with the Recording Industry Ass of America, and the Motion Picture Ass of America (Hollywood).
They're all trying to get government enforcement of their obsolete business models. Piracy's a problem because a lot of people think what Hollywood produces is overpriced CRAP, and more people are becoming aware that the SAME movies we have to buy on DVD for $24.99 (and why is VHS, a more complicated medium, cheaper?) are on sale by Hollywood in Asia for $2.49? Except we can't play them here because they're the wrong "region code"... and circumventing that puts one in pound-me-in-the-ass-prison for 10 years, because Disney paid off D.C. But at least a lot of EU nations decided that region coding was a restraint-of-trade.
Kinda ironic how the same pathetic dumbasses who whine "FREE MARKET! FREE MARKET!" let region coding and other ways to restrain trade by the companies slide, and especially let government regulations that protect obsolete business models slide.
posted by anonymouscoward at 09:25 A.M. EST on Wed May 10, 2006 #
I think AC is correct. Many of these industries have been largely unwilling to advance their business models to accommodate new technology. As such they're left with a largely unworkable business model. Seems like a no-brainer doesn't it?
And yet is their response to update their model? No - it is not.
Their response, in lieu of building a better mouse-trap, is to use a powerful Washington lobby group to try to legislate to us what mouse-traps we will and will not be allowed to buy. Those of us without big budgets will not be permitted access to a decently operating mouse-trap.
And they might just get that accomplished. Time will tell.
posted by katie82640 at 10:47 A.M. EST on Wed May 10, 2006 #
And they might just get that accomplished.
They already have. According to the RIAA and MPAA, TiVo is EVIL because it allowED people to skip commericals... hence TiVo had to add commercials in.
According to the RIAA and MPAA, I can't make a backup copy of my CDs and DVDs... so if they get scratched, I have to make the industry RICHER by buying new ones. I'm supposedly not allowed to bypass copy protection ON DISCS I OWN, FOR PERSONAL USE to, say, make an MP3 collection so I can listen on the computer or iPod (if I had an iPod). Nor can I rip a DVD to a video file for a video iPod or something like that.
Oh, and even better is the "broadcast flag" technology in HDTV signals. The network or station can set a flag on programs that tell your HDTV recording device NOT TO RECORD. You want to record LOST because you've gotta work? HAHAHAH! You need to tape the big game because your wife's 9 1/2 months pregnant and you know she's gonna pop? HAHAHAH! Hollywood sez BUY THE DVD.
Simply put, a hell of a lot of these industries don't want to innovate or adapt. Fine, then they deserve to die. Sorry but that's the harsh truth.
posted by anonymouscoward at 11:30 A.M. EST on Wed May 10, 2006 #
well that ya go. If the internet amendment is gutted that will also go by the wayside to government regulation.
Then in a few years when everybody has had their gullet full the industry'll just have to de-regulate.
Hey - wait a minute....
posted by katie82640 at 01:37 P.M. EST on Wed May 10, 2006 #
Maggie said:
"... I came across the following site which I really liked..."
"www.handsoff.org"
AC responded with:
"Nice try, Maggie, but since they include AT&T as a member organization... that's not the "other side". "
From a recent discussion at community tech news site Digg.com:
"TSE Enterprises, a PR firm working for big telecom, has started creating fake "grassroots" websites like handsoff.org and dontregulate.org advocating against Net Neutrality legislation. The websites claim to be created by a "nationwide coalition of Internet users", none of which are named."
Congresspedia maintains an article titled: "Network neutrality legislation."
"This article covers the legislative attempts codify network neutrality, a lack of network neutrality or a version of it."
From the article in the section titled: Big campaign contributors against network neutrality:
"In favor of network neutrality are such content providers as Amazon, eBay, Google, IAC/Interactive, Intel, Microsoft and Yahoo. Against network neutrality are network operators such as AT&T (formerly SBC and AT&T), Comcast, TimeWarner and Verizon. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, AT&T, TimeWarner and Verizon are the 22nd, 27th and 32nd top campaign contributors, respectively, since 1989. Only one of the companies identified as being in favor of network neutrality, Microsoft, is in the top 100. Several of the anti-neutrality corporations have formed a group called "Hands Off the Internet" that has used folksy-looking viral ads to make its case."
