September 28, 2010
Fun with net neutrality
Was asked to comment on net neutrality, so I'll go ahead and do that, I promise this won't turn into a twenty part series on the LOST treaty, but I'll offer some thoughts.
I tend to be leery of net neutrality simply because I'm real squeamish when it comes to allowing government to dictate what private industry can and can't do in conducting their business. The last thing I want is the government overseeing the intarwebz, especially the idjit brigade that runs the FCC. Now, I don't have any issue with ISPs imposing net neutrality on themselves as internal company policy, I think that's commendable, and I'd be supportive of ISPs and services that did that. Google and Verizon have sort of been laying out a compromise of sorts to try and address net neutrality...I think this is a good and healthy thing, if it's something they do internally as part of a trade agreement type deal, not as some screwball Congress/corporate lawmaking venture that turns into a giant bureaucratic clusterfuck that leaves us poorer and less free.
Beyond that, I'm just not seeing signs of ISPs squashing content they don't like on much of a regular basis, if anything, the content on the intarwebs continues to grow rapidly. I also think that as soon as an ISP got too power-hungry or Nannyified, they'd see huge losses in customers, it'd be like a cable provider going, 'uh, hey, yeah, we're gonna take away 2/3rds of your channels because these are channels we don't like...cool?' Not cool, you'd go find another cable provider or look at alternatives. People are used to doing whatever the fuck they want on the intarwebs, and God help the poor bastard that says NO. People were never used to having whatever they wanted available when they wanted with TV and radio, the regulations were largely there from the beginning. It just won't go well for them to get heavy-handed with controlling content, there'd be an instant, vicious backlash. FAIL gets one of two things on the intarwebs, copious amounts of hate or brutal mockery...ask AOL.
I really do like Reason TV's segment on net neutrality, I think it's worth a watch,
I tend to be leery of net neutrality simply because I'm real squeamish when it comes to allowing government to dictate what private industry can and can't do in conducting their business. The last thing I want is the government overseeing the intarwebz, especially the idjit brigade that runs the FCC. Now, I don't have any issue with ISPs imposing net neutrality on themselves as internal company policy, I think that's commendable, and I'd be supportive of ISPs and services that did that. Google and Verizon have sort of been laying out a compromise of sorts to try and address net neutrality...I think this is a good and healthy thing, if it's something they do internally as part of a trade agreement type deal, not as some screwball Congress/corporate lawmaking venture that turns into a giant bureaucratic clusterfuck that leaves us poorer and less free.
Beyond that, I'm just not seeing signs of ISPs squashing content they don't like on much of a regular basis, if anything, the content on the intarwebs continues to grow rapidly. I also think that as soon as an ISP got too power-hungry or Nannyified, they'd see huge losses in customers, it'd be like a cable provider going, 'uh, hey, yeah, we're gonna take away 2/3rds of your channels because these are channels we don't like...cool?' Not cool, you'd go find another cable provider or look at alternatives. People are used to doing whatever the fuck they want on the intarwebs, and God help the poor bastard that says NO. People were never used to having whatever they wanted available when they wanted with TV and radio, the regulations were largely there from the beginning. It just won't go well for them to get heavy-handed with controlling content, there'd be an instant, vicious backlash. FAIL gets one of two things on the intarwebs, copious amounts of hate or brutal mockery...ask AOL.
I really do like Reason TV's segment on net neutrality, I think it's worth a watch,
Ultimately, I go by this...is it easier to break a corporation's control, or the government's?
Posted by: doubleplusundead at
10:51 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! It looks like Justine Bateman fell from the top of the Ugly Tree and hit every fucking branch on the way down.
I mean, it's not like my looks are improving with age or anything, but...yeesh.
I mean, it's not like my looks are improving with age or anything, but...yeesh.
Posted by: Sean M. at September 29, 2010 01:10 AM (ZMtjd)
Posted by: Andy at September 29, 2010 06:36 AM (pRbtk)
3
I also think that as soon as an ISP got too power-hungry or Nannyified,
they'd see huge losses in customers, it'd be like a cable provider
going, 'uh, hey, yeah, we're gonna take away 2/3rds of your channels
because these are channels we don't like...cool?'
