Re: More "net neutrality"
I agree. The last thing we need is a bunch of government idiots who don't know what they're doing trying to regulate the internet.
Oh, and I liked the part in the clip where it shows the moose the mountie is riding in love.
Crazed Rabbit
Re: More "net neutrality"
In case you needed another reason to oppose this:
Musician Moby raises voice for Net neutrality
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moby
"Here we have a system that works fine," "Why do we want to change anything?"
-he says as he advocates sweeping new government regulations. :laugh4:
Honestly, I like some of his music- but the guy is a knucklehead. :help:
Re: More "net neutrality"
Re: More "net neutrality"
Like one of my favorite websites said:
When Did Network Neutrality Become A Partisan Issue?
from the this-is-unfortunate dept
One of the interesting things about the debates that we have here about legal issues concerning innovation is that they tend not to be partisan. It's never been easy to line up a specific intellectual property agenda with one party or another -- which tends to mean that any debate on the subject at least focuses a bit more on the issues, rather than stereotypes of Democrats or Republicans. However, it looks like the network neutrality debate is suddenly becoming partisan -- which is a worrisome trend. Lots of folks have covered the fact that an amendment today to include network neutrality language in a telecom reform bill was voted down. However, it's telling that everyone is now covering it as a partisan issue, whether the headline is "GOP Gets It Way on Net Neutrality" or "Democrats lose House vote on Net neutrality". This is an important issue to discuss, without there needing to be partisan bickering about it. Network neutrality is quite a complex topic, and unfortunately, it seems like both sides of the debate are simplifying it down to slogans which risk confusing, rather than enlightening, people. The efforts to write network neutrality into the law are a very tricky subject, with the obvious fear being that any regulations will inadvertently excessively penalize future developments. On the other side of the coin, those preaching a complete "hands off" position seem to ignore the fact that it's way too late for that. The only reasons the telcos are in the position to violate network neutrality are because they've pretty much been granted subsidies and monopoly rights of way -- and part of that bargain was that to increase competition, there needed to be open and fair access. To suddenly claim that we need a hands off approach is ignoring the fact that there's never been a hands off approach and the companies involved were granted special rights. Balancing these two sides is an important issue -- and simply lining it up as a Democratic vs. Republican issue is only likely to cloud it with pointless bickering and misleading statements on both sides.
Re: More "net neutrality"
I don't see it as partisan, although it would make sense that it fractures along liberal/conservative lines due to thought processes I guess.
I simply believe that before we apply a government mandated "remedy" we should first have a problem that needs curing. As it stands right now, supporters of "neutrality" are favoring draconian restrictions on telcos with virtually no examples of the kinds of abuse that would call for it.
Further, I can see many reasons why ISPs would want to prioritize certain kinds of data to their customers- and I think they should be able to do so. For example, telcos want to implement TV broadcasts over their networks- from what Ive seen of the proposed regulations, any kind of prioritization would be forbidden, so they would be unable to prioritize their TV service over Internet downloads or streaming content. That seems silly- if they can't ensure reliable, quality television, why on earth would they ever implement it? Im sure the same would go for many other new technologies.
It's also worth noting that many groups including networking hardware vendors have come out strongly against this- I trust their judgement on Internet development over Google, Amazon, ect.
Re: More "net neutrality"
If you want a truly free market approach to this, then put forward a way to break up the local monopolies and subsidies the telcos and cable companies enjoy. Deregulation should work both ways.
Google pays for its bandwidth, and I pay for mine. If a middleman wants to double-bill somebody, the playing field had better be flat.
Of course Cisco is coming out in favor of this. They're desperate to sell new gear, and a tiered internet would demand a lot more switches.
Re: More "net neutrality"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
If you want a truly free market approach to this, then put forward a way to break up the local monopolies and subsidies the telcos and cable companies enjoy. Deregulation should work both ways.
No one is talking about deregulation. Net neutrality is all about imposing additional regulations for a problem that has yet to even be seen.
Quote:
Google pays for its bandwidth, and I pay for mine. If a middleman wants to double-bill somebody, the playing field had better be flat.
That works fine as long as their hosting their own content, what happens when they distribute HD movies via bit torrent type systems? That's a plan currently put forward by Warner.