The viral ads are by dontregulate.org, one of the fake websites, according to the Digg.com discussion.
This article discusses some politicians who have received campaign contributions from telephone utilities:
"In 2006, Reps. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Charles Pickering (R-Miss.), Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) and Fred Upton (R-Mich.) sponsored the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act, which contains network neutrality provisions. Each are recipients of large amounts campaign contributions from the telephone utilities industry, which includes most of the high-profile network utility opponents."
"The COPE ACT became the main vehicle for the network neutrality battle in 2006. On April 26, 2006, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce debated the Act and several amendments, eventually approving the Act and sending it to the House floor."
Voting for network neutrality:
* Brown, Sherrod (D-Ohio)
* Strickland, Ted (D-Ohio)
Voting against network neutrality
* Gillmor, Paul E. (R-Ohio)
To see what your member of Congress has received from the telephone utilities, click here for representatives and here for senators.
For the House:
Oxley, Michael G (R-OH) $221,582
Boehner, John (R-OH) $174,598
Gillmor, Paul E (R-OH) $124,300
Highest on the House list: Dingell, John D (D-MI) $497,159
For the Senators:
DeWine, Mike (R-OH) $202,474
Highest on the Senators list: McCain, John (R-AZ) $488,392
Above links found via craigblog, which is maintained by Craig Newmark the founder of Craigslist.
A few days ago, The Wall Street Journal Online published a debate over "net neutrality" between Newmark and Mike McCurry.
"The Wall Street Journal Online invited Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist and a net neutrality proponent, and former White House spokesman Mike McCurry, who heads a phone industry group, to debate the issue."
Newmark said on his blog of McCurry:
"Mike's a genuinely big deal, he was the CJ Cregg in the Clinton White House, and is now an influential lobbyist and Beltway insider. He's smart about a world that scares me."
McCurry begins the WSJ debate with:
"Our Hands Off the Internet coalition believes that the Internet of the future cannot carry the load we will put on it unless we substantially upgrade network facilities and capacity."
From Sourcewatch:
"HOTI's membership is dominated by telecommunications companies and conservative lobby groups. As of April 2006, its members were:"
* Actiontec
* Alcatel
* The America Channel
* American Conservative Union
* AT&T
* BellSouth
* Center for Individual Freedom
* Cinergy Communications
* Cingular
* Citizens Against Government Waste
* CBM of America
* DiamondWare
* Electrodata, Inc.
* Enhanced Telecommunications, Inc.
* FiberControl
* Frontiers of Freedom
* Independent Technologies, Inc.
* Ministerial Alliance Against the Digital Divide
* MRV Communications, Inc.
* National Association of Manufacturers
* National Black Chamber of Commerce
* National Coalition on Black Civic Participation
* Prysmian Communications
"The bulk of HOTI's financial support comes from the newly re-formed AT&T, which has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into HOTI ad campaigns, including extensive advertising buys across the blogosphere and in mainstream and beltway press. Nowhere throughout these ads is it disclosed that the effort is funded by the nation's largest telecommunications companies and lobbyists. Instead, HOTI ads are fashioned to look and feel like genuine grassroots efforts, backed by broad popular suport. This deceptive practice is most evident in an animated segment at www.dontregulate.org, produced by HOTI for broad dissemination via blog ad placements. Critics across the blogosphere and at SavetheInternet.com have condemned this animated ad as "a clever piece of industry propaganda that is riddled with half-truths and outright lies." "
posted by jr at 07:29 P.M. EST on Sat May 27, 2006 #
Well I think that was Maggie's ass handed to her on a silver platter.