Except for the rural areas where the ISP is the only broadband provider. You're not saying that only people in cities where there's a choice have the right to an open internet, are you?
(And I'm posting this knowing full well that our blogdaddy is on the road today and can't post, hah!)
Except for the rural areas where the ISP is the only broadband provider. You're not saying that only people in cities where there's a choice have the right to an open internet, are you?
(And I'm posting this knowing full well that our blogdaddy is on the road today and can't post, hah!)
Posted by: Alice H at September 29, 2010 09:10 AM (qJHYy)
4
A lot of rural places either don't have, or recently got broadband. Does this new "right to an open internet" obligate the government to provide you with broadband access, as well as enforce openness?
Posted by: Mob at September 29, 2010 09:30 AM (8c34o)
5
Oh heavens, quit trying to take things in a direction you know I didn't mean.
Posted by: Alice H at September 29, 2010 09:32 AM (qJHYy)
6
I guess that's a "No".
Can you explain to me why this hypothetical traffic squashing requires immediate government control of the internet when there is no indication that the market can't manage this issue?
Can you explain to me why this hypothetical traffic squashing requires immediate government control of the internet when there is no indication that the market can't manage this issue?
Posted by: Mob at September 29, 2010 10:02 AM (8c34o)
7
The net neutrality laws are codifying what the current unwritten policy is and bringing up-to-date laws that have been in place since the time of the telegraph (search for "impartially transmitted" if you don't want to RTWT). The unwritten policy has been a work in progress, and it works, so it's better to have it codified the way it works than to have companies start locking down access and then having to go to court every time - which is what we're moving toward. ISPs are starting to make noise that they want to control what search engines you use, and what content you view (even if it's legal) which is why the move to codify the policy came about.
Internet access is a utility, not some fluffy extra. If you don't believe me, try turning yours off for a month, and no cheating using your phone to surf instead. Having an ISP say to you, "You can use our service for this legal purpose, but not that legal purpose" is no different than an electric company saying "You can use our electricity to run your fridge but we've decided dishwashers are wasteful." Except that you'd just laugh at the electric company because they can't control whether you plug in your dishwasher, and we'd laugh at the electric company for trying to tell us that. A watt is a watt is a watt, it's not up to the electric company to tell us how we use a watt as long as we're paying for the service.
ISPs, however, can flat-out block you from viewing a site. And I don't think anyone wants to be in a situation (or for many of us, can afford to be in a situation, and in many rural areas it's impossible to be in a situation) where we maintain multiple ISP accounts, this one for when you want to watch pr0n, that one for when you want to visit the Heritage Foundation. A bit should be a bit should be a bit, it shouldn't be up to an ISP to tell us how we use the bits we're paying for as long as we're paying for the bits we use. (and yes, we are paying for the bits we use, if you've got an unlimited bandwidth policy you're paying more than you would for a policy that only allows you XGB of data a month.)
And before you go saying that restrictions will never happen, please review the issue of Comcast restricting torrent traffic (which, yes, is probably largely illegal, but there is still quite a bit of legal torrent traffic) and tell me if the possibility doesn't exist that Comcast was testing the waters for more restrictions.
Internet access is a utility, not some fluffy extra. If you don't believe me, try turning yours off for a month, and no cheating using your phone to surf instead. Having an ISP say to you, "You can use our service for this legal purpose, but not that legal purpose" is no different than an electric company saying "You can use our electricity to run your fridge but we've decided dishwashers are wasteful." Except that you'd just laugh at the electric company because they can't control whether you plug in your dishwasher, and we'd laugh at the electric company for trying to tell us that. A watt is a watt is a watt, it's not up to the electric company to tell us how we use a watt as long as we're paying for the service.
ISPs, however, can flat-out block you from viewing a site. And I don't think anyone wants to be in a situation (or for many of us, can afford to be in a situation, and in many rural areas it's impossible to be in a situation) where we maintain multiple ISP accounts, this one for when you want to watch pr0n, that one for when you want to visit the Heritage Foundation. A bit should be a bit should be a bit, it shouldn't be up to an ISP to tell us how we use the bits we're paying for as long as we're paying for the bits we use. (and yes, we are paying for the bits we use, if you've got an unlimited bandwidth policy you're paying more than you would for a policy that only allows you XGB of data a month.)