Quote:
Of course Cisco is coming out in favor of this. They're desperate to sell new gear, and a tiered internet would demand a lot more switches.
It's not just hardware manufacturers opposed to this. This lists many groups, including Citizens Against Government Waste and the Center for Individual Freedom.
Another "for instance"- let's say Amazon wants to sell ultra high-quality, streaming content for consumers. Perhaps normal Internet pipes have too much latency for the consisten thruput required... Under "net neutrality" it would be illegal for ISPs to offer Amazon a route thru their backbones that's optimized for that application. That's just absurd- talk about killing innovation.
Re: More "net neutrality"
Update on this topic. Former White House spokesman-cum-Telecom lobbyist Mike McCurry and Craigslist founder Craig Newmark recently squared off on this issue for the Wall Street Journal.
Interesting bits:
McCurry's position is that the Internet is headed for a huge slowdown, as more and more users turn to the global network for movies, TV, telemedicine, etc. He argues that telecom companies want to build up the infrastructure, but that they are reluctant to do that if we "let government lawyers and regulators engineer the future of the Internet," because it will "will dampen investor interest in building bigger, faster, smarter pipes." He assures readers several times that the telecoms don't want to degrade performance, but only make it better; they "pledged to abide by the principles the FCC articulated last year -- no discrimination against content and no degradation of service". It is better, he argues, to take no action right now and wait and see what competition can do. Otherwise, McCurry warns, the money that should be going to infrastructure will instead go to lawyers who have to fight about abstract principles with the FCC and others.
Craig Newmark's argument was less structured, but that's largely a result of his strategy of attempting to question the trustworthiness of the telecommunications industry as a whole. He questioned the telecom industry's sincerity by noting their role in the continued delay of implementing IPv6, the next-generation IP address protocol meant to radically increase the number of supportable devices online. If this pressing issue is ignored, can we really believe that the telecoms are concerned about 'Net neutrality for the public good? If this is really about the public good, what's up with all of the dark fiber? And he also asks why, if the telecoms are so busy trying to make the Internet better, does the US lag behind countries like South Korea and Japan? Finally, Newmark closes by saying that the big infrastructure companies aren't really innovating anyway, they're just running the infrastructure.
And further down:
In related news, FCC commissioner Michael Copps said yesterday that the FCC already has the authority to make sure that infrastructure companies do not discriminate against content companies online.
"I think we have authority to go now to the second phase of network neutrality, to make sure that there’s not discrimination against those that are not affiliated with the network owners," Copps said in a press briefing held in his office here."
But as we all know, there's no agreement on just what discrimination is in this context.
Re: More "net neutrality"
I'm all for more stringent regulation of the companies. The main reason I have dial-up is that Adelphia pledged several years ago to provide high-speed to all rural areas, and then made little or no progress on that pledge, which was the only reason they were allowed to lay cable in the first place. Now they are facing fines if they don't back up their old promise.
The point of that is that these companies should not be trusted and we should prevent them from establishing preferential treatment before they get entrenched in it.
Re: More "net neutrality"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Craig Newmark's argument was less structured, but that's largely a result of his strategy of attempting to question the trustworthiness of the telecommunications industry as a whole. He questioned the telecom industry's sincerity by noting their role in the continued delay of implementing IPv6, the next-generation IP address protocol meant to radically increase the number of supportable devices online. If this pressing issue is ignored, can we really believe that the telecoms are concerned about 'Net neutrality for the public good? If this is really about the public good, what's up with all of the dark fiber? And he also asks why, if the telecoms are so busy trying to make the Internet better, does the US lag behind countries like South Korea and Japan? Finally, Newmark closes by saying that the big infrastructure companies aren't really innovating anyway, they're just running the infrastructure.
They may not be in a hurry to implement IPv6 because none of their customers are. Last I checked, the United States has plenty of available addresses- it's the rest of the world that's short. I can understand their lack of enthusiasm when it comes to implementing a new, far more complicated address scheme.
Personally, all I need is one address to be able to connect all of the devices I want to the Internet. Indeed, if I was given two dozen public Internet addresses, I would still only use just one.