Great job, jr!
posted by anonymouscoward at 09:15 P.M. EST on Sun May 28, 2006 #
this is very devious - I never would have guessed - good detective work jr.
posted by katie82640 at 10:39 A.M. EST on Tue May 30, 2006 #
AC - your comment is irrelevant...I've formed no position on this issue and have been learning quite a bit from the posters to this topic. With all I've learned from BOTH sides of the issue, I still go back to the question I asked a while ago...is the argument going to be that the internet is like a public utility that should be regulated?
(you see, unlike AC, I actually read and try to understand both sides of the argument...I don't discount a position simply because it comes from an 'evil corporation' or some 'left-wing think-tank.')
Jr - thanks for the information and the links!
posted by MaggieThurber at 12:25 P.M. EST on Tue May 30, 2006 #
kind of gives you a little introspective into the situation, knowing who's behind this intitiative.
posted by katie82640 at 05:32 P.M. EST on Tue May 30, 2006 #
Yes, Katie, it does, but simply because certain companies happen to support an issue doesn't make their position a bad one - or a good one.
I believe that the position needs to be examined first. For me, 'who' supports a position is certainly not the determining factor when examining an issue, even if that information provides context to the arguments.
posted by MaggieThurber at 07:07 P.M. EST on Tue May 30, 2006 #
It just keeps getting stranger and stranger - and just when I thought I was beginning to understand it all...
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_prowler.asp
Internet Nationalization
By The Prowler
Published 5/15/2006 12:09:26 AM
"This is how poisonous it's gotten in Washington," says a consulting lobbyist for a broadcast network. "You have Republicans taking money from companies and firms working to end their control of Congress, and even worse, working with outfits like MoveOn.org. And they are taking this money to not only help groups dedicated to defeating Republicans, but also for legislation that would regulate the Internet."
The highest profile Republican among those the lobbyist is referring to is Vin Weber, former House member and close ally to both former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Americans for Tax Reform leader Grover Norquist (who is on the opposite side of Weber's current fight). Weber is a leader of a coalition that supports legislation introduced by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass) and pending legislation backed by Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.). Sources say that Internet companies Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Microsoft, eBay, and others ponied up $330,000 each to build the coalition that Weber is using to influence conservative groups, most recently the Christian Coalition, to join.
"Word is that some of these groups are taking as much as $50,000 to sign on to support Internet regulation," says a House Energy Committee staffer. "It's remarkable that these groups are supporting legislation that would actually do more harm to them. That and the groups they are helping are actually working against them and many of the candidates they are supporting."
The Internet regulation that is under consideration is called "Internet Neutrality," and it would essentially bar all high-speed network operators such as Comcast and ATT to offer additional services such as video downloads, online video-gaming, or enhanced email that compete with companies like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft that already offer them. "Markey and Snowe want to basically ensure that Google and Microsoft and other big, established companies have their market share protected. They claim this is about protecting consumers, but how is making sure Google has no competition good for consumers?" says the House committee staffer.
The legislation, say some Senate Republican staffers, would lead to a "Nationalized Internet," because the companies that are wholly financing broadband deployment, telecom and cable and wireless companies, would most likely stop investing in the technology, forcing the federal government to perhaps foot the bill and regulate the Internet even more.
"If a company is told, 'Build this network, but you can't make any money off of it because it will create too much competition,' what do you expect a company to do? That is what this legislation is going to do, and Google and Micrososft are more than happy to see it happen, because they make money off of the Internet in different ways from the networks' operators. Their business model is safe," says a Senate Commerce Committee staffer.
What makes Weber's cynical support of the legislation even worse, say Republican Hill staffers, is that his activities also aid MoveOn.org, the extremist, left-wing organization, which is now being financially backed by Google so that MoveOn can help Google with "Net Neutrality." Google has become the single largest private corporate underwriter of MoveOn. According to sources in the Democrat National Committee, MoveOn has received more than $1 million from Google and its lobbyists in Washington to create grassroots support for the Internet regulation legislation. Some of that money has gone to an online petition drive and a letter-writing campaign, but the majority of that money is being used to fund their activities against Republicans out in the states.
For example, MoveOn is said by one DNC source to have funneled at least $100,000 "Net Neutrality" money to its operations in Pennsylvania (where MoveOn is organizing against Sen. Rick Santorum). It has also sent funds to Florida, Ohio, and Missouri.