And before you go saying that restrictions will never happen, please review the issue of Comcast restricting torrent traffic (which, yes, is probably largely illegal, but there is still quite a bit of legal torrent traffic) and tell me if the possibility doesn't exist that Comcast was testing the waters for more restrictions.
Posted by: Alice H at September 29, 2010 10:49 AM (qJHYy)
8
The government contracted for the telegraph line to be built and
maintained. The companies building it agreed to these controls as a
consequence of accepting the contract. I don't see how it follows that
the government should be able to enforce those same rules on companies
against their will.
Posted by: Mob at September 29, 2010 11:32 AM (8c34o)
9
Are you arguing that if the government doesn't have a hand in building something, it's not a utility?
Posted by: Alice H at September 29, 2010 11:43 AM (qJHYy)
Posted by: Mob at September 29, 2010 12:39 PM (8c34o)
11
Not a necessity. A utility. You don't need electricity to live either.
Posted by: TheUnrepentantGeek at September 29, 2010 03:22 PM (Dz5CW)
12
^yes, this. Sorry I wasn't around to explain what a utility is, I've been on a conference call all morning.
Posted by: Alice H at September 29, 2010 04:04 PM (qJHYy)
13
Maybe you should tell me exactly what you mean by 'utility'. I think we're having some communications problems.
Posted by: Mob at September 29, 2010 05:15 PM (aWpio)
14
utility, i.e. phone, electric, water, gas, trash, sewage, broadband.
Posted by: Alice H at September 30, 2010 12:29 AM (qJHYy)
15
Wholesale Chinese Blooming Lotus Embroidery Qipao Online! Hadbuy, the distributor of China Products online, also provide a series of Colorful Silk Scarf and Cartoon Clay Figurine - Liu Bei for people who interested in Chinese culture. All the goods offered by our store are applauded by our client for their reliable quality and excellent services.
Posted by: steve at March 21, 2011 06:23 AM (eioz1)
16
Chinese Paper Cuts Online Shop – the faithworthy distributer of Chinese Knots such as Cloisonne Jewelry, Peking Opera Mask, Sachet and Shadow Puppet. They provide a series of required Hand Shadow Puppets for people who love the China culture.
Posted by: melo at April 08, 2011 11:17 PM (5JOuy)
17
I found
this page bookmarked and really liked what I read. I will surely bookmark it
too and also read your other articles tomorrow.
Edmonton Oilers Keychains
Edmonton Oilers Keychains
Posted by: rhinoplasty Beverly hills at October 21, 2011 05:18 AM (xjrUk)
18
It just won't go well for them to get heavy-handed with controlling
content, there'd be an instant, vicious backlash. FAIL gets one of two
things on the intarwebs, copious amounts of hate or brutal mockery...ask
AOL.
tom ford sunglasses
tom ford sunglasses
Posted by: eavedrop44 at October 24, 2011 01:31 AM (1AwTF)
19
Resources much like the one anyone reveal here are going to be very cooperative in my opinion! I will certainly post one of the links to this page on our blog. More than likely my guests will quickly realize that quite significant.
http://www.hermeshandbagoutlet.com
http://www.hermeshandbagoutlet.com
Posted by: hermes birkin at October 24, 2011 10:07 PM (me19U)
20
Hope this by our team with Frieze joint creation of newspapers can attract more people to explore the art activities and enjoy the Frieze Projects bring dynamic art and the other surprise."Frieze Projects 8 artists <a href="Ag2r'>http://www.probicyclejersey.com/team-jersey-ag2r-c-17_47.html">Ag2r cycling jersey</a> works of art will Randall 's <a href="Mulberry'>http://www.uk-mulberrybag.com/mulberry-alexa-bags-c-2.html">Mulberry Alexa Factory outlet</a>
Posted by: BMC Cycling Jerseys at May 03, 2012 11:24 PM (ILeer)
31kb generated in 0.0551 seconds; 68 queries returned 179 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