MoveOn is also using the funds to help Democrats, including House minority leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington state. "A month ago, Representative Pelosi didn't know what Net Neutrality was, then she heard that Google and other Silicon Valley firms wanted it. Now it's one of her top issues. What Silicon Valley wants, Silicon Valley gets," says a House Democrat leadership staffer.
"You have to wonder when conservatives will wake up and realize what is happening here," says a House Republican leadership aide. "You have this unholy alliance between Google and MoveOn and groups like the Christian Coalition. I mean how is it the Christian Coalition can help a company like Google, which makes money off of online pornography? Conservatives ought to be very concerned about this situation, but they don't seem to get it. And perhaps by the time they do, it will be too late."
posted by MaggieThurber at 08:40 P.M. EST on Tue May 30, 2006 #
This is mind boggling Maggie. What the heck...
posted by katie82640 at 09:38 P.M. EST on Tue May 30, 2006 #
You know, Katie, GZ - on other posts - has talked about people being somewhat apathetic about issues. With all that's going on with this one and all the conflicting information and the amount of research just to understand the basics of the issue, I can understand why some people throw up their hands and say "I'm outta here!"
posted by MaggieThurber at 05:52 A.M. EST on Wed May 31, 2006 #
Excerpts from an opinion in the June 8 Washington Post:
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
And on Thursday, House rejects Net neutrality rules.
"The U.S. House of Representatives definitively rejected the concept of Net neutrality on Thursday, dealing a bitter blow to Internet companies like Amazon.com, eBay and Google that had engaged in a last-minute lobbying campaign to support it."
"By a 269-152 vote that fell largely along party lines, the House Republican leadership mustered enough votes to reject a Democrat-backed amendment that would have enshrined stiff Net neutrality regulations into federal law and prevented broadband providers from treating some Internet sites differently from others."
Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts said:
"The future Sergey Brins, the future Marc Andreessens, of Netscape and Google...are going to have to pay taxes."
The republicans voted to stifle innovation.
From that Washington Post opinion above:
"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."
posted by jr at 12:31 A.M. EST on Fri Jun 09, 2006 #
jr - do you think this position paper from the Cato Institue may have impacted the House decision?
Executive Summary
A heated dispute erupted in late 2002 between corporate giants in the high-tech sector over how the networks owned by cable and telecom companies will be governed in the future. Several major software and e-commerce firms have formed the Coalition of Broadband Users and Innovators to petition the Federal Communications Commission to adopt rules ensuring that cable and telephone industry broadband operators will not use their control of high-speed networks to disrupt consumer access to websites or other users. In the name of preserving "network neutrality" and Internet "openness," CBUI members argue that the FCC must adopt preemptive "nondiscrimination safeguards" to ensure Net users open and unfettered access to online content and services in the future. CBUI claims such preemptive, prophylactic regulation is necessary because the current market is characterized by a cable-telco "broadband duopoly" that threatens Internet users.
Such rhetoric and calls for preemptive regulation are unjustified. There is no evidence that broadband operators are unfairly blocking access to websites or online services today, and there is no reason to expect them to do so in the future. No firm or industry has any sort of "bottleneck control" over or market power in the broadband marketplace; it is very much a competitive free-for-all, and no one has any idea what the future market will look like with so many new technologies and operators entering the picture. In the absence of clear harm, government typically doesn't regulate in a preemptive, prophylactic fashion as CBUI members are requesting.
Moreover, far from being something regulators should forbid, vertical integration of new features and services by broadband network operators is an essential part of the innovation strategy companies will need to use to compete and offer customers the services they demand. Network operators also have property rights in their systems that need to be acknowledged and honored. Net neutrality mandates would flout those property rights and reject freedom of contract in this marketplace.
The regulatory regime envisioned by Net neutrality mandates would also open the door to a great deal of potential "gaming" of the regulatory system and allow firms to use the regulatory system to hobble competitors. Worse yet, it would encourage more FCC regulation of the Internet and broadband markets in general.
posted by MaggieThurber at 06:28 A.M. EST on Fri Jun 09, 2006 #
"... there is no reason to expect them to do so in the future."
So what about the opinion in the Washington Post yesterday that said:
"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."
All I know is this ...
For Net Neutrality
Amazon
eBay
Google
IAC/Interactive
Intel
Microsoft
Yahoo
Christian Coalition of America
MoveOn.org
National Religious Broadcasters
the Service Employees International Union
the American Library Association
AARP
Against Net Neutrality
Republicans in Congress
American Conservative Union
AT&T
BellSouth
Cingular
I'll go with the first group. It's interesting how government, I mean, Republicans don't want to protect that which government created. This must be a Republican example of "smaller government."
posted by jr at 09:45 A.M. EST on Fri Jun 09, 2006 #
jr - I wasn't arguing the point for or against net neutrality. I was asking if you thought position statements like that from the Cato Institute influenced the vote...
posted by MaggieThurber at 12:19 P.M. EST on Fri Jun 09, 2006 #
I think money influenced the vote.
posted by jr at 04:04 P.M. EST on Fri Jun 09, 2006 #
June 6 posting on the Save the Internet blog:
"The tech companies are wading into the fight, gingerly (with eBay as the most effective) writes Matt Stoller. But their pro-Net Neutrality campaign is still dwarfed by AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon’s legislative shopping spree."
"The telcos are reportedly spending between ten and fifty million dollars in their campaign to control the Internet. Their ads are splashed across local TV in DC, Maine, Washington State, Wisconsin and other areas of the country. Their money is channeled through phony front groups like Hands off the Internet and TV4US (along with indirect costs, such as money to think tanks) in a campaign to paint Net Neutrality as big, bad government regulation — bad for consumer Joes like you and me."
posted by jr at 04:14 P.M. EST on Fri Jun 09, 2006 #
In my opinion, this is just another example of how lobbyists (in this case, telcos) help write legislation with promises of big compaign contributions. I think it's time to start publicly financing campaigns, and do away with lobbyists for good.
posted by pink_slip at 05:26 P.M. EST on Sat Jun 10, 2006 #
jr - I wasn't arguing the point for or against net neutrality.
Then why have you consistently cited conservative anti-Net-Neutrality articles and commentary?
Fair and balanced, just like Fox News... OH NO MR. FOX LAWYER PLEASE DON'T SUE ME!!!
posted by anonymouscoward at 12:23 A.M. EST on Sun Jun 11, 2006 #
AC - first, you need to read statements in their proper context. I posted an article from the CATO Institute and asked JR if he thought position papers like that one influenced the vote. He responded with an opinion on the issue. I clarified that I wasn't using the article for a position, merely to ask the question. JR said he thought MONEY was the main influencer in the vote.
Besides, AC, a citation to an article in order to get feedback on it is not an endorsement of a position. And there were plenty of posts from you and others citing the liberal/moveon.org positions. Did YOU cite any conservative positions? no....
I don't know how you've used this post, but I've used it to understand the issue better. I've relied upon others who traditionally have a different perspective than me and I've read the links to various articles and positions. I've appreciated the (mostly) civil discussion of the issue...that is, until you joined in.
I think the only 'position' I've taken is that it appears the internet will soon be regulated like public utilities.
In fact, AC, reading all the posts again, I find that you continually try to attribute to me a specific position on this issue. WHY? Why do you have such a hard time accepting someone has asked a question and is trying to learn about an issue? In posting SOME conservative references, I'd received opposing positions on those references - giving me more information than I had from just the reading of the article. Isn't that a good thing?
And I did not cite ONLY conservative articles and commentary, but when I did, I stated their conservative veiwpoint - re-read the original post! I've also cited, CNET, TheHill.com, Financial Times, Progress & Freedom Foundation, Spectator.org. My handsoff.org link came from reading an article on salon.com.
Two of those articles (P&FF and Financial Times) took a "wait and see" approach to the issue, trying to find where there might be some compromise along the way - clearly not strictly conservative-position approaches.
Normally, I try to look past your personal attacks and derogatory statements to see the points you're trying to make. But I can't help but wonder...if this is how you are in person, it's no surprise that you complain about not being able to find a job.
posted by MaggieThurber at 06:56 A.M. EST on Sun Jun 11, 2006 #
In fact, AC, reading all the posts again, I find that you continually try to attribute to me a specific position on this issue.
YOU SAID IN POSTING THIS TOPIC:
I believe that we need to make sure we don't give the government any excuse to start regulating the internet.
That looks and smells like a specific position to me. A bit wishy-washy, but that's normal for a politician.
Nice try, but you lost. Thanks for playing.
posted by anonymouscoward at 04:05 P.M. EST on Sun Jun 11, 2006 #
AC - again I post the post the following, as I did after your first comment on this thread.
"AC - I do not advocate the position quoted in the original post. To be quite honest, I've been a bit busy just doing my job to worry about the detailed intricacies of how the internet works.
My core philosophy is less government involvement in our daily lives, so it should come as no surprise that I don't believe government should be involved in regulating the internet. I fear that if they start in one area of this great communication tool, they'll expand into ALL areas.
That being said, I asked for feedback from those of you more knowledgable than I am on the issue. It's something I do on many issues - seek out information and perspective from those who have different expertise.
Interesting AC that your reaction to my request for feedback was to say: "Maggie, it's really a good goddamn thing I don't live in your turf, because I'd be in your office verbally tearing you a new one... "
Despite your attack, I do appreciate the information and understanding that I've gained on the issue from both you and GuestZero."
This isn't a contest AC, there's no win or lose. This was to learn.
As it is quite evident you cannot have civil discourse on any issue, I'm done with you...
As Katie says: "scrolling, scrolling, scrolling..." (still don't know how to write the sound of a cracking whip...)
posted by MaggieThurber at 08:05 P.M. EST on Sun Jun 11, 2006 #
I'm thinking Republicans don't understand Internet freedom, and they definitely support big government when it concerns the Internet.
1. - Republicans oppose net neutrality. It seems some Republicans think that supporting net neutrality is an example of big government. But from what I see, government supported net neutrality when the Internet began, but that protection was removed last year. I don't think protecting net neutrality is a new piece of big government legislation.
But Republicans have proposed big government legislation when it comes to the Internet.
2. - Last month, Mike Fitzpatrick, Republican congressman from Pennsylvania, proposed legislation to supposedly protect children from sex offenders.
"Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick has introduced the Deleting Online Child Predators Act. The bill (HR 5319) would require schools and libraries to institute screening software that would prohibit children from accessing social networking sites like MySpace, Friendster, and Facebook. The Pennsylvania Republican contends the new technology behind such online communities has generated "a feeding ground" for child predators who he says use the sites "as just another way to do our children harm." Fitzpatrick says there is little reason for a child to be accessing such websites at school."
Horseshit. Let the schools and libraries decide on their own. Why in the hell does the government need to be involved here? Why don't dink-thinkers like this congressman create tougher punishments for sex offenders? Too many repeat sex offenders exist, so the Republican solution is to go after websites.
Typical example of looking at the problem from the wrong angle. What about that judge that recently gave a convicted sex offender probation instead of prison time because the criminal was too short? The dude rapes a 13-year-old girl and gets probation, and this Republican congressman thinks websites are the problem.
3. - A few months ago, a New Jersey Republican proposed the Internet civility bill. The Republican attempted to legislate civility on Internet discussion boards.
"Assemblyman Peter Biondi and his staff said they were trying to curb malicious exchanges on some local discussion boards when they introduced a bill requiring people to provide their real names and addresses before posting on public Web sites. The bill also stated that hosts could be sued for failing to disclose the identities of people disseminating false or defamatory information."
posted by jr at 11:08 P.M. EST on Sun Jun 11, 2006 #
jr - that's why such a term as RINO - Republicans In Name Only - is so prevalent.
posted by MaggieThurber at 05:26 A.M. EST on Mon Jun 12, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
